Engine Upgrade
- Thread starter Valdez
- Start date
djfraudman
Registered User
Meadow Lakes, AK
Obviously you will need to have an STC for the 180 and there are three that appear to be the most popular. All require a O-360 A or C series engine. You need to look at their web sites or the STC's for the exact models. The three STC holders are:
1) http://www.cubcrafters.com/cc/products/180Mod.asp
2) http://www.crosswindsstol.com/180h_p.htm
3) http://www.pennyanaero.com/11.html
I'm not aware of anyway to legally convert a IO-360 to a O-360 so that it would you could comply with the requirements of the STC. Maybe someone else know a way to do that. You might also check with an engine shop.
1) http://www.cubcrafters.com/cc/products/180Mod.asp
2) http://www.crosswindsstol.com/180h_p.htm
3) http://www.pennyanaero.com/11.html
I'm not aware of anyway to legally convert a IO-360 to a O-360 so that it would you could comply with the requirements of the STC. Maybe someone else know a way to do that. You might also check with an engine shop.
SuperCub MD
Registered User
Collins, Wisconsin
Engine Upgrades
Good guestion. But no easy answer. There are over 20 different variations of the O-320, and another 20+ for the O-360. A short book could be written on the differences between them all. The type certificates for the engines explains what all the alphabet soap means. Model designations can be changed, sometimes by STC, most often by field approval. The biggest thing to changing a IO- to a O- is the oil sump and intake runners, (injection drafts from the rear, carbs from below). THEN comes all the paperwork. You really need to get that engine cheap to make it worth all the aggravation. There are lots of conversion STC's, all with their own models used. Basic guide lines are hard to give. The first thing you need to do is decide who's STC you want to use for the conversion and see what models are used with the particular STC. Then go out and find that particular model, or one that can be converted to that model economically.
Now my personal advise. The 180 is over 20 lbs heavier than the engine you have now, and it all hangs way out front. I think you mentioned a prop strike? It shakes the plane apart, and burns more gas. If you want more power, and your 150 is a wide deck, have it rebuilt to a 160. If it's a narrow deck, exchange it for a 160. This is a lot cheaper and easier than the 180 conversion. And I have heard that some converted 180's are now being switched back to 160's. Wonder why?
Good guestion. But no easy answer. There are over 20 different variations of the O-320, and another 20+ for the O-360. A short book could be written on the differences between them all. The type certificates for the engines explains what all the alphabet soap means. Model designations can be changed, sometimes by STC, most often by field approval. The biggest thing to changing a IO- to a O- is the oil sump and intake runners, (injection drafts from the rear, carbs from below). THEN comes all the paperwork. You really need to get that engine cheap to make it worth all the aggravation. There are lots of conversion STC's, all with their own models used. Basic guide lines are hard to give. The first thing you need to do is decide who's STC you want to use for the conversion and see what models are used with the particular STC. Then go out and find that particular model, or one that can be converted to that model economically.
Now my personal advise. The 180 is over 20 lbs heavier than the engine you have now, and it all hangs way out front. I think you mentioned a prop strike? It shakes the plane apart, and burns more gas. If you want more power, and your 150 is a wide deck, have it rebuilt to a 160. If it's a narrow deck, exchange it for a 160. This is a lot cheaper and easier than the 180 conversion. And I have heard that some converted 180's are now being switched back to 160's. Wonder why?
Crash
GONE WEST
Nikiski Alaska
180 vs 160HP
This is a tough one and has many opinions. Most guys I talk to that have them all say to go with the dynafocal mount. Ya I know what Cubcrafters will tell you about a conical mount. The fact is they can buy a conical mount engine cheaper then a new dynafocal and they're in the business to make money. The 180 does shake more then a 160 and you need a dynafoacl mount to smooth it out. It is more like 35-40 lbs that you are adding to the front end. Twenty pounds for the engine, a few more for the prop, 7 more for the mount etc.. Most of the guides I know fly 150 or 160HP Cubs, as they fly them for a living. One told me that after 25 different planes with all the various mods you can think of. "The best Cub is a stock wing, heavy duty gear, 30" tires, Borer prop, safty cables and 160HP Cub" Everything else takes way as much as it adds. Crash
This is a tough one and has many opinions. Most guys I talk to that have them all say to go with the dynafocal mount. Ya I know what Cubcrafters will tell you about a conical mount. The fact is they can buy a conical mount engine cheaper then a new dynafocal and they're in the business to make money. The 180 does shake more then a 160 and you need a dynafoacl mount to smooth it out. It is more like 35-40 lbs that you are adding to the front end. Twenty pounds for the engine, a few more for the prop, 7 more for the mount etc.. Most of the guides I know fly 150 or 160HP Cubs, as they fly them for a living. One told me that after 25 different planes with all the various mods you can think of. "The best Cub is a stock wing, heavy duty gear, 30" tires, Borer prop, safty cables and 160HP Cub" Everything else takes way as much as it adds. Crash
PA12driver
Registered User
Battle Ground, WA
150/160 conversion
I have a 0320A2B wide deck that was modified to a 160 by way of the SeaAir STC SE315NM the 337 when the engine was overhauled.
The question I have is this; This STC is for modifing the engine does it address what airframe it is cetified to be installed in?
I am trying to install a JPI FS450 fuel computer that has been STC'd for the PA18-150 as well as for the PA12 their STC does not address the 160 engine HP upgrade? I am under the impression that the 160hp O320 requires an increase in fuel flow? That raises another question what is the actual fuel flow to the carburator from a PA18 and a PA12 at max Angle of Climb?
My neighbor is the "former FAA inspector" and now the consultant that does the testing and submittion to the FAA for additions to their STC for their products. (He says the STC for the engine mod should address the airframe it is to be installed in? I can't find that in my paperwork from SEAAIR?
Thanks for any imput!
Tim
I have a 0320A2B wide deck that was modified to a 160 by way of the SeaAir STC SE315NM the 337 when the engine was overhauled.
The question I have is this; This STC is for modifing the engine does it address what airframe it is cetified to be installed in?
I am trying to install a JPI FS450 fuel computer that has been STC'd for the PA18-150 as well as for the PA12 their STC does not address the 160 engine HP upgrade? I am under the impression that the 160hp O320 requires an increase in fuel flow? That raises another question what is the actual fuel flow to the carburator from a PA18 and a PA12 at max Angle of Climb?
My neighbor is the "former FAA inspector" and now the consultant that does the testing and submittion to the FAA for additions to their STC for their products. (He says the STC for the engine mod should address the airframe it is to be installed in? I can't find that in my paperwork from SEAAIR?
Thanks for any imput!
Tim
PA12driver
Registered User
Battle Ground, WA
Thanks! I will give the folks a call and see what they have to say?
Tim
Tim
WIflier
MEMBER
Janesville, WI
STC's
Tim when purchasing an STC it is wise to research the compatibility of the STC with the engine airframe combination it is going on. Also you have to look at any other approved modifications or STC's installed on aircraft engine combination. In the end it is the installer that must determine the compatibility of the STC. If compatability can be determined an IA can approve for return to service if not even the STC may need approval of the local FSDO. This can be a long and expensive process all though the Alaskans usually have a smoother process than the lower 48.
Si
Tim when purchasing an STC it is wise to research the compatibility of the STC with the engine airframe combination it is going on. Also you have to look at any other approved modifications or STC's installed on aircraft engine combination. In the end it is the installer that must determine the compatibility of the STC. If compatability can be determined an IA can approve for return to service if not even the STC may need approval of the local FSDO. This can be a long and expensive process all though the Alaskans usually have a smoother process than the lower 48.
Si
SuperCub MD
Registered User
Collins, Wisconsin
Tim,
Your O-320 should have a STC or field approval for installation on the PA12. Remember that a O-320 (150 or 160 hp) is not a legal engine on a PA12 without some form of approval. You need to find out how it was approved in the first place, then find out if the approval used allows a upgrade to a -B engine (160 hp). A STC to upgrade the engine is not approval to put that engine back on the plane. Hopefully your engine was approved, if not, you may be in for some problems.
Your O-320 should have a STC or field approval for installation on the PA12. Remember that a O-320 (150 or 160 hp) is not a legal engine on a PA12 without some form of approval. You need to find out how it was approved in the first place, then find out if the approval used allows a upgrade to a -B engine (160 hp). A STC to upgrade the engine is not approval to put that engine back on the plane. Hopefully your engine was approved, if not, you may be in for some problems.
Rick Sanson
Registered User
Location: Location
160HP Conversion
After finding steel in my oil screen I decided to have my O-320-A2B engine rebuilt by Superior Air Parts as part of their "Millenium" program. I researched all the STC's and bought the AeroRecip 160HP STC ($300) which Superior installed at no additional cost (5yr or TBO full parts and labor warranty). Everything was a new part with the exception of the case and the crank. ($16,000). I believe this was a great decision!!
As mentioned above, I needed a STC to hang the 160HP engine on the airframe and wound up buying Cubcrafters STC ($500) The only requirement for this STC is paperwork and 100LL placards near the fuel caps. My IA is very through and found a discrepancy with CC's paperwork. I called CC, explained the issue and JR told me that they would correct the problem and resend the paperwork. Can you guess what didn't happen? I guess the new STC paperwork will come with my next issue of the Super Cub Pilots Association newsletter...
Fuel burn went from ~7.2GPH to ~7.7GPH leaned 25 degrees rich of peak @ 2500RPM (2750 Static redline, stock prop@ 74/56). Climb rate went from ~1000FPM to +1200FPM @ 1149 Empty weight @ ~60 degree OAT)
I can't see all the trouble in getting to 180HP to gain 20 more horsepower. New cowling, engine mount, oil cooler and who knows what else.
Like the guys here say, getting out isn't too much of a problem, getting in is and 180HP can't help very much with landing real short!
Find an alternative airframe STC for the 160HP engine!
After finding steel in my oil screen I decided to have my O-320-A2B engine rebuilt by Superior Air Parts as part of their "Millenium" program. I researched all the STC's and bought the AeroRecip 160HP STC ($300) which Superior installed at no additional cost (5yr or TBO full parts and labor warranty). Everything was a new part with the exception of the case and the crank. ($16,000). I believe this was a great decision!!
As mentioned above, I needed a STC to hang the 160HP engine on the airframe and wound up buying Cubcrafters STC ($500) The only requirement for this STC is paperwork and 100LL placards near the fuel caps. My IA is very through and found a discrepancy with CC's paperwork. I called CC, explained the issue and JR told me that they would correct the problem and resend the paperwork. Can you guess what didn't happen? I guess the new STC paperwork will come with my next issue of the Super Cub Pilots Association newsletter...
Fuel burn went from ~7.2GPH to ~7.7GPH leaned 25 degrees rich of peak @ 2500RPM (2750 Static redline, stock prop@ 74/56). Climb rate went from ~1000FPM to +1200FPM @ 1149 Empty weight @ ~60 degree OAT)
I can't see all the trouble in getting to 180HP to gain 20 more horsepower. New cowling, engine mount, oil cooler and who knows what else.
Like the guys here say, getting out isn't too much of a problem, getting in is and 180HP can't help very much with landing real short!
Find an alternative airframe STC for the 160HP engine!
PA12driver
Registered User
Battle Ground, WA
can of worms!
Ok, I did call the new owner of Sea-air and they informed me that the STC that I have is only for the Engine mod as I suspected.
The challenge is this: The IA that did the work in 1995 stated in the logs that " the engine was dissassembled and overhauled .............and modified in accordance to Sea Air Inc. STC........"(see applicable FAA form 337) "Engine installed on Piper PA-12 N#.... S/N 12-... "Engine released to service subject to a maintenance check flight ground run and leak check"
My questions is "DOESN'T THE AI HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE TO IT THAT THERE IS AN STC FOR THE INSTALLATION ON THE (intended airframe)??????
I was told that Cross Wind Stol has an STC for this installation on a PA-12?
Are there others, what do they entail? and what about the PA-18? I know of probably 30 supercubs and 12's with the 160hp conversion, how many of these are operating (technically illegally) are there any modifications necessary to the fuel system, cooling, motor mounts, flight manual, airspeed indicatior etc?
