I think I'd have talked to the FSDO and went to an IO-390 if I was going to all the trouble of an IO-360. My customer was doing an IO-360 on his Stinson and the Fed actually suggested he step up to the 390... no big deal paperwork wise.
That IO-360 should make a really nice plane out of the 170, though!!
John

denalipilot wrote:Tom,

I'd be glad to share progress photos, but it'll be hard to get many I'm thinking. For one thing I live a few hours from the shop, and for another, these guys work fast! I dropped it off last friday afternoon, and they had the gear swapped and the old engine off by quitting time!


-DP

I'm looking for an excuse to skip out of work on Monday. Want me to take some photos over there?

Brett

TomW wrote:The bad news is that the IO 360 engine is substantially heavier than the O 360, again due to the crankshaft counter weights and the additional beef of the case. Depending on what model O 360 you're comparing it to, the IO 360 is any where from about 14 pounds to as much as 3o pounds heavier, as I recall.

The IO is a great engine though, and that'll make a real airplane out of the old girl.

MTV

Mike,
When you say up to as much as 30 pound heavier, are you referring to the "angle valve" IO-360 (200 HP), or the "parallel valve" IO-360 (180 HP)?
Just curious
Tom[/quote]

That is one of the variables....angle valve or parallel. The Huskys with 200 hp angle valve (basically same engine as 180 hp angle valve) run around 40 pounds heavier than one with parallel valve 180, but they have to run two oil coolers on the 200, so not all that is engine. The crank itself is something like 15 pounds heavier on the balanced engines. They are very smooth, however.

MTV

Thanks Mike,
I suspected you were talking about the angle valve IO-360 (200HP).
I think what DB is putting on his 170 is the parallel valve IO-360 (180 HP). Same as our 0-360's. Just less carb, add fuel injection.
Again I think that's what he's putting on due to the M1B designator. Same weight, same HP, just better fuel management.
Tom

UH-60andC-180 wrote:
I'm looking for an excuse to skip out of work on Monday. Want me to take some photos over there?

Brett

Brett, that would be great. But we're waiting on a new stainless steel firewall from Del Air, so depending on when it comes there may or may not be a lot happening when you go. The engine and all accessories are there though. Thanks for the offer!
-DP

floatflier wrote:DP
You may want to look at the Metco Air wing tips, their claims are pretty realistic.

Floatflier,
Thanks for the tip (no pun intended!) The RMDs are already acquired. I liked their enclosed anti-collision light housing, as a safety precaution. These will have AeroLED landing lights on a MaxPulse control. Converting to AeroLED nav lights as well.
-DP

mtv wrote:

mtv wrote:The bad news is that the IO 360 engine is substantially heavier than the O 360, again due to the crankshaft counter weights and the additional beef of the case. Depending on what model O 360 you're comparing it to, the IO 360 is any where from about 14 pounds to as much as 30 pounds heavier, as I recall.

The IO is a great engine though, and that'll make a real airplane out of the old girl.

MTV

TomW wrote:Mike,
When you say up to as much as 30 pound heavier, are you referring to the "angle valve" IO-360 (200 HP), or the "parallel valve" IO-360 (180 HP)?
Just curious
Tom

That is one of the variables....angle valve or parallel. The Huskys with 200 hp angle valve (basically same engine as 180 hp angle valve) run around 40 pounds heavier than one with parallel valve 180, but they have to run two oil coolers on the 200, so not all that is engine. The crank itself is something like 15 pounds heavier on the balanced engines. They are very smooth, however.

MTV

This statement is from the STC holder:
-DP

I use the IO-360M1A & B 180hp Lycoming engine. It uses the same sump as the 200hp model but has the lighter parallel cylinders but still is 360 cu in. The M1B puts out close to 190 hp because of the cold air induction sump and is 30lbs lighter than the IO-360A1A 200hp. The M1B is a new certified engine from Lycoming in 2002 and comes under new FAA rules that state that the engine has to put out 5% greater hp than published so it can maintain the rated hp thru its 2000 hr TBO. So its published hp is 180 but on the dyno it shows about 190hp. This is the best power to weight ratio on the market.
Also the M1B fits the C-170B cowl better than the larger angle valve cylinders. The M1B is lighter, burns over 1.0 gph less and has about 10 plus more hp than the O-360A1A 180hp Lycoming engine and no carb ice.

