Hey Jr. I wouldn't think of it as money down the crapper. It is part of why we work. If you can afford it and you enjoy it, Go for it. Always nice to have the option for more fuel. Gary

Gary,

As noted, around 100 to 105 KNOTS (as opposed to mph). My wing eccentrics are near or at the upper limits, so the plane is slower than it needs to be.

Jr,

The 80 inch prop stc is held by Hartzell. It was stc'd by a fellow named Jim Hancock, in Minneapolis, on a DEL AIR converted 170, so it is approved on those airplanes. I believe the stc simply calls out a C170 with a Lycoming engine.

If you are buying a new prop anyway, it will cost more for this one, cause you have to buy the damper assy. But, you're having to buy a spinner, backing plate, etc anyway.

If you have a little time, you could try to find a good compact hub, a set of Pawnee blades, and have them assembled into a prop, and buy the stc and damper/spinner assy from Hartzell.

Even if it costs $2000 more, I'd do it. The performance is just that much better, it is that much smoother, and it does away with the restricted operating range.

It is worth doing, and so far, I haven't talked to anyone who didn't agree wholeheartedly.

MTV

Bela,

Dang! Now you got me wondering. You may well be correct on the early 180's. I'll have to do a double take on that.

You are right regarding fuel range, though. 4 hours to dry tanks may seem like plenty, but get into some country with terrain, weather, and sparse fuel stops, and it can get on your nerves.

MTV

I'm new here just signed up after reading this thread. Most interesting discussion.
Our flying club has a C172 which just got a re-engine from the O-320 to the O-360 via PenYann STC. About $35,000.00 all up. This conversion makes a ton of difference in performance. We were also able to get the 250# gross wt. increase by limiting flap travel to 30°. When the new W/B was completed we were 12# heavier than when we started, and we replaced the starter with a new SkyTech starter aandgot 6# of that back. If we were to do it over we would go Great Planes and use their conversion, PenYann rebuilt our 320 to a 360 and the re was a lot of monkeybusiness getting some of the things to fit. All I have talked to say the Great Planes are not that way, and Great Planes are Factory New engines. I don't recall what the old C145 weiged but it was 6 cyl where as Lyc is 4 and I was under the impression it is lighter.

If you haven't already joined I can recommend the CPA as a great resource of STC's, technical and model information, as well as links to parts dealers.

Both the Penn Yann and the Great Plains conversions use a fixed pitch prop. If you are going to the expense of putting a new engine on your airplane, I'd recommend going the whole way and installing a constant speed prop as well.

Particularly in this day of high fuel prices, the constant speed, while costing more to buy, will save a lot of fuel money over it's life span.

The early 180's apparently did have bladders, with a 60 gallon capacity, but were rated at 56 useable, which means you could use it in any normal flight attitude.

MTV

1954C180 wrote:Gary, the plane picture is configured via the "signature" part of your
account. Personally, I used Paint Shop Pro, and used the "magic
select wand" to select and remove everything around the airplane
and deleted that, ...................

Bela: please, please use your magic wand to delete the wheel panties off your airplane. You're embarassing all of us who know you.......

Eric

PS: magic wand them off the photo of your airplane too .......

Cut me a bit of slack if you would please, and allow me at least a little
while longer to relish in the fact that I went from the slowest airplane
in the group to the fastest! (well, 2nd fastest... A neighbor with a P-Ponk
powered '54 180 is still the fastest...).

Both the Penn Yann and the Great Plains conversions use a fixed pitch prop. If you are going to the expense of putting a new engine on your airplane, I'd recommend going the whole way and installing a constant speed prop as well.

Particularly in this day of high fuel prices, the constant speed, while costing more to buy, will save a lot of fuel money over it's life span.

The early 180's apparently did have bladders, with a 60 gallon capacity, but were rated at 56 useable, which means you could use it in any normal flight attitude.

MTV

We looked into the passibility of the C/S prop, but after looking at the numbers we decided the very slight advantage wasn't worth the extra $8K, especially when we factored in the type of flying most of the group does. We previously had a C-177B and the numbers between these two are very close, and the Cardinal II was a much cleaner plane than a Skyhawk. The prop supplied by PenYann is another 2" in Dia. and has about 5/8" more cord. We are actually very pleased with the performance. After the engine install is paid off we're going to add the PowerFlow exhaust system.

The rental 172 that I used to fly had a PowerFlow exhaust on it. I hated the noise, after about one hour of flying that constant throbbing roar would just start grinding on me. It had a funny way of being fatiguing, that constant sonic assault just wore on me. Just food for thought. If you haven't you might want to spend a couple hours in a plane that has one on it before spend the dough.

Not sure if the new design will be as noisy, the old one laid the exhaust right out along the belly, the new one comes out of the cowl just like the OEM stack. There is a fellow from ID I usually meet up with at the AWO fly-in every year has a fairly heavily modified 170 using a 180 LYC with a C/S and the older Powerflow. Pete speaks very highly of the performance boost he gets on it. He made no mention of undue noise and I haven't noticed anything any louder when he fires up.

The rental plane had the older style that exited straight back. It sounded great at startup/idle, but it was just to loud going cross country. Of course there's a lot of variables in play there, but I bet just pointing the thing down like a stock exhaust would make a noticable difference, and I didn't have an ANR headset then either.

Another aspect of that origional style with the rear facing extension on it that I didn't really admire was the way it hung. I had to tighten the clamp on the hanger a couple of times. It just had a lot of pipe hanging out vibrating around.

I would imagine aiming the pipe at the belly would cause a lot of hammering. The old pipes also require some extra work to remove the cowl and do oil changes.

I have an open topped bi-plane with no muffler, just straight out to the ground. On the ground and in T/O roll it is quiet offensive, once in the air though it quiets right down so having the pipe pointing along the plane musts have a lot to do with the perceived noise.

The new style will be just about as much of a pain in the neck to remove the cowl. These things cost a LOT of cash, for the minor benefit, in my opinion.

MTV

The new style will be just about as much of a pain in the neck to remove the cowl. These things cost a LOT of cash, for the minor benefit, in my opinion.

MTV

I was looking at the Powerflow systems at AWO this July and the new Powerflow has the same external fit as the OEM stack. The rep was telling me no mod in the cowl to fit it and the external appearance you can't tell the difference. Lower cowl removal is the same as with the stock stacks. I've heard good reports from owners about power gains and cooler operations.

I've talked with a few guys who've installed a powerflow exh system, and they all claimed a performance increase. But, if I'd just gone out & spent several thousand bucks on a performance mod that didn't do much, I don't think I'd admit it to anyone either.
In other words: maybe it do, maybe it don't. I think I'd try to fly a before-and-after comparison of someone else's airplane before I ponied up the dough.

Eric

Well, that may be for a 172, but I doubt it. That stack is about a foot longer.

I was looking at a PA 12 today with such an exhaust, and they're having to build a whole new lower cowl because of that stack.

It's a LOT longer, and sometimes that in itself requires some additional machinations to remove.


But not always,

MTV

mtv wrote:Well, that may be for a 172, but I doubt it. That stack is about a foot longer.

I was looking at a PA 12 today with such an exhaust, and they're having to build a whole new lower cowl because of that stack.

It's a LOT longer, and sometimes that in itself requires some additional machinations to remove.


But not always,

MTV

This new system is supposed to be a newly engineered and the unit they had on the display rack had to be with in a couple of inches of the stock pipe, I couldn't tell if it was appreciably longer from the display unit. The 172 bowl drops straight down so removal, as long as the stack isn't exceptionally long, should be a snap.

By the time we get ready to do this mod, there should be a good proven track record on it

Maybe they've changed the stack again. The one I saw most recently is different than the early ones, but it really is MUCH longer straight out from the cowl.

MTV

I have the airplane for you. Well I dont, but my boss is selling his 170 with an O-360 with constant speed prop. It is in excellent condition. I think he is asking in the neighborhood of $65000. It is not advertised anywhere that I know of. Let me know if you are interested, and I will be able to get you more information. Oh, it is located in McCall, ID.

Can't help it, I have to mention a couple things about the Franklin engine in the 170...

First, Franklin Engines (PZL) did not go broke. PZL was bought out by Pratt & Whitney. P&W wanted the turbine product line and didn't realize they had also purchased the Franklin recip line as well. When they "found out" after the fact (and much to the chagrin of recent STC buyers like me), they arbitrarily shut down the recip production. Rumors abound regarding a buyer for the Franklin recip line, but just like the airline business - don't believe any of them until it actually happens.

My experience with our engine conversion (almost 300 hours on it) has been stellar. I haven't had to test the parts availability... knock on wood. There are a few vendors who have PZL/Franklin parts out there. you just have to know where to look. ECI even makes some aftermarket stuff... The TBO on the PZL Franklin 6A-350C1R, 220 hp, is 1500 hours. Cost to replace (at time of purchase) was $15K brand new (no accessories). The beer math made this very attractive when compared to the Continental and Lycoming - even if you automatically replace it at TBO. Anything you get from it after TBO is just an added bonus...

For all you Alaska Franklin operators: A good friend of mine, Gregg Horrell, recently took a position with the Juneau FSDO as a maintenance inspector. He will be a real asset to you guys who interact often with the FAA, and he knows the Franklin and the STCs for Cessnas and Stinsons very well. He was the IA in charge of our conversion and knows where to find parts as well.

No doubt the Franklin is thirsty down low when running it hard. It will drink 11-12 gph if you push it, and my 170 will cruise at 130 KTAS near sea level under these conditions. However, up high, at 10000 MSL, full throttle (~20" MP) and 2300 RPM, leaned to peak (JPI 6pt EGT), we burn 7.3 gph and cruise at 120 KTAS. This means we have the same endurance and better range than with the original O-300. Most importantly, The takeoff/climb performance is so good that I can get OUT of more places than I can get IN... (I am sure this is mostly due to my lackluster aviating!)

I would certainly like more fuel available than the 37 gal useable, but the engine conversion actually made BETTER use of what we have than the original powerplant. If you refrain from using all the power available at lower altitudes and cruise around at the indicated speeds you used to see with the old powerplant, your fuel burns (properly leaned) at all altitudes will be comparable - and you're still gonna gain a couple knots because of the constant speed prop.

The Franklin engine weighs almost the same as the O-300. The extra weight came along with the constant speed prop. Firewall-forward totaled out at about 50 lbs heavier. Some may disagree, but I think the advantages of the prop alone are worth 50 lbs. Now put all that extra power behind it...

All of that said... and as happy as we are with our conversion... I would probably not go the same route until a reputable manufacturer has actually purchased the Frankin recip line from Pratt & Whitney. I really like both of the other conversions out there. My dad has 2000 hours on his Lycoming O-360 powered 172. It has been "bulletproof" and still going strong. Another friend of our has the Continental IO-360 on his ragwing 170 (1-time field approval conversion). They have been great engines in both airplanes! It comes down to personal choice as to what makes you happy and how much $ you have to burn.

M

Be aware that Hartzell is coming out with an AD on the HC2Y compact hub, which is used on the Lycoming conversions, and on other engines as well.

The AD requires that any such hub which has a serial number that ends in a number, as opposed to an A or B suffix, will be subject to a repetitive inspection, effective today or tomorrow, can't recall which.

The inspection required is an eddy current inspection of the hub. Which means your prop will have to be pulled, shipped ot a prop shop, disassembled, tested, then reassembled, and shipped back, etc. EVERY 100 hours time in service. The AD takes effect today or tomorrow, and compliance is required within the next 50 hours time in service, then every 100 hours after that.

Mine got caught in this. Sucko.

The only logical remedy, of course, is to purchase a new Hartzell hub. Those nice people will happily sell you a new one (which they'll condemn with another AD in ten years so they can sell you another) for half price, which is around $1400. But, wait--it gets better.

To get the super duper special half price deal on the hub, YOU MUST HAVE YOUR PROP overhauled at the time it's installed. A while back, Lycoming required prop overhaulers to buy a very expensive piece of equipment to shot peen the blade hubs on these props at every overhaul.

So, the overhaul is going to cost $2500. My blades have less than 200 hours on them.

So, the total cost, not counting removing the prop, and re-installing it, will run $3800.

If you're thinking of buying one of these airplanes, take this into account. The value of the plane just went down significantly.

There are HC2Y hubs that are exempt, manufactured since 1992, and these hubs have an A or B suffix at the end of their serial number.

I'm really happy with this. Hartzell has now nicked me for TWO hubs, the last one got caught by their corrosion AD, which killed nearly every hub theyve overhauled.

MTV

I'm beginning to think that Hartzell and the FAA are an organized crime syndicate.