I apologize if this topic has been posted....I couldn't find one. Just wondering who's converted their 172 to either the Lycoming (I)O-360/370 or the Continental IO-360? What are the pro's/con's of these conversions and what would it cost to convert "approximately"? Lastly what are the performance gains with these conversions?

Oh and I almost forgot to ask: Sportsman or Horton STOL?

If you already haven't try this source for some conversion info: http://www.stootsaviation.com

Gary

cook11 wrote:I apologize if this topic has been posted....I couldn't find one. Just wondering who's converted their 172 to either the Lycoming (I)O-360/370 or the Continental IO-360? What are the pro's/con's of these conversions and what would it cost to convert "approximately"? Lastly what are the performance gains with these conversions?

Oh and I almost forgot to ask: Sportsman or Horton STOL?

The Horton STOL cuff is a LOT less aggressive cuff than the Sportsman. I wouldn't consider the Horton. Do the Sportsman.

Get Stoots on the phone....he'll keep you occupied for a while.

MTV

Thanks MTV!

I am also guessing that MT propeller would be the ideal propeller for these conversions due to not only lightening up the nose, but performance would be greatly enhanced. I see MT has (3) options to choose from now. Has anyone had the opportunity to fly all three and have honest feedback on them? Personally I like the looks of a 3-blade but the 2-blade "Ultra" must be the best one to get......

The Continental IO-360 STC is by far the most expensive and labor intensive to install. Before you call, grab your wallet with both hands.

It has a very minor advantage at gross weight takeoff and the Lycoming has a minor advantage flying at light weights. (I've been told by Shawn Holly)

Im in the middle of a TCM conversion on a 170 (same as a 172).
The fuel pump is particular to the 172XP and hard to find. The High/Low setup for the fuel pump is finicky with micro switches and three $100 resistors. Plumbing of the header tank looks like a hack (IMO) unless you gut a 172XP and put it under the floor...
MT Props are not STCd but I know one person that got it approved.
You will be well forward on your CG and possibly not able to get it into utility range with full tanks.
It sounds wonderful and runs smooth. The 4 bangers seem to shake more but I don't know if it's a real issue since there are a lot of them flying.

The TCM IO-360 is also more expensive to overhaul than a Lycoming IO-360 in similar condition.

I'd like to hear a Stoots vs DelAir on kit completeness, install time and support.

Soooo......ran into my 8th grade math teacher the other day who also owns a Sedan but with an O-360. In discussion of doing the conversion he told me an acquaintance finished their O-360 conversion of a 172 for a grand total of $69,000. It's not hard to start crunching some numbers and see how they got there.

It's cheaper to buy it than build it. There's airplanes available that were built with power already in front of the pilot. And so on. For the same $$,$$$ I'd buy one, plus it may have enough fuel capacity to go somewhere far away and return by design.

Gary

I will say the club plane I’m in has the PennYan 360 conversion, no speed gain but wow what a difference at take off! Climbs like a homesick angel.

You're going to have a lot of $$$ into any of these conversions. As Gary says, you're far better off buying one that's already converted than to do a conversion on an airplane yourself, maybe even if you're a mechanic....

BUT, there are compelling reasons to do these conversions.....Such as, the subject airplane is a very low time, pristine example of the breed. Hard to find these old airplanes in great condition to start with.

Or, the subject airplane has a history, like it belonged to my Uncle Charlie who taught me to fly, etc....

Or, you've been trying to find one already converted for the last two years, and have so far seen two advertised. One sold before you called, the other was a mess.

Hell, it's only money. Yours, fortunately for me.

MTV

Just bought the 172 today. It’s a Cessna 172F with approximately 1900hrs. It’s stock but with larger wheels/tires but....in amazing condition.

From what I understand the Lycoming has a bendix style fuel injection system (no return lines) or a carb, while the Continental io-360 will require a lot of changes to the fuel system.

Its probably possible to buy a decent 182 for what you would have into the conversion.

You never see an armored car behind a hearse.

Go for the Continental IO-360!!!

The local flight school has a couple O-360 powered 172s, a D model and a M model. Their 172D is my fave because of the flaps.

The extra ponies really do make a better airplane out if the 172.

As for the cost, I guess it does add up, mainly due to the labor costs and STC price. Every airplane needs an overhaul now and then so that's a sunk cost that shouldn't really be considered extraneous.

If you have disposable income and are passionate about making a big engine 172, go for it. Usually planes are not investments, they are fun and expensive hobby projects.

Aryana wrote:You never see an armored car behind a hearse.

Haha what does this saying mean??

It means life is short, spend the money to make yourself happy today because you can’t take it with you when you die.

Zzz wrote: The local flight school has a couple O-360 powered 172s, a D model and a M model. Their 172D is my fave because of the flaps......

What about the flaps do you like?
Are they still Johnson bar-operated on the D model, vs electric on the M? 40 degrees vs 30?
I kinda remember something about some of the engine upgrade STC's limiting the flaps to 30 degrees?

In German we say: " the last shirt has no pockets"...

140eagles wrote:In German we say: " the last shirt has no pockets"...

I like that [emoji1360]

I have a 170B we’ve owned for 25 years and although it doesn’t make financial sense, I’ll someday replace the O-300 with a Continental IO-360 with CS prop.

The range and gross weight limitations after installing that engine don’t matter to me. It would be a fun hot rod for the area I fly in and around (beaches at the coast of the Pacific and the alpine forests of the Sierra Nevada mountains/foothills).

Right now the rear seat and one fuel tank becomes decorative when density altitude gets up there.

I had a Flight Review in a C-172 with O-360 Lyc and MT prop a three years ago. It had larger fuel capacity and a Sportsman kit so was quite nice to fly across the envelope. Electric flaps not so nice but that's just me. It also had a tuned external exhaust that the owner claimed added more power and noise. Very stable plane and would be great to own. The power was adequate for two up and half fuel at near Sea level. He also flew it on PK2300 and then EDO 2130 floats but I did not.

I came away with the thought that for the same or similar money (if that's possible) I'd prefer a C-180-182-185 if a stock C-172 was inadequate due to constraints. At higher elevations the O-360 or larger would be the choice but still power and adequate fuel capacity can be bought already done.

Stoots has done some good things with bigger engines if the airframe is already what's important and in hand.

Gary