C-182 or C-1820RG, or C-210....

Pat,

E-mail me for some info on 182 vs 260 SE. Your e-mail bounces.

Dick Meade

"Pat Thronson" wrote in message
t...


Check out the 260se 182.... anybody comment on the negatives of this mod?
price/performance/ comparably priced different aircraft?

http://www.260se.com/features.html



Pat Thronson 260se 182 wanabe owner

("Dick Meade" wrote)
E-mail me for some info on 182 vs 260 SE. Your e-mail bounces.

Check out the 260se 182.... anybody comment on the negatives of this
mod?
price/performance/ comparably priced different aircraft?

http://www.260se.com/features.html


Dick, Please post the info here too. I am curious about the 260SE (canard)
182 Peterson conversion.

Here's a 260SE canard question:

High wing Cessna 182.
Canard conversion wing is set up "inches" from the prop. :-)
How does that darn canard work?

I (somewhat) understand a Burt Rutan design - smaller area canard, losses
lift before the larger aft wing, nose drops first, etc.

On this 260SE (Cessna 182) design, doesn't the prop wash do nutty things to
the air over that (very close) canard wing?

Wouldn't the prop'd air, moving over this small canard wing, fool the canard
into thinking it's flying at (maybe) 65k, while the large high wings on a
182 (mostly out of the prop wash) are actually only in the 55k range?

(I just pulled some numbers out of the air)

If the forward canard on the (Cessna 182) 260SE is for extra lift only, then
I guess that Rutan stuff doesn't apply to this design - nose stalls (and
drops) first, etc.

Web page does use this phrase: "stall-resistant attitude"

[Just reread my post]
Maybe the canard wing gets extra lift by being close to the prop. Maybe it
is *supposed* to get extra lift from its placement near the prop. Maybe it's
ALL about extra lift, and nothing about anti-stall. Hmm??]

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

"Montblack" wrote in message
...

Dick, Please post the info here too. I am curious about the 260SE
(canard)
182 Peterson conversion.

Detailed questions about canards snipped

Sorry if I mislead you, Montblack. I'm no expert on this conversion. My
info is based on observations of a 260 SE based at my local airport, and a
comparison of that plane to my 182 with a Pponk conversion (520 cu. in, 260
hp), flap and aileron gap seals, and mild droop tips. .

The Peterson conversion is expensive. The aerodynamic clean-ups seem to be
offset by the increased drag of the canard, as there is virtually no
difference in speeds between the planes. Relative climb rates are tough to
quantify, but gut feeling says they are pretty similar. I can peg the VSI
on climb out without doing anything heroic. The 260 may have an edge on
stall speed; I'm not certain. Mine stalls somewhere below 45 mph indicated,
no doubt helped by the gap seals. I can't speak to any change in the 'feel'
of the plane, as I haven't flown the 260.

The canard adds complexity under the cowl. To clarify, I should mention
that the canard is not stationary, it moves in concert with the elevators.
Thus, more pushrods, bellcranks, bearings, etc. I imagine rigging is also
somewhat more complicated. The airflow over the canard (I guess) gives the
plane a unique sound as it goes overhead, lending credence to your thought
about the airflow doing "nutty things".

My plane was (re)built to operate from short fields in Montana, although it
is far from Montana now. That's pretty much the mission of the 260 SE.
It's just 2 different ways to approach the same problem. Supporters from
both camps are almost religious (sorry Jay) in their support of the "best"
solution. Maybe slightly more so for the Petersonites. Both are
improvements to an already very capable aircraft, but the Pponk is
considerably less expensive.

Dick

("Dick Meade" wrote)
snips
Sorry if I mislead you, Montblack. I'm no expert on this conversion. My
info is based on observations of a 260 SE based at my local airport, and a
comparison of that plane to my 182 with a Pponk conversion (520 cu. in, 260
hp), flap and aileron gap seals, and mild droop tips.

The canard adds complexity under the cowl. To clarify, I should mention
that the canard is not stationary, it moves in concert with the elevators.
Thus, more pushrods, bellcranks, bearings, etc. I imagine rigging is also
somewhat more complicated. The airflow over the canard (I guess) gives the
plane a unique sound as it goes overhead, lending credence to your thought
about the airflow doing "nutty things".


Thank you for the report - you've actually seen the beast. Cool.

I'm a sucker for that canard stuff (combined with my enthusiasm for the old
idea of the Free-Winged plane) I'd like to know what happens when those
canards get unhooked from that complex rigging and are allowed to pivot
freely, properly balanced of course - which might take some trial and error
to get it just right. g

http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propcalc.html
Fun tip speed calculator.

http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/O520_conversion.html
Wow! This one has me befuddled :-)
Fuel injection comes off, carburetor goes on? Huh?

Then this:
New low compression pistons are precision balanced to within .5 grams and
installed in your choice of cylinders, we'll be happy to discuss your
various options.

Huh?

I'm running a little low on cash these days. How bout only 2 of those low
compression pistons today?

People like their Pponk conversions, unfortunately I seem to have had a
(Huh?) experience reading their web info.

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

People like their Pponk conversions, unfortunately I seem to have had a
(Huh?) experience reading their web info.


I looked at their website a few weeks ago and came away with the same "Huh?"
Somebody please correct me 'cause I admit I'm confused. The '78 182RG I've
been flying has a Lycoming O-540 derated to 235hp. I understand that older
182's had the Continental O-470 rated at 230hp. Do newer 182's also have
the Continental? Did Cessna only use the Lycoming for the RG models due to
something such as ability to mount the carburator horizontally? I also
noted that the 260SE also uses the O470 rather than the Lycoming.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

In article , Jim
wrote:

I looked at their website a few weeks ago and came away with the same "Huh?"
Somebody please correct me 'cause I admit I'm confused. The '78 182RG I've
been flying has a Lycoming O-540 derated to 235hp. I understand that older
182's had the Continental O-470 rated at 230hp. Do newer 182's also have
the Continental? Did Cessna only use the Lycoming for the RG models due to
something such as ability to mount the carburator horizontally? I also
noted that the 260SE also uses the O470 rather than the Lycoming.

Up until the production line was restarted in the late 90's, the
derated 0-470 Continental was the engine from the factory.
There were/are Continental 0-520 conversions available.
When production was restarted in 97 (?), the aircraft came with the
Lycoming fuel injected engine installed. Remember that Textron owns
bothe Cessna and Lycoming.

("EDR" wrote)
snip
When production was restarted in 97 (?), the aircraft came with the
Lycoming fuel injected engine installed. Remember that Textron owns
bothe Cessna and Lycoming.

The Pponk conversion apparently removes the fuel injection and replaces it
with a carb...huh?

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif