IO-470 engine options for a C-182

DKirkpatrick

DKirkpatrick

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
322
Display Name
Display name:
DKirkpatrick
Don't know engine options well... Can you install an IO-470 R, S, or F in a 182 with reconfiguration... without it being a big expensive STC cost? Thanks for the information help.
 
Don’t think anyone has the STC for that but wouldn’t say for sure.

IO-550, a couple places have that.

And the PPonk conversion.

And I think Texas Skyways has a couple others.
 
Peterson’s Performance Plus has an STC to install an IO-470-F in 182 P, Q, R (and possibly others). I’d pull my paperwork but not home this week.
 
Wow. Thanks for the response and help. I appreciate it.
 
Adding Continental fuel injection is a chore with the fuel return and accumulator tank requirement. The more popular FI upgrade in a carb'd Cessna is to get Bendix injection field approved, and that's usually done to a Pponk or TS 0-520.
 
Ok now I'm really showing my ignorance. Thanks for that... Hadn't considered the problems associated with adding an engine with fuel injection. Appreciate it.
dan
 
Yep, the header tank goes on the floor between the rudder pedals and the return goes into the right wing in the Peterson mod. Boost pump replaces the primer.

No carb heat is one less item to manage.
 
STC
# SA3825SW
IO-470-F or IO-550-D
into
182E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, P, & R
 
denverpilot said:
That’s seems like a place I wouldn’t want a fuel tank. Not a trade off I’d go for, just to get an IO-470.
Click to expand...
Where does the header tank go in a late model factory injected 182? Or does it not have one?
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Where does the header tank go in a late model factory injected 182? Or does it not have one?
Click to expand...
The POH isn't super detailed but the supply seems to go from the tanks to the manifolds (one in each aft doorpost), the selector, the aux pump, the strainer, the engine driven pump, the air/fuel control unit, the spider and each injector. The fuel return seems to go from the air/fuel control unit back to the selector and then back to each tank.
 
denverpilot said:
That’s seems like a place I wouldn’t want a fuel tank. Not a trade off I’d go for, just to get an IO-470.
Click to expand...

The Peterson STC for installing IO-470 in 182 places the header tank in the same location as the well proven Cessna 185.

Yeah, I know, a necro-post, but here’s why - I was doing a web search and stumbled back onto this thread and my own posts. I wanted to update this post with info I had since learned, just in case someone else is searching and finds this page too.
 
Reconfiguring the fuel system
Adds $$$. Pponk, or the current version, provides more HP and torque without adding a new fuel system. Field approving a Bendix Fi on the o-520 isn’t difficult. If you go that way think about 8.5-1 compression either through the new Pponk STC owner or Texas Skyways.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Where does the header tank go in a late model factory injected 182? Or does it not have one?
Click to expand...
Lycomings don’t use an accumulator tank like Continentals. Bendix FI is a popular field approval on Continentals for that reason.
 
After flying a fuel injected plane for quite a while now, I can’t A) ever imagine going back to carb’ed and B) can’t understand why STCs to retrofit the common ice maker engines, like the O-470, to fuel injection aren’t more common. I just learned (in this post) that the conversion reworks the fuel system. That does complicate things. Fwiw, I believe 205s, and some if not all 206s, 210s, (and 185s?) have the header tanks in the same place.
 
AA5Bman said:
After flying a fuel injected plane for quite a while now, I can’t A) ever imagine going back to carb’ed and B) can’t understand why STCs to retrofit the common ice maker engines, like the O-470, to fuel injection aren’t more common. I just learned (in this post) that the conversion reworks the fuel system. That does complicate things. Fwiw, I believe 205s, and some if not all 206s, 210s, (and 185s?) have the header tanks in the same place.
Click to expand...

Do some of the 200 series have header tanks under the front seats?
 
Stewartb said:
Lycomings don’t use an accumulator tank like Continentals. Bendix FI is a popular field approval on Continentals for that reason.
Click to expand...
Some do. The 172SP:

upload_2022-4-10_19-9-26.png

The "fuel reservoir tank" is the header, or accumulator, tank.

The T206H:

upload_2022-4-10_19-56-11.png

Two headers. The 172, 182 and 206 all use the Bendix/RSA injection systems. The 182 doesn't have the headers for some reason.

Headers are normally employed to get bubbles out of the fuel. Injection systems don't get along with bubbles that well.

Air Plains also has conversions. I installed one in a 180. It was an IO-550 conversion. The header goes in the same place that the 185's does, between the tunnel bulkheads just aft of the firewall. It is neither quick nor easy, and the fuel plumbing has to be revised. The fuel selector lever has to be blocked so that the OFF position is not useable, and a separate shutoff is installed at the header outlet, controlled by a push-pull cable, the same as the 185's. This was necessary, since with that header's fuel the airplane could start up and take off with the fuel selector in the OFF position, which would result in engine failure at a really bad time.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Air Plains also has conversions. I installed one in a 180. It was an IO-550 conversion. The header goes in the same place that the 185's does, between the tunnel bulkheads just aft of the firewall. It is neither quick nor easy, and the fuel plumbing has to be revised. The fuel selector lever has to be blocked so that the OFF position is not useable, and a separate shutoff is installed at the header outlet, controlled by a push-pull cable, the same as the 185's. This was necessary, since with that header's fuel the airplane could start up and take off with the fuel selector in the OFF position, which would result in engine failure at a really bad time.
Click to expand...
The restart 172/182 also has a separate shutoff and no OFF position on the fuel selector. I always wondered why. Thanks for the explanation.

I suppose another consideration is that an emergency that dictates cutting off fuel would require an immediate response rather than waiting for the fuel in the header to burn off.
 
The correct solution is to plumb the injection return lines back to the tanks. When you select a tank a duplex fuel valve also selects the same tank for the return fuel. Cessna cheaps out with the header tank. Even vans RV’s return the fuel to the tanks if the fuel system requires it. A header tank between the pilot and hot engine is not the best option in the event of a accident.
 
Jeff767 said:
The correct solution is to plumb the injection return lines back to the tanks. When you select a tank a duplex fuel valve also selects the same tank for the return fuel. Cessna cheaps out with the header tank. Even vans RV’s return the fuel to the tanks if the fuel system requires it. A header tank between the pilot and hot engine is not the best option in the event of a accident.
Click to expand...
AS I pointed out, header tanks are meant to eliminate air from the fuel feed. In a carburetor, any air bubbles that reach the float bowl are vented to atmosphere (more correctly, the incoming air) so that the carb's fuel nozzles get straight fuel. Bubbles would cause engine hesitation. In the fuel injection systems, there are no float bowls to eliminate bubbles, and air in injection lines would case some serious hesitations, enough to cause an accident on takeoff or approach. Cessna used header tanks, as did a lot of other manufacturers, to get the air out of the fuel before it reaches the engine. That air is vented back to one of the tanks.

The header tank in the 185, and all other airplanes that have one, is behind the stainless-steel firewall. It would take a really major fire to get at it, and by that time the fire has already overcome the occupants with heat and smoke. There is far more risk from poorly-maintained fuel lines within the cabin; chafed aluminum tubing, rotted rubber hose connections, seeping selector valves, and so on. It's why Cessna long ago issued revisions to their maintenance manuals to include, in the inspection checklists, an inspection of all fluid-carrying lines in the cabin area. I'd bet that 80% of those manuals have never had any revisions. In any case, it's covered by the minimum legal inspection requirements laid out in FAR 43 Appendix D, like so:

(c) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the cabin and cockpit group:

(1) Generally - for uncleanliness and loose equipment that might foul the controls.

(2) Seats and safety belts - for poor condition and apparent defects.

(3) Windows and windshields - for deterioration and breakage.

(4) Instruments - for poor condition, mounting, marking, and (where practicable) improper operation.

(5) Flight and engine controls - for improper installation and improper operation.

(6) Batteries - for improper installation and improper charge.

(7) All systems - for improper installation, poor general condition, apparent and obvious defects, and insecurity of attachment.

Now, to see those "systems" such as the fuel system, one has to pull some interior panels and floor access panels and have a look with a flashlight and mirror. How many annual inspections are done to that degree? Very few, based on what I have found.

The older 172's fuel system:

upload_2022-4-11_10-46-59.png

Newer models also had fuel lines from the front of the tanks down the forward doorposts, to tee into the lines from the aft ends of the tanks.

Details:

upload_2022-4-11_10-48-24.png

There are a LOT of things to check. How many mechanics ever look at this stuff unless it's leaking?
 
I can’t re-emphasize enough, as I see the same supposed safety concerns, with lack of knowledge being a factor in the concern.

I’m not an airplane expert, but I’ve made a 30+ year career in the petroleum and chemical industry. That “dangerous” header tank and tubing are pretty much under atmospheric pressure and are way overbuilt. Look at all the rubber and other lines over your head, and the water-balloon that acts as your fuel tanks.

Put some shoulder harnesses in, go fly, and quit worrying about the boogey-man until lawyers and government administrators dream up an AD because 2 or more header tanks in the last 70 years somewhere sometime cause a catastrophe.
 
Traditionally header tanks are installed to provide fuel to the engine during maneuvers where the attitude might momentarily unport the fuel tank feed. Very common in planes that had single fuel tank ports in the rear of the tanks or planes with only L-R selectors. Accumulator tanks also provide a place for Continental FI’s fuel return. Coincidentally the more modern EFI systems on experimentals also require fuel returns and some specify quite large accumulator tanks to dissipate heat from returned fuel. Ruptured header tanks in Cubs has been a concern for many years. Atlee Dodge has manufactured improved header tanks for that reason. These days with fuel tanks that have front and back ports most of us who build our own fuel systems go headerless with an on-off-both fuel selector.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top