Get Connected!

Come and join our community. Expand your network and get to know new people!

Lyle Mann created a new topic ' Schedule' in the forum. 8 hours 8 minutes ago

I’m not real tech savvy and I don’t do Facebook. Is there a published schedule on the gathering other than Facebook. This is my first visit. I was also wondering if there’s any transportation to the Par 4 from the airport. Really looking forward to the event. Thanks

Read More...

Mike Roberts shared 4 photos in the Mike Roberts's photos album 16 hours 24 minutes ago

- feeling lucky

Photos are being loaded.
STEVE ELLS replied to the topic 'Cessna 175 1959' in the forum. yesterday

Hi Kevin,
Call the guys at Stoot Aviation.
It's a small world up there--I'm sure they have his contact information.

Let me know what you find.

Steve

Read More...

Kevin Austin replied to the topic 'Cessna 175 1959' in the forum. yesterday

I logged on to find Brandon Parker I had no success

Read More...

STEVE ELLS replied to the topic 'C172 Storage' in the forum. yesterday

Hi John,
In order to know exactly what the OP is, your mechanic will need to disconnect the oil pressure tube from the engine and install what we call a "direct reading gauge" that reads the psi in numbers.

The minimum hot idling rpm for your Lycoming oil pressure is 10 psi. Normal operating range is 30 to 60 psi.

I have a four cylinder Lycoming in my Comanche. Full is 8 quarts. I am comfortable running it down to 5 quarts for short flights (1-2 hours) before I add a quart.

For long XC flights (2 hours or more) I start at 6.5 quarts. However I have old cylinders that have been chromed back to standard bore. The advantage of chrome cylinders is they don't wear and they don't rust. But the oil control rings don't seal as well as the standard steel wall cylinders.

The answer is you experiment. You'll find a level where there is not a lot of oil vented out the crankcase vent tube onto the bottom of the airplane, and where the oil temperature is stable.
Too little oil results in higher oil pressures.

A wise man once told me there are two oil levels in airplane engines. Not enough and enough.
Very few owners keep the crankcase levels full since the first quart seems to "blow out" through the crankcase vent tube (wet oily belly).

Yes, change the filter every time you change the oil. I always cut the metal jacket off the filter (there are special tools you can buy to make this easy from companies such as Aircraft Spruce and Specialty (aircraftspruce.com)
After the can is removed, I cut the paper-like filter media off the center stalk. Then I spread it out and inspect it closely with a magnet and a strong light.

This numbers are OK, but seem to be signaling that wear has occurred. But I would never pull a cylinder based on one lowish compression reading. Get your mechanic to stick a borescope in the cylinder (I use the Vividia Ablescope VA-400 from Oasis Scientific- Amazon $249) and inspect the valves for any evidence of burning.

If the valves look OK, then I would continue to run it. But I would probably change the oil to get new clean oil in the engine. Then after 10 hours I would do another compression test. It will probably be better.

Let me know what you find.

STeve

Read More...

Troy,

Thanks for adding those tips.

Steve

Read More...

I'm aviation's answer to insomnia!!

Read More...

STEVE ELLS replied to the topic 'Cessna 175 1959' in the forum. yesterday

Hi Kevin;
One company, General Aviation Concepts in Fairbanks, Alaska has a STC to install either a O-320 or an O-360 in the 175.

I attempted to locate a URL for the company but wasn't successful. However, if you're a Linked In subscriber, the owner's name is Brandon Parker and you can get his contact info there.

Two other companies, TLGW ( www.tlgw.com ) in Renton, WA and Stoots Aviation ( www.stootsaviation.com ) in Fairbanks have STCs for installation of fuel injected IO-360s. Stoots also has an STC for the installation of the fuel injected IO-390.

Let me know what you decide.
Steve

Read More...

Kevin Austin created a new topic ' Cessna 175 1959' in the forum. yesterday

I have a go-300 and want to replace with a io-360 or a o-360
Any help would be appreciated
Need stc as well

Read More...

  • I’m back for another go at my ongoing writeups about the TR182. This time I’m covering the Built in oxygen system and some of the upgrades I considered along the way.

