There is no reason to delete posts because nothing so far breaches the forum Guidelines. I also can’t move these posts out because of the mix of new and old topic within some of the posts. If someone thinks this is a worthwhile new discussion, please start a thread on it.
Removing posts would also mean removing Jenny’s post (due to inapplicability) but her post is valuable in itself. It highlights a difficult problem – even though I believe this is really a very rare issue here on EuroGA, compared to most other aviation sites on which one can post pretty well anything.
There are a good number of women who read EuroGA but choose to not post, or post only very brief posts. However, in perhaps all the cases I know about, their reasons for this reticence are unrelated to the present topic.
Looking again at the utility comparison of the meek Warrior and the C180 I tried to look at a day return trip, using a sensible no wind three hours in the Warrior as the one way distance. The return journey would have a 20 knot headwind component one way, and the invariable reduced tailwind, say 10 knots the other way. Indirect costs for both types were set at 80 hours p.a. private useage – some owners get more utility but 80 hours is on the generous side for the GA personal owned fleet.
A two and a half hour sector is about the comfort limit for single crew in a light GA, especially for a planned two sector day.
These assumptions may not be shared of course.
Both types have normally aspirated, carburettor engines which are designed to be happiest around 65-70% power. The Warrior at 70% (assuming the later version with some aerodynamic clean up) will cruise at 110KTAS, with gap seals it might boast 115KTAS. WOT at 8,000 feet book is 120KTAS plus. Using the rule of thumb HP x %power x .076 gives a decent approximation for USGPH of 8.5USGPH, in line with book. Block plan might be 110KTAS and 9 USGPH. No wind 2:30 would suggest a sector of around 270NM. Shoreham to Dublin Weston is 300nm so will use this.
The outward journey with a 20 knot headwind would take 3:20 and fuel plan might look like Taxi (1USG), Climb 00:10 (2USG), Route 3:10 (29USG), contingency 10% (4USG), diversion Waterford (6 USG), 45 minute reserve (6 USG). This is in fact all the useable fuel for the Warrior. Full fuel only allows three 170 lb people, plus 30 lbs of hand luggage. A raft, life jackets would use this allowance up. The return trip would take 02:30. Fuel plan would be 10 USG less, partly tailwind and Biggin being closer as an alternate. The trip might use 56 USG or £400. Indirects/engine fund I estimate at £400 (1,500 insurance, £3,000 maintenance, £10 an hour engine fund – have excluded hangarage as a wash with the C180). Round trip around £270 per occupant.
The C180 numbers look as follows. 70% book at 5,000 feet shows 133KTAS and 11.6 USGPH. Block might be 130KTAS and 12 USGPH. Most people have flown the 182 and would not argue, possibly suggesting a slightly thirstier assumption. 230 × 70% x .076 produces 12.2 USGPH, so the Cessna book might have some marketing input. The fuel plan outward would be 55USG which interestingly is useable fuel for the early C180. Will assume this is a C180 with the 2,650lbs MAUM, later versions were bumped to 2,800lbs but a K or J cost today $150K and will have some more empty weight. Typically a nicely dieted late 1950’s C180 comes in at 1720LBS empty. What did the Continental 470 (150cu.in of additional grunt get you?), a measly 50 lbs more of luggage capacity! You did arrive 0:35 earlier than the Warrior, although the landing on runway 25 tarmac at Weston with a 15-20 knot crosswind may have kept you focused somewhat :) On the way back you would arrive 0:20 before the Warrior. Fuel used would be 66 USG round trip, only 10USG more than the Warrior, so £470. Indirects will be an interesting debate. I suggest £2,000 insurance, just in increased hull value with no allowance for tailwheel exposure. In the USA the insurance premium difference between a 180 and a 182 is probably more. Maintenance I am being generous saying £4,000, and would estimate closer to £5,000 given airframe age. There is a constant speed propeller with associated six year overhaul and two more cylinders. Engine fund at £20 an hour, £25,000/1,200 vs £20,000/2,000. The five hour return trip has an estimated £475 in associated indirects. The round trip with three occupants works out at £315 per occupant, only £45 more. Time saving of 50 minutes.
I was surprised that with a headwind the C180 was not a comfortable four seater with a fuel plan with an alternate. The J and K models would probably make the trip with four seats filled. Edit, but would require partial fuelling as they were fitted usually with 84 USG useable.
The difference is with a 180, you could fly from your front lawn to Shoreham. Just like a certain one does in these parts.
I’m sorry, are we comparing Warriors to 180’s? That’s very much like comparing lemons to a shiny Gala apple. 
William that looks like a nice airstrip, possibly even Warrior friendly :) What page in your epic book of runways, farm strips in Ireland (compiled lest we forget using a Cessna 180)?
Adam the exercise was to curb any risk of spending the $100k premium over the lowly Warrior. In terms of classic Cessna, the 195 with known, reputable re builders, seems to be better value. The ones refurbished, with thorough airframe rejigging and inspection, around ten years ago can be found stateside for $70-80k. They have around 200-300 lbs more useful load than the early 180, very spacious cabin and the Jacobs B2 is a trustworthy, well supported, radial engine.
The topic of women in GA is in this merged thread.
I prefer to not mod stuff which doesn’t breach the guidelines, because we already get enough trouble with modding stuff which did breach the guidelines 
Some of what has been written by some ex posters (in France and Germany, notably, and that is just the stuff which some very kind people report back) is really vile defamatory stuff, which I then occassionally have to respond to.
Unless that runway is short, it looks perfectly fine for a Warrior :-)
The problem I have with the C180 is that while they are really nice planes, I could get a decent S model Bonanza for the same money (unfortunately, C180s are like Super Cubs, and go for very high prices due to their popularity).
Alioth you may find an V35S is a good deal cheaper than the similar vintage 180H.
This exercise showed that if you multiply fuel cost by two you get a good estimate for hourly cost, at least for an SEP. Didn’t cover hangarage or landing fees, but any Skywagon owner would have his own farm strip next to the Edwardian vicarage .
Going back to the 195 the utility is impressive. 1,200lbs useful load courtesy of a 275HP Jacobs and 145KTAS on 15USGPH. With 75 USG useable, it is a genuine four person and luggage aircraft with a large Packard/Studebaker/Humber Super Snipe luxurious, if retro, cabin.
Empty weight is a hefty 2,100 lbs so not having the lightness of a C180, nor the big fowler flaps of more modern Cessnas.
There are three reputable rebuilders so there are quite a few which have been expertly rebuilt, usually with some enhancements: strengthened main gear boxes, oil drains, improved ignition systems, updated panel.
I could get a decent S model Bonanza for the same money
Wouldn’t the early 35 (up to the H35, at least with the E225 mod) be more compareable, yeg way cheaper? The S35 would seriously outperform a C180, not?
