What is it about the C180/185
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia (mostly)
Age: 69
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbine 185
Hey have any of you high time old 180/185 lovers flown or had anything to do with turbine conversions and if so what are your thoughts?. Do they outperform the piston in High Da or High altitude (Australia) operations (work not play that comes later or maybe at the same time) and are there any in AUS?
205jack
205jack
Grandpa Aerotart
Seen turbine powered Beavers/Otters/206/207/Bonanzas, and even a turbine C195, but have never seen a turbine C185 - for sure some Yank has done it
Typically when a Bonanza is converted the top of the green becomes the redline IAS and turbines eat fuel at a prodigious rate so need tip tanks and oxygen to get the range out of them. Sure they climb great but unless its a skydiving aircraft I can't see the point - but Yanks seldom need 'a point'
Typically when a Bonanza is converted the top of the green becomes the redline IAS and turbines eat fuel at a prodigious rate so need tip tanks and oxygen to get the range out of them. Sure they climb great but unless its a skydiving aircraft I can't see the point - but Yanks seldom need 'a point'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Umm the Soloy doesn't do it for me I'm afraid. Apart from ruining the lines.....
I assume it would have an Allison C20 or somesuch.
Would only be of use somewhere you can't get Avgas and you HAD to have a 185.
The engine alone would be three times what the plane is worth really, and as has been pointed out, the performance is largely unusable.
Not to mention the 100l/per hr fuel burn against the 45l/hr of the 0-470.
Be fun not overpitching on take-off and mowing the grass (very expensively) too.
I think I'd rather go for a Porter if I HAD to have a turbine.
I assume it would have an Allison C20 or somesuch.
Would only be of use somewhere you can't get Avgas and you HAD to have a 185.
The engine alone would be three times what the plane is worth really, and as has been pointed out, the performance is largely unusable.
Not to mention the 100l/per hr fuel burn against the 45l/hr of the 0-470.
Be fun not overpitching on take-off and mowing the grass (very expensively) too.
I think I'd rather go for a Porter if I HAD to have a turbine.
Silly Old Git
Um...too lazy to google.. is there a conversion for a switch from Conti to big Lycoming?
1990 eh VIN? According to Chucks calculations he would've been a 103.
1990 eh VIN? According to Chucks calculations he would've been a 103.
A185 with TSIO-520 + Robertson STOL
I was at the Cessna factory in Wichita in 1978, and managed to have a look inside a 185 fitted with a turbo'd 520 engine and it was also full Robby STOL. It was reportedly being used in the backblocks of Idaho - which is full of short strips at mod-high altitudes. Reckon it would have been the goods in PNG.
Short-coupled/long coupled?
Most frightening taildragger I've ever flown was a Taylorcraft of about 1990 vintage? No flaps and very twitchy. Close behind that was a C152 Texas Taildragger, which I once owned....but not for long...300 hrs! It was a mongrel for directional control- possibly because in the conversions it was easy to mount the gear leg so the wheels were in a 'toe out' position. I finally damaged it rather severely and converted it back to tricycle confign. Flew both the M5-210 Maules, VH-EMY and EMA, back in the 60's when they were imported to Brisbane and never thought they were a problem for dirn control.
Round rudder/square rudder?
I was told that the old classic round rudder Cessnas were that way because it gave the most leverage for the least profile. On a C170 that I owned for 12 years, it was the case that you became aileron limited long before rudder...more or less the opposite of a Cub. The longer fuselages of the older classic Cessnas would have also helped with rudder command - as noted by Chuck in an earlier post.
My Choice of Model?
The early model 180's, (180,180A,180B from 53-59), with the 'cutaway' lower engine cowling were,in my humble opinion, the fastest and best balanced of the lot. The panel was a dogs breakfast, but the aircraft trimmed out beautifully and were less likely to be overloaded to aft out-of-trim.
happy days,
I was at the Cessna factory in Wichita in 1978, and managed to have a look inside a 185 fitted with a turbo'd 520 engine and it was also full Robby STOL. It was reportedly being used in the backblocks of Idaho - which is full of short strips at mod-high altitudes. Reckon it would have been the goods in PNG.
