Transition to Cessna 180

groshel

groshel

Active Member
Kinda off topic but it looks like I might have the chance to transition to a C180, 1955 vintage, and It seems that many here have 180 time so I wanna ask how hard will it to move over?

Got 375 hrs in TW mostly in my A-1B and some in an A-1. Never had a big issue but then never pushed it in in a hard wind. Got a bunch of straight tailed 182 time.

What might be the biggest issue
 
groshel

groshel

Active Member
Oops...posted before I was done composing.....

Meant to say what might be the biggest challange other than dragging it in the hangar and putting fuel in it? Got one hour in one twenty years ago.

Compared to an A-1..Is it less or more manageable in windy conditions? Is a stock 180 flown light comparable in runway performance?

Chris
 
harry harper

harry harper

Active Member
Old 180s are the best Skywagons imo, as far as control harmony and the fun to fly factor. Heavier obviously that our Huskies, but excellent cross wind capabilities once you get the feel. I was in the wheel landing camp for 90% of the time. Especially in sporty winds. You will love he airplane.
 
L

lakewash

New Member
JACK said:
Husky flies like a sports car. 180 flies like a pickup truck....
Click to expand...
I would beg to diagree! I owned a 55 180 and it was considerably lighter on the ailerons!
i like my Husky for its performance, but think the longer flaps and shorter ailerons contributes to the lack of roll sensitivity. I hate to say it but the Supercub is much lighter on the controls.
 
Last edited:
harry harper

harry harper

Active Member
lakewash said:
I would beg to diagree! I owned a 55 180 and it was considerably lighter on the ailerons!
i like my Husky for its performance, but think the longer flaps and shorter ailerons contributes to the lack of roll sensitivity. I hate to say it but the Supercub is much lighter on the controls.
Click to expand...
Agreed completely. Old 180s ( I owned 2 diff 53 models) are delighfully light on the controls. Then owned a 78 and subsequently several 185s. All very capable but not quite the pleasure to handle as the oldies. Presently have a 91 A-1. Completely different mission now at 74yo. Like the tandem/stick setup because of mostly solo ops. Improved roll control substantially with ThomD's Delta spades. But especially if you need better hauling capability, and some speed, hard to beat an old 180.
 
JACK

JACK

Active Member
Yep, the one we had was a '76 model, and I understand not as light on the controls as the earlier models. I also agree that the Super Cub is lighter on the controls than either. If you want to haul a load and go somewhere, the 180 (or 185) is the bird. But I'll stand by my truck vs sports car remark ...
 
groshel

groshel

Active Member
Thanks for all the comments. Did the deal today on a 1955 180.

This plane has aileron gap strips and is light. Nice light positive roll control but you can still tell you’re moving a big fuselage around. Pluses and minuses compared to the Husky.

I did a 8 day / 27 hr. (solo) trip from Pa to Colorado and back in the Husky last month and while it went well the speed and comfort left something to be desired. My wife who initially liked the Husky doesn’t care to do trips more than two hours from home therefore the change.

Gotta manage owning the two planes for now until I work out some issues in the Cessna..,( like a O-470-A engine, avionics, and learning to fly something new).

I’ll let you all know about marketing the Husky when I decide what I’m doing ...probably next spring.

Chris
 
C

Christopher Lynch

Member
Chris, I went the other direction, traded the 180 for the Husky. I had transitioned to the 180 from Maules and a 206.
I got my best understanding of landing my 180 by putting a GoPro on the tail, facing forward. There are some quirks with the landing gear toeing as it flexes and the camera really helps see what’s going on. You will love the speed and room for gear! Enjoy!
Chris
 
Chris McClure

Chris McClure

Member
Christopher Lynch said:
Chris, I went the other direction, traded the 180 for the Husky. I had transitioned to the 180 from Maules and a 206.
I got my best understanding of landing my 180 by putting a GoPro on the tail, facing forward. There are some quirks with the landing gear toeing as it flexes and the camera really helps see what’s going on. You will love the speed and room for gear! Enjoy!
Chris
Click to expand...
For those with or considering a C180, verify that the tail AD has been done. A friend has just finished rebuilding her C180 tail, and it was a bear. She is an IA, so the cost was less of a hassle than the time...
 
groshel

groshel

Active Member
Been flying the 180 the past couple of weeks and it’s been interesting comparing it to the Husky..

Moving back and forth between planes the Husky seems so small to me now and the Cessna bulky. I think the Cessna handles a bit nicer than the -1B and might even be a bit easier to fly. Doesn’t get knocked around as much.

Runway performance on the Cessna isn’t that much different either. I’m finding I takes a couple hundred feet more to go airborne but I’m getting it down in almost the same distances.

Climb is similar but in cruise is where it shines...130 kts TAS @11.5 gph.....And the heater works!

But it is a 67 year old aircraft vs a 22 year old...and it shows...I call it a “Mechanic’s Special”

Closing note....after going thru the FAA file I’ve discovered this 180 was one of Fidel Castro’s revolutionary forces first aircraft. He had two of them...Researching further.....

Chris
 
S

Scott Perdue

Member
I went the other way. Had a 180 for almost 10 years. I like the Husky better.... but you can't put as much in her.... conversely it doesn't weigh as much. Aviation is a trade-off.
 
harry harper

harry harper

Active Member
Apples to oranges. Different missions. Both excellent for what they do..blah blah blah..If I could I'd have one of each. Seems like I just cycle back and forth between them. Had several of each. Currently in a light weight A-1 after a light (relatively) 185. Solo tandem is a perfect old man's airplane.
 
Gust Kalatzes

Gust Kalatzes

Active Member
Harry, I’m currently trying my hand at a 185...grandkid station wagon. So far I have about 25 hours in it and just starting to feel more comfortable. It’s a little more work than the Husky but really like the plane so far.
 
groshel

groshel

Active Member
Harry said it right in a way....”Solo tandem is a perfect old man’s plane”

I just turned 66 last week and hope to have many more productive flying years but my flying has turned into just me going out on my own or with a formation of friends ....not many trips with my wife or more than a two hour radius. And I seem to struggle with wedging, out of shape, not very limber foks in and out of the back.

So the Cessna will put us back in the cross-country mode...and taking multiple friends again.

I always wanted to explore the desert Southwest, in Gust’s territory but my first plane (Grumman) was performance limited and the Husky is slow in getting there so I’m trying something that will handle the environment and get me there in a reasonable amount of time.

The Husky “knocks it out of the park” with the ramp appeal, novelty and runway performance here in Pa. The Cessna ..not so much (except for the Castro history).

Thanks all for the feedback. I can see that although the planes are so different, they both appeal to needs of many on this forum.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top