At the risk of enduring a hail of bullets, the time has come to think about buying a 180.
Reasons? All the usual suspects. Higher performance, the ability to haul a load out of a short field and better cross-country speeds and range. Funny - when I bought N8143A four years ago, I thought I'd use it for around the pea patch flying, and maybe 10% cross country. Actual usage is almost exactly reversed. I've ended up flying to Florida several times a year to visit family and spend time at my double-wide estate. I hate traveling on the airline; standby is almost impossible for us employee drones.
Unless there is a teriffic tailwind, it involves a fuel stop at Brunswick, GA.
Plus, slinging bags over the back seat is getting a little old. I know, a baggage door can be added, engine upgraded to an O-360 or Franklin or whatever (doesn't help the range with standard fuel), but my airplane is a nice original 170B, right down to the polished aluminum and paint scheme. I kinda feel it's my duty to preserve it as is for future generations. (BTW, it's on the cover of this months EAA Vintage magazine, along with an article.)
By the time I've spent all that money on mods it would cost more than just buying an early 180, which is what I have in mind.
I'm headed to Chicago tommorow to look at a 1954 180. It's got an original paint scheme (for a 1958 or 59?) 3,700 total time, 400 on a G & N overhaul, and a stack of King Silver Crown radios that was the ultimate when I was a CFII in 1976! Owned by a retired United captain since 1969; he's 83 and ready to quit flying.
I'm going with the attitude that I'm not letting go of 43A for any beat up, poorly maintained airplane. If the airframe is solid and the engine checks out, I'll worry about the old radios later. I'm little weird compared to most people when it comes to vintage airplanes; I dismiss custom paint jobs, STOL mods and droopy wing tips...this automaticaly eliminates about 95% of the 180s, (and 170s for that matter) out there.
If anyone is interested, I'll report back with what I find. I notice you let Harold Holliman stick around even though he bought a 180, and beautiful one at that! Later, Russ Farris
P.S. Just in case, does anyone know of a good IA in the Chicago area? I'd get an annual instead of a pre-buy...I'm listening, George!
Heresy alert...looking at Cessna 180s
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
-
russfarris
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 2:25 am
Heresy alert...looking at Cessna 180s
All glory is fleeting...
Flyguy, if you'd sell all 3 of your existing fleet you might be able to afford a 180! 
Russ, for the same fuel burn as a 180, you can get 300 lbs more useful load, a larger cabin and an additional seat with a 190 or 195 and still have round tail-feathers! (But we'll tolerate a 180 lover here, as long as he recognizes 170's as the more classic airplane!)
Russ, for the same fuel burn as a 180, you can get 300 lbs more useful load, a larger cabin and an additional seat with a 190 or 195 and still have round tail-feathers! (But we'll tolerate a 180 lover here, as long as he recognizes 170's as the more classic airplane!)
-
Harold Holiman
- Posts: 579
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:54 pm
Russ/180
Russ,
I appreciate your complement of my 180. When I started looking for another plane, I wanted another 170. However, my last plane was a 172 with a 180 HP Lycoming so I knew I would not be satisfied going back to the 145 HP Continental of my old 170 and was mainly limiting my serious searching to 170's with 180 or more HP. During my search I found my 1953 180 for about what I could get an upgraded 170 for. I call it "my overgrown 170 with a funny tail". About 80 to 85% of my flying is cross country and the remaining 15 to 20% is local with no particular place to go. When I am just boreing holes in the sky, I wish I had the economy of the 170, but whenever I am going somewhere cross country, the extra climb performance, speed and payload more than make it worth the extra operating expense. My 180 has a Javlin auxiliary tank for extra range, but I usually limit my legs to about three to about three and a half hours, as the plane has more range than I do. As much cross country flying as you do, I don't think you will regret it if you get a "overgrown 170 with a funny tail" 180. You will still be warmly welcome in the 170 club, I have made four 170 conventions and hope to go next year. Also with a 180 you will still be able to slow down enough to fly along side of one of the slower 170's in the club, (not mentioning any names but it is red and silver and based in Texas and makes odd approaches to the airport).
Harold H
N92CP
Mbr # 893
I appreciate your complement of my 180. When I started looking for another plane, I wanted another 170. However, my last plane was a 172 with a 180 HP Lycoming so I knew I would not be satisfied going back to the 145 HP Continental of my old 170 and was mainly limiting my serious searching to 170's with 180 or more HP. During my search I found my 1953 180 for about what I could get an upgraded 170 for. I call it "my overgrown 170 with a funny tail". About 80 to 85% of my flying is cross country and the remaining 15 to 20% is local with no particular place to go. When I am just boreing holes in the sky, I wish I had the economy of the 170, but whenever I am going somewhere cross country, the extra climb performance, speed and payload more than make it worth the extra operating expense. My 180 has a Javlin auxiliary tank for extra range, but I usually limit my legs to about three to about three and a half hours, as the plane has more range than I do. As much cross country flying as you do, I don't think you will regret it if you get a "overgrown 170 with a funny tail" 180. You will still be warmly welcome in the 170 club, I have made four 170 conventions and hope to go next year. Also with a 180 you will still be able to slow down enough to fly along side of one of the slower 170's in the club, (not mentioning any names but it is red and silver and based in Texas and makes odd approaches to the airport).
Harold H
N92CP
Mbr # 893
Re: Russ/180
Harold Holiman wrote: Also with a 180 you will still be able to slow down enough to fly along side of one of the slower 170's in the club, (not mentioning any names but it is red and silver and based in Texas and makes odd approaches to the airport).
Harold H
N92CP
Mbr # 893
Can a 180 really fly THAT slow? Joe
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
Not only can they fly that slow (the 180s), they burn the same
amount of gas while flying that slow! I've undertaken more than
one trip where my 180 buds have been patient enough to
fly along side me... and when it came time to gas up, we
put almost exactly the same amount of gas on board.
So, with me flying at 2500 rpm and them flying 18" and 2000 rpm
(or there-abouts), the two types basically burn the same amount
of fuel. Of course, both types were probably making (roughly)
the same horsepower, so it's no surprise the fuel burn was
similar (airframes being basically similar, notwithstanding the
slightly heavier weight of the 180).
Recently flew formation (never further than 20-30 feet from it)
with a Champ across the state of Washington. Gave me new
appreciation for what my 180 buds have to put up with when
flying along side the 170! The Champ is a blast to fly, but it's damned
slow. The 170 is also a blast fo fly, but it's.... well.... slow...
Not bashing the 170 (been there, done that, on this list) just
saying I undersand how someone may want to upgrade to a
180. Like (I think) Eric (Ragwing) said, I wish I could afford to
own both, a 170 & a 180. The 170 would be for boring holes
in the sky and snagging a hamburger relatively close-by to
home-base. The 180 would be for hauling a heavy load, flying
a longer cross-country and playing around in the Idaho back-country.
Anyway, good luck on your search...... (I'm contemplating purchasing
a certain '53 180 myself providing I can get enough $$$$ for my
170).
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
amount of gas while flying that slow! I've undertaken more than
one trip where my 180 buds have been patient enough to
fly along side me... and when it came time to gas up, we
put almost exactly the same amount of gas on board.
So, with me flying at 2500 rpm and them flying 18" and 2000 rpm
(or there-abouts), the two types basically burn the same amount
of fuel. Of course, both types were probably making (roughly)
the same horsepower, so it's no surprise the fuel burn was
similar (airframes being basically similar, notwithstanding the
slightly heavier weight of the 180).
Recently flew formation (never further than 20-30 feet from it)
with a Champ across the state of Washington. Gave me new
appreciation for what my 180 buds have to put up with when
flying along side the 170! The Champ is a blast to fly, but it's damned
slow. The 170 is also a blast fo fly, but it's.... well.... slow...
Not bashing the 170 (been there, done that, on this list) just
saying I undersand how someone may want to upgrade to a
180. Like (I think) Eric (Ragwing) said, I wish I could afford to
own both, a 170 & a 180. The 170 would be for boring holes
in the sky and snagging a hamburger relatively close-by to
home-base. The 180 would be for hauling a heavy load, flying
a longer cross-country and playing around in the Idaho back-country.