    The TR182 Built In Oxygen System: Described:
    The TR182 has an old school, continuous flow (high flow), four place, O2 system which delivers supplementary oxygen at a fixed rate to any mask or cannula plugged into the system. The system also provides a convenient, mechanically connected, remote shutoff valve and O2 cylinder pressure gauge above the pilot’s head, near the front seat O2 outlets. There is a remote 48 CuFt oxygen cylinder and pressure regulator, which reduces operating pressures to 70 psi, located behind the rear baggage compartment wall. The system, when full is an 1800 psi system and has a filler valve located in the empennage aft of the baggage door.

    My Introduction to the TR182 Oxygen System:
    When I purchased this aircraft I was excited to have a built in O2 system. I’d been toting around a portable system for a while and was happy with the idea of not having to use it in my new TR182. When my shop inspected the system, after acquiring the aircraft, they discovered a slow leak behind the servicing panel. This was corrected with less than an hour of labor, but I did start a search on this system to see if there were any ADs or common problems. What I found was a light smattering of FAA Maintenance Alerts, Most associated with slow leaks at various connection points, and one associated with installation of the system at the factory. Several airframes were delivered without the correct empennage rivet pattern around the O2 system support brackets causing cracks in stringers later. My aircraft was free of this defect but it is something to inspect for. Overall the system is simple, well designed and doesn’t appear to be a common concern or maintenance problem. On a side note, as of this writing, I am finishing up my annual and the system had zero issues and checked out in perfect condition with zero leaks.

    When I acquired the TR182, it wasn’t long before a readthrough of the POH led me to the details of this new luxury! A quick readthrough of the system description brought me to the “Oxygen Duration Chart”. Boldly written underneath the chart title, “48 Cubic Feet Capacity”. WOW! Quick math drew me to the conclusion I’d likely get 22 hours out of this bottle! (I had been getting 11 hours out of a 24 CuFt portable system with 2 people) WONDERFUL!!! I couldn’t be happier! Happiness quickly turned to surprise when a perusal of the oxygen duration chart indicated that the “Pilot and One Passenger” O2 duration… 5.5 hours! To quote Vizzini in “The Princess Bride”... Inconceivable! These stupid POHs written in the early 80s! Filled with bad info… 50 degrees ROP… peh! Clearly no editorial or engineering reviews! How can I get way more time out of my skyOx bottle at half the size than this built in system!? Worth the Google? Absolutely, but I’ll save you some trouble… or at least give you a better starting point than I had. I honestly didn’t have a good understanding of these systems.

    My Introduction to General Aviation O2 System Designs:
    O2 systems can be thought of as generally having four common components: Storage system (O2 bottle), Step Down Regulator (commonly connected to the bottle), Distribution system (Moves O2 from the step down regulator to the passenger outlets) and Delivery system (Mask/Cannula). What I quickly discovered is that step down regulators and delivery systems can vary widely and can impact a system’s ability to deliver oxygen efficiently to a great extent.

    There are three common systems found in non-pressurized, General Aviation aircraft. Though we may dream of owning (and affording) one of those pressurized beauties, let’s set those pressurized folk to the side for a bit and focus on us commoners who troll around at or below 20K ft. To be clear, there are certainly more types of O2 systems, they just aren’t prevalent or cost effective for us in the unpressurized set.


    The Continuous Flow System:
    This is the simplest type of O2 system you’ll find, and the one installed on the TR182. It consists of an Oxygen bottle, a simple step down regulator, which in the case of the TR182 steps the pressure down to 70 PSI according to the POH, and a simple distribution & delivery system that basically delivers that sweet sweet O2 to your nostrils via a cannula or mask. The system has the proverbial O-N / O-F-F switch, and when in the ON position, the O2 flows at whatever rate 70 PSI can deliver to you. Systems like this are typically designed to deliver more than enough oxygen to you when operating at the service ceiling of the aircraft. (20K ft in the case of the TR182 and lower for most GA aircraft. )

