Cessna 182 --- supercharged

[RMURRAY 1]

I noticed this in the classifieds under "aircraft". Does anyone have any experience with this modification. It might be good fit for a small DZ...

rm

[justdumi 0]

Whatever it is ....surely it cant be a bad thing..as opposed to a standard C182?

[riggerrob 558]

... never heard of a super-charged Cessna, but turbo-chargers are available from the factory.

Super-chargers are driven by the crank shaft, while turbo-chargers are driven by exhaust gases.

Cessna will cheerfully sell you a new T182T Skylane powered by a Lycoming TIO-540-AK1A engine that pumps out 235 horsepower all the way up to its 20,000 foot operating ceiling.
Earlier models of 182s were also available with various turbo-charged engines that boosted high-altitude horsepower. Supplementary Type Certificates are also available to retro-fit turbo-charged engines to most older 182s.

Most normally-aspirated piston engines cannot generate full-rated power above 5,000 maybe 9,000.
This makes little difference to sea-level DZs, but can make or break DZs in mountain states (i.e. Colorado). The caveat is that turbo-chargers are far more sensitive to shock-cooling, so you need a pilot who is really smooth with power changes.

[RMURRAY 1]

it can be a bad thing if your plane is down for repairs half the time due to the modification. Here is the info from the classifieds. Just wondering if it is more "robust" than turbocharging while improving cycle time and pays it self off quickly enough.

rm

Small drop zones wanting more performance from a stock standard C-182 - Then consider a Supercharger for your C-182. See web site: http://www.forcedaeromotive.com/ The supercharger on our C-182K is giving 28MP till 7000 feet plus and have observed 22inches of MP at 14500 feet. Stop watch times in Mackay have between 25 - 28 minutes from wheels off to 14000 feet at MTOW + still climbing. So we have got greater power at height , shorter sortie times and able to carry greater weights to height with a half life engine and standard 2 blade prop. Good independent reviews and debate on the pros and cons can be found in the forums of the Cessna Pilots Association web site. If you wanting more information please contact Rod Sage the STC holder via his web site or myself for details of our practical experience. Kevin Seppanen: Australia

[RMURRAY 1]

Quote

... a Lycoming TIO-540-AK1A engine that pumps out 235 horsepower

you must mean 335HP?

[winsor 187]

Quote

Quote

... a Lycoming TIO-540-AK1A engine that pumps out 235 horsepower

you must mean 335HP?

Likely not. The idea behind turbocharging aircraft engines is usually to avoid power dropoff with altitude, rather than to increase power overall.

Higher power settings generally entail higher heat generation and dissipation requirements. Since most air-cooled aircraft engines have a tough time staying in the green zone on the oil temp as it is, upping the temperature is likely to require an overhaul just that much sooner.

As far as heat generation goes, I would be leery of any turbocharger installation without an intercooler. IIRC, adiabatic compression of air at altitude can result in temperatures much higher than at sea level, to the detriment of performance and engine life.

Having been impressed with just how much it costs to keep aloft a normally-aspirated aircraft with fixed landing gear and a fixed-pitch prop, I am not easily assured that an added bit of complexity won't result in crippling costs.

I consider shaft-powered superchargers to be a bad idea in general (e.g. those on the GSIO engines, found on Twin Bonanzas and Queen Airs, that have failed catastrophically all too often). I agree that turbochargers are the way to go for altitude flight with recips, and that a pilot that knows what he/she is doing is critical if the engine is going to survive.

A panacea it is not - there is no free lunch (if God had meant man to fly, He would have given him more money).


Blue skies,

Winsor

[Dumpster 0]

When our Ceesna 182 was due for a new engine we had a turbocharged one installed by an outfit somewhere in Texas, along with a three-blade prop. I don't have the numbers as far as what model engine or HP ratings, etc. but I can tell you it was a great investment. Airfield elevation here is about 800 feet or so, (East Troy, WI.) and it climbs faster that the Caravan we are renting, for the first 1-2 thousand feet, and I think overall climb rate is much improved over the stock version. We are more careful with it during the winter months than we had to be with the normally aspirated engine.

Easy Does It

[edwinsneller 0]

There's a great article about adding Forced Aeromotive's supercharger to a 182 in this month's (Oct 04) AOPA Pilot magazine. If you can find a copy around your DZ somewhere it's worth the read if you are really interested in what kinds of performance to expect from the supercharger modification. Maybe one of the DZ pilots will let you borrow his copy.

---
Some days it's not even worth the effort to chew through the restraints.

[akjmpplt 0]

Quote

Quote

... a Lycoming TIO-540-AK1A engine that pumps out 235 horsepower

you must mean 335HP?

Nope, it's 235HP in that application. Cessna only turns it at 2400RPM which keeps the noise down and engine life up.

SmugMug

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Quote

... a Lycoming TIO-540-AK1A engine that pumps out 235 horsepower

you must mean 335HP?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I quoted 235 horsepower from Cessna's website.

Trying to pull more than "rated" horsepower out of an engine will only decrease its life.
Turbo-chargers help piston engines to produce full rated horsepower at higher altitudes.

Normally aspirated engines can only produce full rated horsepower up to 5,000, maybe 7,000 feet above sea level.

[billvon 2,434]

>Turbo-chargers help piston engines to produce full rated horsepower
>at higher altitudes.

The usual term for those are turbonormalizers, to distinguish them from turbochargers that increase rated power. Turbonormalizers do not boost much above 30 inches (i.e. sea level) - turbochargers do not have that restriction.

>Normally aspirated engines can only produce full rated horsepower up
>to 5,000, maybe 7,000 feet above sea level.

Depends on the engine and prop, but most normally-aspirated pistons on light aircraft show a steady decline in power as you go up in altitude. Even temperature can affect this; an aircraft that can take off from a 1500 foot runway at 30F may not be able to handle the same runway at 80F due to a higher density altitude.

[RMURRAY 1]

here is where the future is (diesel)---drop it into a C185 - I'll bet it would be a money maker....rm


The CENTURION 4.0 is a four valve, eight cylinder jet fuel engine in V configuration with common-rail direct injection. The engine is bi-turbocharged, liquid cooled and uses a wet oil sump as well as an integrated gearbox and propeller governor. Single lever control is achieved through use of a digital engine management system (FADEC). Gear ratio is 1.69:1.

Technical Data
Take off power (at 2300 rpm): 228 kW (310 hp)
Torque: 946 Nm (698 ft.lb)
Constant power: available max. power at respective altitude
Torque at BEP: 888 Nm (566 ft.lb)
Engine swept volume: 3,996 cm³ (243.85 cu.in)
Bore: 86 mm (3.39 in)
Stroke: 86 mm (3.39 in)
Compression ratio: 18.5:1
Fuel: Jet A1
Prop: Muehlbauer 3-blade prop (hydraulic variable pitch)
Voltage: 28 V

Dimensions and Weight
Engine (incl. all accessories for operation) - 283,5 kg (625 lbs)

[billvon 2,434]

I like everything about that engine except the gearbox. One more thing to go wrong.