Hi to all,

Just found this great site a few minutes ago and had to join.... Here's my 2 cents '8)

I have a 1953 C170. It has an 0-360,a Mcauley 7656 fixed pitch prop, and a Bush STOL. It's simple, throttle, carb heat, up, down, left, right. No AD's to worry about, and just as powerful as any 170 combo out there. I put hyd skis on in the winter. With 3 adults, Ice fishing stuff, and 3/4 fuel I have gotten out of knee deep powder. My friend has a 180hp C/S. He only gets about 7 more miles per hour better than I do. Also 7+ lbs heavier for that C/S. I have friends who have the Franklin but are now concerned about parts. Yea you can get some now, but (God forbid) what you gonna do if you strike a prop and bust the crank. or send a rod out the side? Or a major? I think the IO-360 is still 180hp. Thats a lotta money for the sake of fuel injection.

What I'm trying to say is I see a lot of folks spending up towards 75k on a tricked out 170.... trying to turn it into a C180. I say get a good reliable, simple engine... and go enjoy flying!


Again great site!!

Steve

Wow Steve - just wait till Lucky Rose and BD hear you've been dissing their Franklins!

Brad

Steve,

So your friend's constant speed doesn't have a huge performance gap in cruise, but what about takeoff and climbout? I would think the flatter pitch would allow a shorter takeoff roll.

How much extra IS an IO? I think fuel injection is a great thing... Less prone to carb ice(no carb!) and less parts, optimum atomization all the time. Jr made some comments up above about the XP Mods fuel routing. Can anyone elaborate on that? I don't know much about fuel routing pros/cons to begin with, so let me have it. What is a header tank?

Thanks for joining the site, Steve!

Zane

Zane:
170 re-engine options
good:
Lycoming O-360: 180hp (STC'd)
Lycoming IO-360: 200 horse (STC availability?)
Continental IO-360: 195 or 210 horse,depending on prop/rpm (STC'd)
Franklin 350: 220 horse (STC'd)

not so good IMHO
Lycoming O-435: 190 horse (STC?)
Franklin 335: 165 horse, approved on 170 type certificate

The Lyc 360 would probably be my choice. I like the idea of Steve's fixed pitch 360 Lyc-- simpler, lighter, less expensive. Sounds like it doesn't give up much speed to the constant speed, but would like to hear more about the low end performance. I've seen lots of c/s 360's on 170's, but only 2 fixed pitch--why not more?

Eric (145-horse 170 owner for 8 years/1300-ish hours)

Hey Zane,

When I fly with my friend who has the C/S C170 we get airborne in about the same distance. I think this is attributed largely to the fact I have a STOL kit and a "B" model which has the larger flaps. I only have the one prop for it and it's classified as a cruise prop. I hoping to get a flatter pitched prop this week and try it ice fishing in April (yes there is still about 2 feet of ice up here in the great white north). I'll let you know what happens. The guy I bought the plane from ran the 80" seaplane prop on all the time. It's not certified for land use because if you blew a tire you wouldn't have the proper clearance between prop and ground. Super cubs have an STC for gear extension so they can run the bigger prop. I sure wish there was something like that for the buck seventy.

Nobodies Dissing the Franklins here. The guy who flies "Lucky Rose" is my friend from high school, and is the only mechanic to work on my plane since I've owned it. In my opinion Andy is the most experienced 170 person around. I've been in his plane. On water Franklin's get you on the step and airborne really fast. From a buyers point of view, although they are awesome performing engines sadly they just don't make them anymore

I would have to say that at one time or another, EVERY pilot I know has tried to talk me out of putting a C/S on my plane, including the owner of "Lucky Rose". If he says "Steve, I could get you a C/S for about 7 grand, but if I was you I'd save my money and get a couple of props instead" I heed the advice.

Zane are you based in Reno? The reason I ask is I used to work at the control tower before I moved back home in 1990.

Steve

I have flown comparable "L" and "M" model 172s; both with the O-360 180hp - the "M" had a fixed pitch prop (Idunno if it was a cruise or climb prop) and my dad's "L" has the constant speed prop. We weren't able to compare takeoff rolls neck and neck, but the CS prop definitely pushed you back into your seat a little more. The CS prop showed a good 2-300 fpm better climb rate at sea level. The CS prop was also better in cruise by about 10 ktas at 10000 feet.

We Franklin guys are still clinging to hope... I understand through various "rumor mills" that P&W has assumed product liability and is looking to sell the Franklin recip line. ECI has been rumored to be in talks with P&W but nothing more has come of it.

We have spent more than $75K "tricking out" our 170. But I couldn't even buy a decent, timed out 180 for that. Not even close. You might find a good project airplane for that money. And then it wouldn't be a 170, would it? Our bird has a new (200 hours) 220 hp engine, nice utilitarian interior, no corrosion issues, quite a few mods, and new paint sometime in April... I hope! $ for $ there isn't a 180 out there that can compare - at least that's what I HAVE to keep telling myself!

M

Steve, I don't know the details on prop clearance requirements, but I've heard of quite a few people running the 80" props on wheelplanes. I thought the only dfference was the allowable static rpm range is lower for wheels than for landplanes.
The 170 Book lists 2 different STC's for the 1A175DM 80" prop on the 170: #SA111NW held by Kenmore Air Harbor in Washington, and # SA632AL held by Alaska Propeller Specialists in Anchorage. You could research the STC info online & check the particulars.
Another option is a set of 180 gear legs. A lotta trouble to go to unless you want them anyway, but they're a lot taller than stock gear. Just running 800 or better yet 850 tires gives a lot more prop clearance than the stock 600's.
A guy I know bought an XP Mods IO-360 converted 170 with a fixed prop, it's a 76 also as recall. He thought about replacing it with a c/s but decided against it for the sake of simplicity ( & saving money!).

Eric

zero.one.victor wrote:..............................
The 170 Book lists 2 different STC's for the 1A175DM 80" prop on the 170: #SA111NW held by Kenmore Air Harbor in Washington, and # SA632AL held by Alaska Propeller Specialists in Anchorage. You could research the STC info online & check the particulars.......................
Eric

Oops, had a little brain fart there, kinda forgot we were talking about a Lyc 360. The STC info on these 80" props for the 145 Cont might be informative re: restrictions for wheelplanes due to prop clearance though.
What 80" prop is used for that 360 application? If it's listed on the STC, does the STC state "for seaplane use only" or something like that?
I would think that even with an 80" prop & stock gear legs, you'd still have way more prop clearance than a lot of nosedraggers, especially something like a Cherokee-- they're real "grass-cutters" if you get them off the pavement!

Eric

cabinflyer wrote:......................... My friend has a 180hp C/S. He only gets about 7 more miles per hour better than I do. Also 7+ lbs heavier for that C/S.......................
Steve

I've never weighed them, but I would sure think that a constant speed would add more than 7 pounds to a 170, even without figuring in the governor. The 170 type certificate data sheet lists the 1A170 76" prop for the C-145 at 33 pounds, the Koppers Aeromatic at 41 pounds, & the old 2 position controllable McCauley at 60.

Eric

You maybe right Eric. That's just what I had heard. If that's the case, 60 lbs is a big consideration for me. Thanks for the info on the 80" prop. I think these are for seaplane ops. My Avcon STC only makes provision for a 76" prop. The EDO STC lets you put the bigger prop on. The issue is if on wheels you blow a tire and now are just on the rim, the 80" prop will strike the ground. The 180 gear legs do make it sit higher. I'm going to have to research that STC. Maybe with that one you can swing the bigger stick. Maxwell propellers here in Minneapolis quoted me a brand new prop at $3200 pitched however I want it. It's less than half of a C/S, and I can switch them out myself. Maybe the last word on this. In considering the ultimate bush plane, one would have to rate the super cub right up there (just below the C170 of course) They turn a fixed pitch just like you and me.

Steve

I recall reading in the 170 Assn Flypaper or on their website that there's a new 80" Hartzell c/s prop STC'd for the 180 horse 170. I'm curious if the STC would have (or be required to have) any restriction regarding prop clearance. We're only talking about a the prop being 2" closer to the ground here....
Steve, I'm curious if your airplane had the battery moved to aft of the baggage bay as part of the engine upgrade. Seems like maybe it wouldn't need that done, as the much lighter fixed prop installation wouldn't move the CG forward near as much as the c/s.

Eric

No the battery is on the co pilots side of the firewall. I sometimes wish is was located aft as every time I check the fluid level I manage to ground the battery box top, sending sparks flying. '
I took my private in this plane. Being as the FAA examiner was along I made sure the weight and balance was right on. I actually had to ADD about 10 pounds of weight in the back seat to be legal!! I think with the Franklin the battery is in the back. Can't recall if it is with the C/S.

Steve

Cabinflyer, Welcome. I have an 0360 and an 80'' c/s on my 53 C170B. ground clearance is not an issue. Contact Dave Stoots, he has an STC for the 80'' and I think is working on one for an 82". I don't think my 0360 would handle an 82", but he is VERY knowledgable about these prop issues. Hartzell has an 80" STC for C170s. Also remember a 6 cylinder engine is close to the same weight of the 0360 and is Longer, so the prop is out at least as far as the 4 cylinder model. with a fixed prop you get take off, OR speed, OR in the middle. With the constant speed you get A,B,and C. That of course is just my opinion, but I have just come from a Super Cub fly-in and a STOCK C170 won the short field landing contest, and did very well in the short take off contest. There were also 4 Maules there that he beat. Jon

that is so sweet. a good pilot is a good pilot.

z