    The Drawbacks of the Continuous Flow Oxygen System:
    • Oxygen delivery is fixed and is generally set for over-delivering O2 at the aircraft service ceiling, meaning it’s fixed at an incredibly high flow rate all the time.
    • They deliver oxygen even when you don’t need it, specifically when you are not inhaling. The typical human inhales ⅓ of the time and spends ⅔ exhaling.
    • They are generally very wasteful of O2
    • Failure to turn it off will vent your O2 bottle empty if you have cannulas plugged in.
    • No Apnea alerting
    • No system fault alerting


    The Benefits of the Continuous Flow Oxygen System:
    • This is an absolutely simple system. You turn it on, you turn it off.
    • The system in the TR182, and I suspect most basic continuous flow systems, can be easily and inexpensively equipped to become the most efficient type of system; Pulse Demand.
    • Inexpensive basic cannulas can be used.

    The bottom line is that this system is easy to use, uncomplicated in its design and It is always delivering more O2 than the body is capable of consuming which tends to empty your O2 system 4-10x faster than it could if more efficiently delivered. If you use O2 frequently, you might want to read through the other options. If you’re an infrequent user, this may be just fine.

    The Variable Rate System:
    This type of system is commonly a portable system. (SkyOx / Aerox systems are a common example) The difference between this system and the Continuous Flow type system is in the step down regulator. Both systems flow oxygen continuously, but where the continuous flow system is basically an on / off configuration stuck at high-flow, the step down regulator in the Variable Rate system is operator adjustable and can be set based upon your need and altitude. (You can “set the rate.”) This means you have to be able to reach it for adjustment as you fly. This is also the reason that these systems are almost always portable. The benefit of these systems is that you can set the flow rate based upon need / altitude. Additionally, if you’ve selected the correct step down regulator, you have the option of using Oxygen saving cannulas (Oxymizer cannulas). These have a small reservoir ‘pendant’ built into them that allow you to reduce the flow further. This is accomplished by storing a bolus of oxygen in the pendant while you are exhaling, that is delivered to you immediately upon inhalation. The net result is that you are likely to see a 4:1 efficiency in O2 usage over a basic continuous flow systems. You must adjust the rate however. These are not set-and-forget systems. You will need to monitor your bloodO2 with a PulseOxymiter (which you should definitely have if you’re flying at higher altitudes) and manually increase oxygen flow if it begins getting too low. Conversely, if you set the rate while flying at high altitude, later descend and forget to turn the rate down you may end up venting an excess of O2 into the cockpit unused.

    The Drawbacks of a Variable Rate System:
    • Manual Adjustment of the system is needed as you climb and descend.
    • You must remember to check your bloodO2 regularly to ensure the correct rate is set.
    • Failure to reduce system flow can result in excessive O2 waste
    • Can be pricey, though this cost can be offset by fewer O2 fills if you utilize O2 often
    • Failure to turn it off will vent your O2 bottle empty if you have cannulas plugged in
    • Oxymizer cannulas are more expensive (about 4x more expensive as of this writing)
    • Generally a portable O2 bottle, not a built in system. (Could be a benefit)
    • Portable systems take up space inside the cockpit / passenger area
    • No Apnea alerting
    • No system fault alerting

    The Benefits of a Variable Rate System:
    • Variable rate adjustment on the step-down regulator allows you to set the correct flow rate greatly reducing O2 usage
    • The ability to add Oxymizer cannulas further reduces consumption
    • On average you can expect a 4:1 reduction in O2 use. Mileage varies depending on what altitudes you fly and if you use an Oxymizer system.
    • A portable system means you can use it in any airplane you fly in.
    • You can shop around for better oxygen fill rates off airport


    The Pulse Demand System:
    Also known as “Pulse Flow”, “On-Demand”, “Puffer Flow”; Pulse Demand systems pulse oxygen into your cannula or face mask ONLY when you inhale, and the amount of the pulse is automatically varied by the system based upon your altitude, so no manual adjustments. I have rarely found my O2 level below 90% when I check with a PulseOxymiter, and it’s typically been because I’m holding my breath as I enter things into avionics. To further optimize, many systems pulse O2 at their highest rate at the beginning of your inhalation, to ensure the pulsed O2 makes it deep into your lungs and is most likely to be used rather than exhaled unused. These systems start delivering O2 at a preset altitude (either 5K or 10K ft) and will stop when you descend below those altitudes. The general benefit is utilization reduction on average 10:1, in my experience, over constant rate systems. Mileage may vary depending on what altitudes you inhabit most often.

