We are thinking of an upgrade. My first thought is PPonk, and my second is (I think) Texas Skyways. Before I start phoning for quotes, I thought it wise to check here. Any suggestions from the 180 folks around here?
We are thinking of an upgrade. My first thought is PPonk, and my second is (I think) Texas Skyways. Before I start phoning for quotes, I thought it wise to check here. Any suggestions from the 180 folks around here?
Hope your sitting down when you call TX Skyways. They have excellent products and support, but they have gone up in prices. I have a PPonk that was done by a builder in Kansas. I'm really happy with it so far.
Chris
Joe Stancil has sold about 464 Skywagons at last count. He has a saying -- the best way to turn $50,000 into $10,000 is to put a big motor into a 180, and if you want bigger power, better to bite the bullet and sell the 180 for a 185.
When I was looking into a bigger motor for our 180, I spoke to the Air Plains folks that do an IO 520 or 550 conversion. They seemed like nice folks. I asked them to pull the weight and balances on the last half dozen 180's they converted -- and they weighed 1875 to 1925 pounds empty. That leaves very little legal useful load. It also makes me wonder about the performance compared to a very light 180, that might weigh almost 300 pounds less.
I ended up selling our 180 (at a big loss because of avionics work that I did) and getting a very light weight 1962 185. I thinks Joe Stancil's advice of either flying the 180 with the o-470 or buying a 185 makes sense.
George
I couldn't disagree more with the above. My 1975 180 ROCKS with a Pponk 0-520 and McCauley C401-86. With the big prop, 29" Bushwheels, 14" XP tailwheel, all the Fluidyne plumbing, tank, and pump in place, and with Kenmore's 3190# STC, my useful load is 1370#. That's off certified scales last year. I can haul that weight at 160 mph as equipped. I can pick up 20 mph and more load if I put the skinnies back on, too. My acquisition price was less and the insurance is less than a comparable 185. My conversion didn't cost anything close to $50K, either. Not even half, in fact. Including the brand new prop.
I'd get quotes to do the Pponk and Texas Skyways conversions and see where you end up. Both mods accomplish the same thing, they just take different paths to get there. Who's cheaper depends on what you have to work with. Some 0-470 models are easier to Ponk because of cranks. I don't remember which is which.
Stewart
I wouldn't trade my '57 Pponked C-180 for the best C-185 in the world. Truth is... an early, light C-180 with even an O-470 in it is an impressive bird with the right guy at the controls.
Just watch Gary Green of McCarthy Air Service operate his '53 C-180 in and out of short strips in the Wrangell Mountains and you'll be a believer. He makes most Cubs look bad.
Crash
Sounds like are you pleased with your conversion and that it offers a lot of utility for your 180. If your goal is a high gross weight, you could add wing tip extensions to our 62 185 and have a useful load of 1815 pounds and still not have the possibility of carb ice.
George
Measured weight or calculated? Either way, at that gross you'll be herding a pig. Have at it.
Me? 12 years, ZERO carb ice. Another true story from a guy who flies one.
Stewart
Stewart:
To us, a 185 is a great 1-2 person plane, and we have no intention of flying it heavy. Our 185 is stripped to the minimum, is half polished, has titanium gear, Michael Petrie's small battery on the firewall conversion, lightweight avionics, and a two blade 86 inch Mac prop, but it does have big fuel, a Horton (soon to be a Sportsman) STOL kit, IFR avionics, 26 inch Bushwheels and a baby Bushwheel tail wheel. As a 62 model, it is 1,710 pounds or 180 pounds lighter than the 1980 model we fly.
It is on the way to Beegles next week to the Skywagon beauty parlor for fixing some battle scars from previous owners and to install a 550. Interestingly, the IO 550 weighs three pounds less than the IO 520, and since we already have the Sea Planes West mount, the additional weight for the engine upgrade will be the switch to an 88 inch three blade Mac.
Our goal was to have the lightest weight, highest power Skywagon possible. Since we weigh 1,710 pounds now, my guess is we will be about 1,750 with the weight of the three blade. While the most important factor will always be the person sitting in the left seat, I can't imagine that you would have a problem with a plane that weighs less than your 180, has a higher gross weight, has more horse power, and is injected?
George
George, are you getting 1710 lbs EW from certified scales in proper weighting configuration or is it calculated by add and subtract from the original W&B sheet? I've never seen a C-185 with big wheels that light. Most are pushing 2000 lbs or over, especially with IFR equipment and Sea Planes West mount.