This is the kind of thing that pisses off the pilots that are relying on the AI to know what is legal and what is not!
Ok, I did call the new owner of Sea-air and they informed me that the STC that I have is only for the Engine mod as I suspected.
The challenge is this: The IA that did the work in 1995 stated in the logs that " the engine was dissassembled and overhauled .............and modified in accordance to Sea Air Inc. STC........"(see applicable FAA form 337) "Engine installed on Piper PA-12 N#.... S/N 12-... "Engine released to service subject to a maintenance check flight ground run and leak check"
My questions is "DOESN'T THE AI HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE TO IT THAT THERE IS AN STC FOR THE INSTALLATION ON THE (intended airframe)??????
I was told that Cross Wind Stol has an STC for this installation on a PA-12?
Are there others, what do they entail? and what about the PA-18? I know of probably 30 supercubs and 12's with the 160hp conversion, how many of these are operating (technically illegally) are there any modifications necessary to the fuel system, cooling, motor mounts, flight manual, airspeed indicatior etc?
This is the kind of thing that pisses off the pilots that are relying on the AI to know what is legal and what is not!
supercubc37
Registered User
Janesville,WI
Engine upgrade
It is the owner/operators responsibility to determine if the aircraft is airworthy. What does this mean? If you operate the aircraft you are responsible for ALL modifications,AD's, flight manual,placards,W/B report...etc. What is mistaken is the owner thinks that all thios stuff falls on the mechanic when he installs or works on the aircraft, fact of the matter it doesn't. I am not saying that the mechanic isn't to blame because he should have known that the installation back on that aircraft would not meet the original STC in which it was converted. When you are around this business long enough you have some owners that just don't understand when you tell them that you have to do this ,this,this to make the aircraft airworthy, then they get pissed when you are up eye balls in time,money and paperwork and they still can't fly or get insurance for their aircraft.
Morel of the story is be informed as to your aircraft, choose a mechanic that you can trust ( this takes time for both the aircraft owner and the mechanic).
Matt
It is the owner/operators responsibility to determine if the aircraft is airworthy. What does this mean? If you operate the aircraft you are responsible for ALL modifications,AD's, flight manual,placards,W/B report...etc. What is mistaken is the owner thinks that all thios stuff falls on the mechanic when he installs or works on the aircraft, fact of the matter it doesn't. I am not saying that the mechanic isn't to blame because he should have known that the installation back on that aircraft would not meet the original STC in which it was converted. When you are around this business long enough you have some owners that just don't understand when you tell them that you have to do this ,this,this to make the aircraft airworthy, then they get pissed when you are up eye balls in time,money and paperwork and they still can't fly or get insurance for their aircraft.
Morel of the story is be informed as to your aircraft, choose a mechanic that you can trust ( this takes time for both the aircraft owner and the mechanic).
Matt
S
StewartB
Croswinds has an STC for 160 hp in 12's, 14's, and 18's. Check their site crosswindsstol.com. There isn't specific information, so you'll probably have to call Charly. Let me know what you find, I'll be putting a 160 into my 12 as soon as the airframe is finished. I've got a Dakota Airframes fuselage arriving next week. Now the work starts.
PA12driver
Registered User
Battle Ground, WA
IA responsibility
The sad part is on this airplane this IA did all the work! He built the engine (he is infact the FAA inspector overseeing all IA's and AP's in the region? Go figure! I am fully aware that it is the pilots responsiblilty for the airworthiness of the bird. Those including AP's are required to have and IA sign off on the Annual inspection? If it is not part of their "responsibility to insure that the STC's, 337's and inspections are in order then what the heck do we need them for??
I will no doubt have to now purchase the STC (paper) from Charly to make the plane legal! It is to bad that it took 7 years to find out the discrepency!
I will keep ya all informed of the outcome! Thanks for the feed back! In the mean time it flys just fine!
"the jobs not complete until the weight of the paperwork equals the empty weight of the plane"
Tim
The sad part is on this airplane this IA did all the work! He built the engine (he is infact the FAA inspector overseeing all IA's and AP's in the region? Go figure! I am fully aware that it is the pilots responsiblilty for the airworthiness of the bird. Those including AP's are required to have and IA sign off on the Annual inspection? If it is not part of their "responsibility to insure that the STC's, 337's and inspections are in order then what the heck do we need them for??
