Considering an upgrade to our 182E, would like some opinions on these engines.

Both choices are of similar power and weight, although the injected engine would require more work to install.

Currently I'm leaning towards the injected engine thinking it would be smoother and more efficient, especially with Gami-jectors.

Still need to do more research on cost differences, most likely be sourcing a mid-time engine in either case.

Thoughts?

Sam

The 10-470 d input in 65h 180 is carbureted 2 blade prop c58 . Runs real smooth. 1.5 to 2gals less fuel .the 0470 u about the same just lower rpm with the 204 prop .i had this in my 180k .ran it on 92 mogas for 1500 hrs ran great .15 to 20 dollars an hr less cost .all ways use mmo. Norland in canada has stc.ithink it is 2100$. The io470 d or f are reasonable to get . All the parts of your engine will fit. The 0470-50 only two 3 blade prop field approval on 2blade props .
.

The O-470-50 is approved with a D2A34C58/90AT-8 AND THE 2A34C66/90AT-8 two bladed props on the 182. It is on the STC SA02092SE.
I also don't really get the discussion of pponk motors being soo much smoother then any other engine. Knopp does balance his counterweights, connecting rods, and pistons but most overhaul shops do this now days as well. They dont seem any smoother then any other 470, 520 that has had a little attention to balancing the rotating components.

Wish i had fuel injection!

http://www.texasairsalvage.com/main_vie ... tid1=89737 Looked like a bargain.

We're running a 2 blade MT and planning to install a seaplanes west kit in the next year or 2, should make for a very smooth combo. I've been spoiled flying turbine powered equipment and smoothness is very important to me.

Anyone know of any problems with the IO470?

No auto gas stc fro the IO470 out of an early 185, 210 or out of a 205. 8.6 to 1 compression I believe.

Tim

No auto gas STC for the pponk either, although I'm guessing that doesn't stop some people.

I'm ok with 100LL, and I remain hopeful we'll have a good alternative someday to run in higher compression engines

Halestorm wrote:Anyone know of any problems with the IO470?

Many would say the best engine Continental ever built

There is a mogas STC for the IO470 in the C210. Flyinpulse.com

whee wrote:There is a mogas STC for the IO470 in the C210. Flyinpulse.com

Good find. There is a mogas STC for the IO-470in the Debonair as well….

I've been talking to Todd Peterson about trying to put together all the parts needed in order to modify the fuel system in our 182 in order to run his STC for the IO470. Sounds like I could be collecting parts all year if we decide to go that way.

Anybody gone thru the Peterson 260SE/Wren/Katmi process?

whee wrote:There is a mogas STC for the IO470 in the C210. Flyinpulse.com

I'd be curious to know what this system costs. It does add 28lbs. Wonder how many hrs you'd have to fly before it pays for itself?
Sorry for the drift. I'm always curious about repowering my 180. I find these threads very intriguing.

Halestorm wrote:Considering an upgrade to our 182E, would like some opinions on these engines.

Both choices are of similar power and weight, although the injected engine would require more work to install.

Currently I'm leaning towards the injected engine thinking it would be smoother and more efficient, especially with Gami-jectors.

Still need to do more research on cost differences, most likely be sourcing a mid-time engine in either case.

Thoughts?

Sam

Norland has the cheapest engine mod going for the 182… 260HP but they are removing the injection from an IO-470. Here is some in info that Chris sent me a while ago.

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

Norland has the cheapest engine mod going for the 182… 260HP but they are removing the injection from an IO-470.

Ah, this must be what cub180 was talking about. Was having difficulty deciphering his Northern BC type dialect.

Very interesting, now I've got something else to think about, great.

Rough calculations for the Peterson STC is about 14-15k just in airframe mod parts alone, ouch! Plus more than 100 hours of my time, with my flying schedule that could take a few months to get done.

Sure do like fuel injection tho, hmmm....

The engine choices you are looking at are essentially taking two different paths to accomplish the same thing (more power). I know this is obvious, but think about it. One is making more power by increasing compression, the other by increasing displacement. FWIW, I am not against mild compression ratio bumps at all, lord knows if we ever adopt Canada's 'owner maintenance' idea, the first thing my cub will get is a 10:1 top... but I think it's a safe thing to say that the higher the compression ratio, the higher the stress on the engine. So in my mind, if you can attain the hp you are seeking with a lower compression ratio, why would you seek a higher strung engine to do the same thing? (cost might be a good answer?...)

Propellors... good! I would select the propellor you want to run way before you dumped a bunch of cash into any conversion... BTW, both of these engines have plenty of good choices, you just have to do a little leg work to figure which is best suited to your application. Picking out an engine without having given good thought to what prop you are going to turn is either not going to do your wallet any good, (remember the fellow here that did a Pponk and then bought both an MT and a Mac?)... or, worse you are going to unwittingly leave unused horsepower on the table... Your current prop (83" 2blade MT) is a good one, probably really good for a Norland. If you go Pponk, and have one of the better engine builders put it together, you will be leaving unused horsepower on the table with this prop.