Crash
Weighed five years ago and calculated from there. Will be weighed again at Beegles. The early model 185's are built quite different from late model ones. Joe Stancil can describe all the reasons the early ones (180s and 185s) are so much lighter. Plus we have just a two blade, no interior, no rear seats, the small battery, titanium gear and it is mostly polished.
George
You have a 185 and are calling it a good 1-2 person airplane and don't intend to fly it heavy?
What the heck do you have a 185 for then?
What good is a high useful load if you don't use it?
I had the Texas Skyways O-470-UTS conversion on my 1955 model. It weighed 1550 empty. It performed really well, was fast (150 knots true) and I got GREAT service from TXskyways. The detractor ofcourse is cost.
I see it this way...TX skyways is for the guy who wants a turn key, all-inclusive deal. That means polished firewall to new baffles and new everything firewall forward. The PPONK mod is sort for a guy who wants to "roll his own" so to speak. If you've got a clean firewall forward and a good engine core to start with...go PPONK. If you've got a situation where you don't have a good mechanic or don't have the time to do it yourself...Call Jack at Tx Skyways.
The other X-factor that people don't always look at when comparing Tx Skyways vs. PPonk is compression. The pponk engine is a low compression engine by definition, the Tx skyways engines (now) are all high compression. If you think car gas is in your future...that needs to be weighed.
That being said, my next airplane will more than likely be a clean 60's 185 if I can find one. After going through the cost and time to upgrade my 180, I'll just go for the 300 horse right from the start. The only exception is if I find a clean 180 with a high time engine that's priced right. Then maybe I'll consider buying it strictly with the intent of putting a 550 in it.
Bill
A few years ago I blew the 470U on takeoff in my 1981 C-180. I had it rebuilt by Aero engines of Winchester(VA) per P-Ponk Specs. Wow! The P-ponk system is very simple, and also includes a new prop and carb modifications. At 65% power (23/23) I true out at 135 KTS, and out climb and cruise any 185 I have seen when loaded. The 1981 C180K is essentially(is) the same airplane as the 185. Mine has the kenmore GW increase which gives me a legal UL of 1350#. The only real changes that cause a little concern were that when flying empty, the airplane is more nose heavy, but load her up and she flies more easily. The other drawback is Noise. I went with the 86" three blade, and she screams when you let her. I don't know how this engine mod would do in the older 180's, but mine went from great to incredible.
Now I'm selling her since I can't afford the maintenance on 4 airplanes!!, and the Super Cub isn't going anywhere!!
George,Originally Posted by GeorgeMandes
I have no criticism of 185s. I think they're fabulous airplanes. If something happened to my 180 I'd be in the market to replace it with either another 520 equipped 180 or a 185. My comments were strictly in rebuttal to your initial comments about the merits of upgrading a 180. My strong pro-PPonk opinion comes from owning and operating a 180 with an older 0-470, a new 0-470, and then upgrading to an 0-520 with the 3-blade. I have the unusual experience of replacing a very healthy 100 hour 0-470 with the 0-520. I didn't replace a sickly old motor when I did it. Trust me, the difference was, and still is, amazing. Probably not unlike the difference you'll experience when you spend a significant amount of money to upgrade to your IO-550. I have no doubt you'll be all smiles.
Stewart
Well, as some of you know, my 470J in my 55' 180 is about to STB, due to pretty aluminum filings in the oil screen, etc.
I was planning on sticking with the O-470 - probably a "U or UTS", have heard great things about it. Have heard both good and bad on the Pponk conversion - and won't convert this old J case - or have been told not to.
So I am thinking brand new engine and prop, looking for a little more cruise speed (mine is a 2 place airplane, and weighs less than my PA18 on amphibs empty by a few pounds). Of course, I have 60 gallons tanks (50 useable with big tires) and hate making a lot of stops, but that can be solved with a belly pod I suppose if I want.
It is a quandry, I have heard so much good about sticking with the 470 (maybe a U, R or S) and also about the PPonk. Cost is a factor I suppose, but I still have credit!
sj
"Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
------------------------------------------
A friend of mine had a 1978 Cessna 180 and decided that it was time to overhaul the engine. After looking at all the options he decided to go with a Texas Skyways O-520. We flew the airplane down to TX and had the Texas Skyways folks do the conversion in their shop. They're a first-rate outfit and did a great job.
Having said that, here's the result. My friend started with an airplane that trued out at 140 kts while burning 11 gph. He ended up with an airplane that trued out a 145 kts while burning 16 gph. Sure, it climbed better, and to some it looked better with the three blade prop (I disagree), but I didn't think the performance increase was worth the much greater fuel burn. I'd have much rather overhauled the O-470-U and stuck with that. (Hopefully it would still only burn 11 gph after the overhaul!)
