0
hackish

c182 airplane question

Recommended Posts

This is only somewhat skydive related but I didn't think it was enough OT to go over there...

My DZ uses a widebody 182. Apparently it's got the 300hp upgrade package on it and they're using a 3 bladed prop.

Some at the DZ claimed it had a turbo that gave it the extra 40hp. I was like that's it? 40hp - what are they running 1 psi of boost???

So I watched the instruments as we climbed. First it doesn't appear to be EFI as it had a carb temp gauge. One thing the non-pilots were wrong on already. Second there was a big manifold vacuum gauge and clearly it didn't show boost so I'm guessing they were also wrong on the turbo thing...

During the climb it was turning 2600 rpm which sounded like a good place for power and people commented at how it sucked back the fuel. Surprisingly it was still well below 20in of Hg. Maybe I'm stuck in the automotive world. Under load and burning a lot of fuel I'd expect it to be running somewhere in the 0-10" hg range.

Can anyone spill some of their knowledge or even suggest a place to go read up on it?

-Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont know what kind of set up you guys got so I am not going to speculate. But if really must know just ask the pilot if it has a turbo or when her has the cowl open during a pre-flight in the morning take a peak in and see if you can find the turbo. As for the manifold pressure, there are a lot of factors in that. One will be what the pilot has the prop pitch at will determine how much manifold your pulling. As for the 300hp upgrade I have never heard of that on a 182. Doesnt mean there isnt one out there I just have never seen one.
If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we occasionally have what sounds like an identical plane at our dz, wide body 182, 3 blade prop and 300 hp. i'm not sure about fuel consumption, but i know it hauls ass to altitude, compared to our usual 182.
"Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart."
MB4252 TDS699
killing threads since 2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Some at the DZ claimed it had a turbo that gave it the extra 40hp. I was like that's it? 40hp - what are they running 1 psi of boost???



Many turbo-charged piston aircraft are turbo-normalized so they maintain their sea-level performance at altitude. This is especially important for DZs in mountainous states where normal 12,000 foot AGL jump altitudes can exceed 18,000 feet MSL where there's half the oxygen you have at sea level.

Lycoming has made 300HP 540 cubic inch engines in both normally aspirated flavors. Starting at 5000 feet MSL we gave up before getting to 9,000 feet AGL in a normally aspirated ~300HP 206 while a turbo ~300HP 206 has no problems getting to 12,000 feet AGL/17000 MSL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All C182s are standard with an O-470 (470 cubic inch horizontally opposed 6, air/oil cooled), T182s had a turbo, and very few fixed gear 182s were ever turbo off the line (I think that there was a year or two in the 80s where the turbo was offered on the fixed gear 182). All carbureted Contental 470s were/are rated at 230 hp.

There are a few engine upgrade Supplemental Type Certificates (STC, has to have FAA paperwork to maintain the commercial, otherwise the airplane will have to be noted as experimental, and the FAA is very restrictive with allowing an airplane to go experimental). The P-Ponk conversion is a 520 cubic inch engine carbureted (either a 470 with 520 crank and jugs, or injected 520 detuned with a carburetor), it’s rated at 265-270 hp http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/O520_conversion.html. There are also a couple of 550 cubic inch STCs out there, the one that comes to my mind is the Texas Skyways 550 http://txskyways.com/550f.htm which is rated at 285 hp, also carbureted. There may be a turbo charged conversion out there that I’m not aware of, and maybe a STC for an injected engine, and or turbo/injected.

One issue with these conversions is that the aircraft owner will spend $12,000 + on a new prop, and an additional $15,000+ (above what an 0-470 would cost) on the engine and paperwork. So to replace an engine with a standard 0-470 you’re looking at $20,000 to $25,000, and upgrading $45,000 to $60,000, this for an airplane that’s worth $30,000 +/- with a run out engine. I know of one dropzone that spent $80,000 upgrading their A or B model 182 with the Texas Skyways 550, three blade prop, wing extensions, speed breaks, etc. And ended up with a maintenance money pit! More common with skydiving 182s is the P-Ponk 520, which seems to be holding up well, and is compatible with some 2 blade props.

Airplane engines are not racing engines! They plod along at 2,200 to 2,600 rpm producing .5 hp per cubic inch.

