I'm considering the seaplanes west 400 lb upgross for my 182P. I currently have a Texas skyways 0-520. - problem is that the 400 lb upgross is only certified for either the I0-550 or I0-520. I can convert my 0 to an I0 but I was just looking for some opinions on,
1. Will I notice much power increase? I know the 0 is rated at 280 HP, and the I0 is 300, so only 20 HP but I'm told the torque is much higher and I'll notice a difference. Comments?
2. I know I'll loose my Texas skyways 2500 TBO and it will go to 1700, but other than that - any disadvantages to the IO?

Thx for your feedback.

Garth

Garth,

First question: Will you have to add a fuel return line to accommodate the FI? Find out the WHOLE cost to get it done.

All things being equal, I'd vote for the fuel injection any day.

MTV

So far, best part of owning an injected engine is using GAMI injectors to run lean of peak. I know that many run LOP with carburetors, but it is brainless with balanced injectors. Severe increase in range. So for the same mission, unload some fuel and increase your payload. Or, just fill up less often.

gear wrote:I know the 0 is rated at 280 HP, and the I0 is 300, so only 20 HP but I'm told the torque is much higher and I'll notice a difference. Comments?

Thx for your feedback.

Garth

I think you will notice a difference if you run the 550, but probably not with the 520. The 520 makes the extra HP at 2850 and it just makes more noise. I think the 520 turning at 2700 and 285 HP is about as good as you can do. From an absolute dead stop (think floats out of the hole), the 520 turning 2850 might start out better, but as soon as there is any movement, bringing the prop back to 2700 seems to pull better.

I know there are others out there who disagree, but guys flying with 520s spinning MT props with their rpms limited to 2700 think that its just fine.

I haven't received pricing yet, but will make sure i get all the details. I already run LOP however some cylinder rich, some lean - no question, FI would make this a lot easier.

I just had a JPI-930 so thats helping a little letting me know what my engine is doing.

To add injection, you have to add fuel reservoir in the floor next to firewall and fuel return lines. Honestly it would be more work than what it's worth. You would probably be better off getting the new motor mount and getting it field approved for the O-520. Since it's already STC'd for the more powerful IO-520 then I'm sure the Feds wouldn't have a problem approving it for a lower HP engine.

For some aircraft, particularly on floats I guess, isn't power a limiting factor in terms of maximum certifiable weight?

If you inject the 520 you will only get 5hp more continuous (285 @ 2700) but the 550 is 300hp continuous. So like what has been said previously there doesn't appear to be much advantage with the io520 (depending on prop) but the io550 would show more of a difference. However either of these is a big change both in cost and loss of that very nice TBO value of what you already have - for me it would have to be a pretty important 400lbs extra you're wanting to carry before the cost would outweigh a few extra trips. Your mission might be different.

Slightly off topic: one way to even out your cylinders on a carbureted 520, crack the carb heat so carb temp is right around 50f. Helps to have a carb temp gage of course, but you can experiment with small increments otherwise, YMMV.

Continuous rated power is really irrelevant in most airplanes. How many of us actually run max continuous power for more than a few minutes?

So, the IO 520 will give you more takeoff performance.......A lot? Maybe.

But again, you're going to have to make some major modifications to your fuel system to make the IO work.

If you REALLY need the extra useful load, I'd start by trying to reduce the empty weight of the plane. There are some good illustrations of that process on this forum, though you needn't get quite as carried away with the refurb as some, unless you choose to.

Example: Do you really USE the back seats regularly while on floats? If not, pull that heavy pig out and store it for the summer. If so, pull it out and install Atlee Dodge folding seats instead. If you only fill one back seat, just leave one folder installed.

How about batteries? Using an Odyssey yet? You should be, and keep the leads as short as possible.

Lightweight starter and alternator?

MT prop?

Finally, will the Wing X wing extensions give you a GW increase? I'm not familiar with these on the 182, but they are MAGIC on float performance, and offer GW increase on many planes. One point on the Wing X: If you have a small hangar door, that extra wing span will create lots of angst.....trust me.

All this stuff is expensive, no doubt, but I think it might be cheaper than going to the IO.

MTV

Garth,

Just checked the Wing X STOL site.....182 approved at 2950 with the extensions.

These things will get you more PERFORMANCE than an IO 520 would I suspect......they are awesome on floats.

May not offer enough useful, though.

MTV

Interesting note on the IO520 - in our 185's manual for the Continental IO520D, it specifically prohibits LOP operations. Not sure if that would apply to your engine upgraded or not, but if it's important to you, it would be another thing to check out before you went ahead!

I've always been a ROP pilot anyway, doesn't bug me - and I don't ever debate it with other pilots, either!

CapnMike wrote:Interesting note on the IO520 - in our 185's manual for the Continental IO520D, it specifically prohibits LOP operations. Not sure if that would apply to your engine upgraded or not, but if it's important to you, it would be another thing to check out before you went ahead!

I've always been a ROP pilot anyway, doesn't bug me - and I don't ever debate it with other pilots, either!

Most POHs either prohibit or do not endorse or even mention LOP. I personally think it's only because, from a liability standpoint, there is too great a chance some pilot will do something stupid and melt the corners off a cylinder, and then in come his lawyers to make it TCM/Lycoming's fault. It's happened before so I bet they are just gun-shy...

mtv wrote:Garth,

Just checked the Wing X STOL site.....182 approved at 2950 with the extensions.

These things will get you more PERFORMANCE than an IO 520 would I suspect......they are awesome on floats.

May not offer enough useful, though.

MTV

MTV, I was also thinking WING-X for more useful when i first saw this thread. Then I looked up the gross weight of the 182P... its already 2950. So adding WING-X won't help there, but I'm sure it would still be great performace wise.

Yeah, that's what I figured, but the Wing X is great on floats in any case.

MTV

Although your engine is built by the competitor, I would recommend a chat with Steve Knopp. The reason is that even though Steve's most famous STC is the Pponk O-470-50 (O-520), he has several other less know STC's one of which may be of use to you. The one in particular is HIS IO-520 conversion, and the reason I would suggest it, is because it uses a Bendix system which of course has no return line . Way easier to install, and way easier on the wallet... The light '55 IO-470-50 that I am familiar with is superior to my carb'd version in pep, smoothness and fuel burn. When I rebuild this one I will likely add the pump gears and do the same....

Take care, Rob

Battson wrote:For some aircraft, particularly on floats I guess, isn't power a limiting factor in terms of maximum certifiable weight?

Yes - this is correct. Seaplanes west has done up gross testing, and with an IO-520, the three blade prop i have, and aerocet 3500's, they have a 400 lb approval.

I have the wing x and Sportsman already but max is 2950. When i fill the plane with 450 lbs of fuel, and two passengers, I'm at gross. As everyone knows in the float world, your always at gross. The plane can lift the additional 400 lbs off the water without breaking a sweat its just that i want to be legal doing it. Taking our rear seats, smaller batteries, etc. doesn't help me. If i could get a 600 lb up gross, id get it.

I was given a "ballpark" number by an aerocet dealer a few years ago to convert the aircraft to IO - he said $20K. Lots of money. I've been trying to get Seaplanes west to get my engine approved (just the O) and he is close, but it is expensive and i guess the market is limited so i don't blame him for not jumping all over it. Getting the IO just means that the paperwork exists and i'd be able to get this right away.

Goofy thing with the FAA is that he has approval for a 250 lb up gross with a 0-470 engine (230 HP) and modified struts and a three blade prop. Even with those same modified struts, my 285 HP engine, and a three blade, mine is not approved for 250 lb up gross because it hasn't been tested in my configuration. You'd think the FAA would say ok, if the 230 HP engine is enough to get this load off the water, then surely the 285 HP engine should be good to go. Anyway, i realize it doesn't work like that. I'll see what the price is and report back.

garth