Of course your mileage may vary, but this is the actual experience of my friend. For what it's worth....
Joe
I am not interested in operating at heavy weights, I just offered the advantage of useful load that you get in a 185 over a 180, if that kind of thing turns your crank.You have a 185 and are calling it a good 1-2 person airplane and don't intend to fly it heavy?
What the heck do you have a 185 for then?
What good is a high useful load if you don't use it?
What interests me is performance, and the road to there is having a lightweight plane with lots of power. For us, a stripped down 1962 185 with a 550 is the most power to empty weight (with reasonable useful load) that we can get from a Skywagon.
George
George,
I envy you for what you're about to turn your 185 into. I have no doubt that it'll climb, cruise, and run at altitude better than most of the 185's out there. I will be interested in what ground roll benefit you get on take-off at a given weight. Frankly, improving climb and cruise performance aren't very important to me at this point, but if you see a dramatic decrease in take-off roll? I'd be very interested. Please keep me in mind for a pirep when it gets back home.
Stewart
I envy you for what you're about to turn your 185 into. I have no doubt that it'll climb, cruise, and run at altitude better than most of the 185's out there. I will be interested in what ground roll benefit you get on take-off at a given weight. Frankly, improving climb and cruise performance aren't very important to me at this point, but if you see a dramatic decrease in take-off roll? I'd be very interested. Please keep me in mind for a pirep when it gets back home.
The more reliable pirep will be about six months later, as it is human nature to absolutely love something that you have just spent money on. Our interest is also in ground roll performance, as opposed to cruise speed, although we do appreciate great climb as that, frankly, just feels good. The climb performance we were seeing on a heavier 550 powered 185, on cold days and partial fuel was incredible -- like initial climb rates of 2,500 fpm and 2,000 fpm climb to 5,000 msl. Interestingly, the heavier plane is Sportsman equipped, and it seems to fly slower than the lighter plane with the Horton. For that reason, while it is at Beegles, we are having them switch out the Horton for a Sportsman cuff.
One final note -- it was Joe Stancil's advice, not mine, to either leave the 0 470 alone in the 180 or buy a 185, and that advice had to do with recouping your cost of the engine upgrade. I was just repeating his advice. Joe also corrects me that he is now up to 474 Skywagons sold to date. Skywagons are an incredible money pit, and with our ship heading to Beegles, we are on that slippery slope where we will have to keep this plane until death as nobody would ever be foolish enough to buy it for what we will have "invested" in it.
George
like a lot of former 180 owners i went through the same thought process between upgrading a plane you have and love versus trading it in and starting over. i owned and flew for several years a 180 with an O-470 and now own a 185 with an IO-520. i have also flown quite a bit with a friend in his PPonked 180. most of my flying is on floats in the summer and on hydraulic wheel skis in the winter. in my experience for these 2 types of operations as the saying goes " there is no replacement for displacement". for floats and skis with any significant load the 185 outperforms any 180 pretty much regardless of who is in the left seat. flying on straight wheels the differences i have seen are much less and is much more technique/experience dependent. my friend's pponk burns 16-17gph. with the IO-520 with gamis i fly about 135mph on floats at 13.5gph at 50deg lean of peak. if float or ski flying is part of your plans for the future i would suggest giving a lot of thought to "upgrading" to a 185.
For my engine to burn 16 gph I have to run it at 24/2450. Incidentally, that's usually about what I run it at. That'll net me about 155 mph on big tires. For your 185 to run at 13.5 gph, what is your throttle/prop setting?
Stewart
Thank you all. That is way more response and info than I expected. So PPonk just takes your engine and makes it more powerful and hungry?
For those of you who expect to have a shorter takeoff roll, note that very few Cub drivers have ever actually measured takeoff roll under enough conditions to make any meaningful data. I suspect the same is true with the 180, although I have a very limited amount of data that I might be able to find. We have folks here who have modified Cubs that purportedly have takeoff rolls much, much shorter than prior to mods, but they have no actual data, so it is all by "feel".
Local 180 folks (except me) always use flaps for takeoff, no matter how long or smooth the runway. I have tried the flaps 20 Vx takeoff in the 180, and am not convinced I could survive a low altitude dramatic power loss with my nose up there . . .
Flaps 20 (on wheels) is for minimizing runway distance, not climbing. Excepting a very unusual obstacle departure, the procedure for us is flaps 10, bring the tail up, pop flaps to about 30, break ground, accelerate, release the flaps to 10 degrees, establish a climb attitude, accelerate, and at pilot's discretion reduce to flaps 0. I usually climb out at about 75 KIAS, initially.Local 180 folks (except me) always use flaps for takeoff, no matter how long or smooth the runway. I have tried the flaps 20 Vx takeoff in the 180, and am not convinced I could survive a low altitude dramatic power loss with my nose up there . .
My wife did some tests in a 550 powered 185 on Aerocet floats. Flaps 0, tuned to the step, but not lifting a float, the plane lifts off at 70 KIAS, flaps 10 at 60 KIAS, flaps 20 at 50 KIAS, and pulling flaps at between 42-44 KIAS. Seems like tail draggers want to be in the air, not on the runway, and flaps are your friend in this regard.
George
I don't get where you're coming up with "three pounds lighter then an IO-520". Attached is a link to Continentals own web site that shows an IO-520F weighs 411 lbs and an IO-550F weighs 425 lbs (D is a typical C-185 engine but Texas Skyways is showing the "F" as the engine they install).
http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF
http://www.txskyways.com/products.htm
Crash
Per maintenance person that installed the 550 and read the paperwork that came with the STC they installed on our plane.I don't get where you're coming up with "three pounds lighter then an IO-520". Attached is a link to Continentals own web site that shows an IO-520D (typical C-185 engine) weight at 411 lbs and an IO-550D at 425 lbs.
George
stewart b,
i do most of my flying at 800-1000ft. at that altitude in a 185 on aerocet 3500Ls my most common settings are
24/2400 12.2gph 50 lop about 125mph on gps
26/2400 13.5gph 50lop about 135mph
wide open throttle/2500 15.2 gph 75 lop about 145 mph
as an aside i find, as gami claims, that chts are lower on the lean side of peak ie cht at 50lop egt is lower than cht at 50rich of peak egt. by opening or closing cowl flaps i keep my hottest cht to about 360 at these settings.
Good info. Thank you. For what it's worth? From my experience in 185s since I did my Pponk, I can't distinguish any performance difference. I hadn't concerned myself with fuel use. Your report is interesting. My gph estimate leans to the conservative side for flight planning purposes. I still operate in the Flintstone era. A calibrated wood dipstick and a watch.
Stewart
I went to the hangar and pulled the weight and balance from the engine conversion of the 1980 185. Here is what it shows:I don't get where you're coming up with "three pounds lighter then an IO-520". Attached is a link to Continentals own web site that shows an IO-520F weighs 411 lbs and an IO-550F weighs 425 lbs (D is a typical C-185 engine but Texas Skyways is showing the "F" as the engine they install).
Removed original IO-520 D engine and accessories -472.47
Installed IO-550D engine and accessories +463.2
Removed Mac D3a34C403/80VA-O prop and spinner assembly -68.9
Installed Mac D3A34C401-C/G-90DFA-2 prop and spinner +78.6
Installed Sea Planes West engine mount +6
Installed Oregon Aircraft Design heat shields +1
Installed JPI EDM 700 with fuel flow +3.75
Installed ECI Volt amp and OPT gauges +1
Installed Reiff Hotband and Sump system +1.31
Total weight gain to 1980 185 about 13 pounds
Weights for the engine gave from the paperwork that accompanied the engine and STC.
George
Joe,
Did your friend that went to TX Skyways get the Big McCauley prop or the Hartzell? I've heard of people not being happy with their conversions using the Hartzell. I get the same performance that Stewart does with Big Tires. With wheel pants/speed kit I get 160 kts/ 16 gph or I can pull it back to the same speed and fuel burn I had with the 470-J.
Chris
I too have heard a lot of grumbling about the performance of the Hartzell "scimitar" blade props on these airplanes, and Bonanzas.
MTV
Hi Chris,
He went with the McCauley. We had already heard that the Hartzell wasn't the prop of choice.
I guess we could have pulled power back to the same airspeed as he used to get with the O-470 and we would have had fuel burn closer to what the old engine burned, but the thought never occurred to us! :P Who ever heard of running an engine at less than maximum cruise!! LOL
Joe
Chris,
Forgot to mention in my previous post, my friend's airplane was completely stock. No speed kit, no pants, no gap seals of any kind. Just the standard fairings on the struts. And it had 8.00x6 tires too.
Joe
Are you talking about the round tip Hartzell Top Prop (Scimitar) or the newer "Blended Airfoil" (Texas Skyways Buccaneer) swept tip blade prop?Hi Chris,
He went with the McCauley. We had already heard that the Hartzell wasn't the prop of choice.
Crash
Well, my friend's conversion was 8 or 9 years ago, so this isn't really anything "new". The Hartzell prop they were offering at the time was a scimitar blade prop, but I don't remember anyone saying anything about a "blended airfoil". At the time, the general consensus was that the McCauley was the better prop of the two.
