Minimalist approach - Need Help

[morrisond]

I was reading the post about the 260Se over on Cessna.org and saw that by the time you got the chute in it and full fuel you were down to about 650lbs.

I got me thinking in terms of how light could you make an 230Se(lighter engine, lower cost) with a view to getting the useful load up(and cost down), to make it minimalist like an Husky, you could even paint it yellow.

I'm looking for some help here in trying to guess what the useful load would be and general idea of cost.

For my use, as most flights would be less than 100nm and I have 2100' of grass to work with, short take off ability can be sacrificed. The goal would be to build a fun airplane that could be flown IFR, but low(relatively) cost and safety would be the goal.

I would love to build a full blown 260se with X-Stol big engine, glass panel etc, but that might be a little out of my budget this year(building an Cottage)

What year Airframe would you start with?

The plane would be fully taken apart as i would want the full rebuild process done(Millenium treatment other than Engine). It would make me feel safe knowing that someone like Todd went throught the whole airframe.

How much weight could you take out of an 182 if you ditched the ADF, DME and AP, rewired it and ditched all the engine instruments to be replaced by a JPM?

It would need to be very basic IFR with say a 430 and a back up radio(light).

Norm - How much weight came out of your plane when they stripped all the old wires out?

Could put a Skytec Starter and LW alternator. Redo the interior but use lightweight materials.

Any thoughts other than ditching electronics, replacing the starter and alternator to get the weight down?

The goal would be to try and keep it around $200,000 with a big useful load(I weigh 250 and the rest of family isn't light either).

Later on as my experience grew(just finishing my private now) I could change the engine and add an Autopilot and more electronics as I ranged further.

Thanks

[kwmoore]

Start with an earlier airframe, maybe even a 1970 (182N) if Todd can find a "cherry" example. Useful loads on the 1970's were 1200 lb or more according to Glen. (http://www.260sepilots.org/forums/showthread.php?t=436) My 1974 and now 1975 182P airframes both had 40-50 lb better useful loads than my 1978 182Q.

Rip out all of the old avionics and wiring and install only what you need.

Don't get a 3-blade prop.

What's your trip distance? You may not have to fill up with fuel. 57 gallons instead of 74 saves 100 lb; if you run LOP with the IO-470 you still are a 3.5 hr + 1 hr reserve airplane. In this regard, your range-load profile will be BETTER with the IO-470 than the stock O-470 because the latter is less efficient. Norm has spec'd this aspect out pretty well with his plane (see this thread, post #13 (http://www.260sepilots.org/forums/showthread.php?t=267)).

In the last analysis if you can't make the payload/performance picture work out for a 230se or 260se, a good used 205 or 206 may be the best plane for you.

[morrisond]

Just saw that MT got there compsite props approved for Continental 182's, supposed to save at least 20 lbs, better thrust, etc..

[morrisond]

54 gallons would be enough, trip distance is only about 90nm, but would be doing it a few times per week, with no fuel at one end. A 206 would be to big for me.

[morrisond]

Link to specs on the new MT props, the
husky guys love them, interestingly the 3 blade MT is the same weight as a two blade metal prop with a lot more static thrust. The 2 blade
mt picks up 5 knots on the metal.

http://schaeferhunde.us/mtpropellers.html

[jjbely]

To get an extra five knots and likely a lot less vibrations for about 10 K is a great deal as far as I am concerned. Could this STC be fitted on the 260 SE ?
I have never flown behind a composite prop but I have read reviews from Cirrus and malibu owners that the noise and vibration improvements are a real plus. Could well another item on the shopping list.

jj

[morrisond]

If Todd thinks it makes sense, it would take 11 lbs off the front of a 260 as well.

[kwmoore]

Thrust/speed gains I can't comment on, but I can tell you from personal experience that it would be difficult to have a smoother engine than the IO-470 with dynamically balanced prop. In this regard, both my 260se's were as good as or perhaps even better than any of the several SR22 G2 (6 point engine mount) aircraft that I've flown.

[morrisond]

Would I be right in assuming that as the length of the MT 2 and 3 blades are the same, hence the same tip speed, noise would be the same, or not significantly different? I would take the 2 blade for better cruise, and 11 lbs less weight. Neat thing is that the props can be painted any colour.

Is the 2400rpm 0470U quieter than the IO470 on takeoff(Major consideration as although my strip is my own it is a resort area and I will be doing 7:00am departures in the morning)? Is the 0470U a good engine? Any issues?

What starters does Todd normally use? the Skytec's drop 11 lbs as well.

