They dont say how much the cowls weight. I would try and just get the fwd top and bottom nose inlets. Repair your cowls with that. A flat aluminum part can be lighter than a composite but the composite will resist the cracking we get at the round corners. You will have fit problems at the oil cooler with a 550 w large non congealing cooler. Seaplane firewall / mount fittings, heavy duty motor mounts, shim for proper thrust line, will reduce the amount of trimming.

Lots of options for sure! I've been looking into the 3-bladed MT and like everything I've heard so far (except the price). I called flight resources in WI and asked lots of questions, I really like the sound of dropping 30 lbs off the nose and the stainless leading edge is supposed to really resist wear. Manufacturer claims and feedback from the field supports that the MT will out pull anything else. That with a bigger 520/550 on your plane would make a monster!

Now I know why you're shopping for a new prop.

Vick wrote:Lots of options for sure! I've been looking into the 3-bladed MT and like everything I've heard so far (except the price). I called flight resources in WI and asked lots of questions, I really like the sound of dropping 30 lbs off the nose and the stainless leading edge is supposed to really resist wear. Manufacturer claims and feedback from the field supports that the MT will out pull anything else. That with a bigger 520/550 on your plane would make a monster!

I really like this option a lot. Have spoken to a lot of folks over the past 48 hours and the 3 blade MT seems like a real good prop. Lots of folks on the Skywagon forum are saying the very same. Interesting how many folks have had problems with Jack and TX Skyways.

Vick you not talkng about the SCIMITAR -MT prop are you? Seems like a lot of folks have had vibration isues with this one.

If money isn't going to be a factor, my opinion is that the 'O'-550 isn't going to add enough weight to be a deal breaker. And it will out perform the 520 by a good margin. For my personal use the IO would be out ... the added weight and complexity just nips the deal... This only applies to an early model that I was trying to keep cublike. BTW, 170like is probably a more accurate description.

Prop wise, when I did my engine, I really didn't want to add the weight of the big 401 to the nose, so I had Steve Knopp field approve a C66 sea plane prop to the 520. I then ended up trying out the 2 blade MT for a year. With that set up it was as cublike as you are going to get a 180, but I was leaving unused power on the table. Prior to this Steve was almost against MT's, but earlier this year he ended up testing both MT 2 and 3 blades on his O-550 powered 182. The 2 blade fell quite short of the 401, but the 3 bladed MT took off within a foot or two of the 401. The 401 still being superior in T/O and obviously in durability.
With the margin that close, I elected to go to the 3 blade MT. It is just a better prop for my purpose. It's 9 lbs heavier that the 2 blade, but still 30 less than the 401 Mac, and that is a lot of weight off the nose of a 180. It winds up like a two stroke it is quieter than most, and on big wheels the durability doesn't even cross my mind. If I take a rock big enough to take out a blade, I think that would constitute a prop strike, regardless of what kind of prop you had on it, so that argument just doesn't factor in for me... You hear the saying 'turbine smooth' alot.... with the balancing magic Steve Knopp performs on engines, and a dynamically balanced MT prop, I can honestly say that my 180 is smoother than my turbine... and that is with a fresh hot, new and again dynamically balanced prop, and over all really well set up combo...

Take lowriders offer up on Rich's airplane (always nice when friends loan your airplane out ) then fly mine. I think we are set up pretty similar. Then at least your prop choice will be addressed. Then have Steve build you up an O-550, and make both of us

Take care, Rob
PM sent BTW

Aktahoe, I have the Pponk (520) motor and MT 2 blade on my 1973 182 floatplane. It is a great combination. It previously had the 401 mac 3 blade on it. The 2 blade MT outperforms the 3 blade mac in every aspect on my plane and is close to 40 pounds lighter. For float flying, it was the perfect fit for my Pponk motor. Quicker out of the hole, off the water, and climb. Combined with the Pponk motor it truly is turbine smooth. Maybe different for wheel/ski flying. Don't know as I only fly this plane on floats. The O-550 with the MT 3 blade sounds like a winner, as long as your wallet is big enough.

aktahoe1 wrote:So most of you know my plane, a 53 -180 ( If not, you can also see it on my blog...www.bigtirepilot.com) and I am considering getting a IO-550. Currently the plane has a 57 cowling on her.

Questions: Anyone have insight on the composite cowling from Selkirk?

Anyone know of a 57 cowling available or where I may find one...this is all assuming that is what I need per what I have been told. I need to be educated here please.

What cowling goes with the IO-550 for a 53 180? Currently running a 470K. Is it even possible? (stupid question)

What is your thoughts on the best prop out there? I really like the McCauley 3 blade. Currently running the 88" 2 blade sea plane prop.

Calling Texas Skyways now and Selkirk but curious of your thoughts please.

