Engine Upgrade

How to keep the Cessna 170 flying and airworthy.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

User avatar
falco
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 5:44 pm

Re: Engine Upgrade

Post by falco »

Flyboyak wrote:More thoughts for your engine up-grade

Here are some flight test results when I converted three Cessna 170B airplanes to the IO-360M1B 180hp Lycoming engine. Total weight after conversion between 1345 lbs and 1360 lbs. Performance at GW 2200lbs, 400ft take off roll, climb rate 1000 fpm, cruise speed 145 mph TAS at 65% power @ 6000ft with 600x6 tires, burning 8.5 gph = 17.0 mpg. Also fuel injection allows you to run lean of peak for even better fuel economy. Lower power settings showed fuel burn down to 6.2 gph @ 20 inches manifold pressure @ 110 mph = 17.7 mpg. Cessna 170B with O-300 Cont. engine 7.5 gph @ 110mph = 14.6.
My conversion to the fuel injected IO-360M1B engine requires no additional fuel system header tank or shut off valves as required on the Cont IO-360 engine, weights less and burns less. I install the Hartzell 80" constant speed props. I have found that fixed pitch props for the same performance use 2 to 3 gph more, so the constant speed props will pay back their additional cost then continue to reduce fuel cost in future flight hrs while providing the best power performance from your engine. This power to weight to thrust ratio has shown to be a great value for the investment. In these days of increaseing inflation airplanes can be great investments.
The IO-360M1B Lycoming engine was FAA certified in 2004 and has a requirement to produce 5% more horse power than rated so that the published horse power will be maintained through it's TBO of 2000 hrs. The M1B engine uses the same tuned cold air indcution sump as the 200hp and 210hp Lycoming engnes. This requirement allows the IO-360M1B to produce 190hp.
I'm working on a GW increase for the Cessna 170B, 180hp or greater to 2400 lbs. I have other projects for Cessnas in the works and you can check them out on my website http://www.stootsaviation.com
Gross weight increase? That would be useful. Please keep us Continental IO-360 guys and the Franklin 220 crowd in mind as you do that.
N7257M
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:39 am

Re: Engine Upgrade

Post by N7257M »

Good Evening Gentleman and Happy Holidays!

I'm going to keep my interjection here brief as it will be the fist post I've made here. I'd like all involved in this to review the things posted thus far and pay particularly close to Mr. Stoots post in particular near the bottom.
His post was the only post that identified logic based on mathmatical fact. In all fairness to everyone involved here, I know that we don't all know the performace data for each particular scenario off the tops of our heads, BUT..... It seems we have some sound numbers that absolutely show increased performance in all catergories. Take-offs, Landings, criuse speed (id venture to say that 35mph is not in any way MARGINAL), and fuel economy. Read the post again if you don't see what I'm talking about. I will say this in response to Mr. GAHORN. My mother taught me many years ago that if someone seemed intelligent on a topic that I should try and learn from them. Not reveal my ignorance by use of phrases like "whole lot faster"in my rebuttle. My invitation to you Mr. GAHORN is to thoroughly review Mr. Stoots' entry and then go look at his website for more information if you should need it. Possibly call them. Gain as much knowledge as you can. It seems as though since you've written several thousad posts in this forum, you should take from that people listen to you. And value your opinion. I personally have a 180hp lycoming in my airplane and there isn't a chance that I'd revert back. The numbers listed in Mr. Stoots blog are accurate and make logical sence. Mainly whats true is they defintitly aren't is his opinions, they're matmatical facts.
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Engine Upgrade

Post by GAHorn »

N7257M wrote:... My invitation to you Mr. GAHORN is to thoroughly review Mr. Stoots' entry ... The numbers listed in Mr. Stoots blog are accurate and make logical sence. Mainly whats true is they defintitly aren't is his opinions, they're matmatical facts.
Thank you, Mr. Charles B. Parker. Clearly you are a fan of Mr. Stoots services, and I have no problem with that. I can certainly understand why you will not be switching back to your C-175 airplane's original GO-300 engine, especially as it is obsolete and without any available crankshafts or thrust bearings, as well as having a relatively low TBO coupled with a history of unreliability.

I made my comment regarding Drag vs Velocity based upon well-accepted aeronautical theory. While I've not visited Mr. Stoots website, (and defintitly not checked any matmatical facts there,) I've seen many claims by those in the business of selling various things and keep plenty of Kosher salt nearby to improve palatability. :wink:

However, I can heartily endorse converting a Cessna 175 to any approved installation of a 180-hp Lycoming.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
bagarre
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:35 pm

Re: Engine Upgrade

Post by bagarre »

Not to start a flame war but...you mean if I swap out to the IO360-M1B, I get to go faster and burn less gas?
...cruise speed 145 mph TAS at 65% power @ 6000ft with 600x6 tires, burning 8.5 gph = 17.0 mpg. .... Cessna 170B with O-300 Cont. engine 7.5 gph @ 110mph = 14.6.
I get to go 35 MPH faster while burning 2.4 MPG less?? How much do those magic beans cost? :?


