I heard that the 220 Franklin is 100 lbs. lighter than an 0-470. That should make a huge difference in the cg issue. I heard at OSH that the 180 and 220 Franklin's were going back into production. Anyone have any more information?









CRANMAN

I think Pratt and Whitney owns Franklin now. They or whoever got Franklin, got them in a package deal with something else that they wanted. Alot of people are hoping that they come back into production by someone reputable. Sofar parts are readily avalable, so that's a good thing. As for props on the 220 Franklin on the 220, my buddy just bought one and the "Guru" for the Franlins says that you can put a C-182 McCauley prop on and it works very well. I am beginning to think anything besides a Hartzel is a good prop. FWIW Gary

I don't have his #, but Dan Ellis just converted a 182 to taildragger, I bet he'd have info for you. He's at DVT.
Cool idea.
Jeff

Well, if I were buying a four cylinder Lycoming, it'd be a 360. Lots more power, more prop options, etc.

The early 182's and 180's were virtually identical, except for gearbox and some reinforcements in the tail for the 180.

I've seen early 182's that were changed to a 180, and they're nice airplanes, but it takes a good bit of work.

My ideal airplane of this sort? Early 180 with an R engine.

You'll burn almost as much gas in a 170/175/172 with a big engine as a 180, and you'll go a LOT slower. You'll also have fuel range issues, unless you add tankage, which you also spell $$$$.

If you really want a project, go for it, but at the end of the day, you'll have less airplane, and the same or more money into it.

MTV

My buddy with the 175 is getting 150 mph with less than 9 gph and great take off and slow flight. I think that this is a seriously overlooked plane for folks like us. He paid $55k fo a plane in great shape, new engine and good radios and metal tanks Great performance and economy. Gary

Not meaning to be argumentative, but if I were you, I'd want a ride in that guys' airplane, with a handheld GPS to verify speed.

That's a little faster than I'd be able to believe for one of these things, and I've flown several.

You can get an O-360 down to 9gph easily enough, but not at high power settings.

Something is fishy with that, but if he's really doing that, good for him--he got a keeper.

Also, that price is low, so he also got a good deal on a keeper.

MTV

He has a gps, Garmin 250, came with the plane and I have flown next to him with my 180. The guy he bought it from also has another one. Same price. Other one is newer with the swept tail. My buddies is earlier straight tail. He will convert it to conventional gear. He also just got is Spotsman STOL kit. It will be a great performer. G

I'd like to know his secret.

My 180 hp 170 is lucky to make 110 mph, if I push a fair amount of power. If I push power, I'm looking at 10 to 12 gph fuel flow.

That's based on several hundred hours, a GPS and a calibrated fuel flow computer.

Of course, my wing eccentrics are at the stops, which doesn't help, and I have 8.50 tires.

I've flown several other 170's and 172's with these engines, and I've never seen more than 120 mph from one.

Course, I've not flown them on 6.00 tires and with wheel pants and fairings, so who knows.

That's impressive performance, in any case. I sure wouldn't bet on being able to duplicate that performance in just any airplane.

I don't think the swept tail airplanes do nearly as well on conventional gear. Something about the sweep doesn't seem to agree with the tail down attitude in three point.
MTV

I used to have a 170B w/180/csp and It seems that plane used to do around 135 mph on around 10gph. Stock tires , no wheel pants, eccentrics in favor of more speed. My favorite plane. However I did think the 175 with engine and tailwheel conversion would be better. Don't know about that. I too have flown some that I thought were a little slower than I had hoped. I agree with you on the swepttail/conventional combination. I always recommend against that when the coversation comes up. Have a good one. Gary

As I noted, it's 110 mph on 8.50 x 6.00 tires. It has a Hartzell 80 inch constant speed prop. As also noted, the eccentrics are turned up to the stops, which will always slow a Cessna down a good bit. Supposedly helps the takeoff run, but I wouldn't do it, and I'm not interested in re-rigging the wings to change it. It is a slow airplane, no doubt.

