The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Yeah, that one!

That Fat Albert pic is a great illustration of the "pitch" of propellers as they travel forward.

Aryana wrote:Whoa! That's something else! I had just left Iran when all that went down.

Were you born over there, Arash? I'd always assumed you were born stateside.

Aryana wrote:I was the last person in my family born over there. I remember not being able to speak a word of English. Now I can't speak Farsi if my life depended on it. I'll have to tell us the whole story over a few beers, but basically the Iranian F-4 Phantom was the reason my mom, dad, and I were able to leave there and stay in the US after the hostage crisis finally ended.

My little brother, who was born here, has spent more time in the Middle East (7th SFG ARMY) than I have! I think that's pretty cool.

That's cool! I'd love to hear it sometime! Where is your brother stationed?

Aryana wrote:He was at Ft Bragg in Fayetteville, NC for years but now he's enjoying the beach in FL at Eglin AFB.

Arash,

The difference between 110 knots (optimistic for a stock 170, IMHO) and 120 knots on that trip to Vegas is 40 minutes ROUND TRIP at a cost of $100+ of fuel. Where the extra HP makes the 170 shine is being able to leave Big Bear or Tahoe in the summertime.

Oh, and check my map on facebook again. Alaska IS marked! What I'm missing is the upper midwest and the northeast.

Aryana, remember ground school...???
Drag increases as the SQUARE of velocity. More horsepower helps takeoff and climb...but the drag profile of your 170 doesn't change and that HP is not going to equate to huge gains in forward speed. The 182, using a TCM O470 or IO470 gained much of it's speed increase, not due to the HP, but due to airframe and fairing changes (cowl flaps, streamlined tail, better fairings, etc..)

I want an IO360 too...but for the takeoff climb / altitude advantage... not for speed. (But 10 kts might be what you could expect if you want to burn 11 gph or more.)

144 kts, 13 gph

My favorite ride was my C-206 which was powered by an IO-520.
I had been in the market for a 180/182 and realized the 206 would carry far more payload for the same speed and fuel burn.
The operating costs are significantly higher than simple 170's.
(I would have preferred a 190/195 but those ops-costs were waay too intimidating since I didn't follow my hero Richard into the petroleum-fields...but, look at the up-side!.... I can be a poor liberal and fly a 170! What a country!)

...but, look at the up-side(that's where I am)!.... I can be a poor liberal and fly a "SUPED UP" 170! What a country!)

Jim Yates, a member in OK. would be a good one to ask about speeds and fuel consumption on the TCM IO-360 conversion.

blueldr wrote:Jim Yates, a member in OK. would be a good one to ask about speeds and fuel consumption on the TCM IO-360 conversion.

Give me a few months and I'll tell you all about it

Aryana wrote:Yep, that concept is hard to keep in mind when you start dreaming of extra HP. I just need to expand my fleet. The 170 will never go, so selling it isn't an option. A Pitts S-1S fits under the wing of the 170 for aerobatic fun. And I just need to get a Comanche 250 tied down outside for traveling!

What does a IO-520 powered 180/185 realistically cruise at? I've never been in one...

I know where you can find a fine 250 Comanche if you are interested. The owner has really given it some TLC and avionics are primo. He only wants to sell so be can upgrade to a twin Pa-30 or PA-39 to build twin time.

Cessna 180 w/ IO520 and CS prop. Fuel injected with a TC gives sea level manifold pressure at 15,000' (even upside down!). Titanium MLG and a 14" XP mods tailwheel. I push her to cruise at 160 @ 15 GPH.