The International Cessna^® 170 Association

not sure how you would classify an "endurance" record but all of the Max Conrad long distance record flights were in Pipers with Lycomings. just for a talking point

Let's not forget Rutan's Voyager also powered by Continental engines!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Voyager

N9149A wrote: But what you will rarely ever get with a 172 or Cherokee is anyone complementing you on how good it looks as you walk across the ramp and after you land that 172 in a cross wind no one looks twice. But taxi up in a 170 and people think your special. And you are, cause you have chosen to fly in style in a 60 year old airplane. Your doing what a lot of folks would like to do.

Boy Bruce that is exactly why I bought my 170 vs. a 172. But the day I flew my new bird home I pulled up at an FBO for a fuel stop and the line guy spoke into his handheld to his dispacth "yeah there is an old Piper out here who wants a top off" My bubble had burst and I hadn't even owned the thing 12 hrs.

I had concerns of cost when I purchased my plane 16 years ago but I must say that after 1200 hrs of flying and maintaining my own 170 that they are definitely among the least expensive 4 place planes to own. I have not really seen any expenses that I would not have seen on a plane half its age. While the C145 has six cylinders they are the least expensive new cylinders on the market. With that said I must repeat what has been said here before. Condition is the most important thing to consider in any aircraft purchase. Bill K

Yes, Max Conrad flew for Piper and on his mission attempt to the South Pole (excerpt from his official website) the Lycomings didn't do so well for him: "The itinerary was altered to include a couple of extra stops for engine repairs, but he made it to Christchurch in early January 1970. From there he headed to Invercargill, from where he left for McMurdo escorted by VXE-6. The first time he was forced to turn around when one of his engines lost oil pressure."

When he finally made it to the Pole, he tried to take off but crashed. The twin Cessna, flown by Norwegians to the Pole the same day (and powered by Continentals) had no difficulty in taking off and returning home. Here's a pic of Conrad's Aztec (background) and the Cessna together at the Pole.



Here's a pic of Conrad's attempted takeoff with his Lycoming-powered Aztec:



Here's another pic of the Continental-powered Cessna beginning it's takeoff roll:

The various 200 cubic inch and 300 cubic inch serieses of Continentals are probably the most durable and reliable light aircraft engines ever built, followed closely by the 470 cubic inch serieses of Continentals. Over the years just compare the number of: service letters, "fixes", recalls, and AD's, on the various compatable Lycoming engines.

Harold

So what. One Continental flew for 2 months. Conrad happen to have engine trouble with his Lycomings and the Norwegians didn't with their Continentals. Proves nothing.

Maybe the Continental after flying for just 2 months was junk, Conrad's engines might have been around the world three times, the Norwegians might have had their engines just replaced for the third time in a year, we don't know.

I've owned both Continental and Lycoming and have no trouble with either. Well OK I did have to rebuild all the engines once. So that would have been two Continental rebuilds to the one Lycoming. I used MMO in all the engines sporadically so it is pretty obvious you should either use MMO all the time or not use it at all. Most of the rebuilds came at a time when a Democrat was the president but they had been preceded by a Republican so we're not sure how that negatively impacted the MMO equation.

My first car was a Ford and it never made it to the airport. Most of my successful trips to the airport have been in a GM. So last time I bought a car I was sure to make it a Honda cause I never had to rebuild anything when I had the Ford.

And for the record I've burned MOGAS in all of my vehicles the most but if I still owned my old Ford I'd have to run it on 100LL today.

(Have I miss anything )

Bruce, That was great. I'll laugh all the way to the airport

Kyle

N9149A wrote:...... Conrad's engines might have been around the world three times, ...

The point was purely for "needling" Scott in fun. (but Conrad's engines were fresh-overhauls for the trip. In fact, he'd had two failures during previous attempts to make it to the Pole. The Norwegians made it first attempt, and left without incident after they dug out of the snow due to being on wheels without skis.

I actually know of one record held by Lycoming: An IO-720 from Astronaut Bill Anders' Twin-Bo has been waiting disassembled for 3 years for a thrust bearing in Houston.

(Have I miss anything )[/quote]

Bruce I was just wondering..................are you Irish?

George your comments about Conrads engines just being overhauled is an interesting one. I read some where that the most reliable time period for an engine is actually several hundred hours after overhaul assuming there have been no recent problems. Bill K

3958v wrote:George your comments about Conrads engines just being overhauled is an interesting one. I read some where that the most reliable time period for an engine is actually several hundred hours after overhaul assuming there have been no recent problems. Bill K

Bill,
I hear you there, In the first 400 hrs of the overhaul of my O-300, I had to pull two cyl's to clean the valve guides. I worked at the time, on the perspective that an aircraft needed aircraft fuel. So I burnt 100 LL exclusively. Within 200 Hrs I had a bad cyl., in another 160 had another. Pulled each cleaned and met AD 95-05-05 (just a dig, Rick ) subsequently I started to burn nothing but Mo-gas, had no problems (at least 500 hrs) while working the aircraft over 100 hrs. per year. (for four years) Once it sat for two months....After our fire at the shop.....The carb loaded up, and fuel seeping from the stuck float, ruined the paint on the pant on the 172. I have subsequently found that there is a good average (about 25% 100 LL to 75% mo-gas that works well). The 100LL keeps the mo-gas stabilized. Well anyway, I wouldn't TRUST an engine, (to do something stupid like fly AG or go to go to the south pole) until it has at least 200 Hrs on it!....Brad

3958v wrote:George your comments about Conrads engines just being overhauled is an interesting one. I read some where that the most reliable time period for an engine is actually several hundred hours after overhaul assuming there have been no recent problems. Bill K

Yes, I agree. I think it would be prudent to allow an engine to thoroughly break-in before making a distance-attempt, but in fairness LIndbergh himself had his engine disassembled/reassembled immediately before his historic flight.
Conrad was an ambitious flyer. (He actually was better-known as a musician and he discovered flying as a hobby, yet managed to convert it into a career with both Honeywell and Piper.) His record-attempts would not likely meet current-requirements for permissions but his military contacts (thru Honeywell and his personal relationship with a Navy Admiral, and Piper's appeal to Sen. Barry Goldwater who shared a Ham radio hobby with Piper's CEO) were used to gain Navy permission to make the attempts.

I personally believe he was ill prepared for most of his flights, and was simply very lucky. He certainly had some peculiar ideas about how to fly airplanes. From his biography: "Conrad had his own theory regarding the best altitude for long flights, preferring to fly very low, at less than 100 feet, and climbing to 500 feet at night for safety. He believed the engines to be more efficient at low level, saying that too much fuel is wasted in climbing to higher levels. "

Conrad was a rebel on at least three points. One he flew a Piper. Two he flew behind a Lycoming. And three , the one I find most interesting, he must have been a helicopter pilot at heart preferring to fly that low.

Bringing this back to subject, even Conrad's obvious inferior choice of aircraft and engine can be maintained and rebuilt at no more expense for the most part, as a newer aircraft.