TCM IO-360 CONVERSION

[wenetz]

I know that, both Vic and you told me so when I asked. But That mail was way before that and a lot of other people were on it. I tryed to reach him yesterday with no luck. I'll let you know...

[wenetz]

Hi George!

I finally got to talk to Harry. Very nice guy, but I was really surprised because he totally advised me against the TCM IO-360. He said that in the past (many years ago) ha had witnessed and engine failure and he also knew of other cases. For that reason he wasn't willing to work with that engine and did not have an STC for it. He did, however, work with Lyc. O-360 and highly recommended it. He said that the Lycoming was a trully dependable engine and the Continental wasn´t. He also mentioned that there was no real difference between the 6 cylinder and the 4 cylinder regarding smoothness. Anyway, it was nice talking to him and I guess there is not that much difference between the 180hp and the 195hp derated Continental, as far as performance goes. But I think that I'll keep going for the IO-360 because of the 6 cylinders, plus the experience I've had so far with Continental engines is very good. I think my C-145-2 is excellent! I just want to make sure I clear the trees at end of the runway

I also talked to Eric last night and hopefully in a week or so we'll have things close to settled. By the way, I saw a picture of your instrument panel and it looks beautiful, so far it's the nicest one I've seen. I didn't see the keyboard type switches though, is that the original setup? I have the keyboard type and I don't want it to change it's original look when I add the booster pumps switches and maybe a prop lever. I tryed to attach a picture of mine, but it says that the image is invalid . I'll just e-mail it to you.

Take care,
Pedro

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Pedro since your brought up Harry's observation of the differences between the IO-360 and the 0-360 I will chime it for what it its worth. I don't know a thing about the I0-360 and it's reliability rate. But I will say that I would not use any experience I've had with the C-145 when judging what the reliability of the IO-360 is. They are two different animals. Continental as well as Lycoming have some good engine models as well as those that are not so good. I do believe the Lycoming 0-360 enjoys a good reputation.

So it may come down to vibration. I've flown many hours behind a Lycoming 4 cylinder engine in many airplanes and never once thought the vibration was an issue. I never thought, let out before this plane comes a part. Yes a 0360 powered 170 is not as smooth as a C-145 powered one. So what.

I was however VERY comfortable with the power of the 0-360 as it cleared those trees at the end of the runway. The only vibration I didn't want to feel was the prop in the trees. THAT is vibration.

Harry is very highly thought of. I would not easily discount his thinking. I think you would be very happy with an 0-360 if that is the route you went.

[wenetz]

Harry is very highly thought of. I would not easily discount his thinking. I think you would be very happy with an 0-360 if that is the route you went.

Hi Bruce!

First of all thanks for your post, but I just want to make sure that I am not missinterpreted here. Written communication, among other problems, can be interpreted in a different way than what the author is trying to say and believe me that I didn't mean to give the impression of disregarding Harry's comments. My conversation with Harry was very helpful in many ways and he gave me the impression of being a very knowledgable man with many years of experience and I deeply respect that. His opinion is in the back of my head and I'm still giving it a thought, as well as yours. But I also think that both Continentals and Lycomings are machines, and at the end of the day no machine is 100% dependable.

I might be acting stubborn, in persuing the 6 cylinder engine. I flew that same engine for nearly 500 hours years ago in a C-337 and got "confident" on it. I really listen to everything that all of you have to say. Your experience is really valuable to me and reading this forums is always a lot of help. My experience is very short and that's why I really love to read all your posts.

I wish I could test fly the O-360 because from what you wrote and others have told me, there is not that much of a difference between both. As of right now I still lean more towards the IO-360, but I have reasonable doubts. As you said it performs well and runs smooth enough. I totally agree in that the C-145 is a complete different engine and I very much doubt that I can ever find a piston engine I like that much, except for the power . But I did asume that Continental would build their engines under the same standards as they did with the 145. Thanks again Bruce, it's always really nice to read your posts.

Take care,
Pedro.

Best Regards

[GAHorn]

Pedro, I'm glad you talked to Harry. I wanted you to get his input. But that's the only message I was sending you... that Harry has a different conversion STC if you wanted one that was NOT the TCm IO-360.

Now... as for what he told you...:
Harry only sells the Lyc. O-360... so THAT's the only engine Harry will say nice things about. He tried to purchase a TCM STC a few years ago and the deal fell thru, so he doesn't promte that conversion. He's wrong about the TCM IO-360 engine. I've flown them BOTH. The TCM IO-360 is a FAR SMOOTHER installation. And it's also a FAR CLEANER and NEATER installation, as it fits very nicely under the original cowling. And the IO-360 is very durable. They have flown in the SkyHawk XP, the Army/Air Force T-41's, and the Senecas, besides the C-337. They are a current production 6 cylinder engine. (They are a bit more expensive to purchase than the Lyc's, however.)

Now, this comment is going to make the Lycoming owners protest...but I've flown a couple of examples of these installations and what I'm about to say was true of all of them.
The Lycoming shakes and rattles (in comparison to the TCM O-300 and TCM IO-360.) . It's a simple matter of mechanics. All that extra hp coming out of 4 cylinders is 4 Big pulses/bangs ...instead of 6 pulses/bangs. Look at any Lycoming O-360 conversion that's been in a C-170 and you'll eventually see the cracks in the ugly fiberglass nosebowls and "cheeks" they install in the cowl. Those cowling MUST be cut in order to fit the wider Lycoming engine underneath. (On start-up, many Lycoming installations will quite honestly frighten you with the loud banging/shaking.) Windshields already "float" in a Cessna airframe. With the Lycoming installations, unless the windshield is generously relieved (for clearance) they suffer from windshield cracking as well. The airframes suffer from increased cracking also.

In any case... if for some reason you decide to change your mind and go with a Lyc O-360, then Harry would be a good person to consider for the work... or you could simply buy the kit/STC from Harry and get someone else, like Sandhill, to complete the work for you.

Hope this helps.

[c170b53]

The STC is for which model of IO-360 ? They are certainly not all the same and older versions have not faired as well as the later model KB engine which appears to be bullit proof.

[wenetz]

The model that I have in mind is the KB. At first I was a bit unpleased with the power loss, but I've been told that the underrated IO-360 is a better engine, plus it has a greater TBO.

George, Thank you very much for your honesty. Your post is extremely enlightning and it really pleases me to read your opinion on the IO-360 because it gives way to the type of conversion that I wish to make. I don't want to upset the Lycoming owners neither, but the six cylinders MUST make a difference.

It's really nice to count on the help of all of you. Thanks.

Regards,
Pedro.

[johneeb]

The model that I have in mind is the KB. At first I was a bit unpleased with the power loss, but I've been told that the underrated IO-360 is a better engine, plus it has a greater TBO.

George, Thank you very much for your honesty. Your post is extremely enlightning and it really pleases me to read your opinion on the IO-360 because it gives way to the type of conversion that I wish to make. I don't want to upset the Lycoming owners neither, but the six cylinders MUST make a difference.

It's really nice to count on the help of all of you. Thanks.

Regards,
Pedro.

Padro,
Are you aware that the IO-360KB has been granted a horsepower increase to 210hp? This increase requires a change in the engines designtion to IO-360KB-C-GB and adjust the propeller control pitch stop to allow 2800 RPM. See the link below for a few comments regarding this change.
Johneb
http://www.cessna170.org/forums/viewtop ... 137#p39137

[blueldr]

The only reason that the IO-360 engine in the Cessna Hawk XP was rated at 195 HP was because they reduced the maximum RPM to reduce the noise. It's my understanding that the airplane was originally the "Rheims (sp?) Rocket" produced in France and the noise rules are very strict in Europe.

[GAHorn]

The 195 hp STC version of the IO-360 is not "underrated"... It is "flat-rated" meaning that it's available hp is deliberately reduced from that which is possible for the engine. Think of it this way: If an engine is rated to produce a certain sea-level horsepower at a certain rpm (say 210)... then if we don't open the throttle up all the way up to 210 at sea level, but instead use only 195 hp for actual takeoff.... then we can increase the power during the climb to maintain that 195 to a higher altitude. It's artificially restriced to 195 during takeoff and initial climb only. This may be for several reasons, noise being one as BluElder pointed out. Another might be for airframe considerations. Perhaps the existing fuel system will not meet the flow-requirements to support all 210 hp. Or perhaps the structural design of the engine mount, or propeller, or ??? (whatever) may not be rated at the full hp.
In any case, the engine's available hp is still useful to make up for or recover natural losses due to density altitude.

There is another consideration when thinking about 6 cylinder versus 4 cylinder engines: cost of operations and repair. With 6 cylinders, there's more to support. An overhaul of 6 cylinders will cost more than 4. Six cylinders have greater numbers of parts. That's the price of having more available horsepower spread over more cylinders.

The Lycoming conversion is a good one, both for performance and for availability. It is also slightly less expensive. But either conversion will cost between $30,000 and $45,000 to accomplish. It takes a real commitment to spend that much just for increased takeoff/climb performance, and the consideration of 180/182/185 aircraft has to be examined. (I'm in agreement with you, however. No 180/185 ever looked as sweet as a Cessna 170. Unless you need to really haul a load.... ) It's important to run well, but it's important to LOOK good too!

[170C]

George (or others), didn't limiting the C-IO360K engine to 195 hp vs 210 (in the Cessna 172 Hawk HP) also have to do with certification? By this I mean, if the hp had been 200+ wouldn't it have pushed the C-172 Hawk HP into a complex catagory?

[dacker]

George, is that airplane going backwards?
David

[ak2711c]

My personal opinion is that the TCM IO-360 conversion is not worth the extra effort and money if you are going to use the 195 hp version. I know some will disagree with that statment and that is ok, its just my opinion. The conversion is a tremendus amount more work and a little more money than the Lycoming. I have flown a number of 180 hp 170's and they perform great. They are a huge improvement over the stock engine. The Lycoming is a tough very reliable motor. It does vibrate more but I think it is more of a comfort issue than a structural issue in my opinion. For example, try finding a stock motored 170 that doesn't have multiple cracks in the cowling. This motor is very popular for use in production aircraft as well as in conversions and in my maintenance business I have never seen a noticable difference in structural fatuge on aircraft that it is installed in. Harry's kit is very complete and well built and his customer support is great. Having said all that. The difference in performance that you will see from a stock aircraft to a 180 hp one is the same difference you will see from a 180 hp one to a 210 hp one. There is a huge difference. The TCM IO-360 is also a very reliable motor. The IO-360 got a bad rap because of reliability issues with its brother the TSIO-360 and some of the early model IO-360's. If you don't need or have to have ultimate performance, save yourself some head ache and some money and do the Lycoming. With ether conversion though I would plan on a minimum of $45,000. Look at some rough numbers for Harry's:
STC = $ 9,000
Engine = $20,000
Prop = $ 9,500
Governor = $ 1,800
Misc parts (MP guage, Prop cable, ect) = $ 1,000
Frieght (engine, prop, STC, misc parts) = $ 1,000
80hrs Labor @ $65/hr = $ 5,200(As I recall Harry says 80-100hrs for install)

Total = $47,500

Those are conservative numbers too. Granted you can sell your old firewall forward to recoupe some cost. You have to really want a high horse power 170 to do ether of the conversions. Good luck.
Shawn

[c170b53]

" The 195 hp STC version of the IO-360 is not "underrated"... It is "flat-rated" meaning that it's available hp is deliberately reduced from that which is possible for the engine."
Ah.... George looks like you'll have to spray some WD-40 on your flasher/hook.

[hilltop170]

This is what you get from Del-Air when you buy the Lycoming O-360 conversion.