Joe
This is probably the least scientific thing that I can offer, but I'll post it anyways. I'm pretty familiar with how a PPonked late model 180 with the 88" C401 mac 3 blade pulls, as well as various other stock 180's and 185's.
I've just recently got to fly an '80 model 185 with a new 550 and a Hartzel 82" buccaneer prop. Basically, it was pathetic on take off. Pulled less than a stock 185 with a sea plane prop. Pulled significantly less than an o-520 with the 3 blade MAC C401. Was not as smooth as the MAC. Smoother than my Mac 2 blade though.
The redeeming factor for this plane was Cruise. This 1980 model 185 had a 14 inch tailwheel, bubble windows, 8.50's and was more than likely 2000 lbs empty. Even with that and 80 gallons of gas it indicated over 160 knots at 5500 feet. Power setting was 2400 and 23".
Crash, we just received the weight of our 1962 from Beegles. Here is their email:George, are you getting 1710 lbs EW from certified scales in proper weighting configuration or is it calculated by add and subtract from the original W&B sheet? I've never seen a C-185 with big wheels that light. Most are pushing 2000 lbs or over, especially with IFR equipment and Sea Planes West mount.
Crash
From: Scott Mauch
To: William Baechler
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:23 PM
Subject: N185GM
George:
We weighed the A/C and it is hands down the lightest 185 We have ever had on scales. The A/C has a W&B sheet that states 1721lbs. It actually weighs 1604 LBS.!!!!!! on scales that were just certified. The A/C is configured without interior,R/H control yoke or rear seat. Full fuel & oil and 2 front seat ( I added a spare seat we had ).So it should be lighter but 1604 LBS. your talking 180 figure's.
The heaviest I can recall was 2046 LBS.
I am excited to meet with you and Bill and get an idea were we are headed on the rapair's of N185GM.
I would love to see it leave all modified in the 1600's. What a performer it should be.
Thanks:
SCOTT MAUCH
PH. (970) 313-4822
FAX (970) 353-7280
scott.mauch@beeglesair.com
Wilbur....... what does your 185 weigh????????????
So George....your C-185 had an official Weight and Balance sheet done on certified scales that said it weighed 1721 lbs and now it's weighed again on different "certified" scales and weighs ONLY 1604 lbs....???
Crash, we just received the weight of our 1962 from Beegles. Here is their email:
From: Scott Mauch
To: William Baechler
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:23 PM
Subject: N185GM
[i
What did you do to loose 117 lbs between now and then? Obviously someones scales are off. Choose whoever you believe but most early (even '53) O-470 C-180's weigh more then 1600 lbs.
Sorry, been around too long to believe in 1,000 lb Alaskan Cubs (w/ electrical) or 1600 lb C-185's.
Take care.
Crash
Tell me where I ever said that we had an "official weight and balance sheet on certified scales that said it weighed 1721 pounds?" If you re-read the thread, you will see that I refer to a weight from five years ago that we have calculated going forward. I should have also mentioned, though it was obvious to me, that the weight we calculated from pre-dated our ownership.So George....your C-185 had an official Weight and Balance sheet done on certified scales that said it weighed 1721 lbs and now it's weighed again on different "certified" scales and weighs ONLY 1604 lbs....???
What did you do to loose 117 lbs between now and then? Obviously someones scales are off. Choose whoever you believe but most early (even '53) O-470 C-180's weigh more then 1600 lbs.
Sorry, been around too long to believe in 1,000 lb Alaskan Cubs (w/ electrical) or 1600 lb C-185's.
In your response, you said that most 185's are pushing 2,000 pounds or over. I believe that I told you that we would have it weighed at Beegles. If you are not familiar with Beegles, they have done major work on 180 Skywagons over the last five year period and are considered the gold standard for Skywagon work by many. Now that the plane has been weighed, I have included the email we received and contact info for Beegles, you say:
I can only reasonably interpret your statement as suggesting that either Beegles, I or both are being untruthful. Is there another interpretation that I am missing?Sorry, been around too long to believe in 1,000 lb Alaskan Cubs (w/ electrical) or 1600 lb C-185's.
Why don't you give Beegles a call and talk to them and then report back here as to your findings?
George
George,
Are you "rocket rated?" You might need to be! I really hope to see it fly when it's done. I should be able to see it for a minute or so before you smoke me and disappear into the horizon!
Crash,
Ease up. Have you personally seen your plane on scales? The shop who wrote George's e-mail has a very good reputation. They have no reason to falsify a W&B.
Stewart
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks