Hi
Anyone have some time on a cessna 170 B with the 180hp on floats?
With a gross of 2200 lbs but usually sitting on EDO 2000's did you find it underfloated?
What kind of speed [at what settings] did you get on floats?
What was your overall thoughts on the performance of the plane?
Any other comments welcome.
THANKS for your time.

MTV should be along soon.

Yes, I have about 7 or 800 hours in one. I've flown them on EDO 2000, on PK 2300, and on PK B-2300 floats.

Yes, the 2000's are somewhat underfloated, but note that the Max GW on EDO 2000s is NOT 2200 pounds. Read the Type Certificate.

The PK B 2300's are great floats, but not a lot of them around, unfortunately. The PK 2300's are somewhat shorter floats and DO NOT perform well compared to other floats.

I have not flown a 170 on Wip floats, but they might be a good option, if the $$$$ make sense.

I found that the floats didn't slow my airplane by more than a few knots, but my airplane is fairly slow as 170s go in any case--wing eccentrics are at the limits. Plan 100 knots, unless you want to push a good bit more gas through the thing, and gain a few knots.

With the PKs, you can go to 2200 GW, and with my airplane on the B-2300s, I could legally carry three "FAA Persons" (180 lbs each) and full standard gas (37 gallons) legally. On EDO's, you're going to be limited to a lower GW, and the plane won't perform off the water as well. Look out for turning in wind, etc.....I wouldn't go with the EDOs, though they are GREAT floats. Just not big enough for this airplane.

Send me a PM if you want more information, with specifics on what you have in mind.

MTV

Just joined this organization. A word about Cessna 170's with Avcon conversions. They are for landplanes only. I found this out when I put my 180 conversion in and it was on Edo 2000's. The FAA inspector that came to Kodiak at that time was quick to point out that that installation was illegal since you could not deviate with horsepower by more than 15 percent. I verified this and started the process for a field approval which involved the ACO and after over a year became a one time co-ordinated field approval.

After flight tests, using an Aces vibration balancer, writing a flight manual, etc. I finally got it approved. I have asked other pilots about their installations and have not found any to date that have them approved. It is probably not a big deal since he is long retired and the new guys at the FAA either don't know their own rules or don't care or both.

It will become an issue if you have an accident or incident and the NTSB gets involved or your insurance denies your claim since you are technically using unapproved parts. As I wrote on a post in the 170 club, the FAA looks for the cockroach in the corner and ignores the elephant in the room.

It is just food for thought...I think even the 2300 PK floats are for the 145 H.P> engine only based on their website

I also gave the 170 club all my paperwork pertaining to this field approval. If anyone wants it to get their own field approval and use it for a basis for that just PM me. It is also on the internet if you google it. It somehow escaped their system and is available to anyone.

marathonrunner wrote:Just joined this organization. A word about Cessna 170's with Avcon conversions. They are for landplanes only. I found this out when I put my 180 conversion in and it was on Edo 2000's. The FAA inspector that came to Kodiak at that time was quick to point out that that installation was illegal since you could not deviate with horsepower by more than 15 percent. I verified this and started the process for a field approval which involved the ACO and after over a year became a one time co-ordinated field approval.

After flight tests, using an Aces vibration balancer, writing a flight manual, etc. I finally got it approved. I have asked other pilots about their installations and have not found any to date that have them approved. It is probably not a big deal since he is long retired and the new guys at the FAA either don't know their own rules or don't care or both.

It will become an issue if you have an accident or incident and the NTSB gets involved or your insurance denies your claim since you are technically using unapproved parts. As I wrote on a post in the 170 club, the FAA looks for the cockroach in the corner and ignores the elephant in the room.

It is just food for thought...I think even the 2300 PK floats are for the 145 H.P> engine only based on their website

The PK 2300 and Wip floats are ONLY approved on the 180 powered airplanes, per provisions of the respective STCs. I doubt that most FSDO types would suggest what you encountered to be valid, but what happens when a FSDO type writes up something is the agency cannot (or at least feels they can't) reverse it. Witness the Bob Hoover "incident" a while back.

The ANC FSDO has a history of some pretty goofy opinions. Glad you got it sorted out and are willing to share.

