A little late to the party, but I have a ton of experience flying behind Tornado Alley IO-550’s in Cirrus’s.

They are awesome powerplants in the right hands, both pilot and mechanics.

You gain about 2 knots per 1,000 ft higher you climb, given the same power settings.

Meaning the difference between 3,000 ft and 18,000 ft is 30 knots faster on the same fuel flow. Typically 16-17gph, depending on OAT.

They run cooler than the Continental turbo engine and are more efficient.

Any turbo engine is going to cost probably double to maintain over the life of the engine vs NA.

I have a turbo normalized io-520 185 amphibian. It is superb, runs cool, makes incredible power and makes landing at some pretty insane places possible..

My engine made it past tbo. Had some cylinder work done around 1400hrs nothing crazy for a continental. Truthfully the marginal expense of the turbo is a drop in the bucket with a 185.

New engine being assembled right now. Keeping it exactly the same.

I have a turbo normalized io-520 185 amphibian. It is superb, runs cool, makes incredible power and makes landing at some pretty insane places possible..

My engine made it past tbo. Had some cylinder work done around 1400hrs nothing crazy for a continental. Truthfully the marginal expense of the turbo is a drop in the bucket with a 185.

New engine being assembled right now. Keeping it exactly the same.

What % power (or MP and FF) do you run in cruise?

23x23 at about 15 gph

Ahhh,

The reduced power helps engine longevity big time. Most people in a Tornado Alley Cirrus run 29.5" and 2500 and 16-17GPH. Cylinders and turbo components are mostly trashed around 1,000 hrs running it that way.

Ross4289 wrote:A little late to the party, but I have a ton of experience flying behind Tornado Alley IO-550’s in Cirrus’s.

They are awesome powerplants in the right hands, both pilot and mechanics.

You gain about 2 knots per 1,000 ft higher you climb, given the same power settings.

Meaning the difference between 3,000 ft and 18,000 ft is 30 knots faster on the same fuel flow. Typically 16-17gph, depending on OAT.

They run cooler than the Continental turbo engine and are more efficient.

Any turbo engine is going to cost probably double to maintain over the life of the engine vs NA.

Ross,

Thanks for resurrecting this thread. I am pretty stoked with my 520'd C180A but have always envied the TAT 185. Not sure how much more it would be to operate. I do a lot of short local flights and it seems the TAT would favor longer cross country flying. Curious how nose heavy the TAT mod makes the 185.


Josh

The Tonado alley (TN) on a Cirrus adds something like 60 lbs. Much of this can be offset by a composite prop, which are typically 25 lbs lighter, but right off the nose.

While the TN would be nice on the long cross country flights or flying in mountains, it’s an overall negative for the short local flights. Adds weight, complexity, cost, and fuel burn.

For me it would make float flying worse, but the long epic trips better.

electricsnail wrote:I have a turbo normalized io-520 185 amphibian. It is superb, runs cool, makes incredible power and makes landing at some pretty insane places possible..

My engine made it past tbo. Had some cylinder work done around 1400hrs nothing crazy for a continental. Truthfully the marginal expense of the turbo is a drop in the bucket with a 185.

New engine being assembled right now. Keeping it exactly the same.

How is the new motor holding up? And who built it for you. Flew a 2023 182T yesterday and that sort of high DA ability comes in very handy out here in the southwest.

Dog is my Copilot wrote: .... I am pretty stoked with my 520'd C180A but have always envied the TAT 185. Not sure how much more it would be to operate. I do a lot of short local flights and it seems the TAT would favor longer cross country flying. Curious how nose heavy the TAT mod makes the 185. Josh

I've got an old Plane & Pilot magazine with an article about a Flight Craft turbo installation on a C185..
FWIW it says the turbo kit weighs 67 pounds, so it would make for a huge CG change.

Tom Anderson of TLGW has a turbo'd IO-520 on his 53 180 (the yellow one), and seems to like it.
You might pick his brain about CG, performance, etc.

Thanks. In many ways a turboed 520 makes more sense than a turboed 550. I am in the same boat as electrostatic with the ECI cylinder AD and an old rebuild. I also have a stock locking tailwheel I want to rebuild So it could be a productive conversation with Tom. That supercharger seems simpler and seems like it gets u most of the way to 17k at 1 atmosphere of MP, so maybe a cheaper option overall.