Norland is on Head Lake in Ontario... just West of Norland, Ontario about an hour from me. No website that I know of or can find.. but his phone is
[h=(705) 454-8933]3[/h]
Norland is on Head Lake in Ontario... just West of Norland, Ontario about an hour from me. No website that I know of or can find.. but his phone is
[h=(705) 454-8933]3[/h]
The Norland engine and the Texas Skyways O 470 UTS(O470U that is turned up 200 rpm) are basically the same. The reason I'd go with the Norland is because I have an 88 in propeller sitting here that wouldn't work with the Texas STC. When 100 LL goes away the Texas engine would look good because you can use 88% ethanol legally.
You don't think they'll start making 94UL?Originally Posted by 180Marty
You're probably right, it'll be available.You don't think they'll start making 94UL?
I just talked to Chris at Norland. There IO470 conversion sounds interesting! There is a derelict 310 on our field with IO470's. Anyone interested in doing the Norland STC. I would make a really good deal on the first one!
Thanks,
Charlie Longley
Was I right in thinking the 88 inch McCauley seaplane prop will work?I just talked to Chris at Norland. There IO470 conversion sounds interesting!
Oh yeah! And there is another McCauley with a fatter blade that he has approved that wasn't previously approved for the 180. You can also use the longer prop on the 182 if heavy duty gear is installed to provide ground clearance. I am salivating!
I am interested in doing the Norland as well, let me know what you find out. In the process of looking for an engine
Do you know if you can use 91 Octane Mogas with the Norland? Or mixed with 100LL?
The STC requires 100LL. The IO470 is a high compression version of the O470.
Talked to the engine builder about the ppw for the J to R conversion....logbook entry, get a fresh w/b. Project Eternity should be ready for a flight in a couple days, weather depending. Had to replace the tail wheel head and tube. The tube snapped into about five seperate and distinctive pieces when we pushed her into the tiedown for the night. Over $3000 for a new Cessna tail spring, got a very nice used specimen.
Never heard of that before. Did water freeze in it to get so many breaks?The tube snapped into about five seperate and distinctive pieces when we pushed her into the tiedown for the night.
I suppose it could have been water at some point, nothing came out once we got her inside. We were thinking metal fatigue. It snapped diagonally from the t/w head uphill roughly two inches plus down inside the head in and around the bolt holes. We plugged the replacement stinger at the top.
Don't know if I agree with that! But to each his own.
Last edited by Charlie Longley; 12-15-2011 at 10:50 PM.
Originally Posted by skukum12
Talked to the engine builder about the ppw for the J to R conversion....logbook entry, get a fresh w/b.
There are two separate approvals here. The first is the engine conversion from a J to R. The second is the installation of the R engine into the airplane. One could be a minor and the other could be a major.
N1PA
Don't know if agree with that either!
Talked to the engine builder about the ppw for the J to R conversion....logbook entry, get a fresh w/b.
There are two separate approvals here. The first is the engine conversion from a J to R. The second is the installation of the R engine into the airplane. One could be a minor and the other could be a major.
What fiery hoops did you have to jump through?
Not too many! STC to put the O470R on and a 337 for the O470J induction on the R to work with my cowl.
Other than the increased cooling of the -R cylinders. What is the benifit? Obviously you had to rework your exhaust, were there any other mods necessary? Did the -J induction bolt right up?
It should as long as you use an oil pan from the A,J, or K also. When I installed the K in mine I was going to use the induction Y from my A. It would have worked except a guy gave me an oil pump from an O 470 U that had an intregal spin on oil filter. It wouldn't fit because the Y from the A had a cross piece cast in between the upper split. Had to call Gibson Aviation to get a Y that didn't have that cross reinforcing. If I had used the original non oil filter pump would have been a non issue. Hope you can understand what I did.Did the J induction bolt up
The induction ypipe bolted right up. Having a brain fart but I believe I had to go to four bolt intake tubes, I will check. The R has a higher h.p. rating, some say the R is under rated and the J over. There may be the benefit of a higher resale value of the plane. No other mods necessary, the mount didn't need changing cause I kept the J case.
The R has 5 more HP. The J induction bolted right on but I had to change to a J oil pan as well. The R I bought also has a heavy case. I am contemplating going to a carbureted IO470D for 260 HP! In which case the R would be for sale.
PM me with details.
Well Gentlemen, finally flew the 180 today for the first time in a year. R motor ran like a raped ape. Just a couple tweeks needed (governor, baffles). BUT, the engine analyzer (egt/cht) which worked on the ground, refuses to work in the air. I really would have liked some temp readings on that first flight. Any suggestions as to the cause of this problem? It is a used unit, digital, installed by a professional. BTW I havent been able to get ahold of him yet for questioning.