I will no doubt have to now purchase the STC (paper) from Charly to make the plane legal! It is to bad that it took 7 years to find out the discrepency!
I will keep ya all informed of the outcome! Thanks for the feed back! In the mean time it flys just fine!
"the jobs not complete until the weight of the paperwork equals the empty weight of the plane"
Tim
S
StewartB
I've always been curious as to the liability of a mechanic who states "approved for return to service" or "I find the aircraft to be airworthy". Your situation would be worse if you failed a ramp-check, or if you were denied an insurance claim because the paperwork was incorrect. If there is no damage done, liability is a moot point. It's a shame that the FAA requires mechanics to be paper shufflers. I'd rather my mechanic was a good mechanic instead of a good paperwork administrator. I hope your situation ends well.
SuperCub MD
Registered User
Collins, Wisconsin
It is the IA's responsability to make sure the paperwork is in order before returning the aircraft to service. If there was no approved data to install the 160, he had no authority to return the aircraft to service. Being a IA myself, I should know. Go back to the original STC to install the O-320, if it includes the 160 hp engine you now have, you are OK. If not, you need to figure out what installation you have, (engine mount, baffling, oil cooler, cowling, ect.), and see if someones STC applies. You may need a field approval for the installation if no STC applies. If you need help with the approval, let me know, I've done a lot harder field approvals that this before.
Rick Sanson
Registered User
Location: Location
Responsibility
The IA who inspects my Super Cub (and my work) and signs my logs takes that responsibility.
I recently found that I needed either a field approval or STC for some tires I had on my plane. I found it and he missed it and he was a bit concerned that he had missed it and apologized.
Yep, it is the owners responsiblity to ensure the work was done properly and logged properly but I feel that as the airworthyness signature authority, the IA should, based on their FAA certification, have some responsibility in ensuring the aircraft is legally airworthy! They wouldn't sign-off if I decided to use water pipe for my lift struts would they???
Do I want a pencil whipping inspection or do I want an inspection by someone who is more experienced than my dumb ass...
The IA who inspects my Super Cub (and my work) and signs my logs takes that responsibility.
I recently found that I needed either a field approval or STC for some tires I had on my plane. I found it and he missed it and he was a bit concerned that he had missed it and apologized.
Yep, it is the owners responsiblity to ensure the work was done properly and logged properly but I feel that as the airworthyness signature authority, the IA should, based on their FAA certification, have some responsibility in ensuring the aircraft is legally airworthy! They wouldn't sign-off if I decided to use water pipe for my lift struts would they???
Do I want a pencil whipping inspection or do I want an inspection by someone who is more experienced than my dumb ass...
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
I agree with Mark. The IA could not legally sign the A/C off as being airworthy without the approved data. The IA would be liable for signing the A/C off as airworthy when it is not. If you can get a FAA Form 337 that has been previously approved for this installation that is approved data according to the FAA Field Inspector's Handbook. I am an A&P/IA and have gotten engines previously installed by persons unknown in this way. In my case I had a PA-16 with an O-290 installed somewhere in its life time and the STC holder was no longer in buisiness. I used the 337 Form from another A/C and got it approved. If you have an FAA Inspector that you trust you might run it past him you might be surprised. I have had real good luck in these situations. I credit that to having an Airworthiness Inspector that has worked in General Aviation and has some common sense about these things.
Steve Pierce
Steve Pierce
SuperCub MD
Registered User
Collins, Wisconsin
Steve is right. The first thing a FSDO Inspector will ask when you seek a field approval is if you have a copy of a 337 from someone elses approval of the same mod. This is the easiest way to get a approval.
By the way, I think your IA just made a honest mistake in the paperwork. Give the poor guy a break, we are just mechanics, not F'ing lawyers, if we were, we could charge $200 per hour like they do.
By the way, I think your IA just made a honest mistake in the paperwork. Give the poor guy a break, we are just mechanics, not F'ing lawyers, if we were, we could charge $200 per hour like they do.
djfraudman
Registered User
Meadow Lakes, AK
I'm going to put my two cents in here just to review the logic of this whole thread of conversation.
