macktruckfarm wrote:I think Lyc. O-360's must be derated(170 HP) w/ lower compression pistons to burn MOGAS.

The 8.5:1 compression ratio 180 hp Lyc O-360 is (or can be) approved for 91 octane mogas. Check Petersen Aviation's brochure. The 7.2:1 168 hp version can probably be approved for 87 octane.

As I understand it the wing extensions use an additional spar strap so there is some additional structural change. There was a Lycoming O435 powered Stinson in the Portland Craigs List for $15,500. It was in annual when I talked to the guy a while ago but otherwise sounds like a dog. It might be worth the time and money though...?

I bought this plane last month. I live in the mountains of Colorado and fly it a few times a week. So far I have no complaints; great performer and fun to fly. I flew it home from Portland in questionable weather and was very impressed how smooth it was in rough air. A little heavy on the nose but I just keep a little power in on approach and it does fine. Just thought I would let you know.

I believe that balked landing performance can be a limiting factor on gross weight as well. Supposedly why no one had been successful in getting an up gross STC for the C170.

whee wrote: A Bo, Mooney or Cherokee have no appeal to me.

You don't appeal to them either!

A dream plane that doen't fit your mission is kinda like marrying a hot babe only to discover that she can't perform any of her wifely duties worth a darn.

Ha ha....

I love this shit!

Nosedragger wrote:Get the 220-TC, it packs 1100 pounds and makes 220 ponies to 20,000 feet.

Nosedragger, where does one find a 220-TC? I can find nothing about it online.

Thanks,
Jim

Jimbabwe, though the thread is 3 years old, in answer to your question, The Franklin 220hp had turbocharged versions.
Maule was involved in two M4's with the 250hp manual wastage turbocharged versions.

Anyone considering burning mogas in the 180 or 182 might oughta shoulda wanna take a look at the time/cost/PITA of having the ethanol in car gas eat up or weaken the rubber fuel bladders.

Legality, insurance, and everything else aside for a moment, I'm pretty sure that those bladders and the material choices were designed for avgas. I've never owned a 180/182/185, but everybody knows that changing those bladders is not the most pleasant way you can spend a couple of days and a thousand bucks or two.

The STC's only approve use of ethanol-free car gas.
Some places this is not available, I'm lucky to have a couple sources close to home.
Currently paying $2.90, vs $2.53 for E10 and about $5 for 100LL.
At 11-12 gph, the savings really add up-- over $20 per hour difference in my operating costs.

Kinda funny reading back through this thread. Guess Battson had it right way back on the 3rd post. Bearhawk.

I'm pretty sure that those bladders and the material choices were designed for avgas.

You evidently haven't read through the Eagle Fuel cells website. Their bladders are resistant to ethanol. Sometimes you have to actually try something for yourself to find out what works and what doesn't.

Hotrod I think u met my ex.....

[quote="
A dream plane that doen't fit your mission is kinda lke marrying a hot babe only to discover that she can't perform any of her wifely duties worth a darn.[/quote]

180Marty wrote:You evidently haven't read through the Eagle Fuel cells website. Their bladders are resistant to ethanol.

No I have not read through the Eagle website, my airplane has aluminum tanks.

But if Eagle bladders are boasting that they are ethanol resistant, that probably supports the idea that the older stock bladders are not ethanol resistant. So, the the time, cost, and effort to replace original fuel bladders with the Eagle bladders ties right in with what I was trying to say in my post.

180Marty wrote: Sometimes you have to actually try something for yourself to find out what works and what doesn't.

Something I may have said three or four thousand times on this forum

EZFlap wrote:

180Marty wrote:You evidently haven't read through the Eagle Fuel cells website. Their bladders are resistant to ethanol.

No I have not read through the Eagle website, my airplane has aluminum tanks.

But if Eagle bladders are boasting that they are ethanol resistant, that probably supports the idea that the older stock bladders are not ethanol resistant. So, the the time, cost, and effort to replace original fuel bladders with the Eagle bladders ties right in with what I was trying to say in my post.

180Marty wrote: Sometimes you have to actually try something for yourself to find out what works and what doesn't.

Something I may have said three or four thousand times on this forum

One interesting thought. I know you both fly 180s and so do I. On the type certificate for the 180/185 it says use of alcohol fuel is strictly prohibited in cessnas. So does this negate the use of alcohol regardless of STCs or fuel bladders being approved for ethanol?

Full disclosure, I am not a 180 owner or pilot. Owned and flown several tailwheel airplanes, but not a Skywagon.

EZFlap wrote:Full disclosure, I am not a 180 owner or pilot. Owned and flown several tailwheel airplanes, but not a Skywagon.

That is right. Sorry EZ. But you have experience with getting things STC'D. So can does an STC have to comply within the boundaries of the TC?

STC = Supplemental Type Certificate.
So no, it does not have to comply with the original TC.
But FWIW I've had both Petersen & EAA mogas STC's- they both state no ethanol.
If and when someone comes up with a fuel STC that says ethanolized gasoline is OK, I think they will have to prove that it isn't harmful to fuel system components. Or else include ethanol-impervious parts as part of the STC.

hotrod180 wrote:STC = Supplemental Type Certificate.
So no, it does not have to comply with the original TC.
But FWIW I've had both Petersen & EAA mogas STC's- they both state no ethanol.
If and when someone comes up with a fuel STC that says ethanolized gasoline is OK, I think they will have to prove that it isn't harmful to fuel system components. Or else include ethanol-impervious parts as part of the STC.

Thanks for the clarification hotrod.