New engine in the 180(1955 model)....WOW!

I know this is a super cub forum, but we sometimes digress into Cessna 180 discussions. A few of you guys here like 'em so I thought I'd share.

Just wanted to let you guys know that I flew the new engine on the airplane home yesterday. I made 3 flights, each 1.5 hours with a 2 hour cool down between, and it's running great. We did the initial run on the engine stand for 2 hours so we didn't have to worry too much about the first flight, which was 1 hour on Wednesday. I converted from the old J model O-470 (225HP) to the O-470U(230HP). Along with this I went to the Maccauley C204 two blade, an alternator kit, new mount, and a few other goodies.

The most surprising thing is the speed increase. Before the new engine/prop I was getting roughly 135 knots at 5000 feet(which is exactly what the book says). Now, after using several calculation methods and even consulting a witch doctor , My three flights all came out at about 175 mph true(~151 knots). And that's at 2400 RPMs and 23".

This is amazing because I went from the original O-470J(225HP) to the latest O-470U(230HP). No big deal. The biggest thing, I think, is the prop. I went from the original Hartzel to the Newest, Maccauley threadless 2 blade. It must just be making tons more thrust though the new blade design. Also, the U model does have more compression. It's rated at 230 but I bet that's very conservative. At the very least, it must be using that extra point and a half of compression to make more torque=thrust.

Either way, I'm happier than a fat kid with a candy bar. I know lots of folks are putting PPONK and TXSkyways 520's and 550's on these things, but for a $1500 STC I think this is the most bang for the buck out there on these planes.

Bill

P.S. Picture below:

http://sparky.supercub.org/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=8701&size=big

Bill, any wise words of advice on operation of the 'a' or 'j' engine? I've always heard that they're the bastard of the 0-470 group, but now I'm hearing they're fine as long as temps are well-managed.

I've put a little time on an 'a' on wheels that's fresh and it seems okay.

Interesting, a "light" C-180 has a better power to weight ratio than an average PA-18. Check this out:

C-180 1600 pounds empty 230HP power to weight= 6.9 lb.s per HP

PA-18 1150 pounds empty 150HP power to weight= 7.6 lb.s per HP

Light 180's are plenty of fun!! If they only had a little bit more wing area........

Bill, thanks for sharing.

DAVE

Looks like the hot set up good luck.

Sounds great. I have an early C-180 with Pponk O-470-50 and Hartzell 80" 3 blade. The prop seems to really hold it back from going fast. It pulls hard out of the hole but will only run around 140 to 145 mph in cruise.

I talked with Steve Knopp at Pponk a few weeks ago. He said McCauley is introducing a new 88", threadless, 2 blade prop. It's called a "C230". He has already tested one and has it approved for the O-470-50 on a C-182. Said getting it approved for a C-180 should be no problem. I am looking forward to trying one. I like the fact that a two blade is 20 lbs lighter (off the nose) and you can transport a replacement inside an aircraft if you ever bend it. Try that with a 3 blade. Take care. Crash

Dave Calkins said:

Bill, any wise words of advice on operation of the 'a' or 'j' engine? I've always heard that they're the bastard of the 0-470 group, but now I'm hearing they're fine as long as temps are well-managed.

Click to expand...

Dave,

Thanks for the reply. The A and J are really looked down upon, mostly for silly reasons. The only reason I didn't do the J again was I wanted some more cylider options and the extra compression and TBO of the U.
Looking back through the logs of my plane, the J that I replaced had gone at least 150 hours over TBO all three times it was rebuilt.

I had good baffles and the cylinder head temps are always below 350. The big concern for original J's and A's is the old horizontally mounted cooler. Most have been converted to a traditionally mounted cooler. Mine would go up to 225 degrees of oil temp even in a shallow climb. Really had to watch it.

I don't buy into the A/J scare tactics. Sure, they are old technology and there is better stuff...but is it worth it to the individual. I don't think they are "zero core value" like they used to be. I recieved 6K in core for my J and I know a guy that just had his A rebuilt by one of the tulsa major shops...he had no issue at all getting parts. I figure there a tons of Bonanzas running around with more ancient engines than these and they aren't having any problems. I look at it this way, if you are happy with your plane's performance the way it came from cessna...then leave it alone. The advice I've always stuck by is: cool cylinders and cool, clean oil. Gas is cheap compared to engines so run rich to keep it cool.

Bill

Crash said:

I talked with Steve Knopp at Pponk a few weeks ago. He said McCauley is introducing a new 88", threadless, 2 blade prop. It's called a "C230". He has already tested one and has it approved for the O-470-50 on a C-182. Said getting it approved for a C-180 should be no problem. I am looking forward to trying one. I like the fact that a two blade is 20 lbs lighter (off the nose) and you can transport a replacement inside an aircraft if you ever bend it. Try that with a 3 blade. Take care. Crash

Click to expand...

The prop he may be talking about is the C238. In standard form it is 86 inches. It is Mac's threadless, latest generation 520/550 prop. Texas skyways has approved it for their engines. I've seen it in person and it's cool. The blades are really fat at the base and compared to an old C66 it looks like two "spoons" swinging around out there. The guys at TXskyways say that most people get the Mac 3 blade or the hartzel but the guys who want simplicity and utility are going with the two blader.

I was a little dissapointed at first of the thought of "just" a 82" two blade on mine. I thought "no way is thing going to run." Obviously, I was wrong. The guys at Maccauley know what they are doing.

P.S. I have a friend with a PPonk 520 and the MAC 3 blade. His is basically the same situation on speed as yours. He gave up speed a little for an amazing climb rate. For me, my airplane is a kite anyways at 1500 lbs so climb is not a problem. I've got short range tanks and wanted as much speed as possible to lengthen my trips. The guys told me this was the prop to run and now i believe.

Bill

This is great info as I have been looking at older 180's.

I know from Arrows and other birds (even my CS prop equipped supercub) that the right prop can make a huge difference in performance.

Anybody run the MT prop on a C180?

s

Whats wrong with the "R" engine?

Whats wrong with the "R" 0-470 engine? It runs cool, has the full 230 hp, and can use auto fuel as well (the "U" can't use auto fuel). Parts are plentiful as well.

Mike

Re: Whats wrong with the "R" engine?

CptKelly said:

Whats wrong with the "R" 0-470 engine? It runs cool, has the full 230 hp, and can use auto fuel as well (the "U" can't use auto fuel). Parts are plentiful as well.

Mike

Click to expand...

Nothings wrong with the R at all. Neither is anything wrong with the L or the S. When I first started thinking about upgrading mine, the R is the first thing I looked at because it is the "standard" for 180/182 engines. The problem was availability of STC. Of the 4 different STC holders of R conversions I could find, only 2 applied to the 55 model. One of those two had only one, undesirable prop included on the STC. The last guy wouldn't return my calls and I couldn't get any info. One of them required relocating the carburator placement and would necessitate changing the cowl completely. I know there are ways to sidestep this but it was just too much of a hassle. At least around here, I was getting stonewalled about doing it under a field approval.

For me, the auto fuel wasn't an issue. The U was better for me for several reasons. I wanted the extra TBO, I wanted the extra torque at 2400 (for prop efficiency reasons), I wanted the U bottom end (from a manufacturing standpoint they are basically a small jugged 520), and I wanted all the things that come with a U by definition. With my old J I would have had to pay extra to upgrade to a large, non-congealing oil cooler and an oil filter setup. With the U, these are standard items at no extra cost. I had also had indirect experience with two U motors going to full TBO(2000 hours) with no sign of stopping.

That was just my reasoning for the U but a lot of it was availability. I had a GREAT shop only an hour away that has tons of experience putting upgraded engines in 180's and were willing to do the U.

