Carbon Fiber Cowl for Cessna170

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

User avatar
Ryan Smith
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:26 am

Re: Carbon Fiber Cowl for Cessna170

Post by Ryan Smith »

bagarre wrote:I think you guys underestimate a carbon fiber layup. You can't compare it to fiberglass.
Preach.

It drives me nuts to hear it called carbon reinforced plastic. Anyone that wants an idea of what the stuff can do needs to Google Rob Holland. No cracks in his airplane and I've seen it torn down every off season for inspection. He broke a motor mount last year and didn't damage any of the carbon parts.

I've been toying with the idea of replacing all the interior trim pieces with carbon reproductions, as well as replacing the floating panel with a carbon plate, if a DER approved. I appreciate all 170s, though it makes me sad to see some of the cobbled-together crap that makes it into them. I consider myself an originality nut, and my mind's eye picture of the perfect 170 is the shot in the documentation library of Jim Beyer's airplane, but I see many places where carbon can improve and enhance these airframes. 56D is a huge part of me and has been my entire life, literally. I want to do whatever I can to ensure she outlives me. If carbon parts are the answer, I dig it.
bagarre
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:35 pm

Re: Carbon Fiber Cowl for Cessna170

Post by bagarre »

How well does carbon fiber handle open flame? That might be the biggest issue of using it in the cabin or around the engine.
User avatar
MoonlightVFR
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:55 pm

Re: Carbon Fiber Cowl for Cessna170

Post by MoonlightVFR »

Ultimately the word "composites" has to come into the conversation.

Yes carbon fiber is in the mix for strength but the technology is still advancing.

See Scaled composites, Burt Rutan , Paul Allen.

Good to see that some C170 fans are thinking carefully about potential applied benefits of technology.

Forever thankful for the invention of Alclad.
gradyb, '54 B N2890C
bagarre
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:35 pm

Re: Carbon Fiber Cowl for Cessna170

Post by bagarre »

This thread is slowly reminding me why I don't post here as often.

It should be re-named the Cessna 170 Purist poo poo if it ain't original Association.
User avatar
canav8
Posts: 1006
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: Carbon Fiber Cowl for Cessna170

Post by canav8 »

I just spoke to someone today that says there is a guy who installed an TCM IO-360 in his 170B. He lives in California and works for Skunkworks. Story goes he is actively and very close to getting an STC for this discussion of a cowl. I have never heard of the guy before so I cannot verify this yet. Trying to remeber the name. It was mentioned once in the conversation. I will try to get more info. D
52' C-170B N2713D Ser #25255
Doug
bagarre
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:35 pm

Re: Carbon Fiber Cowl for Cessna170

Post by bagarre »

Aryana wrote:If your goal is to run all the folks off from here that like original 170's, you should ask yourself why it bothers you so much?

It's the other way around. The folks on this site run off anyone that do anything other than keep them original.
User avatar
Ryan Smith
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:26 am

Re: Carbon Fiber Cowl for Cessna170

Post by Ryan Smith »

Aryana wrote:
bagarre wrote:This thread is slowly reminding me why I don't post here as often.

It should be re-named the Cessna 170 Purist poo poo if it ain't original Association.
So dramatic. :roll: So let me get this straight, I'm supposed to never express my desire to have my 170 appear like it did when I was 10 years old. Got it.

Good luck doubling the value of your 170 with a carbon fiber cowl. :lol:
I don't want my airplane to look like it did when I was ten years old.

Mostly because it was in pieces. :lol:
User avatar
Ryan Smith
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:26 am

Re: Carbon Fiber Cowl for Cessna170

Post by Ryan Smith »

Also, Arash isn't an originality nut. Otherwise his airplane would be green, and he would be shunned.
User avatar
c170b53
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 8:01 pm

Re: Carbon Fiber Cowl for Cessna170

Post by c170b53 »

I like our originality nuts and although I wish I owned a 170 that appeared to have just popped out of the factory, I have a plane that has seen lots of action. Lots.
Planes change sometimes through necessity, sometimes because their roles change. So I have no problems with mods. In my case I chose to make changes because I was forced to, so I made improvements that bettered performance because I could.
Painting a 170 Pink? No. :D
Jim McIntosh..
1953 C170B S/N 25656
02 K1200RS
User avatar
gfeher
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:19 pm

Re: Carbon Fiber Cowl for Cessna170

Post by gfeher »