On the other hand, it'll out perform a lot of airplanes in takeoff. With the big prop, I can give a lot of Cubs a run for their money with a little weight aboard.

This airplane is pretty light as well, at 1356, as I recall.

It's not a speed burner, but it works.

MTV

I am not new to this browsing this forum but a new (now registered) poster here. I have owned a '52 C170 over 30 years and also own a '61 C175 with the "GO300" engine.

I frequently read and post on the TIC170 Association forum. Here is my FWIW on "upgrading" the power plant and adding "speed mods" on a Cessna 170. Many owners of C170's long for shorter take-off's (at full or over gross?), better climb performance and more cruise speed. To expect all that out of a classic airplane, that does just fine for what it was meant to do, is a good way to disappoint one's self.

Adding some of the many "mods" that are available for the "Classic" not only changes the nature of the bird but loses something in the process.
First - Once the airframe is chopped or modified to install more horsepower, the "classicness" (?) is lost. Secondly, no matter how hard the struggle - IT AIN'T NEVER GONNA BE A C180! The airframe is going to be limited to the Type Certificate's abilities in VNE and Gross weight. Sure it'll climb like a bandit but then here comes reality.

Most Lycoming/Continental conversions do not produce the cruise speed most pilot/owners desire and fuel consumption goes up. Fuel capacity is limited and as many owners of "conversions" find. Going long distances from point A to point B takes nearly the same time or more because an extra fuel stop is usually required. Now- Do we boot-leg C175 fuel tanks or pay big bucks for an STC and servicableC175 wings to do the same? Do we take up some valuable cabin space to put in a Javelin 'saddle' tank and add a few more pounds?

I have flown in several converted C170s, both Continental, Franklin(*) and Lycoming. The short roll to flying and extaordinairy climb is about all I noted. Each pilot either chose his Power Plant for a "mod" or bought a plane already converted. It isn't my place to tell someone to keep the Classic as near original but hindsight says if it ain't broke don't try to fix it.

The C170 I own will indicate 130MPH @ 2650RPM. I have the Cal-Twist 76/55 prop. Take-off roll, @2000#( two pax and fuel) is around 1200' here at 200' MSL. In the 30+ years owning 93D, I have aborted a couple of take-offs. One at Flagstaff, AZ when the density altitude was reported to be 11000' MSL. (I found out later we were about 200# over gross too!) another on a 1200' grass strip at my house in Missouri when the OAT was 100+ and no wind! Thank God for some tall grass and smooth ground beyond the end of my strip! I have flown in the mountains of most of the western states and never had any problems. Longer runways are the norm at most "high altitude" airports but I have also flown off some roads and gravel strips in AZ and NM. Attention to loading and technique is essential.

Now my C175 may be approaching the "Classic" status but this baby is a perfect candidate for a "BIG" engine. Not only do I avoid the short recommended TBO of overhauling the G-O300 but get IO and C/S prop options. Already have the large tanks and some other fine cabin features like pax air vents, aft baggage access and batteries mounted aft of the baggage compartment. Now all I need to add would be the conventional gear for a real "tweener" for half the price of a C180.

I just thought I'd chime in too as I have watched this forum for a while and mostly just lurk around but I also have a 1960 175 with a GO 300 in it. I true out at 122knts (140 mph) and will consistantly take off in 600 - 700 ft and climb out at nearly 1000fpm. I only have around 350 hrs on a rebuilt engine so a changeover is not in the stars for me. Besides, what whould I gain? This is truly a fine airplane if flown right and very economical to buy and maintain. People seem too be really scared of the geared engine but I've had mine for 7 years now and not a problem. Just my 2c FWIW
OK, heres my web site if you want to see my baby
www.recovery-shop.com

Flyguy,

Good post, and good points all. Back in the day when a good Lycoming 360 could be had for a song, and the Avcon conversion kit was cheap, it may have made sense to convert one of these airplanes. Now??? Bring money, because you'll never recover the cost. If you don't care about that, fine. Just go in eyes wide open.