Anyway, good luck on your search...... (I'm contemplating purchasing
a certain '53 180 myself providing I can get enough $$$$ for my
170).
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
-
rudymantel
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 4:03 pm
Hi guys !
Just gotta put in my $.02 worth- I've owned three 180's and a 185, (as well as my present 170). The oldest and first 180 was a 1960 model- I paid $14,500 for it, brand new, and one of the happiest moments of my life was when I took delivery of it at the Pawnee Plant Delivery Center in Wichita and flew it back to Jamaica. I later owned a 1962 model and a 1965 and I forget the year of the 185. The 180 is a great airplane, no surprise there. Fast, good performance and easy to fly.
The only disadvantage over 170 are the neoprene fuel cells which tend to leak at the end fittings after a while. I believe they can be repaired but replacing is better.
Eventually, I had to switch to 182's and 206's as I couldn't find decent pilots and the pax actually preferred the nose gear planes- easier to get on & off.
Good luck with your 180 Russ ! You'll love it.
Rudy
Just gotta put in my $.02 worth- I've owned three 180's and a 185, (as well as my present 170). The oldest and first 180 was a 1960 model- I paid $14,500 for it, brand new, and one of the happiest moments of my life was when I took delivery of it at the Pawnee Plant Delivery Center in Wichita and flew it back to Jamaica. I later owned a 1962 model and a 1965 and I forget the year of the 185. The 180 is a great airplane, no surprise there. Fast, good performance and easy to fly.
The only disadvantage over 170 are the neoprene fuel cells which tend to leak at the end fittings after a while. I believe they can be repaired but replacing is better.
Eventually, I had to switch to 182's and 206's as I couldn't find decent pilots and the pax actually preferred the nose gear planes- easier to get on & off.
Good luck with your 180 Russ ! You'll love it.
Rudy
YABUT YABUT
YABUT IFN IF IT WARNT FER THEM SLIPPERY FROGS YU BIN CARRIEN ROUN YER PLANE PROLY WUD N'T BE SO FAST! BUT - YU GOTTA FEED EM MORE THO SOOS THEY WONT GIT DED AND DRIED UP 
-
rudymantel
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 4:03 pm
Re: deserter
flyguy wrote:
This is cause I can't afford a 180.
If they were selling the nice 180's for $50,000, all I could do is run up and down the ramp shouting "Aint That Cheap?" Joe
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
-
Harold Holiman
- Posts: 579
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:54 pm
George/Russ/180
George,
Do you see your name anywhere when I said "one of the slower 170's in the club, (not mentioning any names but it is red and silver and based in Texas and makes off approaches to the airport)"? You must have a guilty concious, ha ha. Russ, as Rudy mentioned, the 180's do have rubber fuel cells rather than metal tanks. I had to replace one of mine not long after I got the plane. I had the option of having the old cell rebuilt or buying a new one. I went the new route. However some say I should have had my old cell rebuilt, as the new cells are made out of a much thinner material than are the old 1950's cells. George probably has a recommendation one way or the other on this. Which would you have done George? Also the early 180's had a lighter engine mount than the later ones. I don't know when they changed but I would definitely check to see which the 54 has. Mine has the later stronger mount. The easiest way I know to tell is the longitudnal tube just ahead of the cluster weld on each side is bolted on the early light mount. If the longitudal tube is welded, it should be the heavier stronger mount. The reason I mention this, another 53 180 near here recently heard a pop on takeoff and noticed additional vibration from the engine. He landed to investigate and found one of the tubes from the cluster weld on the mount at the left rear of the engine to the firewall had completely broken at the cluster weld. George may also have some insight as to if he has heard of this occuring anywhere else. Both the 170 and 180 are excellent airplanes in my opinion.