The problem is, as I understand it is, what is required to have a O320A2B, which by STC was changed from a 150 hp to a 160 hp O 320A2B, installed in a PA-12.
So the first question should be: by what authority was the O320A2B installed in a PA-12. I assume we can all agree that this should have been done pursuant to an STC that permits a O320A2B to be installed in a PA-12.
The second question then becomes: If the STC permits the installation of a O230A2B does it make any difference whether it is a 150 or a 160hp. If a seperate STC allows the engine to be modifed but does not change the designation (something other than O360A2B) then arguably it shouldn't make any difference whether the engine was a 150 or a 160 hp and the STC for installation of a O320A2B would cover both versions of the engine.
Now every knows that opinions are like a-------, everyone has one and they all stink, but???
The problem is, as I understand it is, what is required to have a O320A2B, which by STC was changed from a 150 hp to a 160 hp O 320A2B, installed in a PA-12.
So the first question should be: by what authority was the O320A2B installed in a PA-12. I assume we can all agree that this should have been done pursuant to an STC that permits a O320A2B to be installed in a PA-12.
The second question then becomes: If the STC permits the installation of a O230A2B does it make any difference whether it is a 150 or a 160hp. If a seperate STC allows the engine to be modifed but does not change the designation (something other than O360A2B) then arguably it shouldn't make any difference whether the engine was a 150 or a 160 hp and the STC for installation of a O320A2B would cover both versions of the engine.
Now every knows that opinions are like a-------, everyone has one and they all stink, but???
SuperCub MD
Registered User
Collins, Wisconsin
To be, or not to be a A2B? Or to be a B2B? THAT is the question.
PA12driver
Registered User
Battle Ground, WA
To clear things up?
Thanks to all of you for your imput on the subject of approval, legal, etc.
and to be clear! I don't think the IA made intentually made the mistake! I do think that this situation does point out the potential, and likelyhood of confusion that surrounds all this STC, Field Approval stuff for modifing the original type Certificate of Factory planes!! Isn't this what started the whole Homebuilt, experimental classification to begin with.
To answer one post prior: the installation of an 032A2B on a PA-12 has been STC'd by several folks with slightly different configurations for Cowling, cooling, mount, prop etc.
The challenge is that my Engine has been modified by the SeaAir STC to upgrade the horsepower to 160. The only external mod that is required is the minimum fuel is now 100LL . The Data plate change (required as part of the STC) now makes the engine (not a A2B_ which designates it as a 150hp engine).
Field approval should not be a problem if I can show that others have done the same thing successfully:
REQUEST: ANYONE THAT CAN GET AHOLD OF A COPY OF A 337 FIELD APPROVAL PLEASE NOTIY ME!
Thanks!
Tim
Thanks to all of you for your imput on the subject of approval, legal, etc.
and to be clear! I don't think the IA made intentually made the mistake! I do think that this situation does point out the potential, and likelyhood of confusion that surrounds all this STC, Field Approval stuff for modifing the original type Certificate of Factory planes!! Isn't this what started the whole Homebuilt, experimental classification to begin with.
To answer one post prior: the installation of an 032A2B on a PA-12 has been STC'd by several folks with slightly different configurations for Cowling, cooling, mount, prop etc.
The challenge is that my Engine has been modified by the SeaAir STC to upgrade the horsepower to 160. The only external mod that is required is the minimum fuel is now 100LL . The Data plate change (required as part of the STC) now makes the engine (not a A2B_ which designates it as a 150hp engine).
Field approval should not be a problem if I can show that others have done the same thing successfully:
REQUEST: ANYONE THAT CAN GET AHOLD OF A COPY OF A 337 FIELD APPROVAL PLEASE NOTIY ME!
Thanks!
Tim
SuperCub MD
Registered User
Collins, Wisconsin
Tim,
Just sent you a email with some 337 info, if it doesn't go through, let me know.
Just sent you a email with some 337 info, if it doesn't go through, let me know.
