Did I buy the wrong plane?

[Pundy]

Last year I bought a gorgeous 182C with all sorts of great mods including an unbelievable Pponk motor. The thing flies straight as an arrow, climbs like hell, is really comfortable and reasonably fast. I only started flying last March and have about 100 hours. In that time I've completely fallen in love with it. I bought a plane that I thought I would grow up with. I knew that I needed 4 seats as my wife and son like to fly with me too, and I wanted a good plane to put on floats. I have now spent lots of time flying my friends 180, both on wheels and floats, and another friends Cub on wheels and skis. I was initially turned off from buying a taildragger due to $2,500/year more in insurance cost, as well as horror stories of landing taildraggers. Now that I've got some taildragger time, I'm not too worried about the latter issue, although I can tell you it is indeed nice on those gusty crosswind days to not have to worry at all in my 182.

So, unfortunately I did not purchase a plane with a float kit, nor does it have a ski kit. These are things I can add to my 182 (although I have not seen too many examples of 182's on skis) at some expense. Am I better off to simply sell my 182 and buy a 180 and know that I will truly grow old with it? Or, since I already own my 182 and know it's a great plane (and know that swapping to a 180 will cost me $25k which is a big factor) should I stick with it?

[MauleOne]

There are STC both for floats and for skis for a 182.

I am not sure about which models.

the 182 is a great plane and you should be able to modify it to suit your needs.

I would prefer the 180 but you already have a good 182.

[EZFlap]

Or, since I already own my 182 and know it's a great plane (and know that swapping to a 180 will cost me $25k which is a big factor) should I stick with it?

You can turn your 182 into a 180-equivalent. Someone in Montana has an STC for making it a taildragger if you like that idea.

[mr scout]

Just sell it now before you wear it out. There is no right plane, I am on number 14 now and still looking. No matter if you keep it or sell it you will kick yourself later.

[BeeMan]

Pundy,

For years I flew a '56 182 that was converted to conventional gear (in Kalispell Montana). We flew it on skis in the winter months. A float kit was added after we sold it and now it sits on floats over at Lake Hood. Most folks couldn't tell it from a C180 except that it didn't have cowl flaps. An unexpected benefit of flying a converted 182 is that the insurance rates were based on what it said on the data plate even though we were careful to state that we had it on big tires and were operating off airport. We paid about half as much as an equivalent 180. Maybe converting your current plane, which you have already "debugged", is not such a bad idea.

[Glidergeek]

182 is a sweet plane specially with that Pponk Super Eagle I'll bet. If it's a fairly later model 60's 70's it's 4" wider than the 180 inside and has more leg room in the back has a higher usable load and more fuel range. You probably have a slightly faster cruse, I'm seeing about (w/Pponk) 163-4mph TAS/140 IAS @ 8500' 2300 rpm/19" and 13 gph. I agree with Mr.Scout once you make an investment is there ever a right plane?

[kevbert]

Every pilot needs a minimum of four planes. One stout aerobatic plane, one insanely fast cross country plane, one insanely slow back country plane, and one cargo plane. Any fewer, and you will be disappointed!

Most pilots don't even own a plane. If you're fortunate to be able to have just one, get one that performs well for the things you like to do most. It's hard to beat a 182 from that perspective unless you like flying inverted.

[ccurrie]

I would look into the tailwheel conversion a C model is a good canidate and it will probly be cheeper than a ponked 180 with long range fuel. Plus you already know and trust the plane. I looked into it on a 172 and they told me 6 700.00 and three days baring unforseen isues (corosion, damage) I ended up not going that way so I cant report on the reality of this. A 182 is more I think but it would be worth a phone call.
In reality a 182 with some bigger tires is a verry capible plane unless you are in love with ski flying its probly not nesasary to convert to tailwheel. but it is cooler

[Pundy]

The thing is that the 180's are so cheap now. So, if you add up the price of a float kit, STC for skis, and then if I do as you all say and convert to a taildragger (something I've looked into and am interested in), which would also require that I convert it to a straight tail. Doesn't it just make more sense to sell it soon and buy a 180 with the float kit and ski set up already installed? I already have it on 8.00 tires all around with a Landis fork and it seems to do very nicely in the rough stuff.

[Zzz]

Just sell it now before you wear it out.

Agreed. If you want a 180, get one. Sell the 182. Ask Aktahoe1.

Also, I feel it's criminal to convert a swept tail Cessna to tailwheel config. Straight tail yes, swept tail no.

But if you're not absolutely in loving with dragging tail, I would get over it and enjoy your nice 182.

[ccurrie]

I thought a C model was a straight tail?

[mtv]

There are ski STCs for the 182 (Landes Airglas has one for straight skis). That said, that firewall is pretty fragile, and so you MUST pay VERY careful attention to what you do with that nose ski. Lots of mass on that nose gear with a ski on it, and easy to bend the firewall.

Go to floats, and your airplane doesn't have internal corrosion proofing, I'd bet. Early Cessnas without a float kit had bare metal inside the skins. If so, that is NOT in my opinion, the best candidate for a float conversion, although there are ways you can improve the odds of preventing corrosion, like some of the spray in corrosion preventative materials, like ACF-50, etc.

If you are REALLY wanting floats and skis, I'd sell that 182 and find a good 180, WITH a float kit. Don't even THINK about a 180 with no float kit if you really want to go to floats. HUGE $$$ Unless it's a VERY early year, like 53/54.

MTV

[Pundy]

MTV, I've been quoted $11k for a Seaplanes West float kit installed in my 182. Do you think it would be more than that?

[Vmc]

My opinion is GET A 180 with a float kit!!!!! It's cooler, and you'll be too. Long term you will probably be happy you made the switch instead of modifying your 182 or asking too much of it. I have seen some nice 182s and 206s on fat tires and they are capable but the props are closer to the ground and there is always that nose wheel issue when off airport. I also think prop clearance is better with a taildragger on skis in deep powder snow. I would expect the 180 to hold its value or appreciate more than the 182.

There are compelling reasons why 180s are among Alaska's most popular and loved backcountry planes.

[aktahoe1]

I concur with Zane here...sell the 182....

Not really. The 182 was and is a great plane. I still have it (trying to sell it, but not very hard)

For a long x-country I would still fly the 182 for the comfort factor alone unless I am going to the BCP fly in or somewhere else to have fun. The 180 is tight with 2 guys up front weighing in at 200lbs or more. Yes the 180 is my dream plane this year but if I had the money I would also get a cub. Maybe when and if the 182 sells. I even like those kits Zane is looking at. Thinking I will keep my 180 however for a very long time. Has all of the bells and whistles a guy needs. I am already counting the days down to summer for floats.

I also concur with some of the others above. A guy needs 2 or 3 planes. After flying the Pilatus to AK a few weeks ago I need one of those as well. Shit, how many pair of shoes do you own? Or snow ski's, or cars or wives, girlfriends, etc...I think you understand. Keep the 182, save your dough and get a cub or 180 to go and play in the snow or water. I dont think I would put skis on the 182 just given the placement of the nose gear in relation to the firewall (its different than a 206), however it makes a great float plane at sea level.

I am in love with my 180! Just over 270 ski landings now and counting. I cannot get enough of it.

Just my 2 cents.

[Rhyppa]

Going from the Pponk 182 back to a 470 powered 180 will be a big performance step back. And if you find a Pponk'd 180 its going to be a big price step up. If you're set on flying ski's into rough stuff, I don't see the 182 handling it. If you're just going to play around on local lakes (fairly smooth) and land on packed trails, you might be OK with the 182. Most of the ski flying I see done here in northern MN involves landing on snowmobile trails on the lakes, and I think the nose gear would hold up for that. For floats the Pponk'd 182 will kick the snot out of a 470 powered 180, horsepower rules in the seaplane world. But are you sure the C model can be converted with the Seaplanes west kit? I thought I read E and newer (1962). If you didn't have the Pponk in your 182, I would say sell and get the 180. Decisions decisions. Buy a 180, swap motors with your 182, then sell the 182.

[patrol guy]

Do not convert yours to a 180. I helped a friend do that to a 1958, OMG, what a pile of work!!! Buy one converted, or just buy a 180.

[patrol guy]

...and I always figured, the 182 to 180 conversions were done only because of a bent nose wheel / firewall incident. That's what happened to my buddy. And another reason to start with an 180.

[Pundy]

AK, the problem with my 182 is that it's a 1960 so it still has the narrow fuselage. So, no comfort increase between it and a 180. Other than the width, why would you keep it in your stable when you have a 180. I certainly could see adding something really different like a Cub, but the 180 and 182 seem to similar to me. The good news for me is that I have a buddy who has a hanger next to mine with a Cub in it so we get to trade off once in a while. But I get jealous when I see him playing in the snow and I can't. I agree though, everybody does indeed need a Pilatus.

The kicker in this is the insurance. At $2.5-$3k/year difference, it sure adds up.

[mtv]

MTV, I've been quoted $11k for a Seaplanes West float kit installed in my 182. Do you think it would be more than that?

That sounds like a "maybe". Here's the link to Seaplanes West site: http://www.seaplaneswest.com/floatkits.html

And, yes, they do offer kits for early 182s. Aerocet floats are only approved on later model 182s.

They quote almost $10 K for the kit. Your folks are going to install it for a little over a thou??? I hope they're not paying retail for the kit....or are you talking to Seaplanes West themselves?

Again, do you have corrosion proofing in your fuselage and wing skins?? If not, float ops can be VERY conducive to corrosion.

As to ski ops: Can you operate on STRAIGHT skis? To the best of my knowledge, there are no approvals for retractable wheel skis on a 182, but there may be something out there. I don't think I'd want to put penetration skis on one, again, because of the nose gear and potential damage to the firewall.

Sometimes we try to make a particular airplane something it's not, and that is almost always expensive, and often frustrating. And, at the end of the day, you may still not have what you really want.

So, depending on what you REALLY want to be able to do....Do you REALLY need to operate on skis, and if so, can you deal with STRAIGHT skis? I'd say if you can live without operating on skis, I'd keep the plane you have and go with the Seaplanes West float conversion. BUT, get someone to do a corrosion treatment on that thing, and repeat regularly, or you'll end up with a very expensive pile of white powder.

Also, bear in mind that the Seaplanes West conversion only approves older EDO straight floats, 2870s or 2960s. The good news is those floats are readily available on the used market, and pretty reasonably priced. The bad news is there is no amphibious option. So, you'll have to keep the plane outside, on a lake in summer.

Lots to consider here, and most of the answers are really up to you.

MTV