    The Drawbacks of a Pulse Demand System
    • The need for a secondary in-line regulator and electronic pulse demand unit.
    • Can be pricey, though this cost can be offset by fewer O2 fills if you utilize O2 frequently
    • Pulse demand systems require batteries. They seem to last a long time but it’s another battery consumer. They can use USB power but I prefer batteries over having another USB cable running around the cockpit.


    The Benefits of a Pulse Demand System
    • Once you turn the system on, it is a set-and-forget system, varying O2 delivery based upon altitude.
    • Auto-shutoff. Failure to turn the system off doesn’t cost you a bottle of oxygen.
    • Can be set to automatically start delivering oxygen at lower altitudes. This can be important for those early morning / late night flights when vision is more of a factor.
    • If you fly often using O2 (Which I do), the system can pay for itself over time
    • Use of much lower-cost, standard cannulas
    • The system is pretty “plug and fly” with most built in GA O2 systems.
    • Systems have Apnea alarms, which vary by altitude, which will audibly alert if the system notes you have slowed or stopped inhaling on schedule for some reason. (Blocked / kinked O2 hose, removed or misfit cannula placement, too much mouth breathing)
    • Systems have an audible fault alarm which will alert if there is a system fault detected (Low battery, O2 cylinder valve isn’t open, pinched or disconnected O2 supply/distribution).


    My Personal Calculation:
    I live and fly in California. This means mountains and high-altitude flying on a frequent basis just to get over the terrain and mountain waves. For example, a flight from KLVK (Livermore,CA) to KTVL (South Lake Tahoe), a common hamburger run, is a relatively short flight where you depart from 400’ MSL and arrive at 6300’ MSL crossing mountains in between at 13K or better if you’re on an IFR flight plan, not much lower if you’re not. I am also a conservative pilot. I fly with my family frequently and even when they’re not with me, I use O2 anytime I’m at or above 10K’ (5K’ at night), so even on this short flight example I use oxygen (Those standards represent my personal minimums). Experience has taught me that I personally think and feel better by following this personal rule and the empirical research from the FAA on the matter is in alignment. If I am flying more than an hour, I will almost always fly IFR and climb over 12K’ (Terrain frequently requires it), and perusal of my logbook over the last 3 years indicates I used O2 on about 80% of my flights. I also fly often, winging it for 215+hrs in my first year of ownership, and if history is a guideline, this will continue for the foreseeable future. Given my frequency of O2 use, a Pulse System represents greater than $1200 savings in O2 fills per year over the factory continuous rate system. This means that the 2 pulse demand systems I installed in my aircraft have an ROI of roughly 2 years. I can’t name very many things I’ve put on my aircraft with an ROI.

    I know this calculation isn’t the same for everyone. When I lived in the midwest United States, I RARELY saw 9K’ and the idea of a Pulse Demand System would seem nonsensical.

    I purchased my system from MHOxygen, a company specializing in aviation O2 systems. The system can be made compatible with a portable bottle. I had pockets installed on my TR182 to hold the Pulse Devices on the outsides of the seats, out of the way, and the system remains in the aircraft. In my primary application, it utilizes the factory 48Cu Ft bottle and distribution system.

    The Pulse Demand system in my TR182 is comprised of:
    • Two portable pulse demand units (They support 2 persons each) Model: O2D2
    • Two in-line reducing regulators. (One for each pulse demand unit) Model: 2150
    • The MH system wants the step down pressure to be at 20psi, so TR182 owners WILL need an in-line regulator (or 2 in my case) to bring the 70psi the factory regulator produces down to 20psi. Your aircraft may be different.
    • Standard Cannulas or Masks
    • NOTE: The Oxygen system connector / adapter in the 1980 TR182 is a PB750, generically called a 750 connector. You’ll need to know this.


    The Bottom Line:
    All three types of systems have advantages and flying situations where they are preferable. As with many things in flying, there isn’t just one best answer.