When I have had problems with engine monitors it has usually been with a probe or two not having a good connection.
Steve Pierce
"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."
Henry Ford
If your instrument is a JPI you can download the instrument installation manual which includes a section about troubleshooting. Not to be confused with their advice about using the instrument to troubleshoot an engine problem, the install manual troubleshoots the instrument function. I assume the competitive instrument companies offer similar web downloads of their manuals. Good luck.
During preflight, #2 egt was showing 1999 degrees before engine start, the probe has a bunch of play at the pipe. I will hit the trouble shoot guide after a nice white tail stroganov dinner
I have decided on a brand new O-550 from TX Skyways and the 88 inch 3 blade MAC (may go 2 blade Mac but still staying with the 88") . I have heard numerous reports about folks not liking them or having something to say about Jack down there but they seem to be on it and honest so far.
TX skyways really likes the 3 blade-82" Hartzel prop. They also claim is has 300lbs more thrust....Anyone disagree with that? The big Mac props in my opinion are the way to go. That also coincides with what many of the 135 guys around the country are utilizing. Same set up.
I am aware of the added weight etc., but really we are only talking 8lbs heavier than my old O 470K. I had the 88" 2 blade already.
Additionally, I am adding the WingX to the plane giving her an additional 400lbs of useful load. Not to mention the Sportsman STOL kit and removing my Horton.
All and all I am feeling pretty good about this. Seems like the plane will be down for about 8-10 weeks.
Going with the Leading Edge exhaust system and Sea planes west engine mount as well.
Anyone have any comments on this thought? Feeling pretty good about it so far. Curious if I am missing something here??
Kevin
Sounds like you'll have a rip snorting bird when done. Look at the pull tests regarding 88 inch 401 mac versus 86 401 mac on Pponk's website. They say in their tests the 88 did not pull any more than the 86 3 blade and just used the extra energy to make noise.
Off the top of my head I recall the weight gain for switching from an 0-470S w/ 88" 2-blade to an 0-520 w/ 86" 3-blade was 37#. No complaints on my part, either. Fedex Lou is the only guy I know of with an 0-550 and I know he's happy with it. You might ping him for insider info on the motor. In my opinion the strength of a 520/550 upgrade on a 180 is all about the ability to spin a big prop effectively and the 3-blade smoothness is worth the price of admission.
How much more would it be to step up to the AirPlains IO-550? As they say, if you're heading to New York, why get off in Cincinnati?
FWIW, my mechanics have told me the Leading Edge advantage is best utilized with high compression hot-rodded motors. They say the benefits are minimal with low compression stock motors. That led me to Performance Airmotive's muffler on the -12 and a new Acorn system on the 180. I'm pleased in both cases. The improvement from a high performance exhaust would be related to the potential of the intake. Whether a 550 with a carb has a unused breathing on the front end that can be tapped by improving the exhaust is an interesting thought in itself. No LEE criticism, just passing on what I heard.
Have fun, and you'll have more of that if you lose the calculator for adding up the expense!
Last edited by sierra bravo; 05-17-2012 at 06:37 AM.
I have a new IO-550 with the 3 blade 82" Hartzell from TX Skyways on a Seaplanes West engine mount in my 185. The folks at TX Skyways are absolutely first class, reliable and honest. They were a pleasure to deal with. The new prop showed up within days of my giving them a deposit. The deposit could not have been enough to pay for the prop. This engine propeller combination is the most powerful, smoothest and quietest of the many combinations that I have flown on a 185. If Cessna were to build the 185 again, this is the engine/prop combination they should use. I have had friends ask me if I was using full power on take off because it is so quiet.
I have a friend who had one of those 88" Macs on his stock engine 185. That airplane was an extremely noisy dog. Frankly it's take off performance sucked, both on wheels and floats.
The Seaplanes West engine mount is a different story. First of all it does not tilt down like the Cessna mount. I consider this to be important for the servicing of an engine in the 185. I got a field approval from the FAA to correct this. The other thing that may be more critical is that the diagonal tubes from the lower firewall attachment cluster, on both sides, to the forward edge of the mount interfered with the exhaust pipes. The curve from the header to the muffler hit the mount. The new exhaust broke all the way around on the very first test flight. The fix was to lengthen the exhaust pipe just above the curve, which solved the hitting problem. It is still very close. This did not make me very happy. If I were to do it again I would use the engine mount from Cessna that they recommend for the 3-blade prop installation. This one only has 2 of the large lord mounts. Seaplanes West uses four. I had a 1978 Cessna 3-blade 185 with Cessna's mount for a short while and it was very smooth.
