I was perusing trade-a-plane yesterday and ran across this 182 with a 460 Wren conversion. Not sure what the performance enhancements are over a stock wing but it looks interesting with those drooping ailerons and big fences. Anyone ever flown one of these conversions? If so, what are your thoughts?

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=CESSNA&model=182+SKYLANE&listing_id=2389524&s-type=aircraft

Ya gotta love "features' written up by the sales team,

Four Ailerons that droop
Four flaps that droop

Does the Wren conversion turn it into a biplane as well

Spring loaded tail-skid

An interesting way to "describe" a spring steel tail skid

Nushi wrote:I was perusing trade-a-plane yesterday and ran across this 182 with a 460 Wren conversion. Not sure what the performance enhancements are over a stock wing but it looks interesting with those drooping ailerons and big fences. Anyone ever flown one of these conversions? If so, what are your thoughts?

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=CESSNA&model=182+SKYLANE&listing_id=2389524&s-type=aircraft

I've not flown a full Wren conversion, but I have flown and maintain a 182 with the Peterson Canard and a pponk. The canard make maintenance a real PIA. Getting the cowl off is worse, the mounting frame always seems to the in the way, and you have to remove the whole shebang to get at the rear rocker covers. As for performance, I'm not sure I can tell any difference compared to other 182s. The nose wheel may get off a hair sooner, but I'd need to fly more in both types to know for sure. Canards would be a long long way down my list of mods. Lightening up the plane would be more beneficial IMO.

I have the Peterson canard and agree that the frame restricts some access but in 10 years this has been easy to work around. I have an IO-470U and the Pponk may be larger and contribute to your situation. Search CPA or CPS for an easy to build lower cowl cradle. I built one and, using it, can remove the lower cowl all alone in less than 3 minutes.

The Peterson STC canard does provide significant performance gains over a stock 182. Several on my field and owners love them.

Happy holidays to all...

Best,

Tommy

It seems to me that the wing mods of the Wren would have been better suited to a 180/5 or C206 airframe. I've always been intrigued with the idea of a C206 wing on the 180, and IMHO a Wren wing would be even better yet.

The Peterson mods will slow the airplane to the limits that I would want to push an airplane with the nose wheel bolted to the firewall / tunnel. As slow as the Wren repeatedly flies, I could easily see it wanting to go places that would find the rest of the airframe becoming the limiting factor. I love a 182 as much as the next owner, but when I hear people exclaim that they will go anywhere a 180 will go, the only two conclusions I can come to are that either they simply haven't seen a good 180 in good hands, or they are willing to subject there nose wheel to more than I would.

Having never seen an actual Wren in person, I wonder if there is anything in it's Canard arrangement to help the nose wheel structure along?


Take care, Rob

I have been maintaining one of two Peterson converted 182’s that are owned by the same couple. The one I maintain does not have the canard installed but has the droop aileron system. There is a collar on the control tube for the canard though. According to the owners, it flys just as good as their other airplane that has the canard. Now this airplane also has Sportsman cuff, WingX and the big PPonk 520 with 550 cylinders... so probably not completely Apple to Apple..

Brian


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I remember one from Fargo, when I was in A&P school there. It was pretty new then, and the main shop was doing an Annual on it. I got to work with a mechanic on the rigging of the "wren's teeth" on the wings.... it was a real complicated mess as I remember. As far as the canard, I remember difficulty with the cowling and engine access, but one of the guys made more sense of it for me when he said "we've always had a tail that pushes down on conventional airplanes....what a waste...the canard reverses that." It made sense, although the size isn't big enough to offset the size of the horizontal surfaces, even when right in the prop blast.
I watched it take off, and remember being impressed with the climb, and noting that it was more like a DeHavilland style climb, instead of the typical hanging on the prop. The guy that had it seemed to love it.
John

hardtailjohn wrote: I remember one from Fargo, when I was in A&P school there. It was pretty new then, and the main shop was doing an Annual on it. I got to work with a mechanic on the rigging of the "wren's teeth" on the wings....

Are the fences on top of the wing the "wren's teeth" ?

Andy had one come through the shop a number of years ago. Enjoyed flying it on a maintenance run but couldn't bring himself to actually use the reversible prop.

I think I'd prefer a Helio. (I am going to own one at some point, maybe right after I get a Beaver- guess I'd better start saving lot's of money huh).

Of course with a Helio there is the prop that costs $65,000. And the engine overhaul that costs $65,000. And the engine/transmission that is kind of temperamental. But dang I love those planes.

At least you have you airplane "priorities" in the right order, I'm a "full on" Canadian so I thank you kind Sir.

hotrod180 wrote:Are the fences on top of the wing the "wren's teeth" ?

Yes.

Does anyone know what the total conversion adds for empty weight? Seems like lots of stuff to add up!
John

Based on the buckles in the fuselage skins just aft of the window I would speculate that they hit the tail a few times on landing. I think that the hens teeth rotate in turns. Several years ago there was one in the hangar across from me. They used it for a year or two to tow gliders. I remember them saying they liked it as they could tow at 45 kts. I think it was more costly than they wanted to pay to operate as they replaced it with a Scout which they still have.