    If you rarely fly with oxygen, a constant rate system, such as the factory installed one on the TR182, will be fine for those rare flights where it’s needed. You will go through copious amounts of O2 when you use it, but a fill every year or so won’t break the bank.

    Variable rate systems shine in the middle ground. You’ll likely have a portable system, like a SkyOx or similar system, which can be an advantage if you don’t own or you find yourself transitioning between AC. Portable systems are nice because you can shop around for better fill rates off airport. You will have to remember to activate them and vary the rate as you fly, but I’ve not found that to be much of a problem. Typically higher altitude flights are longer duration flights so you have time. With better fill costs, due to off airport fill stations (Medical suppliers), and better utilization and delivery of O2, these systems can be cost beneficial and have many desirable characteristics.

    Pulse Demand Systems are top-of-the-line when it comes to setting up oxygen delivery. They have a long list of desirable characteristics and better yet, are compatible with both portable and factory installed systems. They have the absolute best efficiency, are relatively set and forget once activated, always seem to deliver the correct amount of O2 needed and monitor for system or use faults. You do need to remember to turn them on, but failure to turn them off isn’t a real problem. They produce a strong cost-benefit if you fly using O2 quite a bit.

    If you are a TR182 owner, you’ll likely find yourself either considering doing nothing and using the factory Constant Rate system or looking at a Pulse Demand system, given that the cost of a portable system doesn’t represent much of a savings.

    Renters will likely use the factory system, assuming O2 is included in the rental fee.


Read More...

John Zarpak replied to the topic 'C172 Storage' in the forum. 3 days ago

THANKS for all the info. I wqill download the M-0 soon. I read what you wrote and have the following questions;
1- What is idling oil pressure?
2- My aircraft (C172P) does not have numbers on oil pressure gauge, only a green band, how can I get the numbers?
3- How do I find my "The sweet spot Oil"?
4- Do I change the oil filter every time I change oil?
5- Two of the cylinders are low, 60 and 65. The person who did the annual (last April) said "It is not important, these readings change all the time". How often should I have them checked for pressure?

Read More...

Nice article, Nathan. I also own/fly a 1980 Cessna Skylane TR182, and my observations mirror yours.

The only other thing I would add is that every time the cowling is off for those oil changes, use some Mouse Milk on the wastegate shaft and linkages, and dribble some along the wire-wound sheath that wraps the control cable from the carburetor to the wastegate.

Read More...

Thanks Steve!
I have to admit you inspired me. I love reading your articles!

Read More...

STEVE ELLS replied to the topic 'oil pan' in the forum. 4 days ago

Hi Isaac,
Try Colorado Air Parts ( www.coairparts.com ) in Delta, CO.

Or an aircraft salvage yard such as Wentworth ( www.wentworthaircraft.com ) or Preferred ( www.preferredairparts.com )

Please let me know how those work for you.

Steve

Read More...

Hi Nathan,
I like your comprehensive, well written system break downs. I'm hoping you continue to post them.

Steve

Read More...

STEVE ELLS replied to the topic 'IO 520 oil burn' in the forum. 4 days ago

Hi Grant;

It's unusual for a factory reman to be using oil at that rate.

Let me ask a question. Are you filling the oil sump to the full mark (I think it's 9 or 10 quarts in that engine)?

If you are, you should try working to maintain the oil level at a lower level, such as 7 quarts or 8 quarts.
These engines will always use oil since they, being air cooled are built with looser internal tolerances than and auto engine simply because they have to perform from temperatures ranging from +20 deg F up to +110 deg F OATs.

And since they are looser, they tend to "blow out" any oil above an engine's optimum level. Once that optimum level for your engine is found, your oil consumption should decrease considerably.

Broken in is defined as the point where the oil consumption stabilizes. Once it stabilizes you can switch to the ashless dispersant oil of you choice.

I hope this answers your question.
If you still have questions, get back to me.

Steve

Read More...

Hi All,

As I round out my first year with this aircraft, I've begun writing up my experiences with it. I decided to post them here. If you enjoy them, let me know. I'll continue to post. If you have systems you'd like to hear more about, let me know those as well. I don't profess to be an expert on everything airplanes, but I can do research and it's helping me learn.

