Just wondering if anyone here owns or has any experience with the 0-470-U/TS. I had alot of problems with the R motor we installed almost 2 months ago, and after 100 hours of constant problems, finally gave up on it. Fortunately, the guy who built it up is refunding all my money...So after shopping around for something to swap out ASAP found a 2008 Factory Reman 0-470-U with 269 hours on it at Texas Skyways.

They received it in trade this past January and were already in the process of converting it to the U/TS. They've overhauled and nickeled the what were factory new Continentals that came on the motor, are gonna re-paint it, and put in new lifters. 55Wagon and Barnstormer went down with me last week to check it out while they had the top end off to take a look at everything. It looked good so I bought it and gave a deposit. Should be ready to install in a week or two.

Apparently the U motor comes with very similar heavy duty cylinders to the 520, same compression pistons 8.6:1, only difference is the length of the barrel which is 5" instead of the 520's 5.25". It has the phase III case and 7th stud. They put their full drain oil pan, modify the motor back to 2600 RPM, pitch the 204 prop I had to buy for 2600 RPM, modify the cylinders somehow to adjust for more fuel and air, and bore out the carb for a bigger jet. Jack at Skyways says it test stands at 263 HP, but they call it a 250HP. The best thing about it is the pro-rated warranty all the way to the 2500 Hour TBO.

Anyways, kinda just making sure I understand everything and wanting to know any other people's experience with this motor or even Texas Skyways in general. Would love to eventually put an 88" prop but it sounds like that will take a field approval.

Thanks,

Luke

P.S. when we get done with this I'll post a thread showing the original removal of the L and install of the R, along with all the other work we did to the Skalywagon back in March. Been wanting to post on the problems I've been having but decided it was best to wait till all this was done with. Hopefully, the U motor will be the last install on the photos when we get this done, atleast for another 5 years or so

Can anyone tell me the difference in a 470U and a 520 crank??

Is this the R B engine ? Give a call or email I still have those 470>520 s . Bill Reid [email protected]

I bet that new power's going to be a lot of fun!


And holy TBO, Batman!

If I did an engine upgrade, it would be the 470 UTS since it also has the STC to use AGE-85---88% ethanol. The ethanol is fuel I make and is made only 14 miles away from me. The UTS is basically the same engine as the Norland that puts a carb on an IO-470. That engine STC can use the 88 inch prop like 55wagon got from me. What would be really slick, the UTS and the 2 blade MT that I have.

Marty, yeah I really like the idea of runnin on ethanol if I could produce it myself. I believe it is not too hard to get a license from the feds to brew your own ethanol for fuel as long as it is denatured and you pay them some $$$. We have 20,000 acres of prickly pear out here that produce some fruit that is packed with sugar and I've heard would make some damn fine shine

If avgas goes away I will be powered by prickly pear haha! Anyway I guess its really hard to get AGE85 down here but am interested to know more about making it myself and how hard it would be to get the certification to do so. Even though we're in the desert, we've got good water and could grow some crops to make the fuel and feed the byproduct to the cattle.

I flew the 180-E that Skyways has called "Moonshine Express" the other day and it is powered by the 0-520-U/TS and the 520's are also STC'd for AGE85. We ran it on avgas, and either fuel works fine. As far as I understand the only difference to the motor is the bigger jet in the carb like the 470-U/TS comes with, and an adjustment to the carb float. I am not a fan of ethanol mixed with my unleaded, but am a huge fan of straight "REAL" ethanol like the top fuel dragsters run, or regular straight ethanol automobile motor conversions. Lots of people have lots of opinions, but looking at the facts and the data, real ethanol is a superior fuel to unleaded, avgas, and the lubricity is even better than diesel. The downside is that it is much less efficient mpg wise and impossible for most folks to buy, but hey if a person could brew it up on their own farm how can you beat that! Both Diesel and Ford wanted to give the farmers the power to generate their own fuel, i.e. Hempolene and Peanut Oil powered motors. I would love to make that happen on my airplane too

-Luke

I'm still confused on difference between o470u and 520 other than cylinders. Does anyone know for sure? Crazy how many different things we hear? Heard modifying crank.. What te heck would you have to do to crank?? Why could you not slap on 520 cylinders to 0470 u case and hav a 520?