I live in Houston texas and pretty much any airport I fly to has gas. I have a fuel farm in my hanger. If I lived somewhere that avgas availability was inconsistent or sparse then I would have taken another route. I wouldn't be doing a 520 or a 550 either, no autofuel stc for those as well.

Bill

new engine in the 180

my 185 with the 3 blade 401 is not that fast but it is an 88 inch prop, plus i have the flint tip tanks, that slows me downs some i'm sure, my usefull load is 1800 and gross is 3600

hey Bill that is a great set-up. You gonna have to get some brakes on that machine now! Hope to see you at the RNRRFI as I will be there this year.

vet114 said:

hey Bill that is a great set-up. You gonna have to get some brakes on that machine now! Hope to see you at the RNRRFI as I will be there this year.

Click to expand...

I hope to be there myself. I'm scheming at work right now trying to get the time off. See ya.

Bill

Good thread.

Last summer, I spent some time up close and personal to a '56 C-180 with a -U conversion 0-470. I wasn't just impressed, I was VERY FAVOURABLY impressed.

Who has a link to appropriate STC's? What crankcase part numbers should one be looking for?

Thanks. cubscout

cubscout said:

Good thread.

Last summer, I spent some time up close and personal to a '56 C-180 with a -U conversion 0-470. I wasn't just impressed, I was VERY FAVOURABLY impressed.

Who has a link to appropriate STC's? What crankcase part numbers should one be looking for?

Thanks. cubscout

Click to expand...

The two STC's that I know of are SA01176at and SA8842SW

N4653B said:

Crash said:

I talked with Steve Knopp at Pponk a few weeks ago. He said McCauley is introducing a new 88", threadless, 2 blade prop. It's called a "C230". He has already tested one and has it approved for the O-470-50 on a C-182. Said getting it approved for a C-180 should be no problem. I am looking forward to trying one. I like the fact that a two blade is 20 lbs lighter (off the nose) and you can transport a replacement inside an aircraft if you ever bend it. Try that with a 3 blade. Take care. Crash

Click to expand...

The prop he may be talking about is the C238. In standard form it is 86 inches. It is Mac's threadless, latest generation 520/550 prop. Texas skyways has approved it for their engines. I've seen it in person and it's cool. The blades are really fat at the base and compared to an old C66 it looks like two "spoons" swinging around out there. The guys at TXskyways say that most people get the Mac 3 blade or the hartzel but the guys who want simplicity and utility are going with the two blader.

I was a little dissapointed at first of the thought of "just" a 82" two blade on mine. I thought "no way is thing going to run." Obviously, I was wrong. The guys at Maccauley know what they are doing.

P.S. I have a friend with a PPonk 520 and the MAC 3 blade. His is basically the same situation on speed as yours. He gave up speed a little for an amazing climb rate. For me, my airplane is a kite anyways at 1500 lbs so climb is not a problem. I've got short range tanks and wanted as much speed as possible to lengthen my trips. The guys told me this was the prop to run and now i believe.

Bill

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, my 180 is currently equipped with an 0-520, MacCauley C401 86" 3-blade, and sits on 29" Bushwheels and an XP 14" tailwheel. At 24 square I'm loping along at around 160mph depending on how it's loaded. 25 square bumps it up to at or near 170mph. When I first did the engine conversion it was on 8.50s and an 8" tailwheel. It was hard to break the engine in because it cruised well into the yellow arc all the time (180mph+ was easy), and the weather was such that smooth air wasn't to be found.

A friend has a lighter 180 with an 0-520 and a long 2-blade MacCauley. His plane isn't faster than mine, but I wouldn't say mine is faster than his, either. He's on 29" Gars w/ a Gar tailwheel.

Hey Crash, if I ever bend my 3-blade I can transport a 2-blade replacement just the same as you. :lol:

Stewart

Where have you been hiding?