Harold H
Mbr #893
Do you see your name anywhere when I said "one of the slower 170's in the club, (not mentioning any names but it is red and silver and based in Texas and makes off approaches to the airport)"? You must have a guilty concious, ha ha. Russ, as Rudy mentioned, the 180's do have rubber fuel cells rather than metal tanks. I had to replace one of mine not long after I got the plane. I had the option of having the old cell rebuilt or buying a new one. I went the new route. However some say I should have had my old cell rebuilt, as the new cells are made out of a much thinner material than are the old 1950's cells. George probably has a recommendation one way or the other on this. Which would you have done George? Also the early 180's had a lighter engine mount than the later ones. I don't know when they changed but I would definitely check to see which the 54 has. Mine has the later stronger mount. The easiest way I know to tell is the longitudnal tube just ahead of the cluster weld on each side is bolted on the early light mount. If the longitudal tube is welded, it should be the heavier stronger mount. The reason I mention this, another 53 180 near here recently heard a pop on takeoff and noticed additional vibration from the engine. He landed to investigate and found one of the tubes from the cluster weld on the mount at the left rear of the engine to the firewall had completely broken at the cluster weld. George may also have some insight as to if he has heard of this occuring anywhere else. Both the 170 and 180 are excellent airplanes in my opinion.
Harold H
Mbr #893
-
russfarris
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 2:25 am
OK guys. I think I may have found a winner...
I flew to Chicago Monday, and the dealer (yes, a dealer - I'll get to that later) picked me up and we drove to Joliet. Armed with a screw driver, inspection mirror and flashlight, I checked out the spar carry through, spar blocks, gear box and every other nook and cranny I could think of. No corrosion, in fact it was just as spotless as my current airplane. (It's been hangared since at least 1969 by the last owner.) The airframe was in excellent overall condition. The panel was very original - could use some cleanup and detailing. The interior, which looked exactly like the one in the 1957 Studebaker Golden Hawk I once owned, is in pretty sorry shape, but that's easy enough to deal with. Amazingly, the original headliner is still there...old and discolored, but intact. Avionics - ancient but all King - KX-170B, KR-86 ADF, ect. No Loran, GPS or intercom even -right out of the 1970s! The engine has 388 hours since a 1994 major by G & N - a major plus.
The inspection took me almost four hours. I looked through the logs which were very complete back to the factory, with detailed entries made thru out. The airplane has had only two owners since new.
The annual was done in April, but I'm going to have another one done before I buy it, which brings up a slight problem...I don't know any IAs in the Chicago area. I'm reluctant to use the shop that last did it - they can hardly be objective about the airplane. Lacking any other ideas, I did ask the broker (yes, I know...conflict of interest) but he did know of a local IA who is furloughed from United. Does anyone know of a good IA in the Chicago area familiar with older Cessnas???
Gene the dealer is a very pleasant fellow about sixty, and master of the soft sell. I have an inherent distrust of these guys - airplanes are just a commodity to them. I would much rather deal with the owner. This company bought the airplane outright from the retired United pilot in June.
Gene gave me his home number, and I talked at length with him, which was helpful.
A couple of hours into this, Gene made the comment that in thirty years of selling airplanes he had never had a pilot go over an airplane like I was doing, which I took as a compliment. I can't afford to screw up, like another US Airways pilot did on a 185. No pre-buy or inspection - took the dealers word everthing was OK. At the next annual, so much corrosion was found it was deemed beyond economic repair - a total loss. Seems that it was dunked in salt water while operating as a seaplane. A 120,000 dollar mistake, what a nightmare...
I like this airplane and if it checks out on the annual, I think it has a new home. Thanks for all the input from you guys and support. Russ Farris
I flew to Chicago Monday, and the dealer (yes, a dealer - I'll get to that later) picked me up and we drove to Joliet. Armed with a screw driver, inspection mirror and flashlight, I checked out the spar carry through, spar blocks, gear box and every other nook and cranny I could think of. No corrosion, in fact it was just as spotless as my current airplane. (It's been hangared since at least 1969 by the last owner.) The airframe was in excellent overall condition. The panel was very original - could use some cleanup and detailing. The interior, which looked exactly like the one in the 1957 Studebaker Golden Hawk I once owned, is in pretty sorry shape, but that's easy enough to deal with. Amazingly, the original headliner is still there...old and discolored, but intact. Avionics - ancient but all King - KX-170B, KR-86 ADF, ect. No Loran, GPS or intercom even -right out of the 1970s! The engine has 388 hours since a 1994 major by G & N - a major plus.
