Hello all I have a buddy looking for a 170B with a larger engine conversion. He would also consider an early 172/175 that has been converted to a tailwheel and larger engine. He is expecting to pay $60-$70K, so he's not a bottom feeder and he will pay a $500.00 finders fee to the person that finds him an acceptable plane. Thanks Gary

Don't know if he would consider getting anything way up here but there are several that meet that requirement for sale here, and he can keep his $500 to help pay for the fuel to get back through Canada Currently advertised is a 170B with a Franklin 220, and a tailwheel-converted 175 with a 0-470 in it, maybe a O-540 can't remember which.

Also if anyone is looking for a nice J-3 a friend of mine is advertising his on there too. Everything about the plane but the SMOH is attractive

Thanks I will pass the info on. Gary

Another good site to try is www.barnstormers.com they have a pretty good selection and its updated a lot......btw this isn't a plug for the website I just happen to like using it. Good luck -Josh

I saw this add in the Anchorage paper today -

CESSNA 170B 180HP, 20SMOH, floats, wheels, skis, 80 gal gas, float trailer & many extras like JPI EGT, fuel flow, float pond parking space, covers, fresh annual, Fairbanks 907-452-4303

Hey Folks. Thanks for the input. I think we will keep the search to the lower 48, and hopeully one will turn up in the West, unless it is someone you personally know and you KNOW how good the plane is. I will let you know if and when we find one, so hopefully you will keep sending responses until I let you know that we have found one that "fits the bill". He is not looking for a "Show Plane". Paint and interior are not as important as the mechanical condition, but minimal corrosion and damage history are important. Private messages would be good incase there is someone out there trying to sneak in on a deal. Thanks again Gary

My buddy has dcided to do his own conversion. He is going to buy the Franlin engine, mount, exhaust and prop. Figures it will be easier to find a good unmolested plane and molest it himself. So, now we are looking for a "B" model in good shape with the O-300. Gary

Gary,

A friend in Fairbanks went through that process recently, only using the Lycoming engine conversion (DelAir). He is an A & P mechanic, so did a good bit of the work himself.

It cost him on the order of $50 K by the time he was done, NOT counting the cost of the airplane.

Without doubt the Franklin engines can be had somewhat cheaper, but this will be a VERY expensive and VERY labor intensive project. If he's a mechanic, or very mechanically inclined, AND has a benevolent IA that will work with him, it may be less painful.

Bottom line is that even if you have to buy one with a run out engine and overhaul it, you may still be better off financially than trying to do the conversion yourself.

I don't know what the Franklin conversion costs now, but last I talked to them was three or four years ago, before they went broke, and they wanted $30 K then just for the parts for that conversion. I'm sure it's higher now, and figure labor as a huge part of the project.

I have a 180 hp 170, and my advice would be to take all that money and buy a good early 180 and use the leftover money to buy gas for it.

If he is going to look for a 170/175/172 with a big engine, he probably doesn't want to exclude looking in Alaska. They are rare, but most common there.

MTV

MTV Thanks. My buddy is an IA so he can do and sign off everything and enjoys doing that sort of stuff. He has been a car nut for a long time also. If you give him a door handle, he can build you an award winning car. I was watching for the samething for quite awhile and ended up getting a good deal on an early 180. I have had both and prefer the 170/180 just for it's great performance and minimal maintenance expenses. But I am very happy with my 180, have done a bunch of mods, and it may actually work out better for me because of the air camping that I want to do just because of the extra weight it will haul. He has been doing his home work and believes he can buy most everything he needs for around $30K, atleast the major components. There have been very few nice 170/180hp on the market in the last couple of years. It doesn't doesn't seem hard to find a 170B with the O-300 in nice shape and I think he feels he can have a plane for about the same as what one would cost, if he could find one, and most major components would be new. He is ready to fly and is having a hard job waiting for the right plane to come along. If he is building it, the wait is OK. Thankyou for your thoughts and concerns. Gary

For what it's worth, I had an opportunity to fly in a 175 with the 220 Franklin and geared prop. I was very impressed. Flew just like a 180....
And, I would have no qualms on plugging barnstormers.com I have done a fair amount on there including the purchase of my plane. Great outfit and a boon to all of us working types $ wise.
I'm with MTV, find one and fly it unless you have the patience of Job and the budget of Midas.

shortfielder,

One more thing to take into account: The 170 has a maximum gross weight of 2200 pounds. I doubt anyone will ever get that increased. Hang a big engine on a 170, and your useful load is going to be fairly restricted. My airplane is 1360 empty, which is really good for a Lycoming powered airplane. Put it on skis or floats, though, and the useful load is small.

Also, the 170 has 37 gallons useable fuel. If you want any range at all with a bigger engine, you are going to have to add fuel capacity, which further degrades your payload.

There are baggage compartment tanks (I don't like any fuel tank inside the cabin, thank you), Flint tip tanks (which I have) and some folks have gotten field approvals to install the slightly larger 175/late 172 tanks in the 170 wings, which gives, I believe 48 gallons useable, which is about right.

With a 220, he's gonna want more fuel.

Several models of the 172 and the 175 had higher gross weights, and there are some stcs around to increase the GW on a 172 with big engine, for example.

That will leave you with a nosegear, unless you do the conversion, and I'd talk to some folks who own those before I leaped. I think the straight tail airplanes do okay there, but the swept tail models don't seem to make very good tailwheel airplanes.

