The grass strip is 1800' with trees/power lines on one end and rising terrain on the other.

As far as getting in and out of it, he's in excellent shape and doesn't have any trouble.

I do like the 177FG idea. I'll have to take a closer look.

I flew one for 9 years. It might have been the best plane (overall) that I’ve ever owned. Relatively low cost to operate, mostly “bullet proof” engine, and just good no-BS handling. Not mushy, like a Cessna 172 / 182.

If you have grass, it’s ok. With rocks, the leading edge of the Cessna 177 stabilator can pick up rocks from the prop and wheels. There’s a few gotchas, like all planes. Inspect the spar for corrosion. There’s a handful of recommended SBs that I’d do (but, probably most of the fleet already have these).

My private field that I had for 20 years was sod, charted at 1500 feet. But, I had over 3000 feet of real estate. It was super easy to operate there, even at 4000 MSL on a hot day.

“For the average tailwheel pilot, the 180 or 185 will remain tied down on even marginally windy days while the nosewheel guys will dispatch without a care”. This amusing anecdote was from Ray Arnold, a tailwheel and charter backcountry legend based here in tailwheel mecca.
For me, if you cant land a “delicate nose wheeled” 182 on a grass strip without dinging it up, you definitely have no business in a tailwheel aircraft on the same strip.

The nosegear itself is pretty robust, it's the firewall that's the problem. Even 182s that live on pavement get bent firewalls as pilots try to flare without enough energy and drop them in.

CAP went through a rash of these as they started buying more 182s to replace old 172s that were sold off. A lot of wings found that they had to use mostly 182s for cadet flight training and flight academies, and the transition was hard on the airframes.

I think it is mostly due to transitioning pilots. They are a little heavier in the flare than the smaller Cessna. All it takes is to be aware of that difference. I use a lot of nose up trim on short final-problem solved.

I am a 1977 IO-550-D C182Q Owner / Operator for the last 5 years / 600 Hours, who designed and had his “Last Airplane” rebuilt in very late 2016 into 2017, I can highly recommend an IO-550 C182Q or P for your Mission. I enjoy 150+ KTAS LOP, I have seen 162 KTAS ROP.

And, towards timing….. Track down Air Plains in Wellington, Kansas / KEGT. I was at Air Plains with a group from Cessna Pilots Society / CPS on Thursday, June 23, 2022 - Air Plains stated during their presentation to us that they had IO-550-D’s readily available for their Air Plains XP 300 hp C182 Conversions.

I have no idea how long that line is for Air Plains to do the actual work, however, Air Plains also regularly sells and ships complete IO-550-D Upgrade Kits.

My experience with Air Plains during my conversion was great. My experience with Air Plains continues to be great, as my aircraft is currently there in Wellington, Kansas for its Annual.

http://www.AirPlains.com

I have regularly read within these Hallowed Halls of BeechTalk, “There’s no replacement for DISPLACEMENT”

To which, I concur, and enjoy the benefits thereof

:-)

A 300 hp C182 is a very special, very capable bird

In a 182 trim is your friend. Use enough for your loading and easy to land. Forget and prepare to enjoy a ride.

It may look like a 172 but it absolutely is not and does not land like one.

Sweet spot for UL is mid-run N to R. That gets you to 2950 UL which gives lots of options. If you want more UL for later models there is the Trolltunes STC.

I really think the 550 is overkill on a 182. The P-Ponk conversion, a O-470 with 520 cylinders, or one of the various Texas Skyways options will do all you need. If you want more speed buy a different plane.

RAS

PS If you want real short and money is not real limiting, Katmai:
https://www.katmai-kenai.com/

Watch the videos, esp the control at 35mph or so.

Buy an R model, gut out all the old stuff, do your upgrades, and you'll have the highest useful load of any 182. It'll also run with any of them speedwise.

I've been doing that, but with budget-minded upgrades. 1323lb useful load now. New upholstery, closed cell insulation, Gerflor Batiflex flooring, vacuum pump removed, etc.

Who has an STC to put the 200hp Lyc in a fixed gear Cardinal?

Thx
Robert T

Personal Opinion / YMMV

I would personally avoid any Integrated Fuel Tank aka Wet Wing C182…. Search BT and elsewhere toward Cessna Wet Wing Issues, and the general inability to finitely resolve the issues, and, or the lack of any meaningful warranty after spending meaningful AMUs attempting a Fix

6 or 7 AMUs in Total to replace 2 Bladders will arguably look cheap compared to the cost an attempted Cessna 182 Wet Wing Leak Fix

That’s what I’m wondering, too. The first year 177s had 150hp and fixed-pitch props. A couple years later they got constant speed props on a parallel-valve, 180hp engine. I’ve never seen an angle-valve 200hp engine in a FG 177. That would be a sweet plane.

I’ve never fixed leaks on a wet wing 182. I have replaced bladders on a 182. I have also spent an inordinate amount of time attempting to fix fuel leaks in the wet wing of Learjets. Replacing bladders is child’s play compared to sealing a wet wing. I even prefer doing a Lear fuselage tank bladder over a wing tank repair, and the fus tank is a very unpleasant experience.

My '75 182 P has an IO52O-F with a Texas Skyways carburetor conversion, heavy duty Texas Skyways engine mount, Hartzell 3-blade prop, long range tanks, Stec 50 autopilot, all the Knots2U speed mods, and the Trolltune gross weight increase for a max takeoff weight of 3150, and has a 1320 useful load. Easy 155-160 knots at 65% power ROP.

Something to be considered is whether the buyer wants the wet wing of the late Q models and up, or the bladders of the earlier models. I prefer the bladders. Sealing leaks in the wet wings can be a nightmare, and new bladders will outlast the pilot usually and offer better fuel tank rupture protection in a crash lessening the probability of a catastrophic fire.

Minority Report here...

Why not consider a Glasair Sportsman with an IO-390? Most airplanes don't fill four seats very often so the 2+2 configuration of the Sportsman is adequate for that occasional need to carry extra pax. Takeoff performance is a total blast. Cruise above 140KTAS. Have a very nearly new airframe, have a rear access door rather than a baggage hatch, have the ability to go either nose dragger or tail dragger and switch back and forth between them, and save a TON of money in operational maintenance and upgrade costs, thanks to it being an Experimental - Amateur Built.

When I told a 182 owner how much my annual inspection cost he rolled his eyes and said, "Yeah, in my dreams!"

Oh, I should mention the Sportsman does not fly at all like the truck-like 182 - much nicer airplane to fly and has sticks rather than yokes.

Before you ask, my oldest passenger has been 95 years of age, so cockpit access is not all that difficult. My wife who has a severe mobility impairment can get in and out of our Sportsman while she can't get in a C-172.

I did not have that engine in my 177B (180 hp, carburetor, constant speed), but there are a number of them with the 200 hp engine.

There is no STC, to my knowledge, and all those that have been done previously were based on the 177RG.

There is only a few small modifications required:

1) Use the RG cowling, to clear the slightly larger cylinder heads on the 200 hp engine

2) Cut a hole in each side, and cover it with a "bump" to clear the front to cylinder heads on each side

I do not recommend the 177 RG aircraft for non-paved runways, simply because it has smaller diameter wheels, the airframe is heavier, and the landing gear can be "dainty". If you have all the usual aero mods on the FG, using the 200 hp engine, the FG will absolutely out-climb the heavier RG, and in cruise, it might only be 5-10 knots apart... if that.

My 177B would cruise just a smidgen past 130 KTAS down low, and maybe 125 KTAS in the 5-10 thousand foot altitudes.

I believe that guys are already putting the new IO-390 (210 hp) in the RG planes.