Hello,
I have a 63' C182F with only 400 hrs SMOH. Looking for some engine performance upgrades without overhauling/replacing the engine. I have come across the Forced Aeromotive Technologies supercharger, http://www.forcedaeromotive.com/product.htm, and it looks like a great way to go? In researching them I haven't found much information or reviews. Any information would be great.

Thanks,

Tim

Cool! Too bad they aren't STC'd for Cessna 180s. 17 knots at altitude is a really nice speed gain.

Wonder how it affects fuel burn?

Hello,
I have a 63' C182F with only 400 hrs SMOH. Looking for some engine performance upgrades without overhauling/replacing the engine. I have come across the Forced Aeromotive Technologies supercharger, http://www.forcedaeromotive.com/product.htm, and it looks like a great way to go? In researching them I haven't found much information or reviews. Any information would be great.

Thanks,

Tim

Don't know em personally but.......

20 grand would go a long way toward an IO520!
Lots of them out there with good results.

Not many FAT Superchargers so who knows????

I have some information about the FAT Supercharger's dark side but can't type very well with a cast on my arm. Send me a PM and we'll talk

Last I knew Ernie Smith @ Straight Flight @ Centenial, near Denver had a supercharger stc and kit, and could Install it for the 182, and seems like he said I could have put it on my 180. Good guy, good work for me. I flew in his 182 with it and seemed very good.
Gary

A small number of Cirrus SR22 owners have installed the FAT supercharger and have posted satisfactory results on the Cirrus owner's forum. There were some early problems that seem to have been resolved. Rod Sage at FAT is responsive to inquiries and would be happy to talk or email with you to answer questions.

I would consider installing it on my 182, however, the 550D engine (Peteresen STC) with the rear belt driven alternator doesn't allow it.

Pierre

There's two threads on this, started by the same guy. Can a moderator combine them please?

hotrod180 wrote:There's two threads on this, started by the same guy. Can a moderator combine them please?

Done.

Some random thoughts:

Not addressing the FAT particularly, but all superchargers, whether engine driven or exhaust gas driven (turbochargers) make things a lot hotter, without an intercooler. That's what intercoolers are for, to reduce the intake air temperature. Neither the description nor the photos of the FAT seem to indicate an intercooler as part of the installation. I also note in their website that they actually seem to like the higher temperature, as it tends to atomize the fuel better.

That doesn't necessarily make the FAT a bad thing, but it's something to consider. Mooney found out that an intercooler, which they put on the 252, made a huge difference in CHTs and TITs, and there are a number of after market intercoolers available for the 231 which improve the CHTs on that model. Auto manufacturers which started installing superchargers and turbochargers on their engines have learned the hard way that intercoolers make a big difference in engine longevity, which is why most current factory installations have them. Even then, the life span of turbo'd engines is generally somewhat less than normally aspirated engines.

The first time I was involved in considering whether to supercharge/turbocharge an aircraft engine was in the mid-70s. Three of us had a 1970 182, which at about 1300 hours was showing too low compression in half the cylinders. We'd already had one of the other cylinders "topped", and so we decided just to go ahead and have the engine overhauled. At that time, the Rajay turbocharger with the manual waste gate operated by a 2nd throttle was available for it and a number of other airplanes, and so we gave it some real thought. We discussed it with the overhauler (the owner of the original Firewall Forward at FNL), and he and I had many hours of discussions about superchargers and turbochargers in general. Our final decision was not to do it, largely because we were all concerned that we'd forget to open the wastegate some time during a descent and overstress the engine on a go around, or have it closed during a lower altitude take off with similar overstressing.

When the remaining two of us decided to trade the Skylane for a new TR182, one of the concerns was manually operating the wastegate of the turbocharger. Although there's not a wastegate on the FAT system, that's still a concern, and most of the time, it's a non-issue--the pilot watches the MP on take off to make sure there's not an overboost on both systems. More workload, but the TR182 had a pop-off valve to prevent overboosting, and the FAT doesn't. I can recall one instance in which during an emergency go-around, I shoved the throttle to the firewall through habit and the pop-off valve opened--very distinct sound. So I can imagine a pilot of a FAT equipped airplane, faced suddenly with the need to add full power, over-doing it in the stress of the moment and damaging the engine.

As anyone who has flown a number of turbo'd engines without automatic waste gate controllers knows, this watching the MP is not difficult to handle. In a back country situation with a narrow strip surrounded by trees, it might be more difficult, but it's not insurmountable. But I would be concerned with the lack of an overboost valve in the FAT system. I'm no mechanic, but I'll bet a lot of pop-off valves in Mooney 231s, TR182s, Turbo-Arrows, and others with either fixed waste gates or manually operated waste gates have opened and saved the engines.

As the saying goes, there's no free lunch. If I were in the market for a more powerful 182 or 180, I'd opt for a more powerful normally aspirated engine. But that's me--others can make their own decisions.

Cary

The supercharger is pretty intriguing, but if I had $75,000 for an air plains or texas skyways conversion, I think I'd just buy a 206.