Talked to Jack Johnson from Texas Skyways again this morning. He said the difference between the 0-470-U/TS and the 0-520-U/TS is this:

-Crank, have to modify the crank by adding vibration dampners to convert for 520, has to do with the prop smoothness on the 520

-Cylinders, the barrel on the cylinders for 470-U are 5", the 520-U are 5.25", thus you have to bore out the case to fit 520 cylinders. The compression's are the same, 8.6:1

-Oil Pump, the 520 has to have the high flow oil pump, which requires the digital tach with their STC, 470 does not.

-Both the 470-U/TS and the 520-U/TS have the phase III case and seventh stud.

-The Mount on the 520 has to be the upgraded mount, not sure about the 470. I already have an upgraded AWI mount.

-The nose bearing on the 470 is different (think he said bigger) than the 520-D or F, when converting a 470-U to 520-U you keep this larger/different nose bearing. The way that bearing receives oil is also different, he seemed to prefer the 470-U/520-U type over the 520-D or F type.

-The carb on the 520 I do not remember if it is bored out for bigger jet like for the 470-U (I think it is), but it definitely is for the Ethanol STC on the 520. However, as far as I understand the 0-470, 0-520, and 0-550 models all use the same carb.

-Cost is a difference, since mine came as a factory reman with 269 hours there is a much larger delta in price between the motors. If building one up new or overhauled, I wouldn't choose less horsepower for such a small difference in price. Not sure what they cost new at TS but Western Skyways quoted for 0-time overhauled $29,000 (lost exact quote on 470-U/TS, I think might have been $29,985 actually) and $32,985 for the 0-520-U/TS. Both those are including an exchange, they wanted $6-7000 for core charge on top of that. Obviously you gotta have a prop too...


Might be forgetting something but those are the major differences. Dang gotta get back to work so I'll edit later and make sure I got it right.

55,

The difference from the U to other O-470's is;

The high compression top
The timing,
The dampers on the crank.

Period...

Skaly's other assessments on the O-470 / O-520 differences are correct, although one reason I'd lean towrds brand 'P' over 'T' is the engine mount requirement.... Ever heard of a Pponk that departed an airframe

FWIW, O-470U's came from Continental with either flavor case, depending on the year. And as you know a UTS is just a U turned up with drilled jets to flow enough gas...

Personally I'd take the low compression bigger top, but that's just me...

The U has 4 dampers, kinda like an L motor, but they are set up different. 2-6th orders, 1-5th, and 1-4th
as opposed to the L's 4-6th orders....
or the R's 1-5th and 1-6th order...


take care, Rob

Skaly,

Does the UTS get a new data tag? Or is it just an STC on the U?
The reason I'm asking is because I agree with Marty... I think the best thing you could do to your plane after hanging a U on it would be to put on a 2 blade MT. And the 2 Blade MT is STC'd on a 182 with a U motor

Actually thinking back on it, I think that STC has been amended to add the UTS, IMHO it would certainly be worth the call to John or Larry...

Take care, Rob

Rob, I'll have to look into the Data tag, dunno for sure.

I asked Jack about the prop choices and his personal opinion is that the 204 is the way to go. Personally, I like to try everything out, if possible, then make a decision. When we hang this motor gonna try the 204, and Hartzel Buccaneer at Skyways. Gonna start lookin around for an MT to borrow and give a try. Kinda scared I will fall in love (= more $$$) and go even deeper down the rabbit hole, been one hell of a ride so far

Rob, here is the answer bout data tag.


Hung the new motor on Saturday. It's ready to go now but I'm sick so will fly in the morning.

Ok Skaly good deal,

That STC # is to change that engine from an O-470U to an O-470U/TS

You should also be getting an STC from Jack to mate that engine to your airframe. That STC will be SA09530sc

And that STC is listed on the Flight Resource STC for the 180 & 182... SA02294CH

I gotta hand it to John and Larry, they wrote that STC right... It's written so those of you that put the tailwheel back where it belonged don't get penalized...

The other cool thing about this STC is that it covers both the 2 and three blade props, as well as most O-470's right on up through the IO550 This is literally a one stop shopping session for prop STCs.

Take care, Rob

Update:

I wouldn't buy another part from Texas Skyways to save my life. Worse customer service I have come across in the aviation industry. Bummer, hate to dog a business online but the outright lies and total disrespect from TS have persuaded me to post this so that it may save some other aviators a lot of time/$$$. PM if you would like more info...

Skaly,
Thanks for the post! Hopefully common sense reigns supreme and this post doesn't disappear because of a fear of "bad mouthing" a business on a forum. I frequent another forum that censors these types of posts (not airplane related) and it really limits the usefulness. You might post a link to your other post(s) that have some more of the backstory. I don't know how to do that from tapatalk or I would do it for you.