Crash
GONE WEST
Nikiski Alaska
180HP Upgrade
Can anyone out there give an honest opinion on the changes, good or bad, with a modern 180hp conversion using all the light weight stuff (starter, aternator, oil cooler). I would like to know the difference between the conical and dynafocal mount as far as weight and viberation etc. Landing distance with the extra weight up front. Cruise speed. Before and after weight of the aircraft. Did it feel nose heavy after the conversion? I hear so many conflicting stories on this conversion. On my PA-18 project I can go either way at this point. Crash!
Can anyone out there give an honest opinion on the changes, good or bad, with a modern 180hp conversion using all the light weight stuff (starter, aternator, oil cooler). I would like to know the difference between the conical and dynafocal mount as far as weight and viberation etc. Landing distance with the extra weight up front. Cruise speed. Before and after weight of the aircraft. Did it feel nose heavy after the conversion? I hear so many conflicting stories on this conversion. On my PA-18 project I can go either way at this point. Crash!
Cubus Maximus
Registered User
180 hp
Greg, In response to your 180 query...how about another idea? Did you look at Dick Williams post a while back? A B2B (160) with the Leading Edge exhaust giving him another 10-13 hp. Interesting...How about putting in a B2B (lower octane requirements--91 and easier hand proping) with the LE exhaust? Light weight oil cooler, alternator, starter, keep the Borer or wood prop etc..
You'll end up lighter than the O-360 even with the light weight stuff, more livability and less tail wagging. I could handle 170+ hp and a lighter airplane. Whatever...this of course all depends on if what is being bandied about the new exhaust is real world true. Brad
Greg, In response to your 180 query...how about another idea? Did you look at Dick Williams post a while back? A B2B (160) with the Leading Edge exhaust giving him another 10-13 hp. Interesting...How about putting in a B2B (lower octane requirements--91 and easier hand proping) with the LE exhaust? Light weight oil cooler, alternator, starter, keep the Borer or wood prop etc..
You'll end up lighter than the O-360 even with the light weight stuff, more livability and less tail wagging. I could handle 170+ hp and a lighter airplane. Whatever...this of course all depends on if what is being bandied about the new exhaust is real world true. Brad
Cubus Maximus
Registered User
Dick Williams report on CC
I just saw this on CC's site. Here's Dick's latest report on the LE exhaust.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report: Ly-Con reported 12-13 hp increase with this exhaust on a stock O-320B2B.
I installed it and saw the following RPM differences with a 42 pitch prop at 3000'.
Static: 2400 to 2475
Climb @ 60 mph: 2500 and 1800' in 2 min
to 2600 and 1900' in 2 min.
Max @ 5000': 2800 rpm to 2950 rpm
Speed: 90 mph @ 2600 rpm and 7.5 gph post exhaust (not tested with old exhaust)
I then tried a 44 pitch prop with the exhaust and saw this:
Static: 2425
Climb @ 60mph: 2500 rpm and 1500' in 2 min.
Max: 2850 @ 5000'
Speed: 95 mph @ 2600 rpm and 8gph
I'm sticking with 42 until I get a chance to try a 43.
I am very pleased with this exhaust system so far and there is a definite noticeable increase in performance with my airplane.
Hope this helps anyone interested in this system.
Dick Williams
I just saw this on CC's site. Here's Dick's latest report on the LE exhaust.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report: Ly-Con reported 12-13 hp increase with this exhaust on a stock O-320B2B.
I installed it and saw the following RPM differences with a 42 pitch prop at 3000'.
Static: 2400 to 2475
Climb @ 60 mph: 2500 and 1800' in 2 min
to 2600 and 1900' in 2 min.
Max @ 5000': 2800 rpm to 2950 rpm
Speed: 90 mph @ 2600 rpm and 7.5 gph post exhaust (not tested with old exhaust)
I then tried a 44 pitch prop with the exhaust and saw this:
Static: 2425
Climb @ 60mph: 2500 rpm and 1500' in 2 min.
Max: 2850 @ 5000'
Speed: 95 mph @ 2600 rpm and 8gph
I'm sticking with 42 until I get a chance to try a 43.
I am very pleased with this exhaust system so far and there is a definite noticeable increase in performance with my airplane.
Hope this helps anyone interested in this system.
