To all,

Does anyone know if or have witnessed an L19 cowl being fitted to a 170B ??

Cheers,

Mapleflt

I imagine it might not fit too well-- 170 is side-by-side, L19 although wider than some is tandem seating.
I'm curious why someone would want to do this, unless they're fitting an O470 onto the 170.

Exactly, as I understand the story the L-19 was a 170 fuselage with a slice taken out of the center to narrow it. That's what gives it tandem seating and the "triangular" fueslage shape for better downward visibility before the advent of the current blister windows seen on many airplane now. The 0-470 seems to be a very cost effective, plentiful engine and by all reports bulletproof.

Double

Mapleflt wrote:Exactly, as I understand the story the L-19 was a 170 fuselage with a slice taken out of the center to narrow it. That's what gives it tandem seating and the "triangular" fueslage shape for better downward visibility before the advent of the current blister windows seen on many airplane now. The 0-470 seems to be a very cost effective, plentiful engine and by all reports bulletproof.

Is there an STC to put a O-470 on a 170?

The L-19 fuselage is not as similar to the 170 as people like to think..

The firewall is stepped on an L-19.
The boot cowl has a different shape.
Probably the only similar fuselage parts are the gearbox and tailwheel bracket.

An O-470 is a heavy engine compared to anything else thats ever been on the front of a 170.

The Continental IO-360 and the Lycoming 360s are STC'd and supported solutions to more power in a 170.

Using an O-470 sounds like a problem in search of a headache IMO

You have a good point Bagarre, last thing I need is another headache.

Cheers,

Mapleflt

Mapleflt wrote:......The 0-470 seems to be a very cost effective, plentiful engine and by all reports bulletproof.

Dunno if it would make much difference re how the cowl fits,
but the L19 used an uncommon version of the 470, the 470-11 (fixed pitch), and 470-15 (constant speed).
Both are 213 horsepower instead of the 470's usual 225 or 230.

The 470 is a good engine, but I wouldn't call it bullet-proof.
It has it's good & bad points, just like any other engine--
it's just that those are different from a Lycoming or Franklin..


I agree with Bagarre that the O/IO-360 Lycoming and IO-360 Continental would probably be more logical upgrade choices for the 170 due to better availabilty and/or support. The 220 Franklin might also be considered.

Since you brought up L19's...
I've heard of one which had a Ponk (470-50) engine, and another with a Lycoming 540.
I was wondering if anyone knows of any that have been re-fitted with a more common version of the O-470, such as the J?
People with early (up to 55) C180's often upgrade from the J (or A) engine to a K or R model engine
So there should be some of those around, probably for a pretty reasonable price.
I'm not sure exactly how differently the 470-11 or -15 are configured than the 470-J,
but if it wasn't too much work to hang one on an L-19 it might be cheaper than overhauling the uncommon -11 & -15 engine.

Overhauling the -11 and -15’s generally isn’t any more expensive than overhauling and average “modern” O-470 and most of the value in Birddogs is in keeping them stock. The -11 and -15 have different engine mounts and then both are different yet again from the more modern O-470’s mount so that’ll run the costs of converting up. There have been a fair number of field approvals for higher hp engines but not so easy to get today. Steve Noyes has an STC to put a 250 hp Lycoming up front, like the old Ector Mountaineer. There’s a few running around that have been PPonk’d, quite the performers.

Mapleflt wrote:Does anyone know if or have witnessed an L19 cowl being fitted to a 170B ??t

I keep seeing you post about severely modifying your 170... Just buy a 180 already.

The L-19 cowlings are very simple. On my last L-19, the cowls where very fretted, since the previous owners had left off the cotton anti-chafe strip. We just made new panels, it was flat stock run though the rollers at the bend area. Then you run an edging tool down the sides rivet the fittings and hinge to it paint then install the cotton strips. Now it has been a while since I laid eyes on a 170, but I suspect a metal guy with some skill could do the same for it. There was nothing special at all about it.