Hi Guys

I've been watching this thread with interest but in fairness I feel That I aught to relate my own experience of TS.
Some years ago I purchased my o-520-f/ts from Jack Johnson. This was fitted in england by my FBO who had no experience of this upgrade. Jack gave free of charge unlimited support to the FBO. When the aircraft then flew but without reaching the expected speed Jack had no hesitation in asking Mickey to get him on a plane to come help resolve the issue. No charge. In the end it wasn't neccessary - the pilot (me) just needed to learn to trim properly at the higher speeds.

That level of service shows commitment form the heart.

I should also mention that the extra takeoff performance has made all,the difference on many occasions.

Greg C182Q

Skalywag wrote:Update:

I wouldn't buy another part from Texas Skyways to save my life. Worse customer service I have come across in the aviation industry. Bummer, hate to dog a business online but the outright lies and total disrespect from TS have persuaded me to post this so that it may save some other aviators a lot of time/$$$. PM if you would like more info...

I have just come across this thread and it got my attention. We put an O-520 UTS (O-470U case machined out to take the 520 cylinders) in our 180. After a prop strike and tear down we discovered the following.

1. The incorrect style starter adapter was installed. It had the old style matched to the later wider crank gear. This caused the crank gear bolt heads to rub on the starter adapter.
2. There was insufficient clearance on one side of the bearing saddle of the case to allow the wider crank gear to turn freely.The crank gear gouged out the case until there was enough clearance. There should have been some machining of the case to allow the wider crank gear.
3. The machining of the cylinder pad sockets to take the 520 cylinders was inaccurate. They were undersized and tapered up to 004" which caused a very tight fit of the barrels. There was evidence that some cylinders had been reworked to try and over come this.
4. The No 2 cylinder socket was cracked. This is an unusual place to have crack and our engineers think it was because the barrel was too tight in the socket due to the inaccurate machining.

All in all a bit of a mess. The engine was built by RAM. TS indicated that they had had some other problems with RAM engines and they were following up on it. My understanding is RAM don't build engines for TS anymore. After a lot of emails and promises from them that they were following it up with RAM I gave up. I have never heard from them again. I know others mileage may be different with lots of people espousing the virtues of both TS and RAM. This was our experience and it left a sour taste. I couldn't be bothered pursuing it any further and decided to spend my money on avgas. Had I not been on the other side of the world I would have gone and seen them personally. In the end it wasn't a big cost to rectify the problems and we have put on another 500 odd hours since with no issues. And it is a great engine. As an a side it had a 3 blade MT on it at the time which turned to match wood. Apart from the issues mentioned above from the original build, there was no other problems with the engine. We put another MT on it and went back flying. I see your post was early last year Skaly but I am interested in your story. That O470-UTS should have been a good performer. PM me if you need to.

Does anyone know what the proper low pitch setting (degrees) of pitch is for the Mccauley C204 on that engine? I know from my prop shop days that a 204 on a U engine turning 2400 the low pitch stop is a much higher setting than compared to a C203 turning the higher rpm.

A friend of mine did the conversion with a 182 and it's still rather anemic. I believe the 204 pitch setting is probably not right and if it were lowered he would have the desired performance. (It is measured at the 30" blade radius station, or on an 82" propeller 11 inches inboard from the tip. Any help with that would be greatly appreciated.

I haven't flown the aircraft myself so I'm not sure if they are using the right flap setting on takeoff or not. He also had Willie Stene put a Sportsman on it so the aircraft should be a backcountry tamer.

Richard

The U has 4 dampers, kinda like an L motor, but they are set up different. 2-6th orders, 1-5th, and 1-4th
as opposed to the L's 4-6th orders....
or the R's 1-5th and 1-6th order...


take care, Rob

I'm trying to figure out this "order" thing on dampers on the crankshaft. I have a junk K/L that has 4 counterweights with blades in the same positions as this picture of a U crank. You can see this U has holes and bushings for counterweights at the back but the blades have no holes to install counterweights in the forward ones(makes no sense to me). I have an A crank that is the same as an R and it just has 2 blades at the very back end.

I think I found an answer to my question.

Measurement of the damper pin diameters and the IDs of the damper mass sleeves important but it is the slight difference in these diameters that determines the effective tuning frequency (actually vibration order).