Instead of an expensive engine swap; I'd be happy if someone would get a two speed propeller approved for our O300's.
Or, maybe composite blades for the aeromatic?

Happy New Year!
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10313
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Re: Engine Upgrade

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

I will speak in general terms. My experience is with a AVCON 180 conversation in a '54. I spent a 100 hours or so as passenger with a good friend and talented pilot at the controls thrashing that plane about. We also have a fare amount of time piloting stock 170A and B models to compare.

Can a 180 converted 170 be 35 mph faster than a stock configuration. YES. I've seen it. Do I want to know how much fuel we were burning doing it compared to the stock 170 we just blew by, NO. Would I routinely cruise 35 mph faster than a stock 170. Maybe but I'm not sure I'd call it a cruise setting. You might come close to 35 mph faster than the slowest examples but your going to be burning more fuel doing it. Can you cruise 35 mph faster than the fastest 170 examples, no, 15 to 20 mph maybe.

Can a 180 powered 170 out climb a stock airplane, NO QUESTION.

Would I like to own a 180 converted 170, YES. Could I justify the cost of converting one today, no. It is hard enough justifying just owning an airplane. Of course for the last 10 years I've somehow justified owning two airplanes. 8O I can very easily see how someone using my math method could justify the cost of a second airplane (which BTW could go 200 mph) to convert a 170 to a larger engine configuration.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10313
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Re: Engine Upgrade

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

bagarre wrote:Instead of an expensive engine swap; I'd be happy if someone would get a two speed propeller approved for our O300's.
Or, maybe composite blades for the aeromatic?
David, I'd love to see this happen. I've often thought there would be a larger market for a better prop than the market for an engine swap. True just a prop swap won't get what you can get with an engine swap but the stock performance could be greatly improved.

A big problem with the Aeromatic prop is that it requires a C-145-2H or 0-300-B engine. Though some 170s have this few do and so one would be looking at an engine swap just to run the Aeromatic. I'd much rather see a composite prop like the electric controlled MT prop be approved. http://www.mt-propeller.com/pdf/datsheet/mtv-17.pdf
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
bagarre
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:35 pm

Re: Engine Upgrade

Post by bagarre »

A big problem with the Aeromatic prop is that it requires a C-145-2H or 0-300-B engine.
If we're making magic propellers, can't we imagine an STC for it as well? :lol:

But, the MT prop would be more appealing. And, I'd be more inclined to spend $10,000 on a magic propeller than $40,000 or more on a new firewall forward.
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Engine Upgrade

Post by GAHorn »

That would be a very expensive (theoretical) few feet and few miles-per-hour gain as compared to the standard prop, while a higher-hp engine/prop cost can be off-set somewhat at the regular overhaul event.

There WAS (is) a two-speed prop available and it was such a marginally-better performer that so very few people spent the extra money for the more-complex set-up that it was discontinued. For that reason there is little incentive for anyone to make the financial-risk/exposure to create another specialized prop for a discontinued engine design (which itself had it's prop-flanges split into two different designs resulting in even smaller end-user groups.)
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
N2255D
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 3:42 am

Re: Engine Upgrade

Post by N2255D »

What is an Aeromatic Propeller?
http://www.aeromatic.com/home.php
Walt Weaver
Spencer Airport (NC35)
Bruster
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:18 am

Re: Engine Upgrade

Post by Bruster »

Hello all.... This is my first post, just registered here. I have a 170B which I have owned for about ten years. Just read this entire thread, found it interesting and thought I would throw in my two cents. I like the smothness of the O-300, but have always thought the airplane would be a lot nicer with a 180hp. The take off performance is marginal at best in hot weather with the O-300 and the 360 would help this factor a lot. Cruise performance would not increase much in terms of IAS as mentioned in previous replys, however the 180hp would increase the capability to cruise at higher altitudes and therefore higher True air speeds at the higher altitudes. On longer trips if you didn't mind cruising above 6,000 or so, I think you would enjoy a speed advantage. My typical trips are less then 100 miles so it would not be practical to go that high, nor would the speed advantage result in a signifigant time savings. As far as being cost effective to upgrade to a 180, I would say that it would not be, but I don't consider owning an airplane being "cost effective" in the first place even though I own two. My conclusion is that a 180hp conversion would make it a better airplane and being "worth it" would be something you have to judge for yourself...
User avatar
blueldr
Posts: 4442
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 3:16 am

Re: Engine Upgrade

Post by blueldr »

George,
As pertains to improving the palatability of engine change performance claims, have you found a significant difference in the virtues of Kosher salt versus ordinary Mortons or generic store brand table salt?
I have recently come upon a product from Texas called "Lantana Seasoning" which I have found helpful in improving the palatability of a good many products. However, I have not yet had an opportunity to try it on engine change claims.
In reference to the changing out of the GO-300 engines in the C-175 airplanes, I have known owners desperate enough to give serious consideration to using a large pack of rubber bands.
BL
Post Reply