Pretty easy to over boost an R985 if you're not paying attention too, but you get used to it pretty fast. Becomes second nature pretty quickly, just part of flying the beaver.

Halestorm wrote:Pretty easy to over boost an R985 if you're not paying attention too, but you get used to it pretty fast. Becomes second nature pretty quickly, just part of flying the beaver.

I second that on the beaver. Becomes normal very quickly. I think the same is true for many turboprop aircraft. You push the engines up to a percentage of torque or temperature but the only safeguard from going too far is the hand of the pilot.

My only turbo recip airplane experience is a handful of hours in a friend's T206.

But I have lots of turbine time. Watching a torque (or TGT or N1 depending on the engine and the conditions) gauge becomes second nature very quickly.

Let's not forget...
while there is a considerable amount of heat build up from compression. most of the heat transfer from a turbo charger installation is from the exhaust gasses, heat soaking the turbo housing, impeller and shaft. all common in one unit. The F.A.T. unit , being belt driven, would not suffer as much heating of the intake air. Also as I recall there is a pop off style relief valve to limit boost, in the case of an in-attentive operator.
But yeah, that's a lot of $$$$$$$$$

I am going to do the FAT Supernormalizer this year myself on my Pponk.
I have talked to Rod and Steve a bit about it and this is what I have found.

It's a Supernormalizer, not a supercharger.
It's a belt driven "cold" system so there is no itt or cooling issues.
There is no wastegate, you set the power manually like a Beaver or Otter.
They don't jack around with cylinder pressures and then artificially increase them so if it fails the engine operates normally.
You can add and remove the system from one aircraft to another.
It is approved on the 182 and 180, O-470 or Pponk, as well as 550 powered 206.
It is like a 985 or 1340, propellor RPM affects available power. Higher RPM = higher MP up high.
He advertises full power (29 inches) up to 7k and thus full cruise power at 12k.

The system fits my profile perfectly. House at 3,800 msl, cabin at 7,200 msl, @ 10k mountains in between. High drag wheel penetration skis in winter, amphibs in fall.

If anyone can elaborate and share the "dark side" I would like to hear it.
Talking to them and looking at it logically I can't find much wrong with it. $20k is good value I feel for the jump in power at 7k msl.

A lot of extra weight on the nose and more moving parts. You mechanic will love you!

lowflyinG3 wrote:If anyone can elaborate and share the "dark side" I would like to hear it.
Talking to them and looking at it logically I can't find much wrong with it. $20k is good value I feel for the jump in power at 7k msl.

I just met a fellow that has one on his E model 182. He commuted from Texas to Utah and added it for margins in the mountains. He now lives up here.

I maintain a B200 at U77 and he flies a 414 that lives in the same hangar. He had his 182 in there over Christmas and we struck up a conversation. He said it performs as they say it does but his comment was " I wish I had studied the fine print a little better when I bought this mod".. Why? I asked… " just one example, the supercharger defeats the gravity fuel flow into the carburetor… it actually sends the fuel upward so they added 2 electric fuel pumps to contend with this".. "So one Thanksgiving I'm flying my family to Puerta Valllarta and we get a slow start and we're flying over water at night ( ) and I start to lose my generator and the lights begin to dim and it occurs to me that I'll have no electricity to run electrical fuel pumps and I begin to panic…" He made it.

He then buys the Plane Power Alternator conversion and cannot get the belt to line up because of the turbo install and he continues to shred belts and damage pulleys. He and his mechanic are experimenting with custom brackets to rectify this and they have failed to find a solution so his plane is sitting derelict until this gets worked out. He had some other gripes about it and again said he should have researched it better.

All of this is worth what you paid for it, I'm just passing along what his experience was. Sounds like he should have been able to shut off the Supercharger and run normally aspirated if what you say is correct?

I could get his number if you like. I don't want to disparage a company or its product from one man's opinion repeated second hand.

Thank you for that information.
I do see what appears to be two fuel pumps with attached lines in the layout picture.
http://www.forcedaeromotive.com/product.htm
After 19,000 hours of flying there is no way in hell I would be out over big water at night with my family in the back, single engine.
That said, I would certainly want to have a time estimate of battery power on the two pumps and incorporate that into my flight planning as a limitation, just the same as fuel capacity.
He would not have been able to shut the system off unless he could cut the belt. The claim is that if a belt fails the engine just reverts back to normal power, but I believe there is no method for you to disable it.
I wonder the possibility of making one pump engine driven?
I suppose that adding additional aftermarket pieces to additional aftermarket pieces could get complicated certainly.

This may also be a matter of mission profile and true need. If I flew 50 hours a year and just wanted to go a little faster at 12k, I'd probably forego the added cost and headache. Since I am trying to fly skis at 7,000'+ and haul my amphibs around in northern Idaho and Montana I am willing to take on the additional responsibilities and planning needs. I also happen to have an A&P on staff in my hangar which adds simplicity.

Please report back on how you like it