What’s the value of a Texas Skyways O-520 in a 182

manac

manac

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
256
Display Name
Display name:
Manac
Looking at a ’67 182 with the O-520 STC.
Conversion was done 15 years and 1000 hours ago.

Pluses: +55 hp, 2,500 TBO (if it makes it), shorter takeoff, can always throttle it back.
Negatives: little more weight, will burn more fuel, not much speed increase, Continental cam gear.
 
If you can afford it, there is never a thing as too much power... Keep in mind though that even pulled back you will burn more fuel on average unless you plan to take off at part throttle.
 
Get an R model if you can swing it. The 88 usable gal. and extra useful load (Mine is 1311) is worth it. The 470-50/520/550 will really only make a difference in climb.
 
Technically there is zero HP increase but in the practical sense its closer to 35HP or 45HP with tuned cylinders. Added thrust is undeniable but how much depends on what prop was married to it. More weight? Not enough to worry about, the greatest potential coming with a 3-blade prop. Fuel burn depends on horsepower used. Definitely faster with the right prop. The Texas Skyways 182mph 182 is no joke. My 180 did 185mph straight and level with 850s, no wheel pants, and a small tailwheel. Cam gear? Most 0-520s are converted 470s so that AD doesn't automatically apply.

In my 180 the Pponk engine mod was the best thing I've ever spent aviation dollars on. I can't imagine why anyone with an 0-520 would choose to go back to a 470.
 
There's no AD for the cam gear, that's been done away with. Turns out that, in the history of the engine, they can identify one (1) true failure. It may be the best part in the engine!
 
SCCutler said:
There's no AD for the cam gear, that's been done away with. Turns out that, in the history of the engine, they can identify one (1) true failure. It may be the best part in the engine!
Click to expand...

There's no AD on any of them, it's just a MSB. The latest one now has instructions on how to comply with the SB without overhauling the engine.
 
Valuation:

It's a little more yee-haw than an O-470 and less yee-haw than an IO-550. :)
 
mtuomi said:
There's no AD on any of them, it's just a MSB. The latest one now has instructions on how to comply with the SB without overhauling the engine.
Click to expand...

Yep.

My point (not well stated) was that they are no longer seeking an AD.
 
Thanks for the info about the MSB. I was not aware of last months change.

Back to the original question. Guess it's a tough one.
 
I have a 1972 and I can say the 1500 ft/min climb with 80+ degree air is great. Still seeing 1000 ft/min at 5000 ft is nice. I easily see 140 knot cruise with 65% power at 14GPH. So if that performance is worth it to you, then get it.
 
q5kacom said:
I have a 1972 and I can say the 1500 ft/min climb with 80+ degree air is great. Still seeing 1000 ft/min at 5000 ft is nice. I easily see 140 knot cruise with 65% power at 14GPH. So if that performance is worth it to you, then get it.
Click to expand...

Love the climb rate, but 140 at 14 GPH in cruise, doesn't sound like much of a deal over the usual 130 at 10 GPH. +10 knots for 4 more gallons of fuel per hour, shows how draggy the airframe is and the diminishing returns of adding more power to a Skylane. For cruise anyway. For takeoff? Yee haw.
 
denverpilot said:
Love the climb rate, but 140 at 14 GPH in cruise, doesn't sound like much of a deal over the usual 130 at 10 GPH. +10 knots for 4 more gallons of fuel per hour, shows how draggy the airframe is and the diminishing returns of adding more power to a Skylane. For cruise anyway. For takeoff? Yee haw.
Click to expand...

What this means, of course, is that you can always slow down and get the much-greater fuel economy, if you want to - but you have the greater speed available, too.

I can fly at under 10GPH in my Bonanza, and get way better speed than a draggy airframe like a 172 - but, why would I?

A 182 is a mighty capable airframe - the one plane to get, if you can get only one plane.
 
At a given 0-470 cruise speed an 0-520 will match it with lower fuel burn or you can burn more fuel and get there faster for about the same total fuel use. Like most power upgrades the biggest improvement is in takeoff and rate of climb. Most guys can land and stop a Cessna in less space than they can take off from. The thrust upgrade (horsepower and prop) closes that gap.
 
It's a nice conversion, you will feel the nose being a little heavy, especially adter landing if you're like me and like to hold the nose wheel off for a long time, doesn't work as well with the bigger engine :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top