The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Corey your description of the hanger sound about what I remember John B. telling me. Of course Dave is correct in that the method used wouldn't absolutely determine who's pipes they are.

Comparing your picture with Johns and going by Dave's description of the pipes it looks like you might indeed have Benhams which would go along with the mounting method.

I rec'd the following email from Mike Roe (who began this thread.)

George
I had a posting in the hanger forum on the exhaust i purchased from John.I am at Daytona for bike week and I dont have my password(one of many I forget) to post a reply,if you think it is neccesary add a post stating the STC does indeed cover a 172,it must be a early model.Some one was asking this question.Otherwise I will be back Sunday and answer any questions I can.
Thanks
Mike Roe

WOW!

What team work.

Thanks for the information gentlemen. I really appreciate it.

Can someone mention how much either Benhams or Bartones go for currently? I am interested in getting either one. I'm in the philippines and would appreciate any help so I won't waste too much time on the phone in long distance charges. Thanks.

I purchased John Benhams exhaust which came with a support hanger that clamps to the motor mount.His also has a STC.Price was $400.00.Phone #is indirectory.

What are the benefits of these exhaust vs. a stock? Are they just an attempt to reduce drag.

Bill Hart wrote:What are the benefits of these exhaust vs. a stock? Are they just an attempt to reduce drag.

This is just hear-say on my part, but many claim that since the exhaust exits behind the firewall, that it makes the cockpit significantly quieter. The drag reduction is probably not significant, but they do give a cleaner "look" to the airplane.

Another advantage would be to make it easier to install the lower cowling. You have hold your mouth just right to get it over the stock pipes AND the carb air box. If I were going to have my airplane painted any time soon, I'd consider switching.

Miles

I'm sure Miles did not mean to say the pipes exit "behind the firewall".
They exit forward of the firewall, thru the lower cowl opening, similar to Cessna 206/210 exhausts. They allow the lower cowl to have it's "fangs" closed up for a slightly cleaner air flow and appearance. (I have to admit I'm curious why Cessna didn't see this when they created the airplane. They certainly should have cleaned it up during the production run, IMHO. I do not care for the exact method either mod supports the tailpipes, however. I'd prefer such a mod to have a "swivel-ball" fitting on it's upper end, such as the other Cessna's do with this type exit, to accomodate engine movement. I daydream about STC-ing a completely new exhaust system such as the 206 system for a 170, which would simultaneously get rid of those leaky clamps at the risers.)

Has anything ever been done like the old Swifts with the six straight pipes. It would not be clean but they sure sound nice.

gahorn wrote:I'm sure Miles did not mean to say the pipes exit "behind the firewall".
They exit forward of the firewall, thru the lower cowl opening, similar to Cessna 206/210 exhausts.

Maybe I should have said "behind and below" the firewall. I certainly hope no one took my statement to mean that they exited inside the airplane. I don't know what Cessna 206/210 exhausts look like, but in every Bartone installation I have seen, the pipes come out through the lower cowl opening at a downward angle, then curve further down, behind the plane of the firewall. The point is that most folks I've talked to about these pipes think the exit location makes for a quieter cabin.

Miles

Seems like Pat charged $250.00 for his STC'd pipes when I purchased them back in the '90's. They make for a MUCH better appearance IMHO and it eliminates that pesky, ugly exhaust stain on the lower cowling. If you are going to keep your plane original of course you don't want to make the change. Regarding how they affect the cabin noise----the only reliable way to determine that would be to check the sound before installation of the Benham or Bartone pipes, then ck again immediately afterward with the same instrument. When I put mine on I "thought" it might have lowered the sound level, but after a while I have come to the conclusion that it may only "change" the sound. I personally like the sound better, but thats an individual thing. Mine is still too loud inside not to use headsets and the better they are the better it is on your ears. I agree with George's statement regarding Cessna's cleaning up of the exhaust system as production progressed. However, there were a lot of things that could have been improved upon, but the public didn't demand it at the time. Kinda like Farmall made all those Farmall "M"'s year after year and didn't make many changes. Still was a good tractor, but competition almost spelled their doom because competition made the changes. (Yea, my colors are green & yellow when it comes to tractors )

What are the options for closing the original holes in the bottom of the cowl? Thanks.

Bruce

4-Shipp wrote:What are the options for closing the original holes in the bottom of the cowl? Thanks.

Bruce

Bruce one way is to modify and use fabric wing inspection hole covers.

Wow John your plane was so nice I didn't even realize those where inspection covers.

Not sure if John can or wants to remove those inspection covers after modification but as Miles found out you don't have to modify the covers to use them. They just go right on fit pretty good and stay there.

BTW there are several different types of hold downs found on the back of these covers. More elaborate "high speed" models have four fingers in the back and the fingers have rivets installed that catch the inside edge of the hole itself so the cover can't move. The most common version has just two fingers and no rivets to catch the inside of the hole.

Bruce,
The modification was slight, I had to shorten one of the spring steel tabs. I may have a different cover type than Miles used.

Almost time to carve up old Tom, happy Thanksgiving.