Evening. Wondering if any of you guys have the supercharger kit offered by forced aeromotive.

Saw a few old threads on it but nothing too recent. I'm at sealevel but they claim some nice gains of KTAS at altitude 7kft plus. I recall a claim of 17ktas+ but I suppose 10 or so would be more reasonable. Seems like a decent cross country mod without going to a bigger engine

Only just shy of 22,000 bucks. Not sure how the plane would do in short field landings with another 30 pounds in the nose.

On the other hand, there are several tried and true STCs for larger engines for both 180s and 182s. If you assume a 230hp Continental actually has 230hp at sea level and all of the various conversions have their advertised horsepower at sea level, a 260hp conversion will still have 230hp at 4000'. A 285hp conversion will still have 230hp at 6500'. A 300hp conversion will still have 230hp at 7700'. There's a lot to be said for the simplicity of a normally aspirated engine, in terms of maintenance and longevity.

Be aware, also, that adding power doesn't translate into a whole lot of added speed with the draggy airframes of these airplanes. They'll climb better, but there's not a lot of extra speed to be had, unless you also go for various mods to reduce drag--and those aren't necessarily as good as their vendors say that they are in terms of providing much extra speed. A 130 kt airframe with a bigger engine might become a 135 kt airframe, and add some drag-reducing mods to the tune of several AMUs and you might make 140 knots. But the difference in block to block times won't be dramatic. For instance, let's say you want to make the typical GA cross country trip of 300-350 miles. At 130 knots, it'll take you 2 hours 20 minutes for 300 miles, 2 hours 42 minutes for 350 miles. At 140 knots, you'll reduce those times to 2 hours 9 minutes and 2 hours 30 minutes respectively. Is saving 11 or 12 minutes for the typical cross country flight really worth the financial cost of all that extra power?

Cary

Cary wrote:On the other hand, there are several tried and true STCs for larger engines for both 180s and 182s. If you assume a 230hp Continental actually has 230hp at sea level and all of the various conversions have their advertised horsepower at sea level, a 260hp conversion will still have 230hp at 4000'. A 285hp conversion will still have 230hp at 6500'. A 300hp conversion will still have 230hp at 7700'. There's a lot to be said for the simplicity of a normally aspirated engine, in terms of maintenance and longevity.

Be aware, also, that adding power doesn't translate into a whole lot of added speed with the draggy airframes of these airplanes. They'll climb better, but there's not a lot of extra speed to be had, unless you also go for various mods to reduce drag--and those aren't necessarily as good as their vendors say that they are in terms of providing much extra speed. A 130 kt airframe with a bigger engine might become a 135 kt airframe, and add some drag-reducing mods to the tune of several AMUs and you might make 140 knots. But the difference in block to block times won't be dramatic. For instance, let's say you want to make the typical GA cross country trip of 300-350 miles. At 130 knots, it'll take you 2 hours 20 minutes for 300 miles, 2 hours 42 minutes for 350 miles. At 140 knots, you'll reduce those times to 2 hours 9 minutes and 2 hours 30 minutes respectively. Is saving 11 or 12 minutes for the typical cross country flight really worth the financial cost of all that extra power?

Cary

+1 Cary!!!!

Just buy a turbo charged airplane. T210?

jaudette wrote:

Cary wrote:On the other hand, there are several tried and true STCs for larger engines for both 180s and 182s. If you assume a 230hp Continental actually has 230hp at sea level and all of the various conversions have their advertised horsepower at sea level, a 260hp conversion will still have 230hp at 4000'. A 285hp conversion will still have 230hp at 6500'. A 300hp conversion will still have 230hp at 7700'. There's a lot to be said for the simplicity of a normally aspirated engine, in terms of maintenance and longevity.

Be aware, also, that adding power doesn't translate into a whole lot of added speed with the draggy airframes of these airplanes. They'll climb better, but there's not a lot of extra speed to be had, unless you also go for various mods to reduce drag--and those aren't necessarily as good as their vendors say that they are in terms of providing much extra speed. A 130 kt airframe with a bigger engine might become a 135 kt airframe, and add some drag-reducing mods to the tune of several AMUs and you might make 140 knots. But the difference in block to block times won't be dramatic. For instance, let's say you want to make the typical GA cross country trip of 300-350 miles. At 130 knots, it'll take you 2 hours 20 minutes for 300 miles, 2 hours 42 minutes for 350 miles. At 140 knots, you'll reduce those times to 2 hours 9 minutes and 2 hours 30 minutes respectively. Is saving 11 or 12 minutes for the typical cross country flight really worth the financial cost of all that extra power?

Cary

+1 Cary!!!!

Thanks, some route MEA's up here are pretty high and cannot be used. The person who owned it before me installed all of hortons stol and speed mods, used to be siebel? Something along those lines.

I'd love a new plane but the 182 handles short gravel strips great. Maybe a pipe dream. seems as though whenever I save enough money to do something, I end up repairing something else. Maybe a new plane eventually. Rv-7s look great.

Love my RV-7 but it ain't no backcountry bird! No way no sir!

I was seriously considering buying a 182 and adding the forced aeromotive supercharger. If you read the speed improvement claims, they are made for a cruise altitude of 12,000 ft. Forced aeromotive claims sea level power to 8,000 ft. Their speed claims sound about right to me. I ended up with a turbocharged Maule M-5 which is even draggier than the 182. The only way to get decent TAS out of it is to cruise at 12,000 or above. Probably not much use if you are flying around the flat lands, but my ranch strip here in the outback of New Mexico is at 7600 ft. In June, our hot month, the density altitude can exceed 11,000 ft. I went with the Maule because Lycoming says the engine is down to 200 hp at 20,000 ft.

I purchased my Turbo Maule for flights to and from AZ. I’ve Never regretted it’s purchase in those flight envelopes.
It’s been a tremendous asset in density and straight up high altitude environments.
It’s good for a repeatable 12-18 Knot benifit choosing useful altitudes en route.
Flight around WA, it’s normally just ballast 75% of the time. The other 25%, Great smile generator. Necessary, difficult to justify.
Big normally aspirated HP down low is great ROI.

“Thanks, some route MEA's up here are pretty high and cannot be used. “

The only MEAs that high go south....who’d want to go closer to Anchorage? Go North, young man, not south!

“I'd love a new plane but the 182 handles short gravel strips great. Maybe a pipe dream. seems as though whenever I save enough money to do something, I end up repairing something else.”

That’s called Aircraft ownership, welcome to that world.

“Maybe a new plane eventually. Rv-7s look great.”

An RV 7 would be great if you want to commute to the Lower 48. But you’re living smack in the middle of backcountry flying.....

MTV