New Cessna panel

[C J Campbell]

Yesterday I saw the new Cessna Nav III package for the 2004 182s and 206s.
It is a Garmin 1000 system with battery backup (not certified for part 135
IFR, though). At last Cessna enters the 21st century.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


For the Homeland!

[Dan Luke]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
> Yesterday I saw the new Cessna Nav III package for the 2004 182s
> and 206s. It is a Garmin 1000 system with battery backup
> At last Cessna enters the 21st century.

Good for Cessna, good for Garmin - what about Bendix/King? Do they still
have any gear in the 2004's?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Ron Natalie]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message ...
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> > Yesterday I saw the new Cessna Nav III package for the 2004 182s
> > and 206s. It is a Garmin 1000 system with battery backup
> > At last Cessna enters the 21st century.
>
> Good for Cessna, good for Garmin - what about Bendix/King? Do they still
> have any gear in the 2004's?

Bendix thinks their stupid HSI gizmo (which doesn't really do all that much)
is the answer to the GA world's problem. They're self-destructing in my
opinion.

[John Galban]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> Yesterday I saw the new Cessna Nav III package for the 2004 182s and 206s.
> It is a Garmin 1000 system with battery backup (not certified for part 135
> IFR, though). At last Cessna enters the 21st century.

Sounds like Garmin entered the 21st Century. Cessna just installed
their equipment on the same old ancient airframes.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Newps]

Bendix/King? Are they still in business? Next thing you're going to
tell me is I can still buy a new KX155.

Dan Luke wrote:

> "C J Campbell" wrote:
>
>>Yesterday I saw the new Cessna Nav III package for the 2004 182s
>>and 206s. It is a Garmin 1000 system with battery backup
>>At last Cessna enters the 21st century.
>
>
> Good for Cessna, good for Garmin - what about Bendix/King? Do they still
> have any gear in the 2004's?

[Dan Luke]

"Ron Natalie" wrote:
> Bendix thinks their stupid HSI gizmo (which doesn't really do all
that
> much) is the answer to the GA world's problem. They're self-
> destructing in my opinion.

<sigh> I fear it's true.

When I asked the guy at their OSH booth when they were going to make
an all-in-one box to compete with Garmin/UPSAT, he said they didn't
want to make a "me too" product. As if the KLN-94 is innovative.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Peter]

C J Campbell wrote:

> It is a Garmin 1000 system with battery backup (not certified for part 135
> IFR, though).

So, if an aircraft has a second electrical source (among the other part
135 requirements - dual vacuum, etc), will an aircraft with this
avionics configuration be certified for part 135 IFR, or is there
something specific about the Garmin 1000 system that does not allow it
to be certified at this time?

--
Peter










----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[C J Campbell]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
| C J Campbell wrote:
|
| > It is a Garmin 1000 system with battery backup (not certified for part
135
| > IFR, though).
|
| So, if an aircraft has a second electrical source (among the other part
| 135 requirements - dual vacuum, etc), will an aircraft with this
| avionics configuration be certified for part 135 IFR, or is there
| something specific about the Garmin 1000 system that does not allow it
| to be certified at this time?
|

The backup battery is only good for thirty minutes, and Cessna has not
applied to certify the backup system for IFR.

[C J Campbell]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
| > Yesterday I saw the new Cessna Nav III package for the 2004 182s and
206s.
| > It is a Garmin 1000 system with battery backup (not certified for part
135
| > IFR, though). At last Cessna enters the 21st century.
|
| Sounds like Garmin entered the 21st Century. Cessna just installed
| their equipment on the same old ancient airframes.

The new Cessna airframes are considerably different than the old ones -- so
much so that they have new type certificates. They have much less drag and
are now certified under Part 23.

Basically, a new 2004 Cessna 182 will compete favorably with a Cirrus SR-22,
but for about $50,000 less.

[Jay Honeck]

> Basically, a new 2004 Cessna 182 will compete favorably with a Cirrus
SR-22,
> but for about $50,000 less.

Hmmm. I don't know what you consider "competing favorably", but the specs
sure look weighted in favor of the Cirrus:

Cruise Speed
Skylane: 141 knots
Cirrus: 180 knots

Maximum Range
Skylane: 550 nm (697 nm with optional extra fuel tanks)
Cirrus: 1000+ nm

Climb Rate
Skylane: 980 fpm
Cirrus: 1400 fpm

The only parameters the Skylane wins are for takeoff & landing distances:

Takeoff over 50' Obstacle
Skylane: 1205 ft
Cirrus: 1575 ft

Landing over 50' Obstacle
Skylane: 1350 ft.
Cirrus: 2325 ft

(The Cessna website seems to be down, so I used
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/ for Skylane performance data. Cirrus
data is off their website.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> (The Cessna website seems to be down, so I used
> http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/ for Skylane performance data.

They don't seem to have data for a 2004 182.

George Patterson
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect. - Linus Torvalds, speaking about Linux.

[Jay Honeck]

> > (The Cessna website seems to be down, so I used
> > http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/ for Skylane performance data.
>
> They don't seem to have data for a 2004 182.

I wasn't sure what a 2004 182 was called ("M?" "N?" "O?")

But I'd be surprised if the performance data was too much different. With
the minor changes Cessna has made, it certainly can't be 5% better in any
single parameter?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> But I'd be surprised if the performance data was too much different. With
> the minor changes Cessna has made, it certainly can't be 5% better in any
> single parameter?

I would also be surprised to find that sort of improvement, but I can't say it's
not possible, How do you know Cessna's changes were "minor"? Do you really have
any idea what they changed?

George Patterson
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect. - Linus Torvalds, speaking about Linux.

[Jay Honeck]

> I would also be surprised to find that sort of improvement, but I can't
say it's
> not possible, How do you know Cessna's changes were "minor"? Do you really
have
> any idea what they changed?

Um, well, they sure *look* the same as the old 182s.

I've read that they've cleaned up the airframe some, but the engine and prop
are still the same -- and the gross weight has gone up.

These are usually indications of a performance *decrease*, but maybe Cessna
has pulled some kind of magic?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > But I'd be surprised if the performance data was too much different.
With
> > the minor changes Cessna has made, it certainly can't be 5% better in
any
> > single parameter?
>
>
> George Patterson
> Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a
completely
> unintentional side effect. - Linus Torvalds, speaking about
Linux.

[Craig Prouse]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> They don't seem to have data for a 2004 182.
>
> I wasn't sure what a 2004 182 was called ("M?" "N?" "O?")
>
> But I'd be surprised if the performance data was too much different. With
> the minor changes Cessna has made, it certainly can't be 5% better in any
> single parameter?

Um, well, Jay, we're up to "T" now. Mine is an "S." Ever since "Q" or "R"
we've had integral 88 gal fuel tanks and a range well in excess of 800 NM.
That's a far sight better than a 5% improvement in range.

[Craig Prouse]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> Um, well, they sure *look* the same as the old 182s.
>
> I've read that they've cleaned up the airframe some, but the engine and prop
> are still the same -- and the gross weight has gone up.
>
> These are usually indications of a performance *decrease*, but maybe Cessna
> has pulled some kind of magic?

Um, well, the engine and prop are not the same. Cessna replaced the
Continental O-470, with a Lycoming IO-540, which eliminates the carb heat
and the premature top overhauls, and provides better fuel economy. (I never
burn more than 11.5 GPH compared to 12-13 for many older 182s.)

[Jay Honeck]

> Um, well, the engine and prop are not the same. Cessna replaced the
> Continental O-470, with a Lycoming IO-540, which eliminates the carb heat
> and the premature top overhauls, and provides better fuel economy. (I
never
> burn more than 11.5 GPH compared to 12-13 for many older 182s.)

Wow. You've got to be running at some pretty low power settings to achieve
11.5 GPH. We usually average between 13 and 15 gph on our O-540, at 23
squared, leaned using a JPI EDM-700 engine analyzer. (As measured with the
JPI FS-450 flow meter.).
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Craig Prouse]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> Wow. You've got to be running at some pretty low power settings to achieve
> 11.5 GPH. We usually average between 13 and 15 gph on our O-540, at 23
> squared, leaned using a JPI EDM-700 engine analyzer. (As measured with the
> JPI FS-450 flow meter.).

Flying where I do, I spend a lot of time between 9000 and 12000, so perhaps
I get better economy than those who fly lower. I'd have to have a
turbocharger to fly 23 squared. I might fly 22 squared or 21"/2300 RPM,
which is right about 65%.

At the weights I fly (usually a few hundred under MGTW) I often true out
around 143 kts.

The IO-540 on my Cessna seems very well balanced even without GAMIjectors.
I can fly quite a bit LOP without roughness, although I usually follow the
POH and just lean to peak EGT.

I keep an Excel spreadsheet of every flight I ever make, and every time I
add fuel. Whenever I top off, I run the spreadsheet to figure my average
economy since the last time I topped off. In all seriousness, I've never
seen 12 GPH. The number that most commonly turns up is 11.3 GPH.

As for the new panel that's the subject of the thread, I think it's a bit
much to put up front of a C182. I haven't even sprung for a color map GPS.
My KLN 89B is certified for IFR and it gets me where I'm going just fine.
This reminds me of the Archer at the local FBO, which is equipped with dual
430s and TCAS. I think for that much money, one should have an airplane
with a useful IFR range and ceiling, but hey, we all have our reasons for
what we fly.

I'm getting my first ride in an SR-22 next week as I've agreed to do some
safety pilot work for a buddy at work. Lands too fast and requires too much
runway for my taste, but it's a nice piece of engineering.

[Jay Honeck]

> I keep an Excel spreadsheet of every flight I ever make, and every time I
> add fuel.

Wow -- I'm not sure whether I should be impressed, or incredulous. :-)

I thought I was doing well to remember to write each flight in my logbook!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ci%hb.734179$YN5.656514@sccrnsc01...
| > Basically, a new 2004 Cessna 182 will compete favorably with a Cirrus
| SR-22,
| > but for about $50,000 less.
|
| Hmmm. I don't know what you consider "competing favorably", but the specs
| sure look weighted in favor of the Cirrus:

Well, OK, lets save only about $20,000 and go with the Turbo Skylane with
the Nav III package (the price reduction is not yet reflected on Cessna's
web site) over a similarly equipped Cirrus SR 22, remembering that the Turbo
Skylane uses a 235 hp IO 540 while the Cirrus while the Cirrus has to use
310 hp, and tell me if the Cirrus airframe is really all that more efficient
than that of the 182. We can also throw in a few corrected figures for the
normal Skylane.


|
| Cruise Speed
| Skylane: 141 knots

Turbo Skylane 175 knots
Skylane: 145 knots

| Cirrus: 180 knots
|
| Maximum Range
| Skylane: 550 nm (697 nm with optional extra fuel tanks)

Turbo Skylane: 886 nm
Skylane: 968 nm
Cirrus: They don't say under what conditions an SR 22 will get 1000+ nm, but
either they don't know or they won't admit that you could probably squeeze
as much mileage out of a 182.

| Cirrus: 1000+ nm
|
| Climb Rate
| Skylane: 980 fpm

Turbo Skylane: 1040 fpm
Skylane: 924 fpm

| Cirrus: 1400 fpm
|
| The only parameters the Skylane wins are for takeoff & landing distances:
|
| Takeoff over 50' Obstacle
| Skylane: 1205 ft

Turbo Skylane: 1385 ft
Skylane: 1514 ft

| Cirrus: 1575 ft
|
| Landing over 50' Obstacle
| Skylane: 1350 ft.
| Cirrus: 2325 ft

These stay the same

Useful load is better for the Cirrus:

Turbo Skylane: 1095 lbs
Skylane: 1213 lbs
Cirrus: 1150 lbs

Then there is the useful life of the airframe:

Skylane and Turbo Skylane: unlimited
Cirrus: 4030 hours

IIRC the Skylane and Turbo Skylane both have longer TBO on their engines
than the Cirrus SR 22, too.

Nav III Garmin G1000 package vs. Cirrus' Garmin 430 package: um, right.

I don't see enough value added in the SR22 to make it worth so much more
than either Skylane.

Of course, if you want to put your plane on floats or skis, you can forget
about the Cirrus entirely.

It may be a little unfair to mention that the 182 has one of the best safety
records of anything that flies, while the Cirrus has one of the worst.
Pilots are still getting used to the Cirrus' quirky handling and the fact
that the plane will not recover from even an incipient spin. The parachute
system has failed more often than it has worked. While we can blame Cirrus
airframes coming apart in the air on improper maintenance, we know that the
182 has never had an airframe failure and almost all mechanics know how to
work on them. But perhaps Cirrus will be able to work out its safety
problems, given time.

[Mike Adams]

Actually, we must all be nerds. I've been keeping the same spreadsheet since
getting my 182 a year ago, and my experience is much the same - it averages
about 11.5 gal/hr, but most of my flying is also at higher cruise altitudes
where I'm rarely above 65% (19 or 20 inches at 10,000). It was a real
eye-opener though, after installing a JPI FS-450, to see the fuel flow up
around 20 on takeoff.

Mike

In article <1Vcib.102338$%h1.98157@sccrnsc02>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:
>> I keep an Excel spreadsheet of every flight I ever make, and every time I
>> add fuel.
>
>Wow -- I'm not sure whether I should be impressed, or incredulous. :-)
>
>I thought I was doing well to remember to write each flight in my logbook!

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Craig Prouse > wrote:
>"Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>> Wow. You've got to be running at some pretty low power settings to achieve
>> 11.5 GPH. We usually average between 13 and 15 gph on our O-540, at 23
>> squared, leaned using a JPI EDM-700 engine analyzer. (As measured with the
>> JPI FS-450 flow meter.).
>
>I keep an Excel spreadsheet of every flight I ever make, and every time I
>add fuel. Whenever I top off, I run the spreadsheet to figure my average
>economy since the last time I topped off. In all seriousness, I've never
>seen 12 GPH. The number that most commonly turns up is 11.3 GPH.

I think we're comparing different numbers. If your spreadsheet uses the
same times as your logbooks (engine start to engine stop) and your trips
average 2 hours of which about .3 is at low/no power (taxi, landing),
then your total number is about 17% lower (2 / (2 - 0.3)) than the
instantaneous reading you'd get in cruise, which Jay is reading off of
his EDM-700. Your 11.3 GPH would be closer to 13.3 GPH on an engine
analyzer. The shorter your average trip, the higher the actual burn
would be.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Craig Prouse]

"Ben Jackson" wrote:

> I think we're comparing different numbers. If your spreadsheet uses the
> same times as your logbooks (engine start to engine stop) and your trips
> average 2 hours of which about .3 is at low/no power (taxi, landing),
> then your total number is about 17% lower (2 / (2 - 0.3)) than the
> instantaneous reading you'd get in cruise, which Jay is reading off of
> his EDM-700. Your 11.3 GPH would be closer to 13.3 GPH on an engine
> analyzer. The shorter your average trip, the higher the actual burn
> would be.

I didn't say how my spreadsheet comes up with the numbers it does, but in
fact it does not use the same times as my pilot logbook. My stated fuel
burn is per tach hour, which in my case usually works out to be uncannily
close to actual flight time, takeoff to touchdown.

Sure, I burn a little less in taxi, but I burn a little more in climb. Most
of my trip is in cruise, probably closer to 3 hours on average, so whatever
is happening there should mostly determine my results. The rest of the time
seems to average out for typical X/C work. I feel pretty good about the
number 11.3 -- that's what I use in the Hayward Air Race and it gives me
excellent results (which I have so far managed to waste by making other
stupid mistakes). My POH even says that 2300 RPM and 21" MP at 8000' should
give me 66% power on 11.2 GPH.

I've also done the exercise of taking off from PAO with full tanks (88 gal),
then flying four hours to HIO whereupon I dip my tanks and find that I've
got 42 gallons left in there. So there's just no way I could be burning 13
GPH for any sustained period of time in cruise; if I had an engine monitor
that said so, it would have to be lying.

The difference between my economy and O-470 powered C182s and Jay's
Pathfinder probably has a lot to do with having well-balanced fuel injectors
rather than a carburetor. If he's running 50+ ROP, and I'm running right at
peak or a little on the lean side, that's going to cost him an extra gallon
or two per hour. Then consider the fact that Jay probably doesn't cruise at
11,000 between Iowa City and Racine like I have to between Medford and
Redding.

In conclusion, I think it's a mistake to dismiss the IO-540 on the new
Cessnas as an insignificant update to the type. The O-470 was a good
engine, but the IO-540 rocks. It's easier to manage and more efficient.

[Jay Honeck]

> In conclusion, I think it's a mistake to dismiss the IO-540 on the new
> Cessnas as an insignificant update to the type. The O-470 was a good
> engine, but the IO-540 rocks. It's easier to manage and more efficient.

I agree -- the injected O-540 is a terrific engine.

Heck, we absolutely LOVE our carbureted version. It's powerful, relatively
smooth, can be throttled back to burn 10 gph all day long, or honked all the
way forward to burn 23 gph -- and when you do that our Pathfinder will climb
like a homesick angel!

It starts on 2 blades, and doesn't burn a drop of oil. (Of course, it was
newly overhauled just last year...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck"

> O-540...doesn't burn a drop of oil.

Uh-oh.

That's a *bad* thing, isn't it? I've read that an aircraft piston engine
that burns no oil between changes is giving evidence of glazed cylinders.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Javier Henderson]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> writes:

> "Jay Honeck"
>
> > O-540...doesn't burn a drop of oil.
>
> Uh-oh.
>
> That's a *bad* thing, isn't it?

I believe so. I believe there are specs for both max AND min oil
usage.

I'm not sure what all the bad reasons for zero oil usage are. Coking
would be one, I'd guess.

-jav

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Dan Luke <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote:
>"Jay Honeck"
>
>> O-540...doesn't burn a drop of oil.
>
>Uh-oh.
>
>That's a *bad* thing, isn't it?

That's my understanding. Oil has to get on the sides of the cylinder
walls to lubricate them, and that film will burn on every stroke. My
IO-540 burns (and/or leaks) about 1qt every 10 hours and I'm worried
that might be a sign that oil isn't sticking to the Cermichrome.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Tom S.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:hzDib.753715$YN5.705721@sccrnsc01...
> > In conclusion, I think it's a mistake to dismiss the IO-540 on the new
> > Cessnas as an insignificant update to the type. The O-470 was a good
> > engine, but the IO-540 rocks. It's easier to manage and more efficient.
>
> I agree -- the injected O-540 is a terrific engine.
>
> Heck, we absolutely LOVE our carbureted version. It's powerful,
relatively
> smooth, can be throttled back to burn 10 gph all day long, or honked all
the
> way forward to burn 23 gph -- and when you do that our Pathfinder will
climb
> like a homesick angel!

I'd love a 182RG with an IO-540 instead of the O-470. Does anyone do a
conversion?

[Craig Prouse]

"Tom S." wrote:

> I'd love a 182RG with an IO-540 instead of the O-470. Does anyone do a
> conversion?

The 182RG always had a Lycoming O-540 vice the Continental O-470. All
you're missing is the fuel injection.

[Jay Honeck]

> > O-540...doesn't burn a drop of oil.
>
> Uh-oh.
>
> That's a *bad* thing, isn't it? I've read that an aircraft piston engine
> that burns no oil between changes is giving evidence of glazed cylinders.

*sigh* So I exaggerate a bit.

What I SHOULD have said is "it doesn't burn a drop of oil beyond 'normal'
consumption"...

Our O-540 uses around one quart every 12 - 15 hours. More if I fill the
sump beyond 8.5 quarts.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> What I SHOULD have said is "it doesn't burn a drop of oil beyond
> 'normal' consumption"...

Whew!

> Our O-540 uses around one quart every 12 - 15 hours. More
> if I fill the sump beyond 8.5 quarts.

That sounds ok. How did you find out what "normal" is? My O-360 burns a qt
every 7.5 hours. I thought that was too much, but Lycoming said the rate
could go as low as 3hrs/qt and still be within spec! I've had the cylinders
rehoned and new rings installed twice (due to the rocker arm fiasco, not
because of high oil consumption) and both times the rate went back to 7.5
hrs/qt after breakin.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> That sounds ok. How did you find out what "normal" is? My O-360 burns a qt
> every 7.5 hours. I thought that was too much, but Lycoming said the rate
> could go as low as 3hrs/qt and still be within spec!

Normal is what "feels" right, to me. If I was putting in a quart every 3
hours, I'd be bitching at my engine rebuilder!

Right now, thoroughly broken in at 125 or so hours, the engine is so sweet.
Using the JPI engine analyzer, we can see how each cylinder is performing --
and they are all pulling together like tractors. At altitude I can now lean
so that they are all within 90 degrees of each other, which is excellent for
a normally aspirated engine.

Best of all, it starts easily, runs really smooth, leaks very little (just a
drip or two around the stupid cylinder head covers -- I've GOT to get those
neoprene gaskets one of these days), and runs wonderfully on that cheap car
gas!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote:
: That sounds ok. How did you find out what "normal" is? My O-360 burns a qt
: every 7.5 hours. I thought that was too much, but Lycoming said the rate
: could go as low as 3hrs/qt and still be within spec! I've had the cylinders
: rehoned and new rings installed twice (due to the rocker arm fiasco, not
: because of high oil consumption) and both times the rate went back to 7.5
: hrs/qt after breakin.

My Cherokee 180 just had a top job last winter from sticking
valves (sat for a long time on a fresh rebuild). New rings and rehoned
chrome jugs broke in for compression of 80/79/78/80 50 hours later. It
burns right at about 1 qt in 8 hours... supposedly just like chrome jugs
are supposed to. At least that's what I've heard. Hrm.. a bit of quick
math turns that into about 30 mL/jug/hour. For an O-540 that would be
about a quart in 6 hours.

Hrm... 1/2 cup of oil per hour... starts to sound like a lot then.
Oh well, from what I hear, it's better to burn a bit too much oil than not
enough.

The spec is a CYA for Lycoming so that it's not possible to run
out of oil before you run out of gas and need to land and check.

-Cory



--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Ross Richardson]

I am getting about 13hrs/qt on my factory overhauled O-360-A1A. I now
have about 200 hours on it. It is installed in a C-172.

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
> > What I SHOULD have said is "it doesn't burn a drop of oil beyond
> > 'normal' consumption"...
>
> Whew!
>
> > Our O-540 uses around one quart every 12 - 15 hours. More
> > if I fill the sump beyond 8.5 quarts.
>
> That sounds ok. How did you find out what "normal" is? My O-360 burns a qt
> every 7.5 hours. I thought that was too much, but Lycoming said the rate
> could go as low as 3hrs/qt and still be within spec! I've had the cylinders
> rehoned and new rings installed twice (due to the rocker arm fiasco, not
> because of high oil consumption) and both times the rate went back to 7.5
> hrs/qt after breakin.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

Ross Richardson > wrote:
: I am getting about 13hrs/qt on my factory overhauled O-360-A1A. I now
: have about 200 hours on it. It is installed in a C-172.

What flavor of jugs? Chrome, Nitride, Steel, etc?
-Cory
--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> Using the JPI engine analyzer, we can see how each cylinder is:
> performing -- and they are all pulling together like tractors.
> At altitude I can now lean so that they are all within 90 degrees
> of each other, which is excellent for a normally aspirated engine.

Gotta love the JPI. I especially love the fuel flow option. Mine always has
the fuel used correct to within half a gallon when I top off.
Having it hooked to the GPS is really great. On the KLN 90B I can display my
fuel used, fuel required to destination, reserve required, excess fuel
beyond reserve, GPH, etc. so I can leave the JPI switched to CHT/EGT.

> Best of all, it runs wonderfully on that cheap car
> gas!

Yer killin' me, Honeck! :^)
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Tom S.]

"Craig Prouse" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom S." wrote:
>
> > I'd love a 182RG with an IO-540 instead of the O-470. Does anyone do a
> > conversion?
>
> The 182RG always had a Lycoming O-540 vice the Continental O-470. All
> you're missing is the fuel injection.

Huh!! Memory isn't what it used to be :~(

I wish Cessna would bring back the RG in it's current line.

[Ross Richardson]

Regular factory steel, I believe. The engine has been running great. Now
if I can get problems with the C/S prop fixed that'll be great.

Ross


wrote:
>
> Ross Richardson > wrote:
> : I am getting about 13hrs/qt on my factory overhauled O-360-A1A. I now
> : have about 200 hours on it. It is installed in a C-172.
>
> What flavor of jugs? Chrome, Nitride, Steel, etc?
> -Cory
> --
> ************************************************** ***********************
> * The prime directive of Linux: *
> * - learn what you don't know, *
> * - teach what you do. *
> * (Just my 20 USm$) *
> ************************************************** ***********************

[Newps]

Get any 182RG and you will have your Lyc.

Tom S. wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:hzDib.753715$YN5.705721@sccrnsc01...
>
>>>In conclusion, I think it's a mistake to dismiss the IO-540 on the new
>>>Cessnas as an insignificant update to the type. The O-470 was a good
>>>engine, but the IO-540 rocks. It's easier to manage and more efficient.
>>
>>I agree -- the injected O-540 is a terrific engine.
>>
>>Heck, we absolutely LOVE our carbureted version. It's powerful,
>
> relatively
>
>>smooth, can be throttled back to burn 10 gph all day long, or honked all
>
> the
>
>>way forward to burn 23 gph -- and when you do that our Pathfinder will
>
> climb
>
>>like a homesick angel!
>
>
> I'd love a 182RG with an IO-540 instead of the O-470. Does anyone do a
> conversion?
>
>

[Tom S.]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:0J2jb.772488$Ho3.205780@sccrnsc03...
> Get any 182RG and you will have your Lyc.
>

It's not necessarily a lycoming I want as I'd like to get rid of the
carburator.

Also, I'd like to have a three blade prop instead of the two blader. I know
that sacrifices a bit of cruise speed and costs more to OH, but I've been in
both (have most of my early flying career in a three blade T182RG) and found
it MUCH smoother. Psychosomatic (sp?)???


> Tom S. wrote:
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:hzDib.753715$YN5.705721@sccrnsc01...
> >
> >>>In conclusion, I think it's a mistake to dismiss the IO-540 on the new
> >>>Cessnas as an insignificant update to the type. The O-470 was a good
> >>>engine, but the IO-540 rocks. It's easier to manage and more
efficient.
> >>
> >>I agree -- the injected O-540 is a terrific engine.
> >>
> >>Heck, we absolutely LOVE our carbureted version. It's powerful,
> >
> > relatively
> >
> >>smooth, can be throttled back to burn 10 gph all day long, or honked all
> >
> > the
> >
> >>way forward to burn 23 gph -- and when you do that our Pathfinder will
> >
> > climb
> >
> >>like a homesick angel!
> >
> >
> > I'd love a 182RG with an IO-540 instead of the O-470. Does anyone do a
> > conversion?
> >
> >
>

[Javier Henderson]

"Tom S." > writes:

> "Craig Prouse" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tom S." wrote:
> >
> > > I'd love a 182RG with an IO-540 instead of the O-470. Does anyone do a
> > > conversion?
> >
> > The 182RG always had a Lycoming O-540 vice the Continental O-470. All
> > you're missing is the fuel injection.
>
> Huh!! Memory isn't what it used to be :~(
>
> I wish Cessna would bring back the RG in it's current line.

Please, not while I'm eating. The retractable gear mechanism on
the Cessna singles has been such a trouble spot over the years,
it might be just as well they're sticking with fixed gear this
time around.

-jav

[Peter R.]

Javier Henderson ) wrote:

> Please, not while I'm eating. The retractable gear mechanism on
> the Cessna singles has been such a trouble spot over the years,
> it might be just as well they're sticking with fixed gear this
> time around.

Is that true of the later model 210s? Granted I am relatively new to
aviation, but I recall reading that the 210's retractable gear was
relatively problem-less. No?

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Ron Natalie]

"Peter R." > wrote in message ...
> Javier Henderson ) wrote:
>
> > Please, not while I'm eating. The retractable gear mechanism on
> > the Cessna singles has been such a trouble spot over the years,
> > it might be just as well they're sticking with fixed gear this
> > time around.
>
> Is that true of the later model 210s? Granted I am relatively new to
> aviation, but I recall reading that the 210's retractable gear was
> relatively problem-less. No?
>
Nope. The whole gear retraction system on the 210 is a bizarrely
complicated thing. AD's persisted up until the J model, and even
then they're a bit more complicated than most retract systems.

[Peter R.]

Ron Natalie ) wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote:
> > Javier Henderson ) wrote:
> >
> > > Please, not while I'm eating. The retractable gear mechanism on
> > > the Cessna singles has been such a trouble spot over the years,
> > > it might be just as well they're sticking with fixed gear this
> > > time around.
> >
> > Is that true of the later model 210s? Granted I am relatively new to
> > aviation, but I recall reading that the 210's retractable gear was
> > relatively problem-less. No?
> >
> Nope. The whole gear retraction system on the 210 is a bizarrely
> complicated thing. AD's persisted up until the J model, and even
> then they're a bit more complicated than most retract systems.

Thanks, Ron. I was clearly mistaken in my impression of the 210's RG.