Yeah, just because I like my plane more original than some, or I express my opinion about a particular mod, doesn't mean I don't like hearing about what others are doing to their planes, or about what mods are available for our planes and what others think of them. In my view, what you want to do with your plane is your business. But I for one would like to hear about what you are doing, even if It may not be for me. You never know, I might change my mind. Like Jim's plane, mine is hardly original, but it does have an older feel that I like. But that's just me and my plane. Others can and will disagree. Don't take our comments (or at least mine) as critical.
Gene Feher
Argyle (1C3), NY
'52 170B N2315D s/n 20467 C-145-2
Experimental J3 Cub Copy N7GW O-200
User avatar
ghostflyer
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:06 am

Re: Carbon Fiber Cowl for Cessna170

Post by ghostflyer »

We must have the originals and also the guys that change their aircraft . This what's makes the organization interesting . I have modified my aircraft so much and will continue to modify to fit the roles and the nature of the work I require it to do .
There isn't another aircraft made that fits the 170 role and be sooooo much fun. This aircraft will take a hammering and still come up for more . What started me away from the originally concept was the lack of spares in my country . But I am very happy that I run a totally different engine , prop ,back plate ,spinner , baffles engine , nose cowl [which has given me a few headaches ] undercarriage , brakes , wheels, tires , seats , seat belts and attach points ,windscreen , radios , instruments ,undercarriage legs, tail wheel , control cables, electrical wiring and components , starter motor, battery , battery box .exhaust , all bulbs havs been replaced with LEDS. The list goes on . Will I consider a carbon fiber cowl ? No, reason being it will not stand up to the punishment that a normal aluminium cowl will take .

Now that I am now more awake [this was done in the early hours of the morning while I was at work ] , we have all forgotten about the FUN factor. Flying this aircraft is about 15 out of 10 in the fun factor range. This can be real aviation with out auto pilots and you see what's happening without synthetic vision/full glass cockpits etc. I take my hat off to the owners who still have the original paint and interior . Majority of it anyway.
PLease NOTE. All modifications on my aircraft have been done with STC,s and or EO,s [engineering orders] all parts fitted have PMA,s or original parts from the manufacturer.
Last edited by ghostflyer on Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Carbon Fiber Cowl for Cessna170

Post by GAHorn »

There's no reason to make the originality versus modified owners adversarial. Each has their own intents and purposes, ... but it might help the ones who think those who lean towards "originality" out-of-line... might remember that our Association was "Formed to preserve and promote a truly classic airplane" .

I have a really good friend who is slightly older than myself and, like myself, appreciates the era of the '50's/'60's automobiles. He gleefully informed me one day he'd acquired a 1957 Chevrolet two-door convertible. I couldn't WAIT to see it.
Sure 'nough... there it sits in his driveway.... cherry-apple-red with white leather seats, rolled and pleated. It was gorgeous!

Then he popped the hood. It is actually a later Ford Mustang with a Chevy body mated to it. 8O

Yes...it drives much better than the prototype... but it's NOT a '57 Chevy.

I claim to be an originality nut "for the right reasons"... meaning that I love the beauty of the 1950's Cessnas. I don't love their shortcomings...but I love their beauty and their simple functionality. And their affordability. However, I don't modify the airplane simply to "improve" what Cessna didn't intend in 1953.
If I wanted a fuel-injected STOL airplane ... I would NEVER start-out with a 170, and start throwing money at it. I'd probably look at a 185 or 206.
I'm not a fan of VG's, or leading edge cuffs, or wing fences, etc... because I never need less than the runways I always use. If I did.... the 170 wouldn't be my preferred airplane. I'd also never stick a swept-tail onto it. Or tricycle landing gear. Or "bubble" windows. But if that's what YOU want.... go for it. Just don't criticize my personal preferences as well.

At some point modifications begin to resemble a Mustang with a Chevy body on it. It's no longer the C-170 of which I became so enamored.

Frank LOVES his '57 Chevy replica. But that's what it is...and it's NOT a '57 Chevy.
Did I criticize it to his face? What purpose would that serve but to injure our friendship...? I CAN admire the incredible amount of engineering and expertise it took for someone to mate that body to that drive-train... and THAT is what we discussed. ... and how he wants to change out the front suspension to ride better. ... and how to convert the air-conditioning to R134A. ... and so on. We had a good day looking over his toy.

One of the things THIS Assoc'n is good at is..... forming good friendships. Having fun conventions with those friends. Helping other owners find parts. Fix problems. Share information.

There's no reason to endorse anothers mods that you don't find interesting. But it's also VERY off-topic to criticize those who like originality in a club that "Formed to preserve and promote a truly classic airplane".

At Deming, Bruce and I shared a short conversation about the NON-originality of some of my airplane's features. Yes, I'm an "originality nut"...in the sense that I like it to LOOK original, PERFORM original, and meet the majority of those judging rules which pertain to original C-170s.
For example: When I found my airplane for-sale... it had no anti-collisions lighting. My purchase-offer was predicated upon the installation of wingtip strobes by Whelen. The seller/restorer immediately stated, "You know...that's not original don't you...??"
I replied, "I hate to tell you this...but I intend to fly this airplane off a grass strip and sometimes do so at night!"
After a short pause he said, "Well..... I guess that's what Cessna intended it for."
Bruce was likely noticing some of the following:
1- My engine and cowling pass the casual observer's glance as being original. However it's actually a C-172 installation with an O-300-C, EM-series (6-bolt) prop, and a C-172 cowling. Why? Because those were more plentiful and less expensive/easier to obtain when the restoration was undertaken.
2- My radios are late 90's. Why? They work better for current requirements.
3- My baggage shelf is removed. Why? Because it made loading/unloading simpler and allowed larger items to be placed there and allowed easier access in-flight. It's largely unnoticed.
4- My baggage compartment has a baggage door. Why? Because it isn't intrusive on appearance and is a HUGE improvement in utility and access. It also makes it much easier to maintain the aft fuselage area (providing access to the ELT, etc.) It looks original.
5- My aft baggage bulkhead has been reinforced and blanked-off above the shelf-area. Why? Because it strengthens the fuselage, blocks noise and air-flow from the tailcone entering the cabin area improving heating in winter. If the rear shelf were re-installed, it would provide additional support and prevent items from stressing the headliner. It's invisible.
6- My right wing has a mirror-image set of landing/taxi lights. Why? Because the right wing suffered minor hangar-rash in exactly that nose-rib-bay and it was more useful for me (often operating at night on a dark-hole ranch-strip) and less expensive than replacing that long leading edge. Most people who view my airplane overlook it because it appears exactly as Cessna might have done it originally (similar to a C-337.) They look like they could have been original.
7-What are those appendages on my rear doorposts? They are passenger convenience/reading lights. But they are made from original Grimes torpedo-lights and look like something Cessna would have done, and they really help loading/unloading at night and allowed my daughter to read her books when we travelled. They look original.
8-The instrument lighting is never noticed by anyone looking at it... but my instruments have indirect lighting installed behind the floating panel. I fly a lot at night and it's a matter of being able to see the instruments better. They are virtually invisible except at night. It looks original.

There is absolutely NO fully "original" C-170 that I've ever seen which flies today. One of the most meticulous restorations I've admired is Steve Jacobsen's..... which has a highly-modified instrument panel in order to accommodate modern avionics hidden behind original radio-faces as well as a glove-compartment similarly modified.... So his Oshkosh multiple-Wins for "originality"... is a bit "tongue-in-cheek". ... but it's very pleasing and admirable to those of us who like "originality".

I imagine those who bemoan the "originality crowd's conceit" .... actually really admire such craftsmanship.... While few "originality nuts" desire highly modified airplanes.... none that I know have any feelings of condemnation over another owner's modification-preferences.

There's no reason for the owner of a modified 170-owner to imagine reasons to dislike those who prefer originality. And there's certainly no "originality nut" who should presume their own preferences depict the actual condition of their own airplane.... My airplane is an example of something with original-appearances...but modifications of convenience and/or functionality.

This disparity in the personal tastes of C-170 owners is no reason to stir up some non-existent argument...which serves no useful purpose in a club "Formed to preserve and promote a truly classic airplane". ... and one that is so good at forming really GOOD FRIENDSHIPS. :wink:

PS: When I win the Powerball I plan a Continental IO-360, C175 fuel tanks and .... Naww.... I'll buy a 195....and a Convair and a HU-16 and... :lol:
'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
ghostflyer
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:06 am

Re: Carbon Fiber Cowl for Cessna170

Post by ghostflyer »

George,
Well said , I couldn’t agree more. BUT there isn’t a aircraft since that’s has been built that’s a tail dragger ,takes 4 people , so much fun to fly , tough and will take heaps of punishment , looks good [especialy the blue ones ] ,costs reasonable to buy and fly ,the list goes on and last but not least a great bunch of people that own them .
Post Reply