Hey,

Anyone out there have any experience with the P Ponk O 470 - 50 engine conversion in their 180/182. I'm getting close to TBO and thinking of making the switch. Any info would be appreciated. Bub

I think shortfielder is putting a -50 in his 180 right now, you could try getting a hold of him as well.

You can search this forum, I think P-Ponk is respected on here.

http://www.skywagons.org/forum/ubbthreads.php?Cat=

Ask and you shall receive.

Thanks for the contact info, and the skywagons link. I'm thinkin and it hurts. That maybe with the 2000 hour TBO of the -50 I may be money ahead to go that route vs overhauling the O470-L that I have in the bird now.

Then I'll need to figure how to explain to the little woman that spending more is better. Kind of like "I'm with the government and I'm here to help" I'm sure it will produce the same response.

Hi Bub,

Another possiblity you might want to check out is to put an O-470 U conversion in your bird. I think Texas Skyways has that STC. It also has a 2000 hr TBO, although I sure don't fly enough to ever get to that...it'd take me 25 years at present hours per year.

That's what I have in my '79 180, and when I overhauled it in 2000 I spent a few years thinking about a conversion. In the end, I decided to keep the 470U because it gets better fuel mileage. With a 90" prop and tweaked a little to 2500 rpm it's kinda like the early 185's with the IO-470, probably making about 250 hp. If I operated at a higher altitude like Colorado I probably would have gone for a 520 conversion.

With fuel prices like they were last summer and most likely will be this summer I'm real glad I'm still only burning 11gph in cruise instead of 14 like a 520 will.

I just don't need to operate at gross in the backcountry that often, so it seemed like a lot of money for bragging rights.

Yours,

Rocky

PS, if you talk to Texas Jack be advised he could sell snowballs to the devil...do your research carefully!

Hey Rocky,

Would you clue me in on the difference in the O470-L that's in my 1960 now and the U model?

I was talking with the A/P IA that I use and he thinks he can still get a O470 overhauled for $14K or close to it. So with that price I may stick with the L overhauled. I suppose I'll cross that bridge when I get there. However at last annual all my cylinders are still at 70 or better, oil is about a quart in 15 hours. So who knows, maybe I'll run it past TBO.

Thanks, Bub

Hope you don't mind me buttin"in here. An O470 K and L are basically the same with 7 to 1 compression ratio. A "U" is 8.6 to 1 compression, supposed to turn 2400 rpm, 100LL, and has a heavier case than the K and L. What Texas Skyways does is speed the U up 200 rpm to get the 250 hp.

Thanks 180Marty!

Wow this is a great forum, with some great Pilots willing to share some expertise. You know how I know it's a great place? I check here before I get my first cup of coffee in the morning.

Also, the notion that because an engine is rated at higher horsepower directly implies that it WILL burn more fuel per hour is false.

You can run an O-520 in a Cessna 180 at precisely the same fuel flows as you did your O-470, IF YOU CHOOSE to.

Remember, the horsepower rating on an engine is based on brake horsepower at maximum rated rpm, NOT at cruise.

The problem is that a lot of folks still run the new engine at similar rpm and mp values, which will generally equate to a higher horsepower, and more fuel flows.

I have run IO-550 engines at lower fuel flows than I've run O-470's at times, just cause of fuel.

Rated horsepower doesn't necessarily imply huge fuel flows at cruise, though you have that option if you like.

Now, this is not necessarily true of an airplane with a fixed pitch prop, but even there, with an optimized prop pitch, the bigger engine still may not use more fuel than the little one in cruise. There are a lot of variables there besides rated horsepower at takeoff rpm.

MTV

Yup, MTV's right again, put Gami-jectors in an IO-520 and run it lean of peak in cruise at 60% and you will get down around 11gph...however, you are talking about a carburated 520 conversion, and all the guy's in the 180/185 Club that I know who did that report average cruise burns around 14gph. Of course I assume that they are all cruising at 75% because they all want to go faster, why else spend $35,000 on the conversion?

I would like to relate the tale of one guy who I've known since I joined the club 12 years ago. He's an airline pilot and had a 180 identical to mine. In 1999 he had a cylinder blow and decided to upgrade to the Texas Skyways O-520 and a three blade. $37,000 later he had for all intents and purposes a 185, but still with the lower gross and lower Va and redline of the 180.

He stated that this carburated 520 got carb ice so badly that after a year of flying it IFR over mountains with his family he spent another $10,000 to re-convert it back to fuel injection! He said in retrospect he should have done a plain major on his 470U, sold the plane and bought a 185.

Something to think about. Your resale value in that 1960 Skylane will not go up nearly the same as your cost of conversion, so unless you are sure you're going to keep that plane for a long time and really need the performance boost it may not be worth it. You might find a good 205 for a little more than you'll have in your plane after the conversion, but it's a lot more airplane.

Best,

Rocky

Also check into Petersons Performance Plus http://www.katmai-260se.com/

Rocky,

It does not require GAMI injectors to run an O-520 down to low fuel flows.

As you accurately point out, however, if you persist in running 75% of MAX RATED horsepower, you will burn more gas. There is, however, no compelling reason to do so. You can just as easily run 55 % power on these engines and go same speed on same fuel flows.

The difference is in takeoff performance, and depending on what you are doing with your airplane, that may or may not be essential.

