Backcountry Pilot • 172 w/Avcon 180hp CS

172 w/Avcon 180hp CS

Technical and practical discussion about specific aircraft types such as Cessna 180, Maule M7, et al. Please read and search carefully before posting, as many popular topics have already been discussed.
63 postsPage 4 of 41, 2, 3, 4

Re: 172 w/Avcon 180hp CS

Bump. Anyone ever track down a usable 337 for this to help with a field approval? Or maybe the name of a DER that has experience/familiarity?
soyAnarchisto offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 1975
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:23 pm
Location: Boulder, CO
Aircraft: 1955 Cessna 180

Re: 172 w/Avcon 180hp CS

Newbizor wrote:
Cary wrote:Why do you want to eliminate the fuel pump? Mine has two, the engine driven one and the electric one. I only use the electric one on take offs and landings. Because it was standard equipment in the stock P172D which had a 175 hp Continental, the owners manual provides for using it whenever changing tanks at higher altitudes, but I pretty much forget to do that--usually "remember" when I see the fuel pressure light go on momentarily on my fuel flow gauge. But the point is that while gravity feed works fine on lower powered engines, force feeding with a fuel pump is more necessary when the power goes up.

Cary


I have the avcon 180hp conversion on my 175 and have no fuel pumps. The stock gravity system supplies in excess of 25gph to the carb right down to the last drop. The O-360 at sea level and 2700rpm is burning somewhere in the ballpark of 16gph. Removing the pumps also allows you to use the MoGas STC, athough some would argue the STC is not required since Lycoming published S.I. 1070A. For me just getting rid of the complexity of the extra components, electrical and plumbing is worth removing them. Less fittings to leak, less electrical load, no need for fuel pressure gauge, less cost and less maintenance. The only reason an electrical pump is even installed is in the event of the mechanical pump failing, the only reason the mechanical pump is there is because the O-360A1A/A1D engines used in the conversions came out of Mooney's which were low wing and needed the pump. Legend has it the guys developing the STC's were initially required to use the pumps because they were already on the engines. It wasn't until a little later they came out with the paperwork to remove them, but that document only covers 172's and omitted mention of any 175 S/N's.

The P172D like the 180hp conversions with a CSP, can require that extra (albiet small) amount of flow. The aircraft with the pumps removed increased the size of the fuel line from the selector valve fwd, meeting the minimum 150% flow requirement without pumps.


That’s all good information. But, how was this deviation from the provisions of the Avcon STC made “legal”. Do you have a field approval you’re willing to share?

MTV
mtv offline
Knowledge Base Author
User avatar
Posts: 10514
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:47 am
Location: Bozeman

Re: 172 w/Avcon 180hp CS

This thread seems to have played out without resolving the problem. I know of a 170avcon conversion that has been operating for at least 15years with no fuel pumps. Gravity works fine in all maneuvers and situations. Glider towing, high altitudes hot temps and never a hiccup. The fuel lines are -8 all the way from the fuel selector as was mentioned in the field approval from Fred Dyen when he was in Alaska. Is there any update on this. Asking for a friend.
Dooley offline
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2021 7:57 pm
Location: Sanger
Aircraft: Cessna 170A

DISPLAY OPTIONS

Previous
63 postsPage 4 of 41, 2, 3, 4

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Latest Features

Latest Knowledge Base