I was planning on writing about either the Landing Gear System or the Built In O2 (Oxygen) system and my upgrades next. If you have any thoughts, let me know.

I hope you find this useful.

Thank you,

Nathan
N4657S
KLVK

Read More...

My First Year as an Owner
Getting to Know the TR182… 1 System at a Time
The Manual Wastegate Control

Author: Nathan Wolfe


It’s been barely a year since I began my flying journey as an aircraft owner. Despite flying since 1989 and being a fractional owner on occasion, I’ve never owned an aircraft outright until I recently acquired a 1980 Turbo Skylane RG from Mark Pilkington at Skywagons.com, in October of 2020. About 10 minutes later my upgrade path started and it took me on an 8 month journey beginning with a full panel upgrade, ending when the aircraft came out of the interior shop. Had it been up to my wife, it would have gone straight to the paint shop but I’d had about enough of not flying my new baby at that point and in June of 2021 I drove over to KLVK (Livermore Municipal Airport) located in beautiful Livermore, California, to take her for a flight with of a freshly signed off annual and sporting a new weight and balance.

It was finally time… Sweet Mary Anne and I needed to get to know one another first. That’s what I named the plane, Sweet Mary Anne. It’s a long story for another writeup. Before I started ticking off the long list of flying bucket list items I had, now that I am flying in the widely varied terrain of California, I needed to get to know my plane.

We don’t like to believe it, but no airplane is perfect (Go figure!) and each has a list of foibles, or special charachteristics that need special attention when flying and maintaining; and my TR182 is no exception. As a new owner, my list contained “watch items” like, Cessna Landing Gear, Nose heavy landing flare, Nose gear shimmy, tire flat-spotting tires caused by small tires, big brakes and over-zealous breaking, one of those dual Bendix mags, and my favorite to date… a turbo wastegate which is manually controlled by the pilot which, when I read about it, is apparently a complicated burden on the pilot.

While I’d agree that 1) the nose IS heavy in the flair, if you don’t trim agressively, 2) the nose gear does have a tendency to shimmy on departure if you don’t lighten the nose a little (on my plane at least), 3) I begrudging admit I have personally flat-spotted the left main tire on the plane because the brakes are big, the tires are small and I was a bit overzealous trying to make that first turnoff, it was a small flatspot but yeah, <sigh>, I did it… 4) The manual wastegate is NOT on my list of things to worry about at all and I’d suggest it shouldn’t be on yours either if you’re considering this aircraft.


Flying with a Manual Turbo-Normalizer:
For some reason, there is a widespread, misinformed belief about the Cessna Turbo-Normalizer and its manually controlled wastegate as implemented on the TR182. I’d admit, the aircraft is unusual in it’s engine configuration, flying a Carbureted, Lycoming O540-L3C5D with a Cessna-made, Turbo-Normalizer with manual wastegate. To my knowledge, it’s unique in the General Aviation world, but let’s not confuse unique, with poorly implemented or difficult to understand or operate.

For those needing a bit of background; The Lycoming 0-540 on this aircraft is Turbo-Normalized (not turbo-charged), which means that the system is designed to keep the MP at sea-level pressure ( 31” Max / 25” Top of the Green Arc) through FL200. Unlike a turbo-charger, it does not overboost the engine to higher MPs (such as 40”). This makes for a long-lived engine that produces sea-level power all the way through its usable altitude range. In the case of the TR182, this isn’t done in the common way, through an electronically controlled system which automatically maintains your setting. Rather, it’s accomplished with a wastegate that the pilot manually controls via the throttle knob which is a little different… but only a little.

To really get an understanding for this, let’s walk through each phase of flight and note the differences.

The Manual Wastegate On takeoff: You set the MP to 31” on takeoff. That’s it!

