Bartone / Benham Exhuast Pics

[cessna170bdriver]

Today, I finally got my pipes properly located and drilled to the mufflers. I have John Benham's spring loaded hangers in place, but the more I fiddle with them, the less I like them. I'm going to show Jims pictures to my AI and see if he thinks we might be able to call it a minor alteration.

Miles

[GAHorn]

Just to be anal for a moment....(I know ... that's really ironic isn't it... )
... anyway... Miles, ... if you bought John's pipes because they came with an STC... and if you didn't find the system workable, and then call the STC owner back and he, anecdotally, then suggests ad hoc alterations to the system which were not part of the original STC approval or any revision thereof.... Hmmmmn

[53B]

For what it's worth, I just bought a set of tail pipes from John D. Benham and the price went up $100.00 from what I was quoted last month. I thought that they would be a nice addition to the tail wheel conversion on my 172 but I'll be disappointed if they don't fit well.

[jlwild]

Miles,

FWIW, after taking the pictures of my Bartone exhaust hangers (pictures you posted), Cleo Bickford inspected the setup and recommended I use a firesleeve on the gasline between the carburetor and fuel strainer assembly. It a good safety feature and I recommend it to all who have the Bartone or Benham exhaust stacks installed. My IA agreed and we installed the firesleeve.

[trake]

Or you could stay original and forget the fire sleeve. I dont get it, all this bother to keep stains off the cowl? A solution in search of a problem?

[GAHorn]

Hey, everyone... I recommend fire sleeved fuel lines no matter what kind of exhaust you have. The flexible fuel line between the carb and the gascolater, new mfr, firesleeved, special ordered from an outfit in Trade A Plane... cost me a whole $17! Why WOULDN'T you want it firesleeved? Well worth the money if it saves my life, and those flammable fluid hoses should be changed every 5 years or so anyway, according to most conservative estimates. (What's under YOUR cowl?)

[AR Dave]

Actually ceramic coated Bartones.
Trake, what stains? I got the pipes and removed the Walrus Tusk (that's how my kids describe em) because of looks and speed. Kinda like the difference in square tail and round tail, just individual preference.

[GAHorn]

The only problem I have with those mods are the kind of problem alluded to in this thread.... tailpipe support and provision for engine movement.
I wish Cessna had made this aircraft's exhaust like the later 206/210 arrangement, which was a "wye" that was jigged and fitted to three cyls as a unit, which then ended in a ball-and-socket clamped together with spring-loaded bolts, and supported at the tailpipe with shock-mounts. In that way, no amount of engine movement would be transmitted to the tailpipe, and no torque/vibration will weaken/warp the tailpipe-to-muff connection. Both the Benham/Bartone tailpipes have rigid attachment to the muff and with that long "arm" of the long tailpipe,...even though suspended with a flexible mount,... that connection places a lot of stress on both units and transmits noise to the airframe. (Not trying to be overly-critical of otherwise good ideas which have certain advantages over the original...)

[lowNslow]

Here are some pics of jwild's hanger for his Bartone pipes:

Miles, what has been your observations on the sound of the extended pipes. Are they louder, quieter, or just different?

[cessna170bdriver]

This is a very subjective thing, as I have only memory of what they used to sound like, not any real data. Seems to me they are substantially quieter at low speed, as keep I find myself taxiing too fast. Evidently I got used to the the noise at 1000 RPM or so, but now find that setting the throttle by ear gets me about 1200 - 1300 RPM. This may not be entirely due to the pipes, as I did replace the left muffler in the overhaul process. The engine itself is in much better condition too, which probably has some effect.

At cruise the airplane is noisy enough in general that I don't notice any real difference in volume; maybe a deeper "note". Folks on the ground say it sounds "better" than it used to, whatever that means. Like AR Dave said earlier, I think the big improvement comes down to looks.

Miles

[lowNslow]

Thanks Miles. I am thinking of putting a pair of these on. You initially had some difficulty putting these on, did you end up installing them per STC or did some make some minor "adjustments". Also, how do they line up with the fuel strainer - would any heat shielding be advisable.

[170C]

Miles, you didn't mention the extra "push" you got from that thrust from the pipes I too discovered a different sound, not necessarily quieter, just different and I also had folks on the ground say it sounds different.

[GAHorn]

Sorta like Hanlon-Wilson/Benham/Bartone VS Boris-Karloff/Goulet/Sinatra.

[cessna170bdriver]

Thanks Miles. I am thinking of putting a pair of these on. You initially had some difficulty putting these on, did you end up installing them per STC or did some make some minor "adjustments". Also, how do they line up with the fuel strainer - would any heat shielding be advisable.

Karl,

After playing musical spacers on the hangar bolts, I found a combination that seemed to work. The pipe is far enough from the gascolator that I don't think there is a heating problem. Very soon after shutdown, the ends of the pipes are cool enough to grasp. Also, there is more clearance between the crossbar and the gascolator than is evident in this picture. If you show up at Columbia the last weekend of August, you can take a closer look.

Miles

[GAHorn]

The problem is not a heating problem. (The air flow within the cowl carries the tailpipe heat down/away from the gascolator.)
The problem is a gasoline leak that might spill onto the hot exhaust.
Miles, I agree...yours looks good...as long as your fuel line from gascolator to carb is not above any portion of your exhaust.