--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Javier Henderson]

Peter R. > writes:

> Javier Henderson ) wrote:
>
> > Please, not while I'm eating. The retractable gear mechanism on
> > the Cessna singles has been such a trouble spot over the years,
> > it might be just as well they're sticking with fixed gear this
> > time around.
>
> Is that true of the later model 210s? Granted I am relatively new to
> aviation, but I recall reading that the 210's retractable gear was
> relatively problem-less. No?

No, they're all a pain to maintain, some are plagued by AD's, and
parts are expensive.

I should mention, I hold no grudge against Cessna (heck, I even own a
straight legged Skylane). But I doubt I will ever own a retract Cessna
single.

-jav

[Newps]

Javier Henderson wrote:

>
> I should mention, I hold no grudge against Cessna (heck, I even own a
> straight legged Skylane). But I doubt I will ever own a retract Cessna
> single.

Me either. I'm gettin' a Bonanza when the time comes for a second airplane.

[Tom S.]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> > Javier Henderson ) wrote:
> >
> > > Please, not while I'm eating. The retractable gear mechanism on
> > > the Cessna singles has been such a trouble spot over the years,
> > > it might be just as well they're sticking with fixed gear this
> > > time around.
> >
> > Is that true of the later model 210s? Granted I am relatively new to
> > aviation, but I recall reading that the 210's retractable gear was
> > relatively problem-less. No?
> >
> Nope. The whole gear retraction system on the 210 is a bizarrely
> complicated thing. AD's persisted up until the J model, and even
> then they're a bit more complicated than most retract systems.

I take it the 182 is the same system (which is the bird in question)?

Between 1979 and 1987, I did quite a few hours in a 182RG with no excitement
other than one time the gear down lights didn't come on, even though it WAS
down and locked. I don't remember the cause or the cure.

[Ron Rapp]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:15:36 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Basically, a new 2004 Cessna 182 will compete favorably with a Cirrus
>SR-22,
>> but for about $50,000 less.
>
>Hmmm. I don't know what you consider "competing favorably", but the specs
>sure look weighted in favor of the Cirrus:

The Skylane wins in other categories. Efficiency, for one. At 180
knots, the SR-22 burns nearly 19 gph. I didn't think it was possible
to have worse fuel economy than a 182, but Cirrus managed to do it. :)

The Skylane's insurance prices will be cheaper. And the parts
availability is better for the 182, with a lot more after market
parts. More STCs. More mechanics know how to work on it.

The Skylane also has better low speed numbers. Look at the flaps down
stall speeds for the 182 and the SR22. It's 59 knots for the SR22,
and 49 knots for the 182. The 182 cabin is also larger. I think you
had the range wrong for the Skylane--it's 845 nm at 75% power.

As you noted, the landing and takeoff distances are better for the
182. Much better, in some cases.

Even so, the SR-22 is a very very nice aircraft. I'm not sure it's a
fair comparison, though. The SR-22 has an IO-550 putting out 310
horsepower. The Skylane is only putting out 230. If you put a 310
horsepower engine in the Skylane, you'd see the airplane doing closer
to 160 knots, maybe a little more with the aerodynamic improvements.
Still not SR-22 speed, but a lot more comparable.

The SR-20 has a smaller engine--200 hp. It still goes faster than the
Skylane, but look at the useful load, and the takeoff and landing
distances. It climbs slowly and runs hot. Again, I certainly would
love to have one--I'm not trying to dog the Cirrus planes. But the
Skylane is a good airplane that still makes sense for many people.
And with the new avionics, I believe it improves the 182 that much
more.

I think you should be a big Skylane proponent, Jay. :) After all,
you've wondered why New Piper doesn't put the Dakota back into
production, and that's basically a low-wing equivalent for the
Skylane....

--Ron

[Jay Honeck]

> I think you should be a big Skylane proponent, Jay. :) After all,
> you've wondered why New Piper doesn't put the Dakota back into
> production, and that's basically a low-wing equivalent for the
> Skylane....

While that's true, I prefer the flight characteristics of the Pathfinder
over the Skylane.

If Piper did have the Dakota in production, and I were given a choice
between it and an SR-22, the Cirrus would win, hand's down. Piper would
have to put in a glass cockpit AND price the Dakota WAY lower in order to
compete at all.

And that won't ever happen.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"