230SE/STOL flight test

[Todd Peterson]

As I mentioned earlier I just purchased a 1979 C182 with a low time engine. After having thought about it I went ahead and did the 230SE conversion to this airplane and after having flown it for quite a few hours I have now decided to keep it for a demonstrator.

While for many the 260SE is the best choice I think the 230SE has a spot in the market nothing else can touch for the price. In some ways it is similiar to the Cirrus SR20 and SR22. The big difference here however is that if you have a 230SE and at some point decide you want a 260SE you can upgrade the airplane you have rather than having to sell it and purchase another. A big advantage over the Cirrus.

From a flight handling standpoint the 230SE is the best handling airplane we make. While the weight increase with the IO-470 is small it is there and at ultra slow speeds you can tell a little difference in handling. To work into short strips with this 230SE the speed has to be lower than 50 kts to make it work. The speeds on short final I am working with are in the 45 to 48 kt range, small amount of power with a 500 fpm rate of descent. The slow speed maneuvering just before landing and just after take off is excellent as is the safety and stall resistance. As everyone knows that flies our airplanes there just really isn't anything that can touch it on the bottom end.

On take off the power differential is definitely noticeable but not dramatic at this field elevation, with the airplane about 200 lbs below gross weight. This would change however with higher density altitudes and heavier weights. In cruise this 230SE will knock out about 140kts TAS while burning about a gallon an hour more fuel than our 260SE's. It really reminds me how fuel efficient the IO-470 engine is. While flying the 260SE I am also used to seeing an EGT spread of around 40 to 50F while with the 230SE I'm seeing 150F spread. It also reminds one of how much better fuel distribution the injected engine has. With the injected engine one does not also have carb ice to think about.

With all this said the 230SE and the 260SE are the best at what they do in their respective areas. For someone flying primarily at altitudes below 10,000 ft and not operating much from short strips with heavy weights in high density altitudes the 230SE is a great choice with a considereable savings by not having to pay the cost of going to the IO-470 engine. On the other hand if you do a lot of mountain flying, getting heavy loads out of short strips with high density altitudes or like to go to the higher altitudes for your cross country the IO-470 makes more sense. Either way the low speed safety will always be there.

After having flown this 230SE I have come to one conclusion. It is that one has to have a demonstrator to adequately show its qualities. One just can't sit in a 260SE and say it's about the same, except for a little less power. It just doesn't do the 230SE justice. Already I am looking forward to flying this airplane a lot.

In the next installment I will discuss my anaylsis of the avionics package we will be installing in our new 230SE. Rather than going for broke (what an appropriate term for a large avionics package) we are going to try to install the best value and keep the price relatively low.

Remember......life is short, enjoy the flight.

[kwmoore]

The 230se sounds neat. I'd love to twist your arm for a demo next time I'm there.

You mentioned here and in earlier posts on the YahooClubs forum that extra weight up front correlates with a change in slow speed handling. Could you post some examples of empty weight CG's for some of your planes that you feel are distinguishable in that regime? 58565 and 58780 for example, and now the 230se too. I noted before that I believed I could detect a difference between 812KT and 8367E in that area--812KT feeling just a tad more nose-heavy--and will try to get that information for those two planes as well.

The best "bang for the buck" avionics package might be an interesting subject for feedback on the forum. If there are 10 responses, you'll perhaps get 11 opinions! FWIW, here's mine:

Garmin 340 audio panel
GNS430
KX155 or SL30
GTX327 transponder
STEC30 or -50 autopilot
GPSMAP 196 or 295 on the yoke,
interfaced to the 430

This should be under $35K installed (?), and one could comfortably fly IFR anywhere with it. :)

You east-of-Denver pilots would probably want a stormscope ($8K?) or at least a GDL49 WX radar download ($5K) for the 430.

[Todd Peterson]

The basic avionics package you mentioned is initially the same one I pretty much thought of. I ended up opting for the PS Engineering audio panel (although I think the Garmin is fine), as I have been very happy with these in our 260SE's.

I had originally planned on a 430 with a WX 950 (got to have this in the midwest) but later changed my mind when I found out that I could install a 530 with the less expensive GDL-49 weather downlink for about the same money. I would prefer the WX950 when flying through the thunderstorm area but I thought with the GDL-49 it might be easier to avoid the area entirely. I guess my old age is getting to me and I'm not quite as bold as I used to be. While I personally still prefer the 530 I also got a quote on the 430 with the MX20. I found that the higher cost of the 430/MX20 combination over the 530 would have pretty much paid for the GDL-49 weather downlink system, so the 530 it is.

I had figured in a KX155 as the second nav/com but then changed my mind and went with the Garmin 250XL. It's a good com/gps that I have used in the past and like. It's also relatively inexpensive and has an internal battery backup which would come in handy if the electrical system went south (no offense ment to those that live in the south). Like the UPS system I would only have one VOR head but after thinking about most of the flying that I do I didn't really see a problem with that. If most of my flying was IFR in really low ceilings I would probably opt for the KX155 or the SL30 but that is not the case and I can't hardly remember the last time I had to fly with either the VOR or victor airways. The only problem I could see would be IFR and losing the GPS signal at the same time I had a complete failure of the 530. The chances of that happening I thought were remote.

The GTX327 transponder and the STEC 30 seemed the logical choice to finish it out. I love our STEC 55's but I just couldn't justify the additonal cost.

We will also install a conventional standby electric attitude indicator or the new EFIS D-10 by Dynon Development.

Well that about does it. Looks like the cost will be in the mid 40's by the time we go with this and metal instrument panels. Once again if I didn't want the weather data I would have kept the 430 and the cost would have fallen down into the mid 30's. Not too bad for this day and age. Bevan will be starting on the airplane shortly, hope to have it back by Christmas.

[Pete of N978PB]

One thought about the transponder.

Garmin says they will have their GTX 330 available for installations this Fall, and It should come in around $5,000 installed.

With its ability to present other aircraft on the GPS screen, it is a viable alternative, although perhaps it's not so important in those areas without heavy traffic.

Also, I understand it's presently only useful at certain Approach sites, and that en route ATC facilities do not presently support the technology used to report other aircraft although FAA says they will in the future.

Pete

[Todd Peterson]

I had considered the new mode S transponder and inquired as to having it installed. Bevan told me the same thing, in that it will not be available until later this year. Kent also said it would be a relatively minor thing to swap it out with the regular Garmin transponder.

I agree that it might be nice to have the traffic information and the price seems pretty reasonable. When it is available I will probably look into it a little more.

Bevan said they could start on our 230SE now so Jo and I are taking it over tommorrow. Kent said is should only take three or four weeks (have I heard that before?).

[Squeege]

You and Jo wouldn't happen to be flying another 230 back to the roost, would you?

Louise

[Todd Peterson]

Yes hopefully I will be. Kent told me that your bird was finished and they were just doing the last test flight stuff with it.

I will give you an update as soon as I get back from Bevan.

[kwmoore]

I have it on good authority that Louise is now the proud owner of a new 230se/stol. Congratulations, we're eagerly awaiting pireps and photos! :cool:

[kwmoore]

Todd, you attributed the 230se's somewhat better slow speed capabilities to its having less weight up front, and you have also commented that you can detect differences between individual 260se's characteristics in this regime. Thus my question is...

If one were to load the rear seats or baggage compartment of a 260se to make its CG the same as a 230se, would you expect the handling differences to disappear?

BTW 812KT's empty CG is 34.9". I'm still trying to find out what 8367E's empty CG was when I owned it--I'm asking Bevan if they kept the records. What are the empty CG's of 58780, 58565, and your new 230se? Maybe Louise could post this number for her 230se too?

I must have way too much time on my hands...:rolleyes:

[Pete of N978PB]

Kevin,

If it's helpful, the CG of 978PB is 36.7.

Pete

[Squeege]

It's true. I flew N1941M down to Texas after experiencing the PPP hospitality of Jo, Todd & Chris, and am beginning my grasshopper status. I could not have wished for a better airframe; she is solid and smooth. I stayed just under the bases at 5500' 72-74F 23.5/23.5 with TAS 142kts. I look forward to IFR flying with a few more hours of the new [to me] instrumentation.

I must share: no owners have mentioned the physical pain of owning a PPP product. My facial muscles are truely fatigued from the constant smile I now wear.

As for empty CG: after conversion & upgrades: 34.21 with 1059.25 lbs useful load

Louise

[Todd Peterson]

When comparing weights and CG's on our airplanes be sure to remember that the weight and balance originally issued by Cessna is a figure arrived at by computation not by actually weighing the airplane.

On those airplanes that I have actually weighed the figures differed by as much as 70 lbs from the computed weight. I would therefore say that a very close comparison of various cg's may be difficult as they are undoubtably not that accurate.

It sounds like Jo and I should be getting our 230SE out of the radio shop in about a week. Needless to say we are sure looking forward to getting it back.

It was great that Jo and I both got to do some flying with Louise in her 230SE. She has a very, very nice airplane and I hope to see it at our next fly in.

[Todd Peterson]

I forgot to mention that the difference in handling between the 230SE and the 260SE would about have to come down to the small weight increase associated with the IO-470 engine. That's about all it could be as the aerodynamics are the same on both airplanes.

With that said some airplanes are just a little more nose heavy than others and I would figure that it is in avionics or maybe just the way the airplane was manufactured.

The only time I really notice any difference between the 230SE and the 260SE is during an approach when speeds are below 50 kts. As I mentioned before on a real short field landing I will normally slow, on short final, to around 45 to 48 kts with a little power. This is where it starts to show up. I can't really tell any difference between the two with speeds around 55 to 60 kts.

Depending upon the year of the airframe the additional weight of the IO-470 engine is usually around 13 lbs with most of this weight at the datum. So while there's not much of a weight increase there is a little. The three blade propellers we tried added anywhere from 18 lbs to 26 lbs of weight at the crankshaft flange. With the long arm, it produced about the biggest negative moment you can get and the extra weight showed up, in a negative way, really quick.

While some weight in the baggage compartment will compensate for a little extra weight up front I do not like the idea of, nor is it required, that one needs to haul around dead weight back there to make the airplane fly properly. It just seems like the design is flawed if extra weight is required as a ballast to give it the proper handling characteristics. As we all know extra weight also reduces the airplanes performance. On the other hand if you have some stuff laying around the cabin that could be moved to the baggage compartment it would probably be good to do so.

Happy flying

[C-GOEM]

Just thought I might add some personal perspective to the ongoing discussion on three blade propellors. When I purchased my Wren 460 it had the O-470 and two blade prop. The plane would fly slowly and land quite short. The problem was that with the type of flying I do (full fuel, high density altitudes, extensive artic survival kit, Deuce the dog, full IFR avionics etc.) the plane would not takeoff in the same distance required for landing. Once off the ground, climb rate was poor. The Wren had plenty of lifting ability but insufficent thrust to put that ability to work. In my view, the solution was more power in the form of an IO-550-D. To utilize the thrust of the bigger engine, a larger propellor was required. The only real choice in a two blade was the 88" which reduced the ground clearance by 3" and created all sorts of unacceptable sound issues (mostly to my neighbours on the ground!) The 78" Blac Mac prop provided the best performance up to about 90 knots and the 78" Scimitar excelled above that speed. The Scimitar had better noise charactaristics and was chosen for the conversion as it gave 2" of increased ground clearance over the original prop. This engine/propellor combination resulted in increased takeoff performance such that take-off and landing distance are now about the same. Rate of cllimb is approximately triple that of the original configuration. After the conversion the aircraft flew a little nose heavy at low speeds. To rectify this problem, I moved some of the avionics (autopilot pitch and roll computers, stormscope etc. further back in the tail cone. The 20# survival kit was installed in a semi-premanent mount behind the rear cabin bulkhead. This relocation of essential weight balanced the aircraft returning it to pre-conversion flight characteristics at low speed. The extra overall weight raised the short final approach speed by about 3 knots. The plane now goes where you point the nose and the specific fuel consumption is slightly improved over the original configuration. The next project is to reduce some of the airframe drag to increase cruise speed.

[Todd Peterson]

Our new 230SE was finished in time for the AOPA convention and I really enjoyed flying it out and back. The avionics package performed well under VFR and IFR conditions. I will be sending some before and after pictures in on the panel. It came out to my satisfaction and the price was around $48,000.

After making the trip I can't really say that I would make any changes in the choice of avionics. I was shooting for a good panel for no more than the cost of the engine upgrade and it came out about right. The Garmin 250XL worked very well as a number 2 GPS/Com and the Stec 30 was more than adequate. Intially I worried about not having a back up VOR but that was a non issue and as I am used to flying with an Stec 55 I had a little doubt as to the Stec 30 being adequate over the long haul. While the Stec 55 is without a doubt the best autopilot anyone could have the Stec 30 is more than adequate at about half the price. It was a good choice and I'm glad I had it installed.

The 230SE took its place beside Kevin's Millenium Edition at the AOPA convention and both generated a lot of interest. Many of the people that had asked for more information about the 230SE were on hand to look at one. While it's the first time we have had a 230SE at the convention it won't be the last.

The trip to Palm Springs and back allowed me to really get comfortable with this 230SE and the trip was a delight. Cruise speeds fell right at book values ie., 68% power produced about 136 kts and 75% gave me right at 140 kts. Fuel consumption varied from 13 to 14.5 gph at flight altitudes of 7,000 to 12,000 feet. It's handling characteristics during approaches at 45 to 55 kts is impeccable. I already like this airplane a lot. Jo and I have decided to keep this 230SE as a permanent addition to our "fleet" of airplanes and we look forward to building many more in the future.

Last but not least we had our new 230SE brochure ready for the convention and I thought it came out well. As Kevin mentioned to me it actually goes far more into depth on the canard than the 260SE brochure. Not only will it be informative for those looking at a 230SE but it will suppliment the 260SE brochure as well. I will have the new 230SE brochures put on our website for download as soon as possible. In the meantime if anyone wants one of the new brochures just let me know and we will get them out to you.