N1PA
This is the new exhaust system that I used. I have nothing good to say about it or them, except that the muffler to tailpipe reinforcement mod is good.
N1PA
Paul @ Acorn is high on the list of best suppliers I've ever dealt with. Great service. A model for other outfits to shoot for. Lucky me!
My experience differs than yours.
N1PA
Although I selected a different prop, I agree with SBs analogy on props... and my weight numbers agree as well, although in my case 37#s on the nose was a deal breaker... There are lighter 3 blades making use of newer technology, although as with all things, those props have their compromises as well...
I also agree with most of what SB's mechanic is saying about exhaust, but... is the Acorn exhaust using the same dimensions as stock? I have no experience with Acorns 180 stuff. If so we are forgetting two important pieces to the equation.
First of all we are already moving more air through that compressor, (or as you put it, breathing more on the front end) going from 470 to 550, and the increase in T/O fuel flows illustrates this.
Secondly the exhaust stacks for the O-470 are almost 3/8" smaller than the exhaust ports on the O-520/550.... this is a direct 90° stepped neck-down, right at the start of your exhaust system... so much for the port and polish concept... My experience (and a couple others I know who have changed) is that at a bare minimum you will see cooler CHTs using a correctly sized exhaust...
Take care, Rob
Rob,
My old exhaust had the big stacks. It also used the leaky clamp joints at the risers. My new exhaust is the same except it uses slip joints. Bye bye exhaust leaks.
To the prop thing, since these motors spin at different take-off speeds the prop selection should take that into consideration. At least it's worthy of discussion. As is mission. Floats V wheels, short ops V cruise, etc. They're all good for something. What your thing is is the big factor. I like my C401-86 but would definitely consider an M.T. of I was in the market for a prop.
Last edited by sierra bravo; 05-17-2012 at 07:03 PM.
SB,
Agreed on the slip joints, that was a must have in my choices for a new exhaust. I went with Knisley because they were working on a new big stack, big can version for the duals, but other locals I know here have had good results with Acorn as well.
I really like the dual exhaust Dane built for Mark Hawkins, I think it was one of the first he ever did for early 180s. Unfortunately, when I tried to get one for mine, there was no way to determine how long it would take to get one...
normal_134.jpg
Old O-470 exhaust vs. Knisleys O-470-50 set up
It will be interesting to see how Kevin's combination works out. His bird is a '53 which means it started with dual exhaust, and the corresponding early engine mount. His cowl is a '57 which is a single can cowl, his desire is a SPW engine mount, which won't accommodate the early intake (but it may not even have an early intake on it at this point? The combinations can be mind boggling...
Last edited by Rob; 05-17-2012 at 08:30 PM.
I've had my Knisley dual setup since 1996 and have used deep brass nuts from the auto parts store. I also use the spiral wound exhaust gaskets and found the best thing to do is install everything and fly for a couple of hours then tighten. Then fly a few hours more, tighten again and then they will stay for quite awhile. Also, with those deep nuts, I had to buy a Craftsman 7/16th universal joint socket and grind on it a little since the fit is very tight to get on the nuts. Notice I said Craftsman since others I tried wouldn't work as well.
Marty, I've got a snap-on wobbly socket ground slightly that does them all. ....I like knisely's stuff.
SB...."Lees performance best for high-comprssion engines"???? Well, LEES early 180 system is beautiful and it's made a rip snorter out of the several 470R's I've installed it on....freer breathing.....not sure what your guys used for testing before and after......my test was purely seat of the pants, so it could be argued.
Skywagon...bad dealings with Acorn. I am sorry. Those guys have been pure gold to me and those around me. Could you say more?
SB, I'm 100 percent in agreement about props and "the mission". I also believe that the testing by Steve K. may not be apples to apples...which to some folks would seem sacriligious to question him. He's done so much cool stuff, so I hesitate to say that. However, different blade airfoils work at different angles and speeds. It would be a very long test regime to figure it all out, and he came up with a system and "model" that satisfied him...yet, it's not a straight comparison. I'll stop here. D
Dave,
For the same money I'd rather have an IO-550 with a large stack conventional exhaust than an O-550 with a LEE. When my 520 serves notice of retirement that's exactly what I'll have, too. When that day comes I'll evaluate a long MT 3-blade against my Mac, but for now I'm still grinning with what I have. It works well.
What a guy thinks about new mods is based on what he replaced. Most motor swaps install a healthy new engine where a sick, tired one had been. So it goes for props, exhausts, etc. I always keep that in mind.
Last edited by sierra bravo; 05-18-2012 at 11:20 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks