Wondering how much more fuel a IO470 powered C205 burns over a O470 C182. I've sorta been watching 182s and have seen some 205s in the same price range. I've gathered that a 182 burns ~12gph in cruise but in economy cruise you can see 8-9 gph.

whee wrote:Wondering how much more fuel a IO470 powered C205 burns over a O470 C182. I've sorta been watching 182s and have seen some 205s in the same price range. I've gathered that a 182 burns ~12gph in cruise but in economy cruise you can see 8-9 gph.

11 has been my ball park at 11,000 running 18/2350 .. 8-9 makes me worried about scorching my new new valves..Hope to get in a fuel flow/engine monitor in the next year to really know whats going on. I just have a single probe EGT to lean 50degrees of peak.

I am realizing really fast that I need a Rans S-7 and a 182.

Ha ha.... I clicked on this just to see how much fuel I was saving! That would make an awesome combination of aircraft, kind of like my Yaris sub compact (fun and super cheap to drive) and my '89 1 ton Dodge DoomsDay Diesel (hauls ANYTHING and still lots of power leftover.) I don't drive the Dodge to get a loaf of bread, and I don't haul 405 gallons of mo-gas for the plane in the Yaris, the right tool for the job! If I had to pay the fuel bill for a 182 just to fun fly, I'd take up golf. They are hard to beat of course for hauling gear and people, I've always thought of them of the Chevy Surburbans of the aircraft world.

8-9 gph is a good way to damage the engine, unless you're throttling back so far that you might as well drive the Buick. For all the years that I owned a 182 and flew others' 182s in SE charter, 11-12 was a lot more realistic and easier on the engine.

My 205 experience is really limited, but I see no reason that they should burn more at the same or similar weights and speeds. Load a 205 down, obviously it will take more power to accomplish the same speed, and the mileage will go down.

Cary

I think 9 gph is too low unless you are at 12k or higher and at max range power settings. I lean aggressively at <65% (right at peak EGT), and get only very slightly under book values (~-0.2 to -0.3 gph) at all power settings over the course of an average cross country in the rockies (which is up high usually). I think I get slightly under book just because of the climb portion, and the fact the TCM leaning procedures have changed since the POH was written. I flight plan for 12.2 gph, and have 1.5gph left over in the rockies and about even or just shy of even for lower altitude XC's.

The other folks that were flying the plane before I came on board were reporting 1-2 gph less than book, and 4/6 cylinders had new valves, and a fifth was re-done soon after they quit flying it - all within 900 hrs of a rebuild. I haven't had a problem since then, knock on wood. Gas is cheaper than new valves.

I just wish the O-470-R would burn evenly enough to go LOP...some folks are claiming 1gph or even almost twice that for LOP...anyone out there have experience on that end?

I hear ya CG...but I haven't flown in months cause I can't take the family. I sure do like the 4gph my Luscombe uses but I doesn't do me any good sitting on the ramp.

The 8-9gph was from a POH, flying with it pulled back in economy mode ~115mph. Gotta remember I'd be coming from a 100mph airplane. I'm happy with 100 mph, I just need more people/dog capacity.

Just get the new 182 NXT. 11 gph at 155 kts.

http://www.flyingmag.com/videos/featured-videos/cessna-182-nxt

whee wrote: I'm happy with 100 mph, I just need more people/dog capacity.

A 172 fits the bill for a lot less...? I'd have one if I didn't live up high and already got addicted to the performance of the 182.

I have owned a 205 for many years, I too was looking at 182's. I talked with an old guy (which I am now) who told me a 205 had more room, flew slightly faster, burned less fuel (injected), and cost less than a 182 at that time. I have flown lots of cross country flights along with 182's and found all statements to be true. I am very pleased with my 205, it is my Suburban. Lands quite short with the full Robertson Stol system. Oh yes, I am aware of those critical of the Robertson, however, I have adjusted well and am extremely comfortable with it. And I have a PA 18-95 replica for my Yaris.

whee wrote:Wondering how much more fuel a IO470 powered C205 burns over a O470 C182. I've sorta been watching 182s and have seen some 205s in the same price range. I've gathered that a 182 burns ~12gph in cruise but in economy cruise you can see 8-9 gph.

The short answer is they burn almost exactly the same. Here is some good info I received from the Norland STC guys about their conversion a few years ago. It should address your question somewhat:

Attached is the basic information needed to build up a IO-470 for use per our STC.

1. Dear Sir:

Thank you for your inquiry about the 260 hp engine conversion for your Cessna 180 or 182.
Your O-470 engine must be exchanged for an IO-470 series, which is then modified according to our STC.
The cost for an IO-470 engine "0" time exchange, for your old O-470 is approximately $1500.00 -
$2500.00 more than overhauling the O-470. We can assist you with quotes on engines.
Our STC is for the use of the IO-470-D,-E,-F,-H,-M,-N or -S engine in a modified condition, that is, with the
fuel injection system removed and replaced by the carburetion system that is original equipment on the O-
470 engine. The IO-470 engine is a high compression version of your original O-470 Continental, requiring
100LL fuel. There is no other change to the fuel system, engine mount, exhaust or cowls. We do not
recommend the use of a 3-blade propeller because of the weight increase.
The propellers currently on the Eligibility List are as follows: McCauley D2A34C49, D2A34C58, 2A34C66,
and D2A36C33. A complete Eligibility List of engine and propeller combinations is included when you
purchase the STC.

The IO-470 series engine produces 260 hp at 2625 rpm. Changing this injected engine to a carbureted
engine has not reduced its power. The less efficient carburetor uses slightly more fuel at maximum power
settings compared to the fuel-injected version. If you fly at your normal cruise speed you will use less fuel
with our modified IO-470 than with your original engine.

The figures that follow are from Cessna Range Charts. Fuel flows are taken at 2500 ft., standard day
conditions. The fuel flows for each engine are almost identical when they are run at the same power
settings. e.g. at 23" and 2300 rpm the difference is .3 US gallons per hour, or just over 1 liter per hour
more fuel is used in the 230 hp O-470. At this particular power setting, the O-470 is at 71% or 164 hp. The
modified IO-470 at 23" and 2300 rpm is at 65% or 170 hp. A Cessna 180 stock engine will cruise at
154TAS, or at 158TAS with the IO-470, on wheels.

I feel that the 260 hp engine is the very best value in power upgrades. You have all the equipment you
need already and eliminating the fuel injection system means no hot start problems.
The STC alone is $2000. Your A & P can easily accomplish our STC.
I hope I have answered some of your questions. Please call 1-888-244-1112 if you require more
information.
Sincerely
Chris Bullerdick
President/Chief Engineer
NORLAND AIRCRAFT SERVICES LTD.
PHONE ;705-454-8933 FAX: 705-454-9342

The Rocket 260 - Cessna 182 Jump Ship at Skydive Toronto Inc.

By Joe Chow

I’ve been involved in parachuting and aviation for 29 years and have seen many changes. These changes have been
to the extent that at the beginning of each year I ask myself “What could possibly be next?”. Once in a while a
development makes me stand up and really take notice. Recently, the STC offered by Norland Aircraft Services for
the engine upgrade of the Cessna 182 from 230 HP to 260 HP has done just that.
This engine upgrade is a real no brainer! If you operate a Cessna 182 jump-plane, don’t even waste your time
thinking about the change. Just do it! And do it now! Let me explain.
The Cessna Aircraft Company is a world leader in
small, versatile
aircraft, known for their stability and reliability and the 182 model lives up to all that and more. The Cessna 182 has
been called the western world’s parachuting workhorse. There are some glaring reasons why this is true. With
thousands of units produced, this is one of the easier jump planes to fly and the simplest to maintain. Like all strutted
Cessna aircraft, the 182 is a strongly built aircraft that has never broken up in flight. Its reasonable payload makes
this aircraft economical to operate to any altitude and with the wide body models, E through M, there is more cabin
room available then in a Cessna 185. The only failing that is evident is its indifferent climb rate. The stock model
averages only 500 feet per minute. Skydive Toronto Inc. operates 4 Cessna 182s on a continual basis. After 26 years
of use, we have no doubts that the Cessna 182 is a wonderful parachuting aircraft having only one problem to
vercome...a poor climb rate! Then we discovered Norland’s STC for the installation of a Continental ID-470 260 HP
engine into the Cessna 182. (The I stands for fuel injected) The 260 HP Continental is easily converted from a fuel
injection to a carbureted engine by an engine over hauler. Also, there are no airframe changes for the installation.
There is no need to change the engine mounts or controls, carburetor, spinner or cowling as they are all the same.
The propeller can be converted for a minimum expense. I consulted the engineers at Teledyne Continental’s
Technical Service Department and they confirmed that this modification makes sense. The engine block for the IO-
470 is virtually identical to the O-470 so the Extra 30 HP at full power comes from the high compression ratio
cylinders.

This increase is really evident in the climb.
At a continuous climb engine setting of 76% power, the IO-470 engine rates 198 HP whereas the stock O-470 engine rates 175 HP. This increase in performance changed our poorest climbing aircraft into the best climber of the fleet. After a season of observing the performance improvements that came with the upgrade, we now plan for the entire fleet to be upgraded! The cost was so right. The cost for a remanufactured IO-470 converted to carburetor configuration is about the same as for an
O-470 engine, approximately 13,000 to 14,000 USD with new cylinders.
And according to Kas Thomas, well known AME, author and editor of several aircraft maintenance publications
including the TBO Advisor, the IO-470 is a “good candidate for exceeding that factory’s 1500 hour Time Before
Overhaul”.

With a gross weight of 2950 Ibs (due to the another modification), we carry 5 jumpers regularly. The Cessna 182 has
always been a good parachuting airplane and with this IO-470 260 HP engine upgrade, it is now a great jump ship.
Excerpt from the STC holder - Norland Aircraft Services Ltd.
PO Box 9, Norland, On KOM 2LO (705)454-8933 FAX (705)454-9342

“Your O-470 engine must be exchanged for an IO-470 series which is then modified according to our STC...
Our STC is for the use of the IO-470 -D, E, F, H, M, N, S with fuel injection system removed and replaced by the
carburetion system that is original equipment on the IO-470 engine. The 1O-470 engine is a high compression
version of your original O-470 Continental requiring 100LL fuel. There is no other change to the fuel system, engine
mount, exhaust or cowls... The 1O-470 series engine produces 260 HP at 2625 RPM. Changing this injected engine
to a carbureted engine has not reduced its power ...I feel that the 260 HP engine is the very best value in power
upgrades. You have all the equipment you need already and eliminating the fuel injection system means no hot start
problems...”
Chris Bullerdick

I'm thinking you can fit a short kayak and camping gear in the 205

Not really looking at 172 because I have to be able to haul two adults, two kids, a 100lb dog, and a time trial bike Gonna take a pretty good sized plane

Whee
I've got that injected 470 in the 1960 210 that i horse traded my ol crumpled up 182 amphib for.
Just for grins, I burn 10 gph at 22 squared and 12 at 23 squared, the higher I go the faster it goes.
Never had a 210 before so am surprised they go as fast as they do!! 23 squard will put me in the yellow ark all the time.
With long rang tanks I went from Omak WA to Ketchican direct fueled up there, flew to Yakutat, spent the night and then flew to Anchorage and fueled up again. The only other time I have been able to do that was in a BO with tip tanks!!
The ol airplane is a little tired but the engine and prop are great, have just about 25 hours on it since the oil change and I'm almost down to the 10 quart mark!!
Have never heard anything but good words from anyone who has owned a 205!!
All this ol bird is is a 182 with swinging legs.
Have fun
GT

Well, disclaimer first, this is all preliminary since I'm new to the 205 and am still learning how to run it, but I'll share what I'm seeing so far. A long time 205 owner told me 22 squared LOP yielded 10.5 gph and 120 mph IAS. Today I tried this for the first time. Results: 10.6 gph and 130 mph IAS. Both directions GS ran around 120-125 kts. Full fuel, otherwise light. It felt like it was just loafing along. I was pleasantly surprised at the speed. I'll keep playing with it and let you know what I see.

As for room, a 205 is going to be the ticket for you. Feel free to ask any questions.

GSP