MTV

I knew the Wips were for the 180 and thought Gene Chavis got his STC for the 180 h.p. but the PK website shows the 170 as 145 only. The 15 percent rule is valid. Wish it was not and the Avcon Stc is for land planes only. I spoke with Bob Williams personally to verify this before going through the "process"

As far as FSDO's go I have had a good relationship with the Anchorage FSDO. A lot of those guys are aircraft owners and do try to be helpful

Actually in the past I have gotten correspondence from 170 owners from the east coast that ran into this same problem with the Avcon conversion and Edo 2000 floats. I sent what I had but never heard back how it went so assumed they got their approvals

I don't know what's on the PK website, but the STC for the PeeKay 2300 floats I had specified the 180 HP stc had to be installed. The STC I had was signed by Al Fleener of the ANC FSDO, and a finer fed you will never encounter.

Fortunately, FSDO folks come and go. I haven't dealt with the ANC FSDO for seven or eight years. I've dealt with some absolutely top notch folks in various FSDOs and some really bad ones. If you find a good one, treat the well.

MTV

I had quite a few field approvals signed by Al. If it was an STC why did the FSDO get involved. It should not have needed their stamp for a field approval unless something was amended or done differently from the STC instructions.

Again the Edo 2000's are not a legal installation with an Avcon conversion. There may now be other 180 H.P. STC's that are legal for them but the Avcon was the most common. I started the process in November of 1993 and got the approval from the Aircraft Certification Office and the FSDO in November of 1994. Engineering had to be involved and a flight manual drafted for this installation.

Again, since this is not a legal installation my paperwork is available so it can be perhaps used as a basis for approval for other individuals in this same situation. I have copied and sent it in the past and, as I mentioned earlier it is online.

marathonrunner wrote:I had quite a few field approvals signed by Al. If it was an STC why did the FSDO get involved. It should not have needed their stamp for a field approval unless something was amended or done differently from the STC instructions.

I did not suggest that a FSDO had anything to do with the installation of floats on my airplane. I simply said that the STC for the float install on the 170 was signed by Al Fleener. Don't ask me why a FSDO guy signed off on an STC, but his signature was on it.

you're not the first to get caught in one of these deals....the Super Cub, with the original STC for the 160 HP engine was also never approved on floats. Take cruise around Lake Hood and see if you find any of those. Later STCs may approve.

MTV

Well if Al signed it while working for the FAA then he could not use his A&P for that. They are only allowed to work on their own aircraft. Must have been a deviation of some sort that required the FSDO to sign off .

Unrfortunately, the FAR's are interpreted differently from region to region and inspector to inspector. The application of them is also very subjective.

The only problem with not having legal floats installed and approved would probably be when an incident occurs and the NTSB or, your insurance company are involved. They do fail to pay if you are found to have unapproved installations. This would be a glaring example of that. You could also be held liable for damage or injury and left to hang out and swing in the wind with very little recourse for having unapproved parts or installations whether they contributed to the incident/accident or not.

I am not familiar with the 160 H.P. problem with the cub but, 15 percent of 150 is 22.5 so it falls well within the parameters. The 145 H.P. to 180 does not. Perhaps someone figured out that it was not an issue.

Again they have different interpretations depending on who you ask and where they are located.

In my limited experience with mods I have noted the text on the stc paperwork that says it is the installer's responsibility to assure compatibility with any other modifications.That being said I have seen stc's that say "landplanes only" which to me is pretty clear.Other stc's do not make any distinction which to me opens the door for the "installer's responsibility" part of the statement.If in such a case data can be supplied which supports compatibility then it should be acceptable .It is important to be able to supply adequate data that is what they want to see.Field approvals are still done.A friend JUST got approval for amphibs on his PA-11.Cudos to the FAA team that was very supportive of his efforts.

Bill

That is the problem with the Avcon STC...it is "landplanes only" and yes that is pretty clear. How long did it take your friend to get a field approval for his aircraft? It took me just over a year and I was staying on top of it. It is just the glacial pace of the system that sometimes makes these things take longer than we believe they should.

I think about a year maybe a little more.The FAA was receptive just needed to have supporting data.He probably could have reduced the timeframe but did not push it.

Bill

marathonrunner wrote:......I spoke with Bob Williams personally to verify this before going through the "process"

You mean he actually used to answer the phone?

He did quite often, but this was in the 90's, the early 90's. It took quite a while for them to piecemeal the parts to me. I paid full pop up front and boxes would arrive over several months. I would call and let him know what was checked off on the list and what was left and another box would arrive.

Is the STC even supported now? I have not looked but, I am guessing there other STC's out there for 180 H.P. conversions for the 170 and they may be for both land planes and float planes. I will have to get on the FAA web site and see just for the fun of knowing.

He also told me that the reason for the electric boost pump was because they did a climb test on a very hot day and it vapor locked. I think I was asking if I could forgo the pump as it was probably one of the last of the parts to get from him. It was not an option