Scolopax wrote:If it’s within the realm of possibilities, an O-360 with an 83” MT prop will make about the best backcountry plane possible out of a nice 170B. If I didn’t take my family camping several times a year, I’d trade my skywagon in for a 180/170.

You can flight plan for 115 knots on 6 gph with that combo. With its light weight it will handle rough stuff better than a 180 and like all 170Bs, will land almost as short as most cubs. The difference is that with the 180hp Lyc, it will get out of that same short field.

Don’t know what it would cost to convert one, but I’m guessing 60-ish… Used to be you could get a mediocre 180 for the cost of converting a 170 to 180hp. I believe that has changed. All 180s are through the roof. I don’t think that converting a 170 is as much of a losing proposition as it once was.

daedaluscan wrote:Not sure I get 114 at 6gph. I have a Hartzell 78". I plan 105kn at 9gph.

This was level with maybe 25 kn push at 24 squared.so maybe 110kn.

daedaluscan wrote:Not sure I get 114 at 6gph. I have a Hartzell 78". I plan 105kn at 9gph.

This was level with maybe 25 kn push at 24 squared.so maybe 110kn.

Scolopax wrote:

daedaluscan wrote:Not sure I get 114 at 6gph. I have a Hartzell 78". I plan 105kn at 9gph.

This was level with maybe 25 kn push at 24 squared.so maybe 110kn.

I’ve heard of others using 9-10 gph. I’m basing my fuel estimates off of my Husky with an MT. It also has an O-360 Lycoming. After initially believing that I had made a mistake, I took a closer look and then again, and sure enough…after hundreds of hours in the plane, we actually average out under 6 gph at 112 knots in the 5000’-10000’ altitude levels. This is at 2350 rpm, 21 in MP, leaned about 50 ROP. Must be something wrong with my setup, but it runs nice and cool while burning surprisingly little fuel. I expect that the 170 is aerodynamically cleaner and would go faster than the Husky, but can’t be certain.

mtv wrote:

Scolopax wrote:

daedaluscan wrote:Not sure I get 114 at 6gph. I have a Hartzell 78". I plan 105kn at 9gph.

This was level with maybe 25 kn push at 24 squared.so maybe 110kn.

I’ve heard of others using 9-10 gph. I’m basing my fuel estimates off of my Husky with an MT. It also has an O-360 Lycoming. After initially believing that I had made a mistake, I took a closer look and then again, and sure enough…after hundreds of hours in the plane, we actually average out under 6 gph at 112 knots in the 5000’-10000’ altitude levels. This is at 2350 rpm, 21 in MP, leaned about 50 ROP. Must be something wrong with my setup, but it runs nice and cool while burning surprisingly little fuel. I expect that the 170 is aerodynamically cleaner and would go faster than the Husky, but can’t be certain.

I’ve got a lot of time in both Huskys and 180 hp 170B. I can’t really explain why, but the Husky is quite a bit more efficient. If I ran the same very low power settings I used regularly in Huskys in the 170, I always got quite a bit slower speeds. And this was at “relatively” similar weights, so I always have assumed it was a drag issue.

I regularly ran Huskys at 6.5 to 7 gph, and airplane cruised just fine. But in the 170, to get similar speed, I needed between 8.7 and 9 gph.

MTV

Scolopax wrote:

mtv wrote:

Scolopax wrote:

daedaluscan wrote:Not sure I get 114 at 6gph. I have a Hartzell 78". I plan 105kn at 9gph.

This was level with maybe 25 kn push at 24 squared.so maybe 110kn.

I’ve heard of others using 9-10 gph. I’m basing my fuel estimates off of my Husky with an MT. It also has an O-360 Lycoming. After initially believing that I had made a mistake, I took a closer look and then again, and sure enough…after hundreds of hours in the plane, we actually average out under 6 gph at 112 knots in the 5000’-10000’ altitude levels. This is at 2350 rpm, 21 in MP, leaned about 50 ROP. Must be something wrong with my setup, but it runs nice and cool while burning surprisingly little fuel. I expect that the 170 is aerodynamically cleaner and would go faster than the Husky, but can’t be certain.

I’ve got a lot of time in both Huskys and 180 hp 170B. I can’t really explain why, but the Husky is quite a bit more efficient. If I ran the same very low power settings I used regularly in Huskys in the 170, I always got quite a bit slower speeds. And this was at “relatively” similar weights, so I always have assumed it was a drag issue.

I regularly ran Huskys at 6.5 to 7 gph, and airplane cruised just fine. But in the 170, to get similar speed, I needed between 8.7 and 9 gph.

MTV

Long ago, when I was a junior engineer at Aviat, Herb Anderson, the brains behind the Husky, told me about how he modified the Clark Y airfoil to lower the wing drag.

He must have made a pretty good decision there, because the cruising efficiency of the Husky is remarkable. I think that the design of the MT prop helps considerably to that end as well.

behindpropellers wrote:Sell it for 40K. Take the 60K you will spend on the conversion. Add 20K. Buy a 180.

soyAnarchisto wrote: wrong.

Bigrenna wrote:

soyAnarchisto wrote: wrong.

hahahahaha. Exactly what I thought when I read that post.

Good luck finding a decent 180 for $120k. Try $220 these days.

Mapleflt wrote:100LL has hit about $2.50 per US gallon in my area

A1Skinner wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:100LL has hit about $2.50 per US gallon in my area

Serious?? That's cheap. It's $2.50 /liter in Alberta. $9.45/US gallon.

Mapleflt wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:100LL has hit about $2.50 per US gallon in my area

Serious?? That's cheap. It's $2.50 /liter in Alberta. $9.45/US gallon.

Typo sorry, per liter here as well.

A1Skinner wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:100LL has hit about $2.50 per US gallon in my area

Serious?? That's cheap. It's $2.50 /liter in Alberta. $9.45/US gallon.

Typo sorry, per liter here as well.

Almost had to think of moving per Ontario for a second. Haha.