MTV

I sold my '54 C-170B, added $24K to the proceeds from the sale
of the 170 and bought a '54 (2550lb gross weight) 225hp C-180.
Cheapest engine upgrade available out there....

Hi Bela Thanks He knows about 180's, he was with me when I bought mine. He is looking for less fuel burn and likes the longer TBO's of the Franklin and Lyc. engines. I tell him to pull the power back and the fuel burn will go down. Anyways, right know, he is pretty stuck on the 170, and I think it is a great plane also, possably with the the exception of the ability of carrying a larger load, but he is aware of that. Your new plane looks nice. How did you get that picture to show up in there with your post. I would like to do that with mine. Gary

Gary,

Fuel burn? My 180 hp 170 burns around 9 gph, but I can slow way down and burn a little less. Now, at 9 gph, I'm running at about 100, maybe 105 knots.

Any 180 I've ever met will run at 115 to 120 knots, burning 10 to 11 gph.

Do the math. And, that's a 180 Lyc, not a 220 Franklin.

I believe that the Franklins have just as short a TBO as the O-470, 1500 hrs. Some of the O-470's have been extended. The Lycomings are all 2000.

MTV

The info I've been getting tie Franklin is a 2000 hr. TBO and around 9 gal/hr fuel burn and a lot of torque. 6 cyl.=pretty smooth running engine. I am not promoting this. just exposing the thought process. Today he found a '74 M 5 maule w/220 cont. with 1000 TTAF and 50 SMOH and POH for $41K. So who knows where ths will go. but he is still leaning towards the 170. Gary

Hey Jr. I agree with you for the most part. I have had both planes and I am probably a rare person in that I preferred the 170/180 over the 180. I have had 3 180's all '56 models. Great planes, but ther are a few thing that are really great about the 170/180, Vision over the cowl, better T/O than 180, and light on the controls. I felt as though I could thread a needle with the 170. I did always fly pretty llight. I think you are wrong about fuel tanks. I think the 170's are 39 gal. and early 180's are 55-60 gal. Another plus for the 170 is the metal fuel tank. Good luck on your conversion. You will love it. as you probably already know. What engine does Harry use. I had the Avcon w/Lyc. O-360 A1A and CSP. Gary P>S> I think I saw somewhere once that the 170 w/o-360 and CSP was about 80# heavier than stock.

Jr,

Good and valid points all, and your logic train makes sense to me, mostly since you already own the 170 and know it well. I cringe at the thought of buying another airplane, and frankly hope I never have to again. Done it six times, and none was as purty as I'd have liked.

The Delair conversion is indeed a nice kit. He provides very good quality materials and parts, and it is very complete. I really like his cowling parts much better than the ones that Avcon used to provide.

What prop did you get??? If you got the 76 inch prop, I'd sent it back and buy the 80 inch prop and harmonic damper assy from Hartzell. On my airplane, that prop reduced the takeoff run on floats by ONE THIRD. On wheels, it reduced the roll by maybe a quarter. It pulls like a tugboat.

And, it is smooth. This conversion eliminates the restricted operating range of the normal Lycoming/Hartzell combination, which can be a pain in the butt for low speed observation flight, and at low rpm cruise operations.

I wouldn't even THINK of putting another 76 inch prop on one of these things.

The early 180's had 54 gallon wing tanks, and they were metal, just like the 170's, not bladders like the later airplanes. The 170 tanks are 37 useable. Not enough for one of these motors.

MTV

MTV What kind of cruise do you get out of your plane? Thanks Gary

mtv wrote:Jr,

<snip>

The early 180's had 54 gallon wing tanks, and they were metal, just like the 170's, not bladders like the later airplanes. The 170 tanks are 37 useable. Not enough for one of these motors.

MTV

I wasn't aware of that... What serial number did they cut over?

I've worked on a (fairly early) '53 C-180 and it had 60 gallons
of fuel in bladders (just like my '54). I was under the impression
that all the early 180s had 60 gallon bladder tanks....???

I actually think metal tanks are a better way to go. Word has it
the early 180 bladders were made of better material (and tend to last
longer) but I suppose anything made of any kind of rubber compound
can't be expected to last much past 50+ years....

For what it's worth, 60 gallons (55 usable) in an early 180 is
kind of not enough gas on board.... @ 12 gph, you've got maybe
4 hours of range. Then again, that's what my 170 had.... And
the 170 went quite a bit slower over the ground....

I think a cool conversion would be a C-170B with an early C-180/
C-182 front end (forward of the door posts) riveted onto it. That
would make for a fun machine!!!

shortfielder wrote:Hi Bela Thanks He knows about 180's, he was with me when I bought mine. He is looking for less fuel burn and likes the longer TBO's of the Franklin and Lyc. engines. I tell him to pull the power back and the fuel burn will go down. Anyways, right know, he is pretty stuck on the 170, and I think it is a great plane also, possably with the the exception of the ability of carrying a larger load, but he is aware of that. Your new plane looks nice. How did you get that picture to show up in there with your post. I would like to do that with mine. Gary

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,

The picture I used to start with wasn't the best to do that... (a friend
had taken a shot of me rolling out at an airport). What would be
best is to get an image of your airplane against a relatively constant
background color (blue sky for instance).

Hope this helps....