It would be the same engine that was used in the Bonanza. I heard of someone running it but was wondering it this is a common mod, legal, etc.? Thanks,

I thought the bonanza had an IO470. 250 HP with 8 to 1 pistons

The Bonanza also has a very different mount than the 182, a “sled” mount.

MTV

ington6 wrote:It would be the same engine that was used in the Bonanza. I heard of someone running it but was wondering it this is a common mod, legal, etc.? Thanks,

It seems like a change with little purpose, only 10hp more than the legit engine.
Might be a paperwork nightmare getting any sort of approval.
Unless they got it for free, I don't see the point.

I took a look at the 470 TCDS, noticed some differences.
470K/L/R/S is 230hp at 2600 rpm, 470G is 240 @ 2600.
The first four weigh in at 401-404 pounds, the G at 432.
Instead of a Marvel-Schniveller carb, the G uses a Bendix Stromberg PSH-5BO (whatever that is) -- pressure carb maybe?
Crankshaft dampers are also different, and unique to the G engine,
so maybe a prop change would be required.
Some other difference are also cited in TCDS in note 5.

hotrod180 wrote:

ington6 wrote:It would be the same engine that was used in the Bonanza. I heard of someone running it but was wondering it this is a common mod, legal, etc.? Thanks,

It seems like a change with little purpose, only 10hp more than the legit engine.
Might be a paperwork nightmare getting any sort of approval.
Unless they got it for free, I don't see the point.

This might be the only time I've ever agreed with Hotrod180.

I think it might just be the pistons off that model? Anyway, it is a 182 with 240hp o470 but on paper is says 230hp... so it says. Just think it is interesting. I'd never heard of it before.

asa wrote: This might be the only time I've ever agreed with Hotrod180.

I feel so vindicated!!

I think its got a pressure carb to start, so that's a big fuel system change to start. Need return lines and high pressure fuel pumps. Better to go to the IO-470 minus injection STC. Thats basically a bolt in except for prop and gets you 260hp.

There’s the Norland STC for higher compression pistons, but you’re restricted to 100LL. No Mogas.
https://aerotecengines.ca/resources/engine-upgrades/

The Norland STC is the one I meant as well, note that it is NOT just a piston change. It's a different crank damper configuration at the very least, and I believe the cylinders use long reach spark plugs, so the assemblies are different too. Much better to start with the IO-470 models mentioned on the STC and use the O-470 intake and carb to complete the conversion. You still have to use an old dated prop from an early C210 or C205 unless you field approve something else (MT? maybe a C204?) to make it legal. Even with all that, at least you get 30+hp out of it. Of course, this is effectively the same as running the O-470U and turning it up by one of the STC's to 2600RPM. TX skyways or John Jewel I believe both have that approval for use with the C204.

O470U and IO470 that Norland uses are basically the same engine. They use the heavier cylinders that have long reach spark plugs for the higher compression. Not sure if G uses the long reach cylinders or not.

The Norland STC allows the use of different suffix IO470 engines. I chose the IO470F. Running a Mac C203.

How did you get the C203 approved? I assumed they'd need at least a C204 like the O-470U uses. The only props on the STC were a dreary choice of the old threaded Macs.

While I presume the O-470-U to be mostly the same, it's not mentioned as an approved starting point, and all the Crankshaft assembly part numbers I can find appear to be different for the O-470-U and the IO-470-F that I have. I believe the IO-470 series turns to 2625RPM for 260HP and the TX Skyways STC uses 2600RPM for 252HP. Minor differences. Anyone with more experience with these engines care to comment on the crank/damper configurations?

Not sure what the O470U has to do with anything. Maybe that was a separate conversion.
The Norland STC (unless something has changed) allows for different suffix IO470s. (The IO470 is the starting point with Norland, not an O470U. I am confused why you bring up the U. If you have a U already, there are other STCs that increase the redline RPM to add power.) If you look at the TCDS for the O470 and the IO470 (http://www.faa.gov), you will see the different suffix engines documented and a description of the differences. For example, the crankshaft damper configurations are covered.

Regarding how Continental was able to get 260 hp out of the IO470F - they achieve that with redline rpm of 2625 along with 8.6:1 pistons.

By the way, Chris passed away awhile back and I believe some outfit may hold the Norland STC now.

Hey c180_guy, I’m curious about running the C203 prop with the Norland conversion as well. Was this done under a field approval? If so would you be willing to share the paperwork. I really like the Norland conversion, but I feel like I would be going backwards with the old threaded shank prop. I upgraded to a new C203 from one of those a few years ago. The STC only specifies the old style props as earlier mentioned.
Thanks

My IO-550D conversion was accomplished with a STC from Pponk. It doesn’t list the MT prop either, but MT lists 520s and 550s on their STC.

If McCauley lists their newer props as eligible on O-470 equipped 180s, then what’s the holdup?

When I did my Norland, there were not a lot of props available. Deviating from a STC requires approval. Prop deviations go to the engineering office, not the FSDO. Now, there are approved options - MT and Mac 230 off the top of my head. May be Hartzell offerings, too.

C180_guy was yours done as a deviation? The STC mentions nothing other than the old threaded shank blade mccauley’s. I’m surprised Aerotech who holds the STC doesn’t make an attempt at getting a more modern prop on the list of approved ones. I haven’t asked them yet if it is something they plan on doing. I called them 3 different times back in the fall for information on the conversion. Each time I was told someone would call me back, which they never did. On the fourth call I was told the same thing and I kind of demanded to speak to someone about it. A guy with a British accent got on the phone for about a 1 minute and said that he would email me the info. It was emailed promptly and all it mentions about props are the old McCauley’s

Right, but my point is, instead of going through the FAA engineering office, you have several options now that did not exist a few years ago for the IO470, which I would think would move the approval to the FSDO.