DP

The increased recognition is certainly a big advantage to the RMD's. Did you have them eliminate the factory land/taxi light position when you had the Sportsman installed? Were you satisfied with the work Northland did?

That M1B sounds great! Look forward to hearing a flight report.

Congrats man! I know you certainly did tons of thinking/research before you pulled the trigger. Its gonna be a nice airplane when finished!

Question? Why go with the Maxpulse unit if you are using Aeroleds? They have the pulse feature already included in the solid state circuitry. Seems simpler would be better by eliminating the Maxpulse?

DP, I love those RMD tips, nice choice!

floatflier wrote:DP

The increased recognition is certainly a big advantage to the RMD's. Did you have them eliminate the factory land/taxi light position when you had the Sportsman installed? Were you satisfied with the work Northland did?

I left the factory landing/taxi light in place. Originally I had thought to add a second factory landing/taxi light on the unlit wing, and add pulse ability for both sides. But tracking one of those down and obtaining approvals was turning into an uphill battle.
Ultimately the reason for leaving the factory landing/taxi lights in place and adding the RMDs was that they really serve different purposes. One is constant, and aimed at the ground/ landing area, and the other pulses and aims far out in front of the ship.
Northland was the Alaska point of sale for Sportsman before Stene bought it. I believe Jon said he's installed upward of 200 at his shop. Great installation, and didn't even need to wait since he had a kit in stock ready to go.
-DP

bigrenna wrote:Question? Why go with the Maxpulse unit if you are using Aeroleds? They have the pulse feature already included in the solid state circuitry. Seems simpler would be better by eliminating the Maxpulse?

Greg, thanks, I'll look into this. I think there's still time for revisions. Do you get as many flash patterns with the built-in AeroLED circuitry?
-DP

No. Just one flash pttn, but having choices in flash seemed a bit silly to me. Wig wag was good enough, especially where the wiring was simpler. Another nice thing w/ the Aeroleds is you can use smaller (lighter) wire. You can run shielded 20/3 to do the steady on and pulse rather than the stock 14g. You just have to make a note in the log that only Aeroleds (or equiv) can be used rather than a stock GE bulb.

Firewall off, hoping for new one to arrive this week. Matt and Rob, that's one way to get rid of that skanky fiber insulation under the panel!

-DP

Haha, I like it. I think spending hours in odd positions lying on your back is the more cost effective way.

bigrenna wrote:No. Just one flash pttn, but having choices in flash seemed a bit silly to me. Wig wag was good enough, especially where the wiring was simpler. Another nice thing w/ the Aeroleds is you can use smaller (lighter) wire. You can run shielded 20/3 to do the steady on and pulse rather than the stock 14g. You just have to make a note in the log that only Aeroleds (or equiv) can be used rather than a stock GE bulb.

bigrenna:
As you probably already know, some of the AeroLED landing lights have the built-in wig-wag circuitry and some don't. I have to check on which ones I ended up with. But I am liking the idea of different pattern options. Partly I like the idea of really lighting up the runway to see critters, etc.
We will be running the lighter gauge wire. My mechanic was already all over that. Thanks for sharing your good thoughts.
-DP

mountainmatt wrote:Haha, I like it. I think spending hours in odd positions lying on your back is the more cost effective way.

No doubt, no doubt. I was lucky, I guess, in that my old firewall made the decision for me!
-DP

mountainmatt wrote:Haha, I like it. I think spending hours in odd positions lying on your back is the more cost effective way.

Ugh I wish I just had the money for an engine conversion and shiny new firewall.

robw56 wrote:Ugh I wish I just had the money for an engine conversion and shiny new firewall.

Speaking of which, if anyone has interest in a Birddog, I've still got one that I'm looking to sell.
-DP