180hp engine set-up for sale

[N2580D]

No numbers or hype, I'll just offer a ride to any doubters. The 0-360 is wonderful!
Pete

[wa4jr]

I thought I might like to have an O-360 or Franklin conversion before I found that the price of the conversion is darn near the same as I paid for my entire C-170B I'm afraid if I were to pay that much money to get 35 more horses, and then have to contend with the higher fuel bill, the men in white coats would come and take me away HAHA

I have decided to keep my O-300 as I really love to hear it idle with the Bartone pipes. And here is another idea that I have not seen discussed. While chatting about the O-300 vs O-360 at the airport yesterday, I was told that there is a fella in Winchester VA that can mod the O-300 to 160 HP Then the light came on in my head. I have played around for years with British sports cars and all of their engines can be modified for more power output. So I ask myself why can't someone come up with internal mods for our O-300 such as polished intake and exhaust ports, larger intake and exhaust valves, a higher lift cam shaft, domed pistons for higher compression, etc Just because the O-300 was designed years ago for 145 HP doesn't mean it can't be uprated for 160 or even 180 HP. I am happy with my O-300 and fixed pitch prop, but at overhaul time, if someone can tweak it for 160 HP without a severe sacrifice in TBO, then I think I will check it out....and I'll still have the wonderful sound of those six jugs venting through the Bartone pipes

[N3243A]

I thought I might like to have an O-360 or Franklin conversion before I found that the price of the conversion is darn near the same as I paid for my entire C-170B I'm afraid if I were to pay that much money to get 35 more horses, and then have to contend with the higher fuel bill, the men in white coats would come and take me away HAHA

I have decided to keep my O-300 as I really love to hear it idle with the Bartone pipes. And here is another idea that I have not seen discussed. While chatting about the O-300 vs O-360 at the airport yesterday, I was told that there is a fella in Winchester VA that can mod the O-300 to 160 HP Then the light came on in my head. I have played around for years with British sports cars and all of their engines can be modified for more power output. So I ask myself why can't someone come up with internal mods for our O-300 such as polished intake and exhaust ports, larger intake and exhaust valves, a higher lift cam shaft, domed pistons for higher compression, etc Just because the O-300 was designed years ago for 145 HP doesn't mean it can't be uprated for 160 or even 180 HP. I am happy with my O-300 and fixed pitch prop, but at overhaul time, if someone can tweak it for 160 HP without a severe sacrifice in TBO, then I think I will check it out....and I'll still have the wonderful sound of those six jugs venting through the Bartone pipes

I hate to be a naysayer but where are you going to get the parts for this "Hot Rod" job? Larger valves? (and valve seats?) High lift cam? This ain't a V-8 Chevy motor. Even if you could get them or make them, Who's going to assemble and sign it off? Surely not any A&P I know let alone approval by the FSDO. About the only hot rodding I have heard of is installing C-85 pistons in the C-145 which will raise your compression ratio hence horsepower(how much I havn't been told). But even this is a "midnight project". The FSDO will almost certainly never approve it. Remember, your dealing with the FAA.

Bruce

[n170js]

Hello...new to the forum, but we have a 1950 170A with the
conversion and just love it. My spouse had another 170 with
the continental and he says there is just no comparison. We fly our plane IFR and her ability to climb is always nice to have when you're concerned about icing

We flight plan for 9 gal/hr and we true out at 120Kts. We burn 1 qt of oil every 33hr, which we think is pretty nice.

There are thoughts in this household about buying a C180. I don't want to sell the 170. To me she is like a sporty car and the C180 a truck. Lots more utility, but I don't think nearly as agile and fun to fly. Besides C170's get more looks at FBO's and I think that is just dandy.

Beth
"who started flying C172's and once changed over to a taildragger, am convinced that its the only real airplane

[Classic170]

Ground looped my 170 on Sept. 2nd - No Prop Strike..... not enough insurance!- Lycoming O-360 A1D 1133 SMOH, 3114 TTE, Hartzel 76" constant speed prop, 697 SN. Priced to sell $19,000. Includes: complete firewall forward, cowling and controls. All AD's complied with, Run it on my aircraft before you buy. Bolt it on your aircraft and go! The 180 conversion is not for everyone its true but if you like to fly out of short strips with confidence it's for you. Tom classpix@execpc.com

[n2582d]

The engine I dream about putting on a 170 is the Zoche diesel. It would make the 170 look like a mini C-195. Unfortunately, the designer has said it will be ready "next year" for the last 15 years. See http://www.zoche.de/specs.html.

[wa4jr]

Hey Bruce,

I don't know all the details of the mods yet, nor have I checked with the shop to verify the claims of 160 HP from an O-300 are even true. Too bad the FAA rides things so heavy I am sure a few adventurous mechanics could have come up with some really efficient mods for an engine design as old as the O-300 if the "we are here to help you" FAA were not "helping out" so much I just look for the day when we are allowed to do as the Canadians can do regarding taking certain basic aircraft out of certification in order to do our own MX work. I'll be the first one in line to take 2734C off the FAA books! My 170 is my therapy machine and helps me counter the suffocating regulations I encounter at the airline every time I go in for a trip. I love to come out and fly my old bird and not even think about looking at a checklist As long as I know that the machine is safe for me and my family...common sense takes the place of suffocating regulations and red tape

[GAHorn]

Before I'd attempt to get 160 horses out of my O-300,...I'd first find a way to just get 145 out of it.
Remember the C-145/O-300 only produces 145 hp at 2700 rpm. When was the last time your engine put out 145 hp?
The type certificate for our aircraft/prop combinations lists a (static) limit that only 2230 to 2330 rpm is allowed. "No additional tolerance permitted." That means according to the power charts regarding this engine, that we only see 98-118 hp on takeoff.
So the answer to more horsepower with this engine has to address the issue of RPM. This means a prop solution. The old Beech, electrically adjustable prop would interest me. Of course, it's not been approved for this engine, and I don't even know if it will mate up to the prop flange. But what an idea.

[Bill Venohr]

You can always take your airplane to "experimental" status and modify your engine or put in whatever engine you like. The homebuilt community has been souping up their engines for years. However, if you ever plan to sell the plane I wouldn't recommend it. Remember, no commercial operations in an "experimental" plane either.

[zero.one.victor]

I've heard this comment from many people about "taking it experimental". I don't believe that it's as easy as all that with a certificated aircraft. From what I understand,you can put your certificated aircraft in experimental category for the purpose of research & development of a modification--for example ( let's get jiggy wid it) installation of a turboprop engine. Or in this case,modifying the stock engine for more power--big bore cylinders,stroker crankshaft,hi-lift cam,whatever. However,after a given time period,you must either have the mod approved via either STC or "one-time STC" (field approval),or else return the aircraft to compliance with the type certificate. That's my understanding of the "taking it experimental" thing.
Of course,with an uncertificated aircraft (like a homebuilt) it's a whole 'nother show.

Eric

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

An while it is experimental you are very restricted as to what kind of flying you can do with it depending on the FSDO.

[wa4jr]

I hear the program to allow owners of certain certificated aircraft to take their aircraft out of certification permanently in order to do their own MX work is a reality in Canada. Easy to take your aircraft off the books, but really hard to get it back on in case you decide to sell....which I am not going to do. For those wishing to do their own work and keep their machines, this program could be a real help for those of us down here in the USA. I doubt the FAA will allow it, though

George, you bring up an interesting point I had not thought of regarding engine power output. Why did Cessna derate the O-300 in the 170? So I am flying a four place aircraft with the power output of a C-150 because of the limiting prop RPM? Or is the O-200 derated in the C-150 as well? Now I begin to view the O-360 conversion in a different light. Now the question is.....does the O-360 produce 180HP with the constant speed prop? If it does produce 180HP and does it on 9 GPH as some folks say, then perhaps the conversion is a better value than I had thought...perhaps I can do without the nice sound of the O-300 in favor of an engine more appropriate to the C-170

[GAHorn]

Cessna did not "derate" the O-300 for the 170. They merely selected a prop that was an all-around good compromise between takeoff/climb and cruise performance. That prop, being a fixed pitch prop, is the reason we don't get 145 hp (2700 rpm) at takeoff. If you wish to install a prop that will allow that rpm to be achieved, then you'd certainly see a huge leap (literally) in airport field-performance and rate-of-climb. But you'd hate the slow cruise speeds you'd have to live with due to the reduced throttle you'd have to use in order to avoid exceeding that same 2700 rpm redline in flight. It'd be like running your automobile around in low gear all the time. You'd be fast off the line at the intersection, but you'd never get above 35 miles per hour for the rest of the trip to the coast.
The reason the O-360 Lyc. conversion acheives such good take-off performance is because the constant speed prop allows redline at takeoff (and therefore rated hp), but the pilot can bring it back to a nice cruise rpm during flight.

[Rudy Mantel]

I just read George's memorable Sept 23 message on the beauty of flying a great old classic airplane, the 170.
It reminded me that I'm really blessed- I never got to fly the big iron jets but I did learn to fly and instructed in J-3's and Champs, got my multi training in a Bamboo Bomber, flew co-pilot on a PV-2 between Florida and South America (flying tropical fish), earned my living flying Cessna 180's and a 185 for some 5 years