The International Cessna^® 170 Association

If this engine is the right Hp and price I would jump on it in a flash. I have owned 4 Hondas, and there engines are bulletproof, efficient and quiet. As long as they can keep TCM from screwing it up, it should be a great option, especially if it designed from the ground up to run on mogas.

In the past 20 years I have modified a few super cub 0-320-A2B (150hp) engines to 160hp by installation of high compression pistons..It did not do any thingfor the takeoff climb performance. It DID help the fuel economy at cruise, typically a 150 hp would flightplan 9gph and the 160 would be down around 7.5 to 8gph at same power settings. The difference is
the 150 has 7:00-1 compression pistons and the 160 has 8.5-1 pistons.
It's hard to get more power out of the O-300. Higher compressionpistons might help the fuel economy but I seriously doubt youwould see anything in performance. About hte only way to get better perfomrnace is:
1) lighter weight (2) MORE displacement, ie a biger engine (3) limited perfomrance gains can be had by installing an 80" seaplane prop at the sacrafice of speed. Lasar magnetos might help the engine run cooler and better fuel economy. The reliablility factor of the engine is nothing to mess with however.

In the past, I have helped the NTSB do tear down inspections on engines involved in accidents , especially fatal ones and while we do not give out info freely, it can be ordered thru (FOIA) FREEDOm OF INFORMATION ACT.Lawyers know this and it is often how they obtain info for litigations.
A few years ago, on TV, I remember some official from Japan saying that Americans were lazy and that the Japanese were prosperous because they were hard workig. The American official thought for a few seconds and replied, "We may be fat, dumb, and lazy, but we make a hell of a bomb!" It is unfortunate that in this country we make cheesburgers and lawyers. Yes there is technology out there but whether or not it would increase the performance of you 170 is questionable. Look at the things Timber Houlton did to his 170, he has done about all you can do to a stock 170. Go to his web-site and check it out.

I have looked at Holton's site before,pretty cool! Interesting how light weight,STOL kit,and 80" prop can improve performance--for a fraction of the cost of an engine upgrade.
One of Holton's comments that sticks in my mind is " a bigger engine is
just an excuse for lack of skill" with regards to STOL/off-airport operations. Interesting concept!

Eric

I have flown several of big block continentals that Lycon has ported and balanced. They are extremaly smooth and makepower. A ported IO-520 will run rightwith a IO-550. It is my understanding that not all cylinders respond the same to porting. It just so hapens that the 470-520 cylinders really like to be opened up a bit. Not sure about the 0-30 cylinder. But if I were doing cylinder work, I would get it done. There is my two cents.

Well Eric maybe I'm one of those bigger engine lack of skill guys now but an 80" prop sure wouldn't give me what I need at our 5,000' elevation strip here in Arizona on a warm day when I want to take the wife for the $100 hamburger. Since this thread is mostly about mods to the O-300 I'll post the flight results elsewhere.

Dave,I sure wasn't aiming that remark at you,or anybody else for that matter! I didn't say that I even subscribe to that philosophy myself-- I just think that it's an interesting concept. It is tempting for me to go along with it though--"if you're good (implying that I am,of course!) you don't need that expensive engine upgrade!"
Of course,if I could afford one of those hot-rod conversions,I'd be on it like a bum on a baloney sandwich!

Eric

With regards to this (and any other) new wonder engine being talked about,don't get your hopes up! Innovation in aviation seems to mainly be a bunch of big talk that fizzles out. Witness the planned reintroduction of the:
1) Swift
2) Monocoupe
3) Luscombe 8 series
4) Luscombe 11 Series (Sedan)
5) T-Craft
featured in several magazines over the last 5 years or so. Probably some others too but these are all (!) that came to mind immediately.Still waiting to see 'em!
Starting to look like the re-birth of aviation via the new "sport-pilot" and "light-sport aircraft" concepts ain't ever gonna happen either. The recreational pilot classification is one that actually saw the light of day,but turned out to be a big flop.
We better get used to these old airplanes,and old engines. Even with all their limitations,it's about all we're ever gonna get. Even if one of these wonder engines is actually introduced--what ever happened to the water-cooled Continentals,a la Voyager?-- the price tag will be way out of my ballpark. Just like these new light-sport airplanes--if & when they ever actually happen,their idea of "affordability" is gonna be a light 2 place puddlejumper for $50-75K. Mark my words!
Think I'll stick to my trusty old 170!

Eric

Eric--I did see the training wheel version of the Luscombe 11 in Oklahoma City one day--I'm sure it was their prototype. It looked kinda funny.

Yeah,several outfits have got as far as a prototype--sometimes it's an old original,rebuilt and gussied up. I believe that's the case with the Luscombe 8E or 8F. That's probably the easy part--getting the production certificate,PMA,etc not to mention the financing is the hard part. I just don't think the market's there for new "affordable" personal-type airplanes. I can't believe that Cessna sells enough 172's and 182's to stay in production,considering the price tag on them.
Working airplanes are another story,but there doesn't seem to be a heck of a lot of new innovative models in that arena either.

Eric

For those of you who might want to check out Timbre Houlton's website:

http://www.mosquitonet.com/~thoulton/


Eric

Just wondering why no one has come up with a bolt-on turbo for the O-300? Wastegated at about 24" MP, with an intercooler moulded into the bottom cowling, the engine would essentially be running at sea level for it's whole life, No harm done. Those short, high altitude mountain strips would be a snap, cruising at higher altitudes, no problem. And no more carb icing problems. Just wondering?

Skippy

wa4jr wrote:Yes, and I'd also lose my autofuel STC! OUCH! The increased performance is not worth the $2.50/gal price of 100LL. Then there is the consideration of engine longevity. There are different levels of "hotrodding" though. I don't want anything close to "full race", but what the folks in the auto scene call "streetable perfomance mods". I have the experience of doing these mild mods to British engines, and in fact my 75 MGB has just passed 250,000 miles with a mildly modified engine. The same could be done to the O-300, but then I do find it easier to just stick with the 145 HP (maybe) and chose a longer runway! It is fun to brainstorm about the possibilities though!

Ah, the good 'ole days

After reading these four pages, I have a couple of comments.

1. There is a big difference in how cars are operated compared to aircraft. Cars spend most of their time at 25-30% rated power, while aircraft spend most of their time at 75% power. You can trick up a car engine and unless you’re really dumb, you only use the extra power on rare occasions. Racing engines show what happens when you use the extra power all the time – overhaul it often.

2. Supercharging would be great for higher altitude take off and cruise performance. By controlling the manifold pressure the engine would just operate like it was at sea level. Don’t help for low altitude take offs though.

3. Back when the 170 was new, owners lamented the lack of a constant speed propeller. This would have allowed 2700 rpm take offs, along with more economical cruise. Too bad the crank was never drilled for this.

4. Those that have mentioned economics are right. Aircraft production is tiny compared to autos. This is true of everything associated with aviation. That’s why a nav/com costs $2500+ while a CB can be had for $200. When it gets down to one model (our 170’s) the market is really tiny. Who’s going to spend hundreds of thousands to develop something for a couple of hundred customers.

5. If you want more performance, it seems to me, do a Franklin or Lycoming 360 conversion. Not cheap, but dependable. Otherwise (here it comes) trade for a 180.

Just IMHO

skippy2 wrote:Just wondering why no one has come up with a bolt-on turbo for the O-300? Wastegated at about 24" MP, with an intercooler moulded into the bottom cowling, the engine would essentially be running at sea level for it's whole life, No harm done. Those short, high altitude mountain strips would be a snap, cruising at higher altitudes, no problem. And no more carb icing problems. Just wondering?

Skippy

One drawback would be lack of a constant speed prop to take advantage of the increased power at altitude. My standard fixed-pitch prop (76-53) turns 2600-2650 or more with wide open throttle from say 5000-8000 ft. Another inch or two of MP would cause it to overspeed. Even if you used a high-pitched cruise prop to take advantage of extra power at altitude, you'd still have the problem of being able to turn it up for takeoff.

Miles