• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Cessna 182S on Wip 3000 Questions

kwitte

FRIEND
Central Texas
I'm considering buying a Cessna 182 S on Wipline 3000 amphibious floats. The performance seems fairly anemic and I'm looking for suggestions. The airplane has an STC to raise the gross weight to 3250. Although Air Plains has an STC to increase horsepower to 260, the cost is high and the current engine is only half way to TBO. So, I'm wondering if a Sportsman STOL, Wing X extensions and/or a Hartzell Trail Blazer prop would be a cost effective way to significantly improve takeoff and climb? Another benefit of the Trail Blazer prop would be a reduction in weight on the nose which should help the forward CG problem. Any thoughts, ideas or suggestions would be much appreciated.
 
First choice would be Wing X extensions. This is a winner throughout the entire flight regime. Then the light weight prop to move the CG aft. Amphibs all have forward CG issues.
Then report back here with the smile on your face.
 
Personally, for a 4-seater amphib I would focus on a model with higher power-to-weight. Either bigger engine or lighter empty weight (or both).

In addition to the forward CG, all amphibs tend to be heavy and suffer from cooling issues. You can’t have too much horsepower on those hot, humid, high-DA days when you tend to fly on floats.

I think it was the Wipline founder who once said “The best mods for float planes are Horsepower, Wing area and Doodads ... in that order”.

I test-flew a stock 182S on Wip 3000’s and it was substantially more anemic than other options. Long ground roll // water-run and slower climb.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
We put the wing extensions and vg's on our c180 when we installed the aerocet 3400A's. Best thing you can do to a 180! We are still running a stock 470 U. I would't call it a rocket by any stretch but it's pretty decent for sure.
 
First choice would be Wing X extensions. This is a winner throughout the entire flight regime. Then the light weight prop to move the CG aft. Amphibs all have forward CG issues.
Then report back here with the smile on your face.

Thanks for your suggestions. Wing X extensions are certainly the first priority. What do you think about the Sportsman STOL along with the wing extensions?
 
I agree and a bigger engine is going to have to wait for awhile due to the cost and the fact that the existing engine is at only 1100 hours. The Trail Blazer prop looks like a winner, but we're trying to confirm that it is approved for floatplane operations on the C-182S. This should pull harder and reduce the weight on the nose by around 13 pounds or so. That should help the CG issue to some extent. Thanks for your comments.
 
Thanks for the information. I'm glad to hear that you are able to make the stock engine work. Certainly more horsepower is desirable, but budget requires waiting on this one.
 
As others have noted, wing area, horsepower and CG are keys to making a seaplane work. On an amphib, CG is often more of a culprit than with a straight float airplane.

The other variable not mentioned so far is weight. Lots of these airplanes were pretty heavy, so putting the plane on a serious diet will help as well. That luxo interior may need some amendments.

And, contrary to many folks thinking, this is never going to be a functional four place airplane. Unless the participants are all dwarfs.

MTV
 
Thanks for your suggestions. Wing X extensions are certainly the first priority. What do you think about the Sportsman STOL along with the wing extensions?
I'm of the opinion that the wings with the factory Cessna cuff need no leading edge modifications. Cessna got this right. It is difficult to voice just what those differences actually are, primarily noticed in seat of the pants sensitivity. Those modified leading edges which I've flown loose a bit on the top end. You want the most top end indicated speed you can maintain for engine cooling, particularly when you are in Texas in the summer. Stock wings with extensions and drooping ailerons for take off are my choice. I don't know if drooping ailerons are available anymore. Light weight props for CG control. Then when time and funds permit, more horsepower, as long as there is not a large weight increase forward of the firewall with the CG change.

Like MTV says, this is not a four seater anymore.
 
As others have noted, wing area, horsepower and CG are keys to making a seaplane work. On an amphib, CG is often more of a culprit than with a straight float airplane.

The other variable not mentioned so far is weight. Lots of these airplanes were pretty heavy, so putting the plane on a serious diet will help as well. That luxo interior may need some amendments.

And, contrary to many folks thinking, this is never going to be a functional four place airplane. Unless the participants are all dwarfs.

MTV
Thanks Mike: I plan to only have two people. In fact, I'll likely remove the rear bench seat which will save some weight. There is an STC to change to a 260 hp version of the IO-540. This is only 30 hp more, but would probably really help in takeoff and climb. I'm not sure of the difference in the engine other than the RPM is increased. I'm hearing the Hartzell Trail Blazer prop makes a definite difference in takeoff and climb, plus it reduces weight on the nose. Hopefully someone has some "first hand" experience.
 
I agree and a bigger engine is going to have to wait for awhile due to the cost and the fact that the existing engine is at only 1100 hours. The Trail Blazer prop looks like a winner, but we're trying to confirm that it is approved for floatplane operations on the C-182S. This should pull harder and reduce the weight on the nose by around 13 pounds or so. That should help the CG issue to some extent. Thanks for your comments.

