The Plane that Lands Everywhere - Cessna 185

[@efoxxok7478]

The 185 is and always will be my favorite plane to fly.

[@anthonycyr9657]

My very first ride in an airplane was in a a185f, been an absolute fan of the type ever since, my favorite next to the 182, and the sound of the prop tips going supersonic on takeoff is somthing ill never forget, love it.

[@edwardlong189]

Great report. I flew several 185s in the Canadian arctic for over 3500 hrs. Floats in summer and wheel skis in the winter, a really great handling airplane. The last one I flew had the Robertson stol kit. My favourite!

[@cedricrusike]

Im interested in learning more as I would like one for the Canadian arctic

[@rnelson299]

I like how some of these images are actually of Cessna 180s.

[@wesmcgee1648]

My uncle had one in the 70s as part of his flying service fleet. He hauled cargo and bodies for funeral homes with it. Made a fortune.

[@Ivan-pl2it]

Friend in Alaska had one, very impressive performance and stability.

[@eraualum]

I flew a 185 carrying skydivers. Most awesome load carrying, short field, and climbing airplane I have ever flown! I can't say enough good things about it. Contrary to the video, I didn't find it hard to land and did wheel landings most of the time.

[@chaleco82]

The 185 was a dream to land. The most difficult Cessna to land in my humble opinion is the 140. If you have ever flown it, you would know what I am talking about.

[@desertdog185]

I’m pretty critical of this kind of content because this is really right on.

[@andrewalexander9492]

"The market success of the 180 Skywagon prompted Cessna to introduce a bigger, more powerful version ... " The 185 has the identical dimensions as the 180. It's more powerful, and has a higher Max gross weight, but it's not bigger.

[@jamesalsante2388]

Notice how most of your pure flight enthusiasts still on here men I mean love this airplane I mean there's not a bad comment to be had about the thing as far as I know and this is the one that got away they didn't tamper with it they didn't add the back window you know they didn't throw a tricycle gear on it you know and this is pure flying right here...

[@andrewalexander9492]

" they didn't add the back window you know they didn't throw a tricycle gear on it " Ummm, yeah, they had already by the time the 185 came into being. It's called the 182, they took the 180 and added tricycle gear, and eventually a rear window. And it immediately began outselling the 180.

[@thecanadianavee8r660]

The 182 isn't a better airplane than the 185, or even as good for that matter. What it is is more forgiving and more comfortable.​@@andrewalexander9492

[@alexdarcydestsimon3767]

A damn good video for a damn good airplane.

[@shivargangasagar7785]

Grateful for the video

[@FarooqAhmad-di1go]

I flew 185 agcaryall for some time beautiful aircraft

[@mikeskupniewitz8057]

Not intentionally “non retractable gear”… I got pictures and allot of work repairing them after non intentional gear retractions… nice 60 foot landing a foot low, with one gear left at river bank and the other folded back(retracted?😂). A few more too…

[@campervanbug7658]

Dream plane❤

[@chadcrank6662]

at ~7:01: "If you have the cash to feed fuel to that big IO-520...here is an example of the performance that can be expected" - then they show a three bounce oscillating aborted landing on a wide paved runway - yes, compelling performance is possible but not just because you can afford to buy it and feed it...

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro

[@Cmoredebris]

It's a difficult aircraft to refuel quickly. Often interrupted with questions or a check book will appear.

[@backcountyrpilot]

Does the 185 have an 1100 pound payload as described, or is that the Useful Load?

[@buschpilotsinternational5656]

Mine weighs 1,900 empty and has a gross weight of 3,350.

[@Veteran_Aviator]

Show me 1 flying 185 with a 1400lb empty weight! No way

[@wadesaxton6079]

It’s pretty easy to land.

[@Bushliner]

Please reach out

[@Jon.......]

5:50 | I've never heard an aircraft engine described as "no-icing". Do you mean "fuel injected" or "non-carbureted" ? If so, then why not just say that?

[@davidandrews1659]

Now you heard it and know the difference!!! Smile buddy it’s all good!!! No confusion anymore for you or any who have read this!,😊😊

[@clayz1]

@@davidandrews1659 That didn’t help.

[@davidandrews1659]

@@clayz1 Carburetor ice is due to Venturi effects on pressure and causes moisture in the air to precipitate out and if temperatures are below freezing ice forms in the Venturi area of the carburetor eventually plugging it off. This can happen with no moisture visible in the sky. Some refer to fuel injected engines as no icing because air intake does not go through a Venturi and there is no pressure drop, so no internal icing. The air filter intake on an fuel injected engine can ice over with snow and ice but so can a carburetor engine.

[@backcountyrpilot]

@@davidandrews1659 What Bruce said, with a note that nearly all planes have an alternate source of intake air from under the cowling. This source is protected from precipitation and is also much warmer than OAT.

[@thecanadianavee8r660]

Almost all fuel injected aircraft have an alternate air intake but not carburated planes. They have carb heat which takes heated air off of the exhaust to melt and prevent ice in the carb.​@@backcountyrpilot

[@brennenfitzgerald]

0:45 Conventional landing gear and a tailwheel………… Um…. Redundant…..

[@davycrockett5436]

Give me a cessna 177 rg