Where things are different is that full throttle (31” MP) is typically at about the ½ throttle position as we are typically used to it. This means you don’t firewall the throttle once you hit the runway environment. It is possible to overboost the aircraft if you get aggressive on the throttle, which will cause the pop off valve to make funny noises till you pull back on the knob a bit, but after about 2 or 3 departures you’re used to it. You will find it unusual that you only use ½ the throttle travel when setting 31” on takeoff, but I haven’t found this system to be any more difficult than setting departure power on any of the other airframes I fly. Even the FADEC controlled DA42 twin I fly requires a power validation check after you advance the throttles on the runway and this is basically what you are doing in the TR.


The Manual Wastegate in the Climb: Once you have your desired climb power set; you must advance the throttle a very-little bit every couple thousand feet to recover the MP inches lost to altitude.

You see, once the gear is up on a TR, it does climb like a scalded angel. Even near MTOW I get 1200ft per minute and things only slow down as you round into the Flight Levels where you’re down to 900’ per min at FL200 at near Max weight.
If you want to keep those amazing climb rates, about once every 1.5 minutes I have to add 2” MP (1” per 1000’ of climb). If you don’t, you’ll see your climb rate fall off, just as you would in a normally aspirated engine. You’ll do this a couple times and then you’ll remember to keep it in your scan. Again, I didn’t find the adjustment difficult. In fact, it keeps the engine instruments in my extended scan, a pretty good outcome.

The Manual Wastegate in Cruise: Set your desired MP and generally you can forget it.
Just like any complex aircraft, the cruise check-list involves: Power, Prop, Cowl Flaps. I find that I have to circle back to it every so often for a small adjustment as the pressure changes, not exactly burdensome.

The Manual Wastegate in Descent: This is the opposite of the climb, for every 1000’ of descent, you will have to remove 1” MP. This means a small adjustment every couple thousand feet. You’ll forget it once or twice and the result will be you driving downhill at 27” of MP, then you’ll remember to keep it in your scan.

The Manual Wastegate Below 6000’: The Turbo-normalizer isn’t a factor below 6000’. The aircraft can generate full power at those altitudes without it so it’s just like every other 182, just way faster due to the folding gear. An advantage is that there is no Turbo cool-off run after landing, which is common on many turbo charged aircraft.

In general, I’m really uncertain why this system is written about negatively at all. From a pilot perspective, it’s elegantly implemented via a single lever, the In flight workload in the aircraft is no significant increase over any other complex, high-performance aircraft and lower than many. It requires that you keep the MP in your scan on climb and descent but the aircraft speaks to you if you don’t, either in slow climb rate or higher descents speeds.

The dual-cam setup on the other end of the throttle cable that Cessna implemented to control the manual wastegate hasn’t been a maintenance problem, there are no ADs or SBs on the cam system I can find. I have read that A&Ps have complained about aligning it correctly, but when I speak to my A&P about it, the sentiment is, “meh. Every airplane has its more difficult systems. If you can read a service manual, it’s not that difficult.” I’ve been told to keep the cams greased with Lubriplate No 105, which I do at every oil change.

I will admit that my shop maintains 6 of these airplanes at KLVK alone and knows the systems well. I also fly pretty regularly putting in about 215 hours last year, which means it’s rare to have a week when my plane doesn’t fly and I’m sure that exercise helps keep things limber.

The Bottom Line
Overall my first year with the factory manual wastegate system has been unremarkable. Anyone who has the idea that this system represents a real increase in pilot workload has got it wrong. It just isn’t. The concept of operations is basic, learning to fly with it is simple, and even if you fail to make the adjustments on climb or descent the aircraft reminds you in a non-exciting way and you quickly learn to keep MP in your extended scan, something you should be doing anyway. If you are considering a TR182, and it is definitely worth considering, the manual wastegate control should not be a negative factor in your decision making.

Read More...

Grant W replied to the topic 'IO 520 oil burn' in the forum. 4 days ago

Hi Steve, I am putting time on a factory rebuilt IO-550 and at around 20 hours on the motor I'm still adding about a quart every 4 or 5 hours. I noticed your remark regarding consumption continuing to decrease after a switch back to ashless dispersant oil.

Is the lower consumption a function of the oil type or the additional time on the motor during the break in period?

I'm still running mineral oil, and I guess you could say the consumption has stabilized at a quart every 5 hours. So should I switch back to AD oil at this point and see if the consumption rate continues to decrease?

Read More...