Dick Williams
kase
SPONSOR
Billings MT
The CC 180 cub that I flew was on amphibs so I cant say if it was nose heavy. It was a conical mount C4P engine and it seemed smooth to me. The interesting thing to me was that at the same crusing speed we were within 50 rpm of each other. My cub had 26 in tires at the time with uncovered gear and 160 engine.
The Jensen converted cub had a dynafocal mount, original starter, 2 oil coolers and 84 in prop. Very smooth but I thought it was nose heavy. Any breaking at all brought the tail up, even with somebody in the back seat. Didnt seem to take off any shorter but I think it was a heavy cub because it had 29 in gar-areo tires, 18gal/cargo pod with lots of junk in it. Once it broke ground it climbed like crazy. With 2 people, 40 gal of gas, 90 degrees out at 3500 msl it would climb 1500 fpm. I thought it was very impresive. I only flew it about 2 hours so its kinda hard to really get the feel of it but it sure did like to climb.
I would of liked to put a 180 in my cub but for what I use it for it dosent make sence. CC gets 6949 for the cowl, oil cooler and airbox etc. 3500 for the prop. If you want new baffling 1395, and 937 per each exhaust stack if you want new. 38,968.00 plus labor. I think its a geat set up if you want to spend the money.
At least with the 0320 props, cowling, exhaust etc are cheaper. If your hard on equipment this may be something to consider. I like being able to call Univiar, Dakota Cub, Stoddards, Dodge if I need something. It appears to me the 180 stuff is special order stuff.
The Jensen converted cub had a dynafocal mount, original starter, 2 oil coolers and 84 in prop. Very smooth but I thought it was nose heavy. Any breaking at all brought the tail up, even with somebody in the back seat. Didnt seem to take off any shorter but I think it was a heavy cub because it had 29 in gar-areo tires, 18gal/cargo pod with lots of junk in it. Once it broke ground it climbed like crazy. With 2 people, 40 gal of gas, 90 degrees out at 3500 msl it would climb 1500 fpm. I thought it was very impresive. I only flew it about 2 hours so its kinda hard to really get the feel of it but it sure did like to climb.
I would of liked to put a 180 in my cub but for what I use it for it dosent make sence. CC gets 6949 for the cowl, oil cooler and airbox etc. 3500 for the prop. If you want new baffling 1395, and 937 per each exhaust stack if you want new. 38,968.00 plus labor. I think its a geat set up if you want to spend the money.
At least with the 0320 props, cowling, exhaust etc are cheaper. If your hard on equipment this may be something to consider. I like being able to call Univiar, Dakota Cub, Stoddards, Dodge if I need something. It appears to me the 180 stuff is special order stuff.
Crash
GONE WEST
Nikiski Alaska
180HP
I am starting to come around on the LE exhaust a little. It still bugs me to add 8 lbs more to the front end though. I wish he would have made it out of .035 instead of .049 to keep the weight down. I guess he's so use to building 185 and 206 exhaust systems he didn't think the Cub guys would notice. I was out the other day getting the cob webs out after a long winter doing some gravel bar, short field landings. Having a Cub that will float in slow makes all the difference in the world. If you have to carry much power or speed to keep the nose from dropping, you just can't land short. Crash
I am starting to come around on the LE exhaust a little. It still bugs me to add 8 lbs more to the front end though. I wish he would have made it out of .035 instead of .049 to keep the weight down. I guess he's so use to building 185 and 206 exhaust systems he didn't think the Cub guys would notice. I was out the other day getting the cob webs out after a long winter doing some gravel bar, short field landings. Having a Cub that will float in slow makes all the difference in the world. If you have to carry much power or speed to keep the nose from dropping, you just can't land short. Crash
WIflier
MEMBER
Janesville, WI
180 HP.
Crash. I think if you go back and read some of your old posts you'll talk yourself of the 180 HP engine. Is the 14 flying yet? If it is lets have a report when you get time. Did you get the door seal material and do you think it will work for you. Si WIflier
Crash. I think if you go back and read some of your old posts you'll talk yourself of the 180 HP engine. Is the 14 flying yet? If it is lets have a report when you get time. Did you get the door seal material and do you think it will work for you. Si WIflier