Smooth... horseshit.. while it is most certainly true that some engine designs may be inherently smoother than others, as you have already pointed out, smooth is 99.999 % a product of who and how they assembled your engine. The Pponk's I have the most time behind have been built up by either Steve Knopp or Kenny Tunnel (lycon). To call them turbine smooth would not be doing them any justice, my personal C180 engine runs hands down smoother than my PT6-34.... Undoubtedly, you could build up an IO470 of equal or greater balance..

FI.... It didn't fit my application well, but if it ever does, and I am in the market for this size/configuration, I would not be trying to figure out how to adapt an IO470 into a previously carburated C180/182. Instead I'd opt for the Pponk O470-50 with Bendix FI. No headers, no nightmare fuel plumbing, no Continental FI. Steve even has a lesser know STC to do an O-550 this way... That would be a snorter


Take care, Rob

SixTwoLeemer wrote:

whee wrote:There is a mogas STC for the IO470 in the C210. Flyinpulse.com

Good find. There is a mogas STC for the IO-470in the Debonair as well….

But the Debbie has 8 to 1 compression not he 8.6 to 1 like the 205's I was sitting around a campfire one time and a guy with a 182B said he accidentally installed 8 to 1 pistons in his O470 instead of the 7 to 1 pistons. He did not notice the mistake tell he ran about 500 gallons of mogas through it. No harm-no foul or don't ask don't tell or Whisky Tango Foxtrot. Over

Tim

Halestorm wrote:Considering an upgrade to our 182E, would like some opinions on these engines.

Both choices are of similar power and weight, although the injected engine would require more work to install.

Currently I'm leaning towards the injected engine thinking it would be smoother and more efficient, especially with Gami-jectors.

Still need to do more research on cost differences, most likely be sourcing a mid-time engine in either case.

Thoughts?

Sam

You don't say why you're considering it. Is your O-470 nearing TBO? FWIW, I've known a number of O-470s which have run well past TBO, still have good compression, don't burn much oil, etc.

Certainly if an overhaul is in the offing anyway, that's a time to consider an upgrade, but make sure the extra expense provides the extra value you need/want. 30 more horses is an improvement, but it's not a magic bullet. The airplane will go a little faster and climb a little better, but nothing dramatic. Think percentages: 30 hp is a 13% increase, not exactly a whopping improvement. It's about the same increase as my 180 hp Lycoming is over a stock 160 hp 172--better for sure, but not tremendous, unless it's compared to an older 172 with only 145 hp, a 24% improvement.

Now if you were going to install a 550 with 300 hp, that would be different! I have an acquaintance with a 300 hp 182, I believe a mid-70s model, which if I believe his comments, is quite a fire-breather. I haven't flown it, so I can't say how accurate his comments are.

Cary

You don't say why you're considering it. Is your O-470 nearing TBO? FWIW, I've known a number of O-470s which have run well past TBO, still have good compression, don't burn much oil, etc.

As usual nuances in communication may be lost in this forum, so I'll take your question at face value.

We are at TBO and we are experiencing some elevated oil consumption which I'm currently trouble shooting. In my 15 years as an A&P mechanic I've heard and seen many stories about engines running way past TBO and also giving up way before TBO, with my experience and those stories in mind I believe it's time to begin the process of researching a new power-plant for my family's airplane.

There's been much thought put into why we want to get another 30-40hp for this machine already. Goals are to keep the weight on the nose down, 182E has a smaller horizontal than later years and could use a little help in the flare. Additionally, we plan to operate, at some point, on EDO 2870 floats and will stick with the 2900lb gross weight. I have many hours in float equipped 180s of both 230hp and 260hp and have found the difference in performance to be quite dramatic. With its increased weight and fuel consumption the 550 is not an option. I believe one can build a sweet performing floatplane by keeping the weight down and using the right floats.

So, with the goal of keeping the firewall forward weight down and improved float performance let us discuss the merits of an IO470 vs the pponk, or any other approved 260-270hp engine for the Cessna 182E.

I've had a Pponk engine on my 180 for a dozen years, it is a great engine.

The power is very useful on floats and skis, and the speed increase is considerable. 135-140 MPH on floats, 150 on skis w/cargo pod, have to pull it back on wheels to keep it out of the yellow. All this on 14.5-15 GPH.

Very smooth, in my opinion, and that of guest pilots. I'm not sure that an injected engine is inherently smoother; no recent experience with those.

Cheers

Rob, I understand your comment about higher compression being more stressful. What are your thoughts on the higher compression pistons having a better fuel burn thus resulting in fewer lead problems in the valve train?
thanks
46tcrft