Greg, maybe you mentioned it already, sorry if I missed it.

Are you going with an MT prop with the engine conversion? If so I would recommend the Ultra, I have owned the Ultra, standard 2 blade and 3 blade and the Ultra is the best performing. The 3 blade would be my third choice, looks cool but the 2 blade props perform better and they are lighter.

Kurt

G44 wrote:Are you going with an MT prop with the engine conversion?

For this project, I am actually going to focus on keeping it light and will be running a fixed pitch prop on an A1A. The mission profile for the bird doesn't call for a C/S, so I'm gonna leave the weight on the ground the and $$$ in my pocket. This bird is just gonna go up/down/up/down in a short ring around the home field. I also dont want to have students worrying about prop controls. KISS

Later on, if I want, I can toss on a gov and a C/S, but I doubt I will as I already have the wagon with a 3 blade MT to go far and fast when needed...

Bigrenna wrote:

G44 wrote:Are you going with an MT prop with the engine conversion?

For this project, I am actually going to focus on keeping it light and will be running a fixed pitch prop on an A1A. The mission profile for the bird doesn't call for a C/S, so I'm gonna leave the weight on the ground the and $$$ in my pocket. This bird is just gonna go up/down/up/down in a short ring around the home field. I also dont want to have students worrying about prop controls. KISS

Later on, if I want, I can toss on a gov and a C/S, but I doubt I will as I already have the wagon with a 3 blade MT to go far and fast when needed...

Install an Aeromatic on that bad boy and you'll be my hero.

That is a great looking project plane! One of things that I noticed when I got my 195 was that the median age of the association was about half of the 170 association. This is pretty much everyone in the 170 association:

Bigrenna wrote:

G44 wrote:Are you going with an MT prop with the engine conversion?

For this project, I am actually going to focus on keeping it light and will be running a fixed pitch prop on an A1A. The mission profile for the bird doesn't call for a C/S, so I'm gonna leave the weight on the ground the and $$$ in my pocket. This bird is just gonna go up/down/up/down in a short ring around the home field. I also dont want to have students worrying about prop controls. KISS

Later on, if I want, I can toss on a gov and a C/S, but I doubt I will as I already have the wagon with a 3 blade MT to go far and fast when needed...

That all makes sense. That thing is going to be a great trainer and excellent performer.

Curious, what props are legal for that combination?

Kurt

G44 wrote:Curious, what props are legal for that combination?

Sensenich 76EM8S5
Hartzel HC-C2YK-1BF/F7
Mac 1A170EFA

Chris recommends (and supports) the Sensenich. I still have some noodling to do, but I will prob order the Sen 60" and do some initial flight tests, then flatten it based on my performance trials.

I like this approach, I am planning to go fixed pitch, but putting the fixed pitch on an A1A gives you the option of going to a constant speed later, or for the next owner. I had not thought of that.

daedaluscan wrote:... putting the fixed pitch on an A1A gives you the option of going to a constant speed later, or for the next owner.

Exactly! It requires a couple more steps as you have to get an approval for the fixed pitch, but not that big of a deal... I will be documenting the process.

I look forward to watching this progress.

I’m not a cool backcountry pilot, but I landed on grass once and put all of my primary students in my 170 for their first ten hours. No finer airplane to teach someone fundamentals of flight, IMO.

Out of curiosity, why the extended baggage? Given the scope of the airplane as a trainer, I would have thought that you’d want to save the time/expense/weight of the extended baggage install.

If you need a copy of the owner’s manual, I did a reproduction as close to original (forgive the word) in Illustrator that I’d be happy to send over for printing out and/or distribution to students, as well as an AFM and weight and balance report.

I hate to see all the folks that have been run off from TIC170A on here. If it’s any consolation, I beat the “Convention culture” system and got elected to the BOD without ever having been to one. Hopefully things change soon as it didn’t seem to be as divisive when I was a kid. Several conventions in AK and Canada and an Alaskan president or two were the norm when I was a kid.

I miss seeing stuff like this on that site. I’ll continue to stalk BCP and IG for updates.

Also, sign me up for some dual when she’s finished.

What’s the difference in weight between the MT and the fixed pitch? Just curious.

MTV

Ryan Smith wrote:I’m not a cool backcountry pilot...

LOL, Im not either! Just a jackass with strong opinions...

Ryan Smith wrote:...why the extended baggage? Given the scope of the airplane as a trainer, I would have thought that you’d want to save the time/expense/weight of the extended baggage install.

The baggage is pretty much a no-brainer. The hatshelf alone weighs 2.5 lbs. Add up the total bits you remove and then compare the total to the 4 lb carbon fiber Airglass extended baggage and it just makes sense. Not to mention the fact that that hatshelf is pretty much usless. Having the baggage will allow for CG exercises showing the student how the bird feels with 50lbs in the ext bag and then the 120 in the baggage in and out., Not to mention the added utility it gives to the airplane. Although weight conscious, I want this bird to be as close to a real world back country machine as possible so transitions are easy. She will have pretty much every common sense bush mod incl baggage door, v-brace, sportsman, vgs, 180 gear etc... The motto is: As light as possible, as heavy as necessary.