Now, as to the performance aspects: you are right on with most of your notes.

The difference with a big engine airplane is that I am airborne and climbing in less than 400 feet at max weight. My climb rate is high as well.

On skis or off airport, or most of all on floats, a stock engine 170 is a dog. Pure and simple. Those, however, are very specialized endeavors, and if you don't or don't plan on going there, the big engine is a boat anchor.

Just look at the takeoff run of a stock engine 170 on floats sometime, even one with a light load.

Not disagreeing with you, cause as I noted, your post is accurate.

It just depends on what you want to do with the airplane, and the name of this list is "Backcountry".

I went in and out of Smiley Creek last summer with my airplane, and it was warm. Piece of cake. I've been on glaciers at 7200 feet on skis. A stock airplane would still be there.

MTV

Mike:
What's this about having the "eccentrics to the stops"? Is that to rig in all the dihedral possible? For stability, STOL, increased AOA ??? Sounds like a previous owner did it, but also like you know why.
Gary, good to hear (read) from you-- been a while. I don't go on the 170 site anymore, had too many issues with the moderator. Kinda miss the 170 talk though. Hope Katrina didn't rough you up too bad last year.
FWIW, my ragwing has the C-145 in it with a DM76-51 prop. I live at sea level, and don't have any problem hitting redline in stright-and-level flight, showing about 130 IAS. Mine cruises at 112-115 at 2400-ish. If I'm going someplace, I usually turn it up to 2500-2550 or so, and don't have too much trouble seeing 120 in non-hot weather. Overall fuel burn is 8 gph or maybe a bit less.

Eric

I would think that having the trailing edges at the bottom of their adjustment, giving you the max amount of adjustable AOI in relation to the longitudinal axis, would... I guess give you better visibility over the nose in straight and level, or in a slow approach? Not sure how much speed difference there is between the extremes of adjustment.

It's actually a very easy adjustment to make, you could prob send it to opposite limit of adjustment in about 15-20 minutes. Most of that time is removing the wing root faring and access panels.

Changing the eccentric's setting isn't what takes a lot of time, it's repeatedly adjusting them to get the airplane to fly wings-level again. Turning the eccentrics an equal amount doesn't guarantee that it'll still fly straight....
I'm with MTV, if it's ain't broke don't fix it.

Eric

Eric,

One of the things a lot of old timers would do with Cessna aircraft was to run the eccentrics on the wings up to increase angle of incidence of the wing. The theory was that increasing the aoi of the wing would decrease stall speed. I can't say definitely that it does not do so, but I guarantee you that it slows you down in cruise. Personally, I'd never do this to an airplane.

Cessna put the eccentrics there to allow us to rig the airplane to fly straight and level, and to stall straight.

Zane, you are correct that it doesn't take long to re-rig the eccentrics. As Eric accurately notes, though, that's not the time consuming or hair raising issue. The big issue is taking the time to get the eccentrics set right, then going out time and again to fly and stall the thing. Rigged just slightly wrong, and you'll get some nasty stall characteristics. I've seen guys chase these things for seemingly weeks. So, every time you make a change, you have to do those few minutes of removing wing root fairings, etc. Multiply that times twenty and it adds up.

My airplane flys straight and level hands off. I'm willing to leave it slow for the moment to retain that characteristic. If I had a really sharp IA on retainer, that might be a different story.

MTV

mtv wrote:Zane, you are correct that it doesn't take long to re-rig the eccentrics. As Eric accurately notes, though, that's not the time consuming or hair raising issue. The big issue is taking the time to get the eccentrics set right, then going out time and again to fly and stall the thing.

It did take a flight or 2 to get mine flying hands-off, after just doing some rudimentary measuring from the flap trailing edge to the floor, a process for which there is a lot of error. But, we were not trying to get a higher cruise out of it...our primary objective was to get it flying straight, because it wasn't when I bought it.

You guys are right. If you have nothing else to do, and a lot of time, you can try to squeak a few knots out by adjusting them. I am happy just flying the old bird though.