What is it about the C180/185
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: .
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tinpis
I knew there was a photty of Omkalai somewhere, they is as rare as rocking horse guano
Been closed now for about 25 years was the steepest commercial strip in PNG at the time
Imagine putting your controls locks in just after take off
Been closed now for about 25 years was the steepest commercial strip in PNG at the time
Imagine putting your controls locks in just after take off
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True DTR, but not helping! 
So, how many metres for them that are really good & how many for them that aren't so good?
I got some figures off the web, but was wondering what the length was of the shortest strips they have been regularly operated into over the years.
So, how many metres for them that are really good & how many for them that aren't so good?
I got some figures off the web, but was wondering what the length was of the shortest strips they have been regularly operated into over the years.
According to the book, for the IO520 powered 300 hp C185 at MTOW:
Takeoff Distance: 1,025 ft or 312 m
Landing Distance: 480 ft or 146 m
Its one of those aircraft that you can reasonably easily get into places that you can't get out off without messing up your underwear!
Dr
Takeoff Distance: 1,025 ft or 312 m
Landing Distance: 480 ft or 146 m
Its one of those aircraft that you can reasonably easily get into places that you can't get out off without messing up your underwear!
Dr
Forkie thats at MTOW. So with most of the stuff out of the aircraft about 150 metres is good for TO too so you can go home. For flat sea level strips around 250 metres is a practical minimum length with no obstacles. Thats with an old standard wing coming and going at around 50 kts lightly loaded. Real sharp blokes might do better with stol gear especially if they know the strip real well. Even then anyone talking under 200 metres has most likely had a few beers! Yes Chuck i think we should have a positive rate of climb so Kamina and Nadinumu are out.
Here my experience of the skywagon
Sea Level, standard day nil wind.
220 meters is good for takeoff with 4 onboard plus gear on a 300 HP C185 in a pair of good hands, add another 30 for fudge factor or not being current. So if you can bank on 300 to 400 meters in the same conditions as a good workable airstrip for both the C180 and C185. (they take off and land in similar distance but the C185 will climb out better, with a larger load)
Landing is where the skill level really meets the road, and is very dependent on braking effect (or hill slope as in PNG and NZ).
220 meters is good for takeoff with 4 onboard plus gear on a 300 HP C185 in a pair of good hands, add another 30 for fudge factor or not being current. So if you can bank on 300 to 400 meters in the same conditions as a good workable airstrip for both the C180 and C185. (they take off and land in similar distance but the C185 will climb out better, with a larger load)
Landing is where the skill level really meets the road, and is very dependent on braking effect (or hill slope as in PNG and NZ).
Has anyone got an opinion on which is the better strip machine - the 185 or the 180?
The ONLY people who will tell you that the C180 is better aeroplane - are those who have never flown a C185!
Dr
Which is better strip machine C180 or C185
As in all of aviation, it depends!
Commercial operation:
The C185 is a far better machine out of air strips, for getting in the early model C180 is better but you would have to do two loads instead of one, so again for a commercial operation the C185 is better.
Private operations:
Again it depends on what sort of flying you want. Five mates on a hunting trip and you are talking C185 again. However for strips at lower altitudes a lot depends on which year C180 one is talking about. The early models (pre 1961) are very different to the late model C180. If you have a late model C180 you can think of it as a 230HP C185, because that is how it performs, which explains why all the engine power upgrades are available on the C180.
Summary: They are both similar on strips, at MAUW they use similar t/o and landing "ground" distance but the C185 climbs better after takeoff. The C180 may have to do two loads to carry the same payload as a C185. However the C185 and late model C180 fly like a truck compaired to the '53 to '57 C180.
Commercial operation:
The C185 is a far better machine out of air strips, for getting in the early model C180 is better but you would have to do two loads instead of one, so again for a commercial operation the C185 is better.
Private operations:
Again it depends on what sort of flying you want. Five mates on a hunting trip and you are talking C185 again. However for strips at lower altitudes a lot depends on which year C180 one is talking about. The early models (pre 1961) are very different to the late model C180. If you have a late model C180 you can think of it as a 230HP C185, because that is how it performs, which explains why all the engine power upgrades are available on the C180.
Summary: They are both similar on strips, at MAUW they use similar t/o and landing "ground" distance but the C185 climbs better after takeoff. The C180 may have to do two loads to carry the same payload as a C185. However the C185 and late model C180 fly like a truck compaired to the '53 to '57 C180.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ONLY people who will tell you that the C180 is better aeroplane - are those who have never flown a C185!
That's a bit of a sweeping statement there FTD, wouldn't you say ???
"better aeroplane" means different things to different people.
For instance, in PNG the 185 is a better aeroplane than your Bo...so would you say the 185 is a better aircraft than a Bonanza ?
Some would still say "yes" , but then, like you said, "This could get interesting"
I've certainly flown both and I would say that the 180 is a "nicer" aircraft than the 185, but not necessarily as capable.
We have one chap in our club who has a 180 with an IO550 attached that will walk away from any 185 around. (but then it's not a real 180)
ZeeBee, sweeping statements and a very black and white view of the world are my forté!
While I would agree that the early 180s are "nicer" to fly, I did say better - not nicer! In this context nice is for loøsers ("Bugger"!) !
Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhh - wash your mouth out with soap!
Dr
While I would agree that the early 180s are "nicer" to fly, I did say better - not nicer! In this context nice is for loøsers ("Bugger"!) !
For instance, in PNG the 185 is a better aeroplane than your Bo...so would you say the 185 is a better aircraft than a Bonanza ?
Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhh - wash your mouth out with soap!
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 17th Apr 2010 at 02:42.
Grandpa Aerotart
C100 driver has it - if you want a grunty private taildragger for you and girlfriend/wife/other to fool around in buy a late 50s C180 - you want to haul big loads out of dumb places, or want to go hunting/fishing with a couple of mates and a shedload of gear at high DAs/on floats, buy a C185.
Zeebee - A C180/185 is the best aircraft in the world in NZ. A Bonanza is the best aircraft in the world in Oz.
I saw that 182->180/IO550 conversion at Makarora last year and chatted over MANY beers with its proud owner about the hassle etc in achieving the result - VERY nice machine
Zeebee - A C180/185 is the best aircraft in the world in NZ. A Bonanza is the best aircraft in the world in Oz.
I saw that 182->180/IO550 conversion at Makarora last year and chatted over MANY beers with its proud owner about the hassle etc in achieving the result - VERY nice machine