Thanks

Kevin

0-550 or IO-550 or even 520 -more displacement than the old 0-470 by 50 or more cubic inches .The engine is a "AIR PUMP" with explosive reaction -air/fuel in and exhaust out. Expect to use more fuel (fuel /air ratio) per hour for same rpm .Increase power /increase fuel consumption over 470. Fuel Injection go directly into cylinders by pump -air input by throttle body . When exhaust is expelled from cylinder out muffler -more going out . 3 blade is good choice -if you want to sell the Seaplane prop let me know .Cowling should be ok as is -- Composite is really cool except they just have those little oil/engine excess doors . I like the "BIG " doors for easy excess to engine compartment.

182 STOL driver wrote: Expect to use more fuel (fuel /air ratio) per hour for same rpm .Increase power /increase fuel consumption over 470.

Be careful with this.... Mere cubic inches do not mean much on their own. I routinely fly along side a 180hp cub in my 160 hp cub. He always gets better fuel economy than me... everytime... (now ask which one is more of a joy to fly )

Beyond that, my 180 can burn more fuel now that it has an O-520 in it than it did with the O-470. On the average take off it burns quite a bit more...Record keeping however, shows that I consistently burn less fuel going back and forth to phoenix now than I ever did before...

aktahoe1 wrote:..... My 470 already has 520 jugs giving me 260 I believe. Its just that time to make it happen. Seems like a lot of options. Just want to make the correct choice......

So is it a 520 then? (aka 470+50 Ponk)? Curious why you want more displacement-- do you run out of steam now, or is it just a case of "bigger is better"? It sounds like you're pretty pleased with your airplane as it currently sits-- I'd make sure that any upgrade doesn't ruin the light handling you enjoy now.

hotrod150 wrote:

aktahoe1 wrote:..... My 470 already has 520 jugs giving me 260 I believe. Its just that time to make it happen. Seems like a lot of options. Just want to make the correct choice......

So is it a 520 then? (aka 470+50 Ponk)? Curious why you want more displacement-- do you run out of steam now, or is it just a case of "bigger is better"? It sounds like you're pretty pleased with your airplane as it currently sits-- I'd make sure that any upgrade doesn't ruin the light handling you enjoy now.

Lets just say that this need has come sooner than expected... My airplane WAS perfect...

That does NOT sound good....

I was glad to hear that you are back in Truckee, and was selfishly looking forward to new Big Tire Flyer pictures being posted.

aktahoe1 wrote:Lets just say that this need has come sooner than expected... My airplane WAS perfect...

Great discussion...

I have a 62' 180 with a Pponk 520 and an 86" 401. This engine has been in service for 10 years, the prop for about 3. This is a great combination in my opinion.

I operated the 520 engine with the original C66 for 6 years. It was certainly cost effective, it was smooth, had good performance and was fast.

After this particular C66 was condemned we tried the Hartzell 8068, 84". Great pull, quiet. Same speed as the C66. Truly turbine smooth on wheels, yet an unsolvable vibration on floats. I'm not the only one to experience this. More dark science from the propeller front.

On to the 401. Smooth,smoothest at 2400 and above. I'm told it's louder outside at 2700, can't really tell inside, especially at cruise.Pulls noticeably better than the other two. Might have lost a few knots over the other two. (2-3?)

Two comments to summarize:

1. If I were getting a new engine tomorrow, I'd order a Pponk O-550. Same great builder, bolt it on, more power.

2. I thought about the MT 2-blade. At the time there weren't many out there and didn't care to be the scout. Also, and I'm out of town and away for my records, but I recall that the 35-40 lb.weight savings everyone talks about was optimistic. Still significant, but after my research with actual figures from McCauley and MT engineering, I seem to remember a difference of more like 25-30. Of course, the weight difference between the 401 and the MT 3-blade would be even less.

I'm not trying to split hairs, and the MT may in fact be the best answer if you have the money, but it is another piece of the puzzle.

Please let us know how it turns out.

Thanks Aqua...sounds like the way to go to me as well. O550 and the MT 3 blade prop

Now that I have spoke with the feds, I guess I can share my humility....

I, as many of us do, was practicing my tail up taxi procedures. Taxied around for awhile making turns,driving around circles etc.,at various speeds. Doing this slow is much harder than with a bit of speed. Personally when your going to need this manuever in the field your not going to do it with speed, you will be stopped or very slow most likely. Long story short, up and over she went with a gust of wind. I practice this technique all the time and do believe its a very good technique to know how to perform. Far to often we land and need to turn around. Often times the ground is so rough that you need to get your tail off the ground to turn around or you will beat your plane up. Anyway...

If you can image your plane acting as a flag pole, all I was missing is the flag. So now, I am waiting to see what happens with the insurance folks as I am covered. Ofcourse I can only imagine now what will come of this.

Wow sorry to hear that Kevin, hopefully you can get back up and running soon.

low rider wrote::-#

I spoke to them...its ok to share now...

Brother man, I feel like you're Mikey from the Life cereal ads that were on TV when we were kids...

Sorry to hear about the scrape Kevin . I'd send you my "shit happens" shirt but I'm not done wearing it yet

Zane wrote:Brother man, I feel like you're Mikey from the Life cereal ads that were on TV when we were kids...

Not certain how to take that Zane but it sure made me laugh....

A simple straight and level is just not enough I guess.

I would be willing to bet there are lot of folks that have done this.