Ryan Smith wrote:I hate to see all the folks that have been run off from TIC170A on here....I miss seeing stuff like this on that site. I’ll continue to stalk BCP and IG for updates.

First let me say welcome to BCP! Awesome to see you post over here... With respect to the 170 club.... lots have already been said here. When I bought this particular 170, I emailed Bruce and asked him why I was permanently banned... I told him that I was going to do another project and would be glad to share over there as well as BCP as long as George didnt log in and change my posts (which is why I left,) and he basically told me to go pound sand. Said I was welcome to appeal it to the "board." I just laughed. As you say, it's really a shame.

Fact is, the interesting folks all migrated over here, so no real biggie. The wheel pants and originality nuts can stay there... They are slowly dying off and that's fine.

Ryan! Glad to see ya on here buddy.

BCP is where it’s at [emoji41]

I don’t miss the TGC170A forum one bit.

mtv wrote:What’s the difference in weight between the MT and the fixed pitch?

The bigger question is about price. The obvious choice for the C/S prop is the MT. Currently, the 2 blade MT (the prop to run on that combo) is $15k. Add the governor and control cable you are edging close to $17k.

As to the weight... the 2 blade MT is 46lbs. Gov and prop control are aprox 7 (guessing.). The Sen 2 blade fixed pitch prop is 34 and costs about $5k. The MT spinner is CF, so its light. I think the spinners/backing plates are probably a wash. For me and the mission of this bird, its pretty clear what the choice is.

So to answer your question, I will be saving about 15lbs over the MT. Im guessing about 25 over the typical seaplane prop.

Aryana wrote:Ryan! Glad to see ya on here buddy.

BCP is where it’s at [emoji41]

I don’t miss the TGC170A forum one bit.

+1 sad but true.

Well I have a superior 180hp in my cessna 170A and have fitted a sensenich 60in pitch . Found the prop totally perfect for what I am doing . In and out of bush strips and off sandy beaches . I have stripped my 170 of all the rubbish but still love my toys in it so the weight goes up a bit . Have put a duct tape on the flaps between the flaps and wings on the underside .BIG difference on performance . Will be putting later model wing tips on it soon so if anybody has done that did it make any difference .???? My bird weighs 1427 lbs.

Bigrenna wrote:

mtv wrote:What’s the difference in weight between the MT and the fixed pitch?

The bigger question is about price. The obvious choice for the C/S prop is the MT. Currently, the 2 blade MT (the prop to run on that combo) is $15k. Add the governor and control cable you are edging close to $17k.

As to the weight... the 2 blade MT is 46lbs. Gov and prop control are aprox 7 (guessing.). The Sen 2 blade fixed pitch prop is 34 and costs about $5k. The MT spinner is CF, so its light. I think the spinners/backing plates are probably a wash. For me and the mission of this bird, its pretty clear what the choice is.

So to answer your question, I will be saving about 15lbs over the MT. Im guessing about 25 over the typical seaplane prop.

Ah, you never said $$$ was an issue with this, and the engine will be a big ticket item.

I understand your reluctance...I’m going through that process now myself.

But if you want performance, a CS prop is where it’s at. But, your plane, your pocket book, your decision.

Enjoy the process.

MTV

mtv wrote:... you never said $$$ was an issue with this, and the engine will be a big ticket item.

I not sure anyone said money was an issue with this. The O360 is actually much less for me to OH than the 300. Moreover, the bird will be worth considerably more on the back end, so its a no brainier. What I was suggesting was that when you look at the problem, money is a strong argument against C/S considering the mission. I just don't agree that the C/S is "where it's at." The bird will be a trainer. I cant do HP ratings since its technically under 200. If it was over, that would be a cogent argument for the C/S because the student could walk away with both. Simple is better... Less weight, less maintenance, less complication for students... I'm at sea level, the bird is going to be under 1300 lbs on 29's, will dyno with plenty surplus power, so there is just no need for that extra weight, expense, and complication. Besides, I already have a fairly nice 180 with all that stuff... Don't need another.

All that aside, I'm sure whatever I suggest you would pick the opposite...

Bigrenna wrote:All that aside, I'm sure whatever I suggest you would pick the opposite...

Not at all. As I noted, your project, your choice. I like CS props on 170 s with O-360. You don’t perceive value there, and it’s your plane.

Asking a simple question isn’t a challenge.

MTV

I'm guilty of liking wheel pants and cruise props...on my family's airplane. It's a sentimental thing that I've carried my entire life growing up with this airplane, but I see a few folks that are members of the "more than one 170 club". I hope have both extremes someday; an original(ish) one and a minimalist Del-Air conversion with big tires/Sportsman/VGs/et.al. I've been sitting reserve in Dayton with work and have been flying with a local 170 buddy who has a '54 with a Sportsman installed. Flying with that wing is like cheating...rock solid at any speed. Aside from that, I enjoy flying a friend's '53 180 to get my burly airplane fix.

That said, I enjoy living vicariously through the BCP membership and respect the skills required to fly in the backcountry. I'm serious about burning up some of my travel benefits to come learn how to really fly when this bird is finished. I'll have the added benefit of telling Trey Walters how good his CFI training is since we both got our CFIs at Blue Line.