Actual horsepower in use and leaning is what determines fuel burn, NOT max rated horsepower. And, you don't have to lean past peak to get there either, though that is a possibility on an injected engine.

Your friend's issue with carb ice seems a little odd. There have been a LOT of carbureted engines run for a LOT of years in IMC. Seems maybe he had something going on with the installation (which can make a big difference) or perhaps he didn't understand carb icing all that well.

There is no reason these engines should make more ice than any other, frankly.

The O-520 conversions are great engines. Understand that Ponk is NOT using a 520 case, though. That is a different engine, and I don't have any experience with them. A few of my friends did this conversion, though and seem pretty happy with them.

MTV

Your friend's issue with carb ice seems a little odd. There have been a LOT of carbureted engines run for a LOT of years in IMC. Seems maybe he had something going on with the installation (which can make a big difference) or perhaps he didn't understand carb icing all that well.

Yeah MTV,

I never understood this one either, neither he nor I has ever had much problem with ice in the 470U, and he'd had that plane for something like 1500 hours before the conversion, so he was plenty familiar with it.

I do know that it scared the crap out of him!

Rocky

Rocky,

I have about 100 or so hours in a 205, it is a good hauler and around 30 or so in a 206. I like em both, just more airplane than I need. Also I'm a big big fan of manual flaps. When I sold my "54" 180 and got the 182 I looked for the 59 to 61 models of 182 only. Semi center stack and manual flaps. I had a flap motor take a dump in a 182RG I was flying. Good thing I was at my destination when it happened.

On occasions I miss the 180, But insurance is more affordable on the 182, and I don't sweat near as much as I did in cross winds.

Plus I just spent around $10k for an IFR cert and radio upgrade to this 182. So I plan on keeping her for awhile. Only 2300 TT.

Do you know any info on 2434G that wrecked at Johnson Creek? I had some time in that bird too.

Take care, hope to see ya around, Bub

Skylane:

I have never owned a 182, but have had a 180 with both the 0470 and the 520. The difference it makes is very significant. It looks from your pictures like you have kids, which means if you travel with them you have an incredible amount of "stuff". I take my kids camping quite a bit and I operate out of strips that are 5k to 8k in height. I wouldn't go back to the 470 if I didn't have to.

I'm sure it would be cheaper to go the 470 route, but if the pocket book will stand it, I don't think you will be sorry.

Happy Flying!

Yep haul the family about everywhere. Plus all the junk. Funny as they grew so did the planes. Kids used to sleep all the time. Now it's a fight to see whom sits up front and flys. Both of them do well too. I was flying before they were born so they have grown up with it and pretty much think that everyone does it.

We came out of 64S in Oregon, flying back east to home in a "65" 172(first plane). We had to make five 360s to get enough altitude. The wife says what can we do about this? I says get a bigger plane. She goes OK lets get one. Great woman! So we've had the 172 a 180 and now the 182.

I keep reading about the -50 and am leaning that way. Come on Powerball! Thanks, Bub

Hi Bub,

Sounds like you have a real nice 182, and there isn't much difference in rough field capability between your plane with a 206 fork and tire and mine. I've seen straight tail 182's everywhere I've ever been in the backcountry; it's a great plane for half the price of a nice 180.

It also sounds like you fly at gross most of the time when camping, so maybe the -50 conversion is just the thing for you. I think that Steve's upgrade is the least expensive route, depending on core worth, prop, etc. It's been 7 years since I priced any of it, so don't count on that.

I had him put the PPonk landing gear re-inforcement in my 180 in 1994, he's a great guy to work with.

Put VG's on it and you'll have one of the best backcountry planes ever made! Besides 180's, that is.

Rocky

Well to share a little about my "60" 182. Has big nose fork and tire, 7:00s on the mains, sportsman STOL, droop tips, gap seals. Will be doing the VGs one of these days and double puck brakes.
IFR enroute gps, glide slope, dual vor, adf, dme. Mostly King equipped, gps is a Apollo GX 65. I think the "60" 182 and the early 185 use the same fuselage. Love the trimable horizontal stap.

The early 180's and 182's shared the same fuselage, wing and tail. You could actually convert your 182 to a 180 if you wanted to, with a lot of work, but it can and has been done.

The 185 is a VERY different fuselage, as is the late 180. There was a significant change in the 64/65 model 180's, and that's about when the 182 was substantially changed as well.

The big thing to watch out for in any 182 is be VERY nice to that nosewheel. The nosewheel on a 182 is attached to the firewall. Any hard force applied to that nosewheel will cost you dearly. I've seen several of those, by the way, and it can affect the tunnel that contains the control circuits.

The early 182's had more effective elevator control than the later ones, so it's easier with them to keep the nose off during landing, but it also helps to always carry some load aft, particularly when near empty.

They are fine and very capable aircraft, though. Just be careful putting the nosewheel down in anything even vaguely rough.

MTV

mtv wrote:
The early 182's had more effective elevator control than the later ones, so it's easier with them to keep the nose off during landing, but it also helps to always carry some load aft, particularly when near empty.


MTV

You have that backwards. Until about 64 the 182's had the small tail. After they changed to the large tail you had better elevator authority. Many of the older 182 guys complain they can't use full flaps without weight in the rear. On the 67 182 I used to have I never had any trouble with full flap landings with just me and a half tank or so.