To my knowledge, there is no approval for the Trailblazer prop on the 540 engine. Not that that can’t change, of course, but might be some additional time/expense/question mark if you are looking to get a field approval or STC. Not sure how it would do on a 540, but we’ve liked it on the Continental 550 and Lycoming 580.

—Amy
 
To my knowledge, there is no approval for the Trailblazer prop on the 540 engine. Not that that can’t change, of course, but might be some additional time/expense/question mark if you are looking to get a field approval or STC. Not sure how it would do on a 540, but we’ve liked it on the Continental 550 and Lycoming 580.

—Amy

Does MT offer a prop for this installation?

MTV
 
Does MT offer a prop for this installation?

MTV

They might, but I am not aware of it if so. There aren’t as many options available for the 182S/T compared to the earlier airplanes. I didn’t see an approval for the late-model airplanes on the Flight Resource site but another modifier might hold an STC. It would need to be compatible with the AirPlains upgrade as well.

AirPlains is a capable upgrade shop and it might be worthwhile for them to just approve a new prop with their engine upgrade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks Amy. I just visited with Air Plains about this. As you said, there is not currently an approval for the Trail Blazer on this airplane. Hartzell does make a scimitar prop that is approved but I don't know how this would work in terms of lighter weight than the existing prop. Air Plains is continuing to investigate so maybe they will come up with a solution.
 
I'm of the opinion that the wings with the factory Cessna cuff need no leading edge modifications. Cessna got this right. It is difficult to voice just what those differences actually are, primarily noticed in seat of the pants sensitivity. Those modified leading edges which I've flown loose a bit on the top end. You want the most top end indicated speed you can maintain for engine cooling, particularly when you are in Texas in the summer. Stock wings with extensions and drooping ailerons for take off are my choice. I don't know if drooping ailerons are available anymore. Light weight props for CG control. Then when time and funds permit, more horsepower, as long as there is not a large weight increase forward of the firewall with the CG change.

Like MTV says, this is not a four seater anymore.
Agreed. I doubt you could measure a real difference with a Sportsman. Your wing already has a cuff.
WingX and 260 hp will make a big difference.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 
As someone not familiar with the differences between useful loads in a 182 vs a 180, but also someone who has been interested in finding a 180, possibly on floats - would y'all consider a 180 on floats a "functional four place airplane"?
 
nope, not on amphibs even with the up gw. unless the occupants are light and your not going far.
 
Haven't seen much about it on here yet, but the biggest news in props that has come down the line, for a very long time is the just released Hartzell "Voyager" prop.
I know of half dozen new installs here in last couple months, 520/550's.
Everyone has same story:
Incredible upgrade over any other prop ever
available! Big ROC increase 3/500 fpm. The number of '10 knots increase in cruise' on wheels, is common.
There will be some "smokin deals" on Macaulay Black Max/ older Hartzell wide blades shortly as the word leaks out.
Not sure if Hartzell will make these available for the 0470 crowd or not?
Big torque difference on wheels , and probably NOT as quiet as the older styles,
In 3 blades, but not as bad as the 88" two
blades either. Completely different sound
almost "turbiney" in tone.
This new prop will be to the Skywagon crowd, what the 'Borer' was to the SC.
Check it out if your on amphibian's
E

Sent from my moto e5 go using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 
Earle,
kwitte has a 182S which is running a Lycoming IO-540 restricted to 2400 rpm. It would not surprise me if someone were to dig into the TC specs, to find that he could adjust the governor to a higher rpm with the result of more power. Perhaps it would require a governor change and a trip to the prop shop to move the low pitch stops? That's all that was done to the Cessna 172XP to change from 195 hp to 210 hp.

If the above suggestion is not feasible, I would save some money and then go visit Jack at https://www.txskyways.com/services right in Texas. They have an engine change STC to install 310 hp.
 
Earle,
kwitte has a 182S which is running a Lycoming IO-540 restricted to 2400 rpm. It would not surprise me if someone were to dig into the TC specs, to find that he could adjust the governor to a higher rpm with the result of more power. Perhaps it would require a governor change and a trip to the prop shop to move the low pitch stops? That's all that was done to the Cessna 172XP to change from 195 hp to 210 hp.

If the above suggestion is not feasible, I would save some money and then go visit Jack at https://www.txskyways.com/services right in Texas. They have an engine change STC to install 310 hp.

Pete, I believe that's precisely what the OP was referring to as an STC to 260 hp earlier.

MTV
 
I hear you Pete, was just giving him a heads up that "if he needs more HP"
I would certainly make sure it would accept
this new prop? I remember what you said about the Hawk XP. Ditto on the Maules, seams like the governor was simply restricting it from developing the 250hp
Lots of options for him but most require lots of denero!

Sent from my moto e5 go using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 
Mike, i got the impression that Earle didn't realize that there was a Lycoming in this 182 since he was referring to 520s and 550s. It does appear that the 30 hp STC is just an rpm increase.
 
Back
Top