Thread drift....Bill what kind of performance do you get out of an IO-550 in a 182?

I think it varies a bit based on the specific STC, but AirPlains advertises 155KTAS on their conversion, with very short runway performance and rocket climb rates.

Another option depending on how you want to set your airplane up is to equip the Knots2U speed fairings. I have an O-470/TS (252hp) with PowerFlow and Elec Ignition along with all the K2U fairings, and I can climb to 10-11K for a cross country and comfortably do 155-157KTAS burning 13gph.

Not Bill….

But I’m a 1977 C182Q Air Plains IO-550-D Owner / Operator since completion September 2017 and 800+ hours flown

100 hours flown since the addition of a Hartzell Trail Blazer Composite, replacing a Hartzell Scimitar with 700 hours - I have not noticed any added speed from the Hartzell Trail Blazer Compisite, but I think operations are a bit smoother, and the nose is definitely lighter flaring to land

I installed all available Knots 2 U speed mods while repainting, plus VGs (which some claim to create drag, I have not noticed any speed degradation, but really enjoy the improved slow speed handling and reduced stall speeds)

I can’t tell you What did What, only the Net, Net, Net…..

LOP
4,000 to 6,000 msl / 2500 / WOT = 14.5 gph / 150 KTAS

ROP
4,000 to 6,000 msl / 2500 / WOT = 17.5 gph / 158 KTAS



Added Forward Speed is nice, but CLIMB is WHERE an IO-550 Air Plains C182 Shines…. Cool weather 1,800 fpm, 95° F at Gross and I see 800 fpm, and well less than a 1,000 foot Takeoff Roll

As a result, I’m a VERY Happy IO-550 C182Q Owner / Operator

My 182 has a Sportsman L.E. STOL. Its 152 KTAS at 6500-8500 LOP 155-156 ROP.

Garmin calculated TAS has an error in we have found due to the position of the static ports. I had 3 pitot static system checks, a custom longer pitot tube, plus another test plus a formation flight with my avionics guy. There is an anomaly with the stock static ports.

I found that the upper level winds never made sense and I had a faster TAS as calculated by the Garmin equipment than I was really going. I still haven't got to the bottom of it but have seen it on 2 182's now.

So the average I listed is a TAS- upwind/downwind average which now matches my Flightaware averages.

Bill

Have you had any new revelations on the problem of Continental IO-550 case cracking problems? On Cirrus equipped with lightweight props? I'd expect that problem to translate to any brand airplane, with a lightweight prop and Continental engine. It seems that if the problem is due to the weight of the prop, then the MT would be the worst, since it's the lightest. And the engine sounds awful when it shuts down. I'm sure the crank counterweights can't be happy as they clunk to a stop.

Afriend has a 182Q with an MT prop. He has had to change the starter adapter twice in a year. Rightly or wrongly the lightweight prop is getting blamed.

Bill[/quote]
Have you had any new revelations on the problem of Continental IO-550 case cracking problems? On Cirrus equipped with lightweight props? I'd expect that problem to translate to any brand airplane, with a lightweight prop and Continental engine. It seems that if the problem is due to the weight of the prop, then the MT would be the worst, since it's the lightest. And the engine sounds awful when it shuts down. I'm sure the crank counterweights can't be happy as they clunk to a stop.[/quote]

I have replaced 26 Cirrus engine crankcases due them being cracked out so bad they were unrepairable. There is no doubt in my mind that CMI does not have the "Polar moment of inertia" correct. Hartzell tells me that all they're props meet CMI design limitation in this subject, but what gives if all of these engines have cracked out their cases, all in the exact same spot, #2 main bearing, the bearing that has counterweights on each side of it. All with lightweight carbon props. We have lost our flywheel.

So what do I do??? Go out and put a lightweight prop on my airplane. So I guess I am a test bed for the Rear Alternator cases, in which I think my be just a little stronger than the front alternator cases, but not much.

I also have the new style starter adapter that can not be turned backwards unless it locks up and turns the starter motor. So far 200 hours and I have not had an issue but I hate every shut down. Time will tell.

I removed the McCauley and replaced with MT 2 blade expedition prop late last year. Flown about 40 hours or so on the MT. This is on a 182M with fuel injection and turbocharging.

Its as smooth as the McCauley that was removed (which was dynamically balanced).

Take off performance feels strong. Rate of Climb is almost certainly better (but I don't have flight test data to prove this).

Cruise performance is tricky to comment on since I made other mods at the same (Sportsman STOL, Flint aux tip tanks, Electroair electronic ignition, EarthX battery).

Cruise is about 3kts IAS slower than a new T182T at the same power settings up to 16000' asl. A new T182T has a 235hp Lycoming motor with a 3-bladed prop and decades of aerodynamic improvements vs my 1969 C182M.

The major improvement is weight reduction off the nose. Together with the EarthX battery and the MT prop its something like a 40-45lb weight reduction.

Brian

Brian: I am probably one of the very few BT participants on this thread that know your location, given the background on your picture.
I am just downriver from you, at NM05, and would very much like to visit to discuss the modifications you've made to that awesome 182.
Perhaps a Magmaburger over at Jim Bob's place would be a good way to get the conversation rolling.
Best,

TN

I have an MT 3-blade on my Lancair ES with a Continental IO550 10:1 compression at a "high" altitude airport. The prop is smooth, and I climb exceptionally well. Folks in the Lancair community say its not as fast in cruise as the 3 blade Hartzell -- a few knots. I chose it over the Hartzell for weight (the ES can be a bit nose heavy) and I like to climb as well as possible. I don't have numbers on that, but I can out-climb my glide on a 7000 foot strip at ~6000ft if its not too hot. Folks seem to like its smoothness and low noise. Some complain about it becoming easily nicked up, so if you plan harsh airport environments, that might be a concern. I have 315 hours on mine and its doing just fine, but I've been flying mostly bigger airports that probably have less gravel scattered about.