I'm shopping for C-182s with previously upgraded engines. I see a variety of both carburated (o-550) and fuel injected (io-550) models out there. I also see some o-520. There are also p-ponk models. Is there any good reason to pick one vs another? Is there anything wrong with going the o550 route?

My preference would be to go with fuel injection to get a better fuel distribution to the cylinders and the option to operate LOP more easily.

Me think:

* Is there a MoGas STC available?

* Injection is extremely expensive to overhaul?

Disclaimer: never owned a 182, but worked on plenty Civil Air Patrol assets.

Nice seeing you post Paul!

No mogas, nobody has a STCed solution.

My take is there is nothing wrong with a 550 or 520 in a 180/182/185. More horsepower is better. I prefer fuel injection on both 520's and 550's, but carbs have some simplicity/cost benefits. I'd look to at the "cleanliness" of the injection install; pump, wiring, etc. the other thing to consider is fuel capacity. A carb 550 on a 180/182 is a hoot but would make for shorter legs if the plane does not have long range fuel. From a performance, resale, and durability issue to me there is no downside. Ive been around pponks on 180's/182's and tx skyways 550's on others. I like them both. My current 185 will get an IO-550 when overhaul time comes.

Bill

The IO 550 is a magnificent engine! If I had an option, I'd go there in a heartbeat.

MTV

Another vote for the IO-550. The amount of air the 550 requires seems to create carb ice issues beyond what's normally expected. The 180 I have experience with was constantly icing up. The owner converted to fuel injection and couldn't be happier.

+ 1 on any 550 option.

We added a 550 to the 185 and oh my what a difference it was. The big problem with the 182 is the added weight on the nose wheel which is significant with the 550 And a 3 bladed prop. The 3 bladed prop is a must on that engine, Todd Peterson recommends the 86" Mac. Also you must have the big nose wheel for clearance.

I see a lot of recommendations for the IO (fuel injection) which airplanes offers. What it be acceptable enough to go with a TX skyways o550 (carbed) or are the drawbacks substantial?

It would be more about the plane and the deal you can strike. Carb would not hold me back.

im kind of a lyc. 540 fan myself...quieter...plenty strong....burns 0 oil....

I have a PPONK straight tail. It's a beast!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My local engine shop "loves" 520s and 550s. For that reason right there I wouldn't want one. They routinely come in with cracked cases and blown jugs. I loved flying 182s with the 520, but I wouldn't want to own one. I'm a big proponent of the Norland stc and the 470. Just my opinion, good luck with your search!

The 550 is the better engine than the 520, in my opinion. MOST problems with these engines in my experience are related to the way they're operated. I've run a few of these engines to TBO with no problems to speak of.

The IO 550 makes a ton of power, and run lean of peak in cruise burns 13 gph all day. Smooth as silk.

MTV

mtv wrote:The 550 is the better engine than the 520, in my opinion. MOST problems with these engines in my experience are related to the way they're operated. I've run a few of these engines to TBO with no problems to speak of.

The IO 550 makes a ton of power, and run lean of peak in cruise burns 13 gph all day. Smooth as silk.

MTV

I think you have noted to make sure the fuel flow is correct also. There is a pretty good discussion here on it also. I haven't gone over the IO-520 in the 206 yet but it is on the list.

http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtop ... 7&t=108537

behindpropellers wrote:

mtv wrote:The 550 is the better engine than the 520, in my opinion. MOST problems with these engines in my experience are related to the way they're operated. I've run a few of these engines to TBO with no problems to speak of.

The IO 550 makes a ton of power, and run lean of peak in cruise burns 13 gph all day. Smooth as silk.

MTV

I think you have noted to make sure the fuel flow is correct also. There is a pretty good discussion here on it also. I haven't gone over the IO-520 in the 206 yet but it is on the list.

http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtop ... 7&t=108537

Yes, adequate fuel flows at max power are essential for both engines. Easy to do, once you convince your mechanic to just do it.

I think Continental has since amended their recommendations on fuel flows. Maybe.

MTV

Any feedback on buying an IO-550-F for my cessna 205 that presently is pass its tbo?
Or should I just buy a new airplane ?

The IO-550 is a great powerful engine. Makes older less powered airframes come alive. Never met anyone who didn’t like the added performance. The stories about it being a horrible engine are left over tales from the engines first years in the field. There were ring step and crank hardness issues that were all addressed by the factory a long time ago. People who burn up cylinders do so for one reason. Not enough fuel flow. If you’re not seeing 29.5 to 30.5 gph at full sea level power, your going to have problems period. Yes, I know there are A/Ps out there that won’t set it higher than book value of 27.5 gph and they have no knowledge of the engine. Just would rather let you toast cylinders so they can keep replacing them.$$$$ It’s real simple. 550s make lots of real net rated power and that requires fuel to do so. On the other hand they love LOP in cruise. 22”x2350=13.2 gph.

Ghdgrowit wrote:Any feedback on buying an IO-550-F for my cessna 205 that presently is pass its tbo?
Or should I just buy a new airplane ?

It’s supposedly great, but it’ll cost you about $80k when it’s all said and done (I quoted this recently). So, should you just buy a 206... maybe. Let me know when you have it figured out.

In reference to the comment about Continental fuel injection being expensive to overhaul I would add my one data point. I wore my IO550N (in a Cirrus SR22) out at just under 3,000 hours without touching the fuel injection system that I can recall.

OTOH, my 182G has a IO550D (Petersen STC) which is very different from that IO550N. Sandcast vs. Permold and and different air intake.

If you want to run LOP I believe you need Gami injectors and individual EGT indication.

That 182 runs higher CHT's than the Cirrus but I attributed that to older, inferior baffling and air flow. Do any of you engine pros have other thoughts?

Pierre