Nizina wrote:

SixTwoLeemer wrote:
Nizina,

What was the name of that intake scoop on your plane? Assuming its an STC'd product, was it just used to collect cleaner air away from the prop tips. Thats my guess anyway. So did it work??

Unfortunately I can't tell you what the name of the air scoop is. I sold the plane a couple of years ago and don't have access to the books. The scoop was on the plane when I bought it in 1999, but you are right, it was designed to diminish the dirt that could enter the air filter on back field operations. Most of my flying with the plane was on gravel strips and excessive dust in the filter never seemed to be an issue, so I assume that it was doing its job. Wish I could be more specific. Both the cowl and scoop were aluminum as opposed to a newer fiber glass unit that you may get from Selkirk.

Nizina

I have 502nd 182 off the line 1956. I have the higher air scoop on mine and according to the litature in 1956 it adds a inch of manifold pressure at
altitude and gives engine cleaner air for operating off of dirt or water.
I've got 700x6 mains ,600x6 nose and Cleveland Double puck brakes.
I can go anywhere I want and don't desire for bigger tires as it will further slow me down. I still with all the other stuff -Sportsman STOL, LRI Bigger tires etc. true at 156-160 mph at 2300/21 inches around 6-9k MSL. using
10-11 gallons per hour. I think the No back window and narrow fuse and trimable Horiz. make my airplane faster than the latter slant tail 182's.
I wish I could post some pictures of where I've been or my airplane here on BCP .

I can land anywhere there's 200-300 ft. clear and get out in same ,1956 has superior ground clearance (4 1/2 inches higher than anything else Cessna ever made) and have more prop / fuselauge clearance . All in all
for me it's the perfect match of utility for my missions.I fly the Grand Canyon strips and having more clearance is a asset going over bushes that grow near the runway. I've got a stack of 337-field approvals I've done to old N5502B. New er 337 panel ,firewall mounted battery, extended baggage, 210 back seats (Kenmore air harbor) removable ,stretcher kit,cargo pod , All for less than 1550 lbs. empty I've also got a set of Flint tip tanks (not installed) and spare engine and Prop. Yea I guess you could say I love old straight tail -especially the 182's.

Hey Tim
Did he have it painted when you saw him? I camped with him up at Marble this past fall, and he had painted it himself, and did a GREAT job.
Gary

As the builder of the Experimental 175, thanks for the compliments. All the 0-360 powered tail wheel conversions, that I am familiar with have had to add lead in the tail up to 15 pounds. I moved the engine back 3 inches and my empty weight CG is within 1/2 inch of where it was coming out of the factory. I also extended the horizontal surfaces equal to what Cessna did on the 172's and 175's in 1963? The airplane 3 points beautifully.


Monte

Thanks BM

'bout time you got here

Hope all is well on your end.

Gary

Hi, Gary

Been lurking for a while, just nothing to say.

Monte

Hasn't a big engine, straight tail 182 won its class (including 180s and 185s) the last few years at Valdez?

George

Indeed! A guy by the name of Curt Green has won the Valdez airshow several times in his straight tail 182 in the heavy touring STOL category. Last year 182s won both first and second place, Kelly Bay, my neighbor on the Nizina came in third in his 185, and a 180 was fourth. The first place 182 winner ran away with the competition.

Nizina

Nizina wrote:George

Indeed! A guy by the name of Curt Green has won the Valdez airshow several times in his straight tail 182 in the heavy touring STOL category. Last year 182s won both first and second place, Kelly Bay, my neighbor on the Nizina came in third in his 185, and a 180 was fourth. The first place 182 winner ran away with the competition.

Nizina

Some place around this web site or u tube the video is available -I think it says something like spam cans mix it up at Valdez. Anyone have that link?

Here is a video of light bush STOL class Cubs competing at the Valdez air show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbCAu36RN2w

Nizina

182 STOL driver wrote:

Nizina wrote:George

Indeed! A guy by the name of Curt Green has won the Valdez airshow several times in his straight tail 182 in the heavy touring STOL category. Last year 182s won both first and second place, Kelly Bay, my neighbor on the Nizina came in third in his 185, and a 180 was fourth. The first place 182 winner ran away with the competition.

Nizina

Some place around this web site or u tube the video is available -I think it says something like spam cans mix it up at Valdez. Anyone have that link?

Think I found it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr9USxmB ... re=related heavy touring class

That isn't over kill..... THat's JUST RITE!!!

A couple of you guys were speaking about the Cessna 175 and its conversion. I found this interesting:

From the 175.org forum page.
Would like to let members know that I will be doing flight testing on the IO-390 210hp Lycoming Engine this May for STC SA02282AK that covers the Cessna 175 models. This STC covers the installation of the IO-360 180hp and 200hp Lycoming engines.

The IO-390 engine is rated at 210hp for the life of the TBO. It has a 5% greater hp out put for the FAA requirement to TBO.

