@@CatarineausArmory They are taking orders. Jigs are ready. You can buy a finished plane or you can buy a "Built" plane that needs to be assembled. You get the fuselage, wings tail, engine assemblies and everything to put them together. Then it needs paint and radios. All engine options are Lycoming 540 or 580. Certified or experimental.
This is how it should be, it is user-friendly and designed to make upgrades simpler and easier. I am glad to see these planes remanufactured so that they will be in service long after all of us are gone.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 I thought so. Very impressed with the thought and engineering going into these aircraft. These are the kind of engineers mechanics don't believe exist. The kind that do it right at the beginning, rather than passing the buck to the mechanics to solve.
This is the kind of work that Viking air has been doing for the DeHavilland lineup for a few years now and I'm glad to see someone going after the Cessna lineup of pleasure and working aircraft. Cessna and DeHavilland own the bush.
Why reinvent the wheel. The Skywagon isn a well proven airframe. Imagine a new one with an AD free airframe because of the improvements that the last 65 years have shown us were needed.
Going through the certification process takes years (lots of them) and millions upon millions of dollars. Not worth it for a niche aircraft that is going to have very limited sales. Just as a point of reference, the 182 outsold the 180/185 by a factor of two or more every year Cessna built both skywagons and 182's. And Cessna ain't selling a lot of 182's
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Missing the point here. the point is that the niche that the 180/185 fills is a narrow niche, narrower than that of a 182, and the more versatile, more popular 182 is selling very few units, so it can be inferred that a new design aircraft, targeted at the narrower niche of the less popular 180/185 would be expected to have very low sales. Certifying a new airplane is a long, expensive process, especially so because a new aircraft would have to comply with all current airworthiness standards, instead of being an existing design, initially certificated almost 70 years ago, under the much less restrictive CAR 3 (predecessor regulations to Part 23) and as such, is exempt from many of the current standards. It doesn't make sense to go through that process doe what will be a very small, limited market. I'm not sure what the point of your reference to Viking is, but it kind of underscores my point; Viking is not designing and certificating a new aircraft design targeted at the niche the Beaver fills, they acquired the rights to an existing successful design.
This is so awesome. Glad to know there is somebody out there effectively zero timing these old workhorses. I imagine this publicity is going to garner more business then they are set up for, hopefully the workshop can expand without the quality of work suffering. Keep up the beautiful craftsmanship fellas!
Really like the panel/wiring changes. I can definitely say that the worst part of working on old planes is looking at the rat's nest of wires underneath. Lot of the old autopilots and engine monitors don't even have support anymore so you just rip it out entirely (not easy for the autopilots!).
Those boys are Football size. Must have a nice gym in the backroom. Don't think it is going to be a problem collecting payment at the end of completion. Nice job, love to see new ideas for old technology. Now if we could find a couple doctors to start a company and rebuild my wife's frame to new specs I would be a happy man. Nawwww, just give me a newly rebuilt 180, I would be very happy.
G,day Mark at Skywagon University from Sydney Australia. Thankyou for posting this video on the extra quality that a seaplane requires for durability, such as; * Enamel paints on lower fuselage. * Thicker aluminium skins and the additional components to stress points: landing gear attachments etc. * I especially like the modular harness design to the avionics in the panel. * (What is a smoking rivot). I assume a deprevation to the integrity? 🌏🇦🇺
A smoking rivet is a rivet which shows signs of the skins working against the grip of the rivet by leaving a dark ‘Smokey’ smudge on the skin. Very common issue on older aircraft and high cycle time airframes.
@@j.muckafignotti4226 Thankyou so much for your response. Q1. Is it a simple matter, of just drilling out the rivet and replacing it? Has the rivet head causing wear of the aluminium? 🌏🇦🇺
@@johnfitzpatrick2469 Normally the rivet would be drilled out, the hole drilled to the next size up, the hole would be dye penetrant inspected for cracks, then a new rivet would be set in the hole.
Peterson Aircraft offers remanufactured airplanes installing a canard on the front, which has proven highly useful. Does Peterson offer the canard on 182s?
How is that panel legal? Do they have an STC or are they getting field approvals? I would assume being that the panel is part of the structure one of those is required, not just a simple sign off from an IA
The answer that rebuilding with thicker skins is "a wash" as far as weight is concerned because they will be saving weight elsewhere is disingenuous at best. Increasing skin thickness, adding reinforcing and priming and painting everything adds weight, compared to the same airplane with the same modern lightweights technology that hasn't had extra metal and paint added. It would have been nice to have gotten a straight answer on how much weight is added by that rather than an evasion. As far as the modifications themselves, why? No question, thicker skins and continuous stringers and such, make the structure stronger, but, does the fuselage structure *need* to be strengthened? I don't think that I've heard of skywagon fuselages not being strong enough generally. Certainly there are some specific weak points whcih have become apparent over the years, like the gear box, and the tail of the fuselage (subject of the tail AD) so it makes sense to improve the strength of known problem areas. But just to add metal (and weight) to make everything stronger when it was already strong enough seems counter productive.
They do not put thicker skins everywhere. They put them where needed like a 195 gets when it is repaired after a groundloop. Just on the boot cowl and a few other places. It is literally is a wash when the whole plane is finished. All we need to do it weigh one when it is finished.
Short of spending thousands of dollars on more mics, we're not sure what else we can do. We have purchased microphones that should be more than adequate for RU-vid videos.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 In this video two of them worked after the first scene so it’s user error, not a lack of hardware. Didn’t you notice the huge difference between the mike that worked/was correctly selected and the camera microphone?
@@bjs2022 I just went and looked at it. It was crystal clear during editing. Yes ... I would have caught that issue. I'm not sure where it went wrong, but with all the issues we had early on, I am extra vigilant with sound. I watched the entire video with sound scopes on, focusing ONLY on audio to make sure we were balanced and in the proper range. This is frustrating. - Don the Camera Guy.
About $550,000 to $800,000 for a 180/185 to be built from scratch if you did not already have a plane. price depends on options, engine, avionics, floats etc etc at the time of ordering. $250,000 less than a new 206.
This is some sort of a glitch that I don't know how to explain. I watched the entire video from start to finish, focusing ONLY on the sound. I would have caught this before posting. I am uncertain what happened. - Don the Camera Guy.