Short-coupled/long coupled?
Most frightening taildragger I've ever flown was a Taylorcraft of about 1990 vintage? No flaps and very twitchy. Close behind that was a C152 Texas Taildragger, which I once owned....but not for long...300 hrs! It was a mongrel for directional control- possibly because in the conversions it was easy to mount the gear leg so the wheels were in a 'toe out' position. I finally damaged it rather severely and converted it back to tricycle confign. Flew both the M5-210 Maules, VH-EMY and EMA, back in the 60's when they were imported to Brisbane and never thought they were a problem for dirn control.
Round rudder/square rudder?
I was told that the old classic round rudder Cessnas were that way because it gave the most leverage for the least profile. On a C170 that I owned for 12 years, it was the case that you became aileron limited long before rudder...more or less the opposite of a Cub. The longer fuselages of the older classic Cessnas would have also helped with rudder command - as noted by Chuck in an earlier post.
My Choice of Model?
The early model 180's, (180,180A,180B from 53-59), with the 'cutaway' lower engine cowling were,in my humble opinion, the fastest and best balanced of the lot. The panel was a dogs breakfast, but the aircraft trimmed out beautifully and were less likely to be overloaded to aft out-of-trim.
happy days,
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short-coupled/long coupled?
Most frightening taildragger I've ever flown was a Taylorcraft of about 1990 vintage? No flaps and very twitchy.
Most frightening taildragger I've ever flown was a Taylorcraft of about 1990 vintage? No flaps and very twitchy.
You might have thought the same about the Auster J5G that we used for the BFR.
It inherited some of the wonderful traits of the Taylorcraft from where it descended .
They shared the 180 series directional twitchiness particularly with aft loads.
I'm not sure that the short coupling has a lot to do with it, because the Maules were traditionally short coupled and yet relatively benign in their handling compared to th likes of the 180 series.
Same with the Citabrias and Airknockers.
Last edited by ZEEBEE; 24th Aug 2009 at 22:57. Reason: grammer...what was I thinking ???
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poteroo, Did you ever get to pole Arnold's 150 horse C150 tail dragger?. that was the scariest buggy I ever sat my shapely behind in. 
150's were just not meant to go that fast. the tops of the doors were sucked out of the frame at cruise. sure did a fine job of scaring sheep into a mob though.
I reckon that 170 of yours was the prettiest airplane I ever saw or sat in (yeah, I snuck a sit when it was in Collingridges hangar.
), very disappointed I never got to fly it.
150's were just not meant to go that fast. the tops of the doors were sucked out of the frame at cruise. sure did a fine job of scaring sheep into a mob though. I reckon that 170 of yours was the prettiest airplane I ever saw or sat in (yeah, I snuck a sit when it was in Collingridges hangar.
), very disappointed I never got to fly it.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tjuntjuntjarra
Age: 54
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anybody ever tried attaching a survey tailstinger on a 185 or any tai dragger for that matter? I reckon if set at the right angle it could work. The tail is already on the ground so in theory it shouldnt get any closer to the dirt unless someone reefs it back and gets the nose gear off first.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Just to add,
I met Mike Feeney at the Hauraki Aeroclub back in the mid 1990's when I was a mere fledgling.
I can confirm his singing voice doesn't improve with wine (fine or otherwise) and that after a glass or 7 of the good (or not so goodstuff) his eye for the ladies becomes somewhat lazy.........
A nicer bloke you'll never meet.
I met Mike Feeney at the Hauraki Aeroclub back in the mid 1990's when I was a mere fledgling.
I can confirm his singing voice doesn't improve with wine (fine or otherwise) and that after a glass or 7 of the good (or not so goodstuff) his eye for the ladies becomes somewhat lazy.........
A nicer bloke you'll never meet.
Bloody Austers
...you might have thought the same about the Auster J5G that we used for the BFR.
It inherited some of the wonderful traits of the Taylorcraft from where it descended from.
They shared the 180 series directional twitchiness particularly with aft loads.
It inherited some of the wonderful traits of the Taylorcraft from where it descended from.
They shared the 180 series directional twitchiness particularly with aft loads.
In my defence... I was only BFR'ing a chap who had learnt to fly them in the Army in the 1950's (wo should have known better!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anybody ever tried attaching a survey tailstinger on a 185 or any tai dragger for that matter? I reckon if set at the right angle it could work. The tail is already on the ground so in theory it shouldnt get any closer to the dirt unless someone reefs it back and gets the nose gear off first.
In the late 80's GeoEX ( a Sth Aust company) ran a couple of 180's towing an underslung bird.
As you point out, there's no real reason it wouldn't work on a 180/185 other than being a bit vulnerable with uneven ground unless it was canted up fairly seriously.
ZeeBee
Yes, began my student days in a J3 at RQAC, but it was benign at AF because it was 'allover' grass and we always were into wind. Recently did a BFR in a J5G with Lyco 180 and found it quite civilised. Maybe the new Scott 3200 tailwheel helped too.
Wiz
G'day. That 170 handled really well because when we fitted the 8.00 tyres, we took the gear legs off and re-tempered them so that they had an outside 'bow' - same as 180's - and that ensured there was a higher deck position as it sat on ground. The height from the door sill to ground with VH-OSZ was exactly the same as in Chris Gilmours' C180K, VH-UIA.
Many 170's become difficult to manage when they have a Scott 3200 tailwheel fitted because they sit very 'flat', making it really difficult to 3 point, (a la the infamous Texas Taildraggers without the full Bolen leg extension). BTW, OSZ now resides at Aldinga,SA.
How's life in POM?
happy days,
Yes, began my student days in a J3 at RQAC, but it was benign at AF because it was 'allover' grass and we always were into wind. Recently did a BFR in a J5G with Lyco 180 and found it quite civilised. Maybe the new Scott 3200 tailwheel helped too.
Wiz
G'day. That 170 handled really well because when we fitted the 8.00 tyres, we took the gear legs off and re-tempered them so that they had an outside 'bow' - same as 180's - and that ensured there was a higher deck position as it sat on ground. The height from the door sill to ground with VH-OSZ was exactly the same as in Chris Gilmours' C180K, VH-UIA.
Many 170's become difficult to manage when they have a Scott 3200 tailwheel fitted because they sit very 'flat', making it really difficult to 3 point, (a la the infamous Texas Taildraggers without the full Bolen leg extension). BTW, OSZ now resides at Aldinga,SA.
How's life in POM?
happy days,
Wiz
Forgot about Blackies' C150 TD. Yes, flew it with the 150 Lyco, but declined after he went 180HP. Once saw a C150 tailplane that nearly flapped unassisted after a lot of mustering with 150HP pulling it around in rough air. I don't think Clyde C intended them to have so much HP.
But, after saying all that, I'm admitting hypocrisy, as I fitted a Superior IO-360 to my RV-9A...when VANS says 160HP is the limit. It develops 190HP.
happy days,
Forgot about Blackies' C150 TD. Yes, flew it with the 150 Lyco, but declined after he went 180HP. Once saw a C150 tailplane that nearly flapped unassisted after a lot of mustering with 150HP pulling it around in rough air. I don't think Clyde C intended them to have so much HP.
But, after saying all that, I'm admitting hypocrisy, as I fitted a Superior IO-360 to my RV-9A...when VANS says 160HP is the limit. It develops 190HP.
happy days,
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Poteroo
I am sure you have read about TAS and VNE. Just be careful is all. Van's Site has a good article about it. Sinus Gliders have a WARNING plate in the cockpit and have lost folk who did not play by the rules of physics.
Thread drift Off!
J
I am sure you have read about TAS and VNE. Just be careful is all. Van's Site has a good article about it. Sinus Gliders have a WARNING plate in the cockpit and have lost folk who did not play by the rules of physics.
Thread drift Off!
J