opinion of the best engine conversion

Post by **GAHorn** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 3:25 am

Dave Clark wrote:George you should really lighten up on the Lycoming a bit. Mine is smoother at cruise than a C-145 with a low but legal cylinder and only shakes noticeably starting and stopping. There are thousands of these O-360's on many types of aircraft and it is noted as being one of the best and most durable engines on the market. I love it.

That said the 180 Lyc doesn't make the C170 into a C180 by any means but I think it's a great choice for the airframe. I really like the idea of the Cont IO-360 also, especially if you think you'll use the extra ponies. If I were to decide to do a conversion I'd be looking for a good deal on either engine and go from there.

One thing to consider is that if you go with the DelAir conversion Lyc you can get a 200lb. gross weight increase. With my Lyc the last 100 lbs or so still makes it feel heavy. Or is that the first 100 overgross? Still it climbs at gross as well as a stocker does light.

Hi, Dave! I'm really not knocking the Lyc as much as it might appear....it certainly has a large following. But the fact is that Cessna only used it in the 172 after they'd bought 5,000 of them for the Cardinal in 1967 and found it too underpowered for the airplane and had to put 'em in something. They decided the now-reputation-damaged Cardinal would not replace the 172 so they stayed in production with it and used all those Lycs in it. But the problem then was vibration so they used special, soft Lord mounts to absorbe the shocks. (If you put those type mounts on a TCM C145/O300 you'd swear you were driving a turbine! So comparing the Lyc in smoothness to a TCM isn't apples to apples unless you also let the TCM have big Lord-mounts as well.)
The Lycoming has a nasty history of poor valve lubrication, galled cams, failed oil pumps, broken cranks, and vibration problems. While it's not my favorite engine, it's also not a slouch either, tho'.
I've found that asking a pilot how he feels about his equipment is like asking him if he likes his wife when she's standing next to him....the answer's always the same.
"Bulletproof" is what most Lyc owners like to say about their engines, and they point to high recommended TBO's as proof. But most of them conveniently forget 1) most of 'em will not own an engine from new-to-TBO or 2)that their engine was "topped" at about 1100 hours (sometimes by a previous owner) while they brag about it getting to TBO. Theres at least as many TCMs that have gone beyond TBO just as well as the Lycs, but the difference is that the TCMs will be able to reuse their valve trains....the Lycs won't. (And that's part of the problem.....TCMs reputations subsequently suffer because their parts were not replaced at TBO but were re-used because they looked so good after a full run the owner tried to save money by reinstalling them. Its important to examine maintenance records when purchasing an airplane and see exactly WHICH parts were replaced with new!)
If anyone thinks a C145/O300 has a problem with sticking valves,....it's because they've never experienced a totally swallowed valve with a Lycoming. (The two Lyc failures due to swallowed valves I've had were both at night. One of 'em took out the adjacent cylinder with it.)
Your mileage may vary. (There may be some personal opinion expressed in the previous msg.)

wa4jr · Post by **wa4jr** » Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:40 am

Funseventy...can you clue me in on the Lycon O-300 at 160+hp? Do you have the contact information and the location. My O-300 is starting to head downhill and I've ruled out a conversion as I will not be able to recoup the expense upon resale. Maybe hanging on to my 170 for three more years as I make the jump from certificated aircraft to a Bearhawk or Moose to get as far away from FAA oversight as I can...and to get more airplane...just wish someone would market a homebuilt version of the 170 with a choice of engines.

mit · Post by **mit** » Tue Aug 24, 2004 5:05 am

wa4jr wrote:Funseventy...can you clue me in on the Lycon O-300 at 160+hp? Do you have the contact information and the location. My O-300 is starting to head downhill and I've ruled out a conversion as I will not be able to recoup the expense upon resale. Maybe hanging on to my 170 for three more years as I make the jump from certificated aircraft to a Bearhawk or Moose to get as far away from FAA oversight as I can...and to get more airplane...just wish someone would market a homebuilt version of the 170 with a choice of engines.

There was a home built called the cyclone it was a close copy of cessna's. I don't know what ever happened to them?

punkin170b · Post by **punkin170b** » Tue Aug 24, 2004 3:07 pm

Nobody talks about the Franklin... And most who do tend to knock it for being "out of production", "unreliable" or for having questionable parts availability.

It is true that PZL is not building new engines right now, and that does cause me a bit of concern. However, Franklin (Ft. Collins) claims to have new engines available as well as a full selection of parts (in 200 hours so far I have not yet ordered a thing though).

Unreliable? I have not found anyone who actually owns a Franklin conversion who is disappointed with the engine in this area. I am eager to hear about any reliability issues - so I can take preemptive action.

TBO is advertised at 1500 hours. A bit of a bummer at first, but if you "do the beer math" the cost is still less. The last quotes I acquired for a new Lycoming were between 20-25K. At the very least, the cost per hour to replace was the same, and you got 40 more horsepower along the way from the Franklin. (This really does just about make a Ce180 out of a Ce170 - and in fact the power-to-weight ratio in the 220 hp Ce170 is much higher.)

This engine is just as smooth (if not smoother) than the 0-300. There are no cowling modifications required (except plugging the old exhaust holes). There are no ADs (no engine driven pump on this conversion). It is carbureted - no injection return line plumbing.

People ask me all the time about higher fuel burn with the Franklin. Sure, if you fly around at sea level at 25 squared you're gonna burn 11-12 gph. If you're going anywhere cross country you can loaf along at 21" & 2300 rpm, burn 7.5 gph and do 115 ktas. This is the same burn as my 0-300 used to be, and I am "up on the step" and going 10 ktas faster. Result? Same endurance & better range.

All this being said, I would still thoroughly grill the Ft Collins Franklin guys about the future with PZL and parts availablility before sinking the $. However, their STC is top notch and leaves plenty of room for creativity in the installation to customize it. You gotta be good at thinking "outside the box", but with a little bit of planning you can end up with a very nice conversion.

Other notes: 1.) Don't mix PZL Franklin parts with older Franklin parts for overhaul or repair. This is where many who badmouth the engine have run into problems. (With new engines at $15K, why overhaul anyway?) 2.) This engine needs to be leaned aggressively during taxi to avoid fouling plugs. Not a big deal with a little practice. 3.) Franklins are reputed to be oil leakers. Maybe they used to be - but all the PZL owners I know are pretty happy. Mine doesn't leak a drop. 4.) The only thing that "leaks" is the drain hole in the HUGE carb airbox. The induction system captures aireated fuel on the inner surfaces, and it collects in the bottom of the airbox and drips out when the airplane sits for a while. It looks like a quarter-sized puddle of greenish-bluish oily stuff. 5.) The STC calls out the McCauley 2A34C201 prop as an option. No ADs on this unit either. The McCauley D4180 spinner looks great and matches the lines of the 170 beautifully.

OK, is that enough of a plug?

Matt

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 4:20 am

As I recall the Cyclone was a sort of homebuilt 180/185, the kit was produced back in Montreal or Quebec. There was also a homebuilt called the Liberty 181 which was also a 180/185 style aircraft, produced in southwest Washington state, I think the designer/producer was named Bud Morrison.
The Bearhawk looks like a good airplane, but to me it seems like it's just a maule with sticks & an experimental placard.

Eric

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 1:08 pm

At OSH there was a plane that really caught my eye called the Bushwhacker I think. Imported by some fellows in Texas from the eastern block it was being sold for $80-100k fully IRAN'd over there before importing.

Built by PZL in the 1060's and 70's it used the M14 radial that has a very good reputation. A largish airplane at 42' or so wingspan and something like a 1800 pound useful load. It would haul a lot of people and gear. A lot. Tube and fabric. VERY STOL. Licensed experimental airshow. To me it was really neat.

The Franklin is by far the smoothest engine (recip) I've ever flown behind. Turbine smoothness really. It's certainly a clean installation with a ton of power. The only thing that bothered me was the 10.5 to 1 compression ratio but practically speaking it doesn't seem to be a problem. Be sure you have a good oil filter on it. The original design was for mineral oil and they relied on all the solids dropping into the pan. 750 hour TBO then. Much different concepts now.

doug8082a · Post by **doug8082a** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 1:26 pm

Hey Dave,

Was it something like this:

http://www.gesoco.com/acforsale/eastern ... 1list.html

These guys are at the same airport where I'm getting my paint done. They import all sorts of stuff from eastern europe/russia.

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 1:34 pm

Yeah Doug that was it. These prices seem a lot cheaper but one would have to compare the features of each. From the Texas guys the M14 0SMOH added 20k to get it to $100k, otherwise it was a 0SMOH smaller engine. I could start to get really hot for one at these lower prices but can't see selling my 170 and am no longer in a life style to allow multiplw aircraft ownership.

doug8082a · Post by **doug8082a** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:23 pm

Dave Clark wrote:.... am no longer in a life style to allow multiplw aircraft ownership.

No? Why not? The rest of are.

(yeah right).

I know what you mean. Sounds like a neat aircraft, especially at the price. Oh well, nothing wrong with window shopping. I'll be back up there in a couple weeks. I'll see if they have one around.

Post by **GAHorn** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:23 pm

Matt..no complaints from me on the Franklin...except the REASON ...that it's out of production. Pratt & Whitney bought the entire PZL line of engines and has absolutely NO interest in the piston engine line of Franklins. The result is that Franklin no longer has a produciton certificate and it is very likely the engine may be history.
The Association (TIC170A) actually has a member who is a Franklin dealer and I visited with him about this engine at last years convention. His opinion: The engine is 90% history. The dealers have tried to obtain the type certificate but P&W isn't interested in selling it for liability reasons and there is no production certificate even if they COULD buy the type design.
It looks bleak for Franklins, unfortunately.

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:07 am

The PZL 101 looks pretty neat alright, but if it can only be licensed as "Experimental Exhibition", What in heck can you do with it? You sure as heck can't use it like you do a C-170. Generally you have to get the permission of the" FUZZ" to fly it more than a few miles from the home base.

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:30 am

I have installed a cont. IO-360 engine in my '52 C-170B and could not be happier. It's really a great engine and it fits righr inside the cowling. It is a very expensive modification and is really not economically viable unless you want a high performance C-170 rather than just a more powerful airplane. The value of a good C-170 plus the cost of the modification will readily buy a C-180.
Naturally aspirated Continental IO-360 engines seem to be difficult to find, other than new. It took me almost a year to find one that I thought would do the job.
I was recently contacted by a guy who apparently has three run out engines and the all have VAR cranks. They're out of a C-337, and are complete with accessories , less exhaust. If anyone is interested, email me for further details.

Dick Lemmon Ph. (916)635-5566

blueldr@earthlink.net

funseventy · Post by **funseventy** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:39 pm

I am sorry it took me so long. I have been out of the office a few days.

When I saw the price of overhauls I looked long and hard at other conversions. I am not really a Franklin fan until we talk about the 220. I believe that to be a great engine. The problem is call your favorite engine shop and ask them to do a Cylinder. I fly a lot (300 hrs a year, not all in the 170) and I don't want to have to scrounge everytime I have what should be a small problem.

The IO-360 Continentallooked like a good choice. I saw where if I sold all my original stuff and scrounged and shopped for all the new stuff it would run me around 25K for the conversion. Don't forget that you get to sell your old mount prop and core engine. All of the exhaust system etc can add up to quite a bit. When comparing this to a 23K overhaul like Lycon or 24.5K for 160 hp it seems like a no-brainer. But the STC comes with the paperwork and the engine mount only and was going to require the fabrication of a lot of parts and right now I do not have the time. I am crazy busy at work.

The final part of this saga is that a friend who works on small continental, almost exclusively, gave me a much better quote and was going to use Balanced pistons and rods. He said I should see some performance increase and it is on the Dyno today. I will probably know something this afternoon. I am looking for 150+ hp for 14K. Now that would make me truly happy.

I'll keep you all informed.

mvivion · Post by **mvivion** » Sat Aug 28, 2004 3:47 pm

I find it interesting that the vast majority of the converted 170's are Lycoming powered, with actually very few flying with the Continental 360, yet everyone here thinks the Continental is the cat's meow.

Look, folks, there is no question that any six cylinder engine is going to be smoother than any four. That said, I have a Lycoming with a harmonic damper unit on the prop flange and a long prop, and it's nearly as smooth as a six.

Furthermore, there are a bizzillion Lycoming 360s around, and they are in current production. There have never been many Continental IO 360s made, and very few applications where it's used. I think the only current application for the basic engine is in the Seneca, and that's a turbocharged, very different version of the engine.

The Continentals did not have a great service history in either the Skymaster or in the Hawk XP. They have a short TBO (1500 hours, I believe) compared to the Lycoming's 2000 hour tbo.

I have several thousand hours behind Lycoming 360's and the only maintenance issue I've had was one burned valve, which was my fault for aggressive leaning without full instrumentation. I have run a couple of these engines to tbo, with nary a cylinder changed or the engine apart. I've never met a Continental that went to tbo without having at least one or two cylinders off. But that's my experience.

There is no question that the IO-360 Continental will have better fuel specifics than the carbureted Lycoming, but at what price?

Finally, there are now Lycoming "clones" being sold by a competitor. The old saying goes, there is no greater flattery than imitation. If they're such bad engines, how come Superior is building an imitation, and got it certified? Why isn't someone building an imitation of the Continental IO-360? Why isn't that engine used in more applications?

The Lycoming is hard to beat, folks. There are a million of them around, so parts are not an issue. Every mechanic in the free world has worked on them. There are parts available from after market suppliers.

And so on,

I'd go with the Lycoming.

Oh, wait--I already did,

Mike Vivion

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:20 am

Thanks Mike.

Your turn George.