These conversations among skydivers often remind me of being in grade school, and kids who knew basically nothing about engines and cars bragging about whose daddy had the faster/better car. “My daddy’s station wagon has a four barrel!”

Martin
DZO, airplane owner, uncurrent pilot
Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More power DOES mean more fuel flow. You have to burn more fuel to make more power. The advantage is that you get to altitude faster so you can turn more loads in a day. Disadvantage is that the installation of the bigger engine costs more and if you don't keep it running all day then you can't really turn more loads per day with it. However, when you consider that jumpers want faster and higher it might be an advantage even if it doesn't run all day because you haven't lost your customer base to another dz running bigger and faster. Cost of doing business.

Yes, there are 182s with 300BHP engines on them. The Green Machine at Forest McBride's place comes to mind. It had speed breaks on it too! Awesome plane.

I've even seen video of a 180 (tail dragger 182) with a small turboprop (not turbocharged) on it. Really, REALLY bad ass.

It all comes down to "how much money you got and how much money you willing to spend to go fast?"
Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe Beiseker Alberta has a 182 with an injected 550; I have not heard of a turbo STC on the 182. That aircraft goes to altitude with 5 passengers fast enough that I don't see how a turbo could be economical without the sixth passenger available in the 206.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone think what happens when the engine quits?

So just because there is an extra seat belt DOESN'T mean there is an increase in the maximum weight the A/C is certified for.

What weight is used as the average for each jumper? Most w/b sheets I've seen use around 175lbs, which is way under the average of most jumpers with gear.

Unless every jumper at your DZ is 100lbs I still can't see 5 jumpers in a C-182 as safe.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's your fuel consumption at max climb?

I'm thinking that average weight for 1 pilot 2 tandems and 1 more jumper ought to work out to about 1300lbs.

Fuel is 6 lbs a gallon, I've never heard of an operation fueling for just one load but anything is possible.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Fuel is 6 lbs a gallon, I've never heard of an operation fueling for just one load but anything is possible.




Then you haven't spent much time on small 182 DZs. I've seen other 182 DZs fuel for 1 load plus a safety margin for heavy loads. Its not typical operations, but I've seen it done more then once.

For the OP, turbos in planes are like turbos in other aircooled cars (i.e. my beloved 1303 VW Superbeetle). You can do it, you will get more performance, your fuel consumption will go up AND you get the added bonus of shortening the life of your engine.

If you want the full skinny for high performance 182 jump planes drop Forest McBride a line in TX. I don't have his current contact info, but he shouldn't be hard to find. He's in the greater central TX/DFW area. He ran "mean green" for years with a 300hp + turbo + 3 blade prop + wing extensions narrow body 182. That thing was a BEAST.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forest told me about his 182 with wingtop entensions and increased gross weight. Don't remember the specific numbers. But he had a deal where one of the wings seperated from the wing strut and he damn near crashed the thing. It jammed the aelerons. He said the FAA was looking into making an AD for them to strengthen the wing. Not sure what happened with it all and that conversation took place back in Spring of 1999. I'm sure it's been dealt with since.

Anyhow...all things to consider.
Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gross weight is gross weight whether you get there with jumpers or fuel. 5 jumpers X 200lbs = 1000 pounds, 2 tandems can easily weigh over 900 pounds and still be with the tandem harness weight restrictions. So number of jumpers isnt always a good indicator. My 10 cents, and I'm just a low number newbie so what do I know.

Edit: What about the interior of the plane? How much extra stuff has been stripped out? How well has the plane been maintained?
Sky Canyon Wingsuiters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do remember reading something that said do not exceed XXX knots with wingtip extensions installed. I do not know if this means they have them on - as I know engines not airframes. I'll ask the pilot if I ever see him not busy.

For the loading and fuel they get 2 trips per fuel load. On the second load they will sometimes take up 5 of the thinner guys. I'm guessing that even I weigh in at 225ish with gear. (185 without). Compared to the plane we used at the DZ in NS which was also a 182 widebody this thing climbs like a rocketship.

As for engine performance with the amount of fuel these things consume it surprises me that nobody seems to worry about fuel consumption. The plane has a nice padded interior with seatbelts where the one in NS was stripped bare like a tin can. It feels solid and looks good where the one in NS looked well used. This is my impression and it's not based on any aircraft experience - as I have none.

-Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0