Any other ideas for dropping weight?

[kwmoore]

Is the 2400rpm 0470U quieter than the IO470 on takeoff(Major consideration as although my strip is my own it is a resort area and I will be doing 7:00am departures in the morning)?
You asked this earlier and it was discussed in this thread. (http://www.260sepilots.org/forums/showthread.php?t=364)

[Pete]

Thrust/speed gains I can't comment on, but I can tell you from personal experience that it would be difficult to have a smoother engine than the IO-470 with dynamically balanced prop. In this regard, both my 260se's were as good as or perhaps even better than any of the several SR22 G2 (6 point engine mount) aircraft that I've flown.
As for the smoothness, I would second Kevin's comments.

Todd also had the prop dynamically balanced on my 260SE.

Although I had to sell my 260SE (vision problems), over my 5 years ownership I had three different flight instructors comment on how smoothly the engine ran. Those fellows, one a Designated Flight Examiner, all instruct in Sporty's Flight Training program ... and fly Sporty's new C-182s. That says something about Todd's work.

[morrisond]

You asked this earlier and it was discussed in this thread. (http://www.260sepilots.org/forums/showthread.php?t=364)

Sorry I looked but didn't read far enough :)

[jjbely]

Kevin,

Good to know about the smoothness of the O-470, my SR22 is an antique with the the 4 points mount and despite the Gami injectors and a recent prop balancing and new plugs, one can indeed feel a high level of vibrations and it's very loud inside. An STC MT prop for the SR22 would be really good news also. They have one for EASA already , maybe the FAA one is on the list.

If the performances on the MT web site has been verified by owners of 182 and other Cessna models, the 10 % thrust increase and climb rate are nice to get. The 5 extra knots would save a bit of fuel but it would take some time to get your investment back. If one has to repair or replace his/her prop then I think it is an easy decision.

As my math teacher used to say , there are solutions and ..elegant solutions to solve a problem. This one seems a more elegant one than adding 25/35 HP up front. Of course why not have both :)

JJ

[Todd Peterson]

If one is wanting the maximum useful load I would stay with a 1972 -1974 C182 airframe. For some reason they average about 80 lbs more useful load than the later airframes. With all the weight saving measures done I would think the useful load should be in the 1130 lb area somewhere. The 1970-1971 airframes are nice but usually most owners want the leading edge cuff installed which increases the cost somewhat. The resale value also seems to be better on the later style airframes.

The 0-470 R and S engines in the stock C182 through 1976 are good in that there are STC's for the use of auto fuel. If that isn't important then the 0-470 U is a good engine with a little lower take off rpm. All the engines are reliable and relatively trouble free. This is also the least expensive way to go in that the original engine can be reused thus eleminating the engine upgrade cost altogether. Of course for power, performance and fuel efficiency the IO-470 cannot be beat.

I do not expect the MT propeller to be available anytime soon. The only way this could be accomplished presently is to have a FAA field approval from someone that has already installed this prop on the IO-470 F engine and got a sign off from the FAA. This could then be used for another field approval here. I do not know of anyone that has done this.

[morrisond]

Hi Todd,

Is it engine or Airframe specific, or a combination of both?

It is certified for the 0470 on the 182 so if you stuck with the 0470 would it be okay?

Interestingly they have it( the 2 blade at 45 or 3 blade at 56 lbs) certified on the 185E/F as well(IO-520D). Is the IO-520D the variant you would use for installing in an Katmai?

What Prop did you put on the King Katmai and what does it weigh?

[Todd Peterson]

The approval needs to be both airframe and engine specific. If the MT prop is certified for the stock C182 with the standard 0-470R, S or U engine then we would be able to use it with the nose mounted canard on the 230SE without any problem. It would not be compatible however with the IO-470 engine.

We are not using the IO-520 in the King Katmai, it is the IO-550.

The prop we used on the King Katmai is a McCauley C401 in an 86 inch length. As one of my customers said when he saw the installation "that is one big ass propeller", or BAP prop for short. The performance we are looking for not only depends on power but getting the power out as well and that is where the prop becomes important. There are a lot of issues with getting the correct prop and I won't bore everyone with them but needless to say we have put a lot of thought into selecting the right prop for the King Katmai.

Composite props are not new to me as we have used them for the last twenty years on the aerobatic airplanes we fly. While they generally work well there are maintenance issues with a composite prop that metal props do not have. I am interested in a minimum of vibration, longevity, easy serviceability and being able to take a little damage and still be airworthy.