The inspection took me almost four hours. I looked through the logs which were very complete back to the factory, with detailed entries made thru out. The airplane has had only two owners since new.
The annual was done in April, but I'm going to have another one done before I buy it, which brings up a slight problem...I don't know any IAs in the Chicago area. I'm reluctant to use the shop that last did it - they can hardly be objective about the airplane. Lacking any other ideas, I did ask the broker (yes, I know...conflict of interest) but he did know of a local IA who is furloughed from United. Does anyone know of a good IA in the Chicago area familiar with older Cessnas???
Gene the dealer is a very pleasant fellow about sixty, and master of the soft sell. I have an inherent distrust of these guys - airplanes are just a commodity to them. I would much rather deal with the owner. This company bought the airplane outright from the retired United pilot in June.
Gene gave me his home number, and I talked at length with him, which was helpful.
A couple of hours into this, Gene made the comment that in thirty years of selling airplanes he had never had a pilot go over an airplane like I was doing, which I took as a compliment. I can't afford to screw up, like another US Airways pilot did on a 185. No pre-buy or inspection - took the dealers word everthing was OK. At the next annual, so much corrosion was found it was deemed beyond economic repair - a total loss. Seems that it was dunked in salt water while operating as a seaplane. A 120,000 dollar mistake, what a nightmare...
I like this airplane and if it checks out on the annual, I think it has a new home. Thanks for all the input from you guys and support. Russ Farris
All glory is fleeting...
-
russfarris
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 2:25 am
Hey George, it was good to finally meet you face to face at the Convention. And Rudy, Ole Gar and Harold, too. Sorry I could only stay one afternoon. But I decided to leave so George could have a crack at Best Original 170B! 
I did seriously consider a 195, but after talking with my buddies ( I know six US Airways pilots who own them!) I decided against it. As much as I like to work on airplanes, everyone of them said it's twice the maintainance effort of a 170 or 180, easily. The really nice ones are pushing 100,000 dollars, well out of my range. And with those dinky "flaps" I doubt if it's as good a short field machine as the 180. But those looks...that sound...where was I?
Yep, I love the round tail, too. Most beautiful design, ever. I think light plane styling was influenced by the military and airliner types of the era.
By the early 1950s, the round tails of the DC-3s, C-46s and B-29s were giving way to the more squared off types. The 180 reflects this - it came out in 1953. The tail is almost exactly the same as the Douglas DC-7, which appeared the same year. When the first airline jets, the Boeing 707 and DC-8 debuted in 1958 and 59, Cessna followed with swept tails in 1960.
So when I see a 180, I think DC-7. By any measure, it's still an old airplane! And besides, you can't see it from the cockpit anyway (well, not until Omni-vision in 1963.) Russ Farris
I did seriously consider a 195, but after talking with my buddies ( I know six US Airways pilots who own them!) I decided against it. As much as I like to work on airplanes, everyone of them said it's twice the maintainance effort of a 170 or 180, easily. The really nice ones are pushing 100,000 dollars, well out of my range. And with those dinky "flaps" I doubt if it's as good a short field machine as the 180. But those looks...that sound...where was I?
Yep, I love the round tail, too. Most beautiful design, ever. I think light plane styling was influenced by the military and airliner types of the era.
By the early 1950s, the round tails of the DC-3s, C-46s and B-29s were giving way to the more squared off types. The 180 reflects this - it came out in 1953. The tail is almost exactly the same as the Douglas DC-7, which appeared the same year. When the first airline jets, the Boeing 707 and DC-8 debuted in 1958 and 59, Cessna followed with swept tails in 1960.
So when I see a 180, I think DC-7. By any measure, it's still an old airplane! And besides, you can't see it from the cockpit anyway (well, not until Omni-vision in 1963.) Russ Farris
All glory is fleeting...