So you have access to a pile of L-19 parts, ergo the question?

dogpilot wrote:The L-19 cowlings are very simple. On my last L-19, the cowls where very fretted, since the previous owners had left off the cotton anti-chafe strip. We just made new panels, it was flat stock run though the rollers at the bend area. Then you run an edging tool down the sides rivet the fittings and hinge to it paint then install the cotton strips. Now it has been a while since I laid eyes on a 170, but I suspect a metal guy with some skill could do the same for it. There was nothing special at all about it.

So you have access to a pile of L-19 parts, ergo the question?

Re-making the upper panels on an L-19 cowl is simple like you say. In fact, the 170's upper cowling is a similar flat wrap style and requires no forming.
The lower cowl sections on both are formed. To duplicate one would require skill with an English wheel.

The L-19 has a stepped firewall an the cowl follows the form. The 170 has a flat firewall. At a minimum, you'd need to scab in a formed section to fill the gap.
Attach points are different as well. More scabbing to either the cowl to match the fuselage or the fuselage to match the cowl.
The L-19 instrument panel has a different top curve and Im pretty sure the firewall does too. This means the upper flat wrap sections would (might, more than likely) have a different profile.
The nosebowl is different too. In the States, that means cooling tests for approval. Actually, ANY change to the profile of a cowling requires cooling tests - ask me how I know


If you're going to go thru all of that work to make something fit, I'd start with fresh aluminum and just re-make the original cowl.

"I keep seeing you post about severely modifying your 170... Just buy a 180 already. "

They don't have a round tail !!!!!!!

I’ve flown behind a Continental IO360, but haven’t actually flown one. Of all the choices you’ve contemplated, I favour this choice. It’s fuel injected. Tougher to mate the fuel system, but there’s a proven pattern in the STC. I also like that it has the cross flow induction. This engine will run smooth and efficient lean of peak. You have to advise Transport Canada of the engine change, and they can question it, but I bet they’ll go along.

This topic is still confusing a few who aren’t familiar with the owner maintenance category, and the special certificate of airworthiness under which this aircraft is operated. Here’s a link to an article for those who are curious. I think this will need to happen in the US also at some point to keep aging aircraft flying. Three articles on this page. Scroll down to the second one.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... 3.html#own

Pinecone wrote:I’ve flown behind a Continental IO360, but haven’t actually flown one. Of all the choices you’ve contemplated, I favour this choice. It’s fuel injected. Tougher to mate the fuel system, but there’s a proven pattern in the STC. I also like that it has the cross flow induction. This engine will run smooth and efficient lean of peak. You have to advise Transport Canada of the engine change, and they can question it, but I bet they’ll go along.

This topic is still confusing a few who aren’t familiar with the owner maintenance category, and the special certificate of airworthiness under which this aircraft is operated. Here’s a link to an article for those who are curious. I think this will need to happen in the US also at some point to keep aging aircraft flying. Three articles on this page. Scroll down to the second one.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... 3.html#own

I think the IO 360 will be a tough sell to TC. It involves going to a C/S prop and easily make 200+ hp. If they would go for it that would he awesome. Derate it to stay under 200 is easy, but I think they'll really dig in their heels on the C/S. Now run an IO 360 with a ground adjustable, that would be sweet...

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Agreed. You’d have to stay fixed pitch. Are the crankshaft flanges compatible? Just need a blanking plate for the governor?

Pinecone wrote:Agreed. You’d have to stay fixed pitch. Are the crankshaft flanges compatible? Just need a blanking plate for the governor?

The US STC allows a fixed pitch prop (I have two of those props) and the motor can be de-rated to 195 hp like the Hawk XP.
If anyone is interested in one of those props or a motor mount for 170 flat firewall, give me a shout.

Mapleflt wrote: To all, Does anyone know if or have witnessed an L19 cowl being fitted to a 170B ?? Cheers, Mapleflt

I wondered what was behind this post.
So, is it about an engine upgrade?
That's been mentioned, but not by the OP.