It has the counter weighted crankshaft and roller cam and tappetts installed. The overall size is the same as the IO-360A1A 200hp Lycoming, the weight is only a few lbs more. Fuel burn is the same as the IO-360 Cont. 210hp engine with less weight and no header tank fuel return requirement.

Will be testing the Hartzell 80" and or the 84" Props. MT props should be approved also.

I have a website now if you would like to keep up on the news of this new engine testing and other Lycoming engine convertions I'm doing. www.stootsaviation.com

Dave Stoots
907-474-4039

The price of some nice old straight tail 182's now really makes these planes attractive. There are more than a few with low mid time motors and nice paint for under $40,000. A whole lot of bang for the buck in my mind.

patrol guy wrote:"Over-Kill". How about this? Saw it in Whitehorse last summer. Guy from Virginia on his way north. 8:50 nose, 31 inch mains, and a 0-360, all on a C172.

Is that bulge on the cowling behind the prop there to fit the 0-360? Hmmmm...

On the older 182, I have always heard that a weakness is the nose strut, that you must be very careful not to ever bring it down too hard. If this is true, is there any retrofit out there that makes it stronger? I imagine that can be very expensive if you bend something up there.

The bulge is standard on older 172s and 170's which have had the O-360 installed to clear the rocker covers.

Sixtwoleemer,

Holy guacamole, Dude!! How the hey does he think he's going to fit an 80 inch prop, let alone an 84 inch prop on a 175?? Is he only proposing this approval for tailwheel conversions? I would think an 80 inch prop on a 175 would be marginal for prop clearance, but maybe not for certification. It'll eat a LOT of rocks, however.

Interesting, but those balanced engines are heavy, and a bigger prop is heavy as well. The MT props would save some weight off the bow. The 200 hp Husky requires the MT I believe, for CG reasons.

It's not just the engine itself that's heavy, it's also the accessories. In the Husky for example, they had to install a second oil cooler cause the standard one wouldn't keep the engine cool enough.

And, I still can't believe none of these guys carries any pressure in their nose struts. Must like buying prop blades....

MTV

On the older 182, I have always heard that a weakness is the nose strut, that you must be very careful not to ever bring it down too hard. If this is true, is there any retrofit out there that makes it stronger? I imagine that can be very expensive if you bend something up there.[/quote]


Not true -It's all on don't bang the nose down and you'll do fine with a old
182. Mine is got extended baggage with 70 lbs. in the aft end and helps
hold the nose off .

mtv wrote:Sixtwoleemer,

Holy guacamole, Dude!! How the hey does he think he's going to fit an 80 inch prop, let alone an 84 inch prop on a 175?? Is he only proposing this approval for tailwheel conversions? I would think an 80 inch prop on a 175 would be marginal for prop clearance, but maybe not for certification. It'll eat a LOT of rocks, however.

Interesting, but those balanced engines are heavy, and a bigger prop is heavy as well. The MT props would save some weight off the bow. The 200 hp Husky requires the MT I believe, for CG reasons.

It's not just the engine itself that's heavy, it's also the accessories. In the Husky for example, they had to install a second oil cooler cause the standard one wouldn't keep the engine cool enough.

And, I still can't believe none of these guys carries any pressure in their nose struts. Must like buying prop blades....

MTV

I think its going to be fun to watch the development of this IO-390 (210hp.) and see how the STC folks apply it to the General Aviation fleet. Can you imagine a 210hp. Pacer or Cub??? I'll bet there will be some great applications in the future. The IO-550 has sure made a sweet powerplant for a lot of airplanes. This 390 is supposed to fit in place of an 0-360 as well as an 0-320. I want one in my PA-28!

The weight issue will be an obstacle as you mention. I would say the future look bright for the MT Prop folks.

Mike, the 80 Hartzell is also approved on the A1C 200 horse, although I don't know why anyone would want one instead of an MT. I am told by Stu that the second oil cooler went on as a result of noise tests, and the hypothetical need to do slow airspeed climbs, resulting in more separation from the ground for less noise. The factory found it easier to add the second oil cooler and get the planes out rather than keep testing.

We are pretty into the details of the 200 Husky, as we have a "one off" just finishing up at the factory. It will have a 210 MT, no second oil cooler, carbon interior and exterior panels, and a bunch of weight savings and performance mods. Our goal is for it to be lighter, and off course better performing, than the lighest new wing 180. It will be at the AK May show, so we will know then if the program is a sucess.

I see that some of you 182 drivers are new members of this forum. I have a few videos taken out of my 182B model. If you haven't seen them yet and you would like to. This will get you there: www.youtube.com/skybobb
I have some on the back country of Idaho and other places in Oregon like the Minam Lodge and Owyhee Res. State airport. You can see that I have a standard front fork and the small tire. I haven't had any problem with rough strips as yet. Bob

You are right Skybob.

The 600x6 up front as aposed to the 500 x 5 is just a tiny bit better. Just makes the bumps a little smaller. Just a tiny bit more forgiving.

Accually just makes up for somthing smaller. But don't they have a procedure for that. Not every one has the nick name "Bill Boulder"

Tiny Tim