Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

I've seen quite a few threads about Great Planes's Cessna 182 ARF, and even a few egarding the Hanger 9 Cessna 182 ARF. What I would like to ask, as someone who's about to lay down the money for one is- which would be the better purchase?

It seems that everyone loves the GP version, but I really like the white and blue color scheme available from Hanger 9. In the end though, color doesn't matter to me as much as performance/flight characteristics. So any input on "the one I should buy" would be greatly appreciated.


On a side note, I've seen that a couple of people have managed to add flaps to their Cessna 182 ARFs. I'm deffinately going to get a float kit for this plane, and probably skis as well. Would flaps be a beneficial addition to a float plane or a ski plane? I understand the purpose of flaps in regards to landing, but would I want to slow a float plane down on final? Something tells me that the extra speed might be helpful on water. On skis, slower finals deffinately, but on water? If anyone could shed a little light on this situation, it would asl be appreciated.


Thanks,
-Tink

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

It may be in bad form to reply to my own post, but I've never been overly concerned with procedure. Anyway, I think I've decided on the Great Planes Cessna 182 after all. I've read a few reviews online of each, and it appears that the GP version is the preference. The wing is .5" shorter, but the wing loading appears better.

So I'd like to reiterate my other question...

If I'm planning on putting floats on this plane (most likely 36" Sea Commander floats, http://www.seacommander.com/seacommander.asp), and the planes normal weight, would a OS .52 4-stroke have the necessary power, or should I aim a little higher for a Magnum .61 FS or an OS FS-70II? I'm thinking that the added weight of the floats and the drag of the water might merit a bit more power. Would this be a correct assumption, or am I risking dramatically overpowering this bird? I'd like to keep the power fairly scale since plane is as well.

Thanks,
-Tink

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

The GP Cessna is by far the better looking of the two and thats why I bought it. It's a great flying plane and would benefit by adding flaps as it takes forever to land cause it won't slow down. I will post some pics of mine. Mine dosnt have the flaps but it is a lot of fun to fly.

Thanks
Mike Badger
www.Aero3D.net

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

Another...

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

Another.....

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

And the last one I will post. I have a few more if you want to see them, just email me.

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

I have an Enya .53 4 stroke in mine and it flies very nicely at 3/4 throttle.

If I was to put floats on mine I would probably go with a .70 4 stroke just because of the extra drag and water suction. I was actually going to put the OS .70 in mine but the .53 fit without major cutting to the cowl. The .70 is much taller so it would have been hanging more "out into the breeze."

Don

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

Badge,

Whatcha got in yours?

Don

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

Ok one more, this one shows the EuroJet scale gear. I would recommend buying this but be careful, you will need a pitts muffler for engine and my muffler came to rest right up against the nose gear, so some modifications had to be made including making a pair of spacers (glue 2 pop stick together, make a pair) and mount them behind the engine mount to give more clearence.

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

My TT PRO 46 hauls this plane around. It would probably have no problem with floats, if you have a 4stroke by all means go ahead and use it. I think the 46 would be plenty.

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

Opps, just read that part about the Sea Commander floats, those things can get heavy so yes I would aim for the larger 4 stroke just to be safe. The fuse would need some major bulking up to accommodate those floats as its all stringers and balsa sheeting.

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

A few things of note...

1st- There seems to be a lot of talk about flaps on the GP Cessna 182. If Swill, or someone else would be nice enough to reply to this thread with some detailed plans it would be of great benefit to quite a few people. Swill, would you do the honors?

2nd- I've noticed a thread dealing with the replacement of the nose gear with an after market scale nose leg of sorts. http://www.eurokitplane.com/retractfix_40_60_size2.htm Does anyone have any directions/FYIs/"gotchas" they could share concerning the installation of this item? Is this differenct from the Eurojet scale gear you mentioned Badge?

3rd- I've heard mention of a few 2S .46s and QUITE a few FS .52's powering this plane. The OS.70 FS has been suggested for extra power when using floats, but its length is in question in regards to the cowl. Has anyone had an experience with the RCV (Rotary Cylinder Valve)-60 engines from Wildcat Fuels (http://www.wildcatfuel.com/products.htm)? The OS .70 is only 99mm vs. the RCV-60's 102mm length... but the RCV is mounted to the firewall, saving the length of the engine mount, so it should be shorter in the long run.

Finally- Badge also suggested "bulking up" the fuselage in order to take the abuse of floats. Any suggestions on how to go about doing his?


Sorry for the long post, I'm just trying to form a plan.
-Tink

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

DOH, sorry about that I meant Eurokit not Eurojet my mistake. That link your provided is what I purchased. Sorry for the confusion!

Thanks
Mike Badger
www.Aero3D.net

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

WOW! I get to do the honors...

While, I don't have detailed plans available (nor the plane anymore!) the best I can recommend is cutting the flaps free from the wings, even with the ailerons (or about 1/8" behind it). Cut them all the way to the ends of each wing panel.

then take balsa as necessary to build up the new trailing edge of the wing and leading edge of the flap. that's it! I made a new servo hatch for each flap servo, JUST LIKE the aileron hatches. use 1/8" ply for the base. Sorry I dont have contruction or mod pics, just this.

Robat hinge points would be a good method for hinging, but I used CA since I didnt have any of those. You could go more scale and make them Fowler Flaps like the real Cessna. Mine were more of a barn-door flap, ie. just drops down.

Got to run for the weekend, hope this helps.

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

FYI: The OS .70 is pretty dang tall (and long) so that's why I went with the Enya .53. The OS .70 would stick out the side of the cowl almost an inch. (I really didn't check for inverted) Even the Enya length-wise sticks out a little further so my spinner backplate is ~1/4" off the cowl. Having the carb in the back is the culprit.

To tell the truth, I think they designed the plane for a .46 2 stroke. ;)

Don

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

'nother pic of the flaps...

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

I put an Irvine .53 in mine. Muffler etc fits great. Seems like a real good match powerwise.
I do hate the landing gear on it though. Nose gear is too soft and bends no matter how easy I land and anything but soft landings will flatten the main gear...

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

Hey Tinkerer,

I just got the Hanger 9 182, and I am putting it on floats also. I am planing on using the O.S. 52. It should have enough power. I have flown a cub with the same engine and it had more than enough power to get it off the water. It seems that they are about the same weight. I will let you know how mine flys, when i am done. And we will figure out wich makes the better float plane. I am still unsure, if i am going to add the flaps. I figure i will try it first. If i don't like it. Then i will add them. It depends on the sink rate. Good luck,
Keith
[email protected]

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

Oh,
Forgot to say that i am putting mine on a set of Goldberg floats. I like the look of Badges three bladed prop. however float flying tends to eat up some props... so, i am going to stick to the cheep ones.

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

just remember, the Cub has a longer wing...

can't wait to see how the floats work on your planes!

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

My H9 Cessna with a TT .46 PRO has plenty of oomph. The plane isn't a feather, but that 46 pulls it with authority and speed is suprising! Takeoffs: there is plenty of power on a grass field for a relatively short (50' or so) takeoff and landings are a snap too, this plane settles in fine without flaps. To be honest I'd rather not have flaps on this plane as the sink rate seems just perfect and makes the plane easy to grease in. Add flaps and you may have a 'floater' that baloons easy or you might bring the landing speed closer to stall speed which means you have a smaller window. For some this may not matter, for me (I am skill impaired) it might make a problem. I know they're two different birds but try it first w/o flaps you may like it.

- Joe

PS: I do love the H9, it's been one of my 'old reliables', but if I were to buy another ARF cessna it'd be the Great Planes just because it looks better IMO.

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

Bah...

I've been looking online for specs on engines. I know I wan to go wit a 4-stroke, if for no other reason that the sound. I've been looking at an OS .52/.70 , Saito .65, Magnum .61, and RCV 60. What've found so far I'll detail below.

OS .52... $180 (www.towerhobbies.com)
Weight: 14.2 oz, HP: 0.90, Height: 3.97" (from very bottom to top)

OS .70... $210 (www.towerhobbies.com)
Weight: 20.5 oz, HP: 1.10, Height: 4.59"

Saito .65... $199 (www.saitoengines.com)
Weight: 19.4 oz, HP: 0.95, Height: ?"

Magnum .61... $170 (www.towerhobbies.com)
Weight: 15.5 oz, HP: ?, Height: ?"

RCV .60... $269 (www.wildcatfuel.com)
Weight: 19.4 oz, HP: ?, Height: ?"


What I was hoping was that after comparing the information above I'd have a clearer picture of what to buy. As you can see, that's not *quite* the case. Weight is an issue of course, and I will be adding two servos for the flaps. What we're dealing with here though is a margin of 6 oz at the most. Price is also a concern, but the only engine that could be saftely eliminated is the RCV. So onto power... Since the information is spotty, only assumptions can be made. I'm not wanting to turn this model into an Estes rocket by any means, but I want to have the necessary power for float flights. From what I've read here, the .52 is perfect for land flights, but might lack the slight extra "umph" needed for H2O. The .70 would most likely provide this, but at the cost of nearly a half a pund of weight and making swiss cheese of the cowl. The Saito might very well fall into the same category as the OS 70, though not as overpowering as the OS 70. Finally, there's the Magnum 61. The weight is certainly more to my likeing, but I couldn't find specs regarding HP.

So with all said and done, I'm not that much closer to making a decision even after all of the research. Anyone care to offer their opinion, especially those who have GP/H9 Cessna 182 ARFs?

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

The OS 70 would be fine giving you plenty of power to fly off land and water.

Thanks
Mike Badger
www.Aero3D.net

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

But wouldn't the OS 70 be pilling more weight onto an already heavy plane? Then of course the added tail-weight to try and balance the CG...

I'm going to try and call someone and find out the Magnum .61's specs, though for some reason I doubt it's that much more powerfull than the OS 52.

Can't wait to gety this bird completed! Especially now...
http://www.blackwidowav.com/ Now that looks like a light, compact, and fairly inexpensive (at least when compared to others) wireless AV unit. Imagine the scale video? Sit the camera about head high actually in the cockpit, looking out the front windshield. Maybe on a servo, so you can look out the side window as well...

Whoa! I think I'll just concentrate on one thing at a time. Flaps, nose gear, engine, floats. I've already got some work cut out for me.


-Tink

Cessna 182, GP or Hanger 9?
 

RCV does have that "standard" looking .58 that uses a rotating sleeve instead of valves for 4 stroke. Check it out powerwise. It may be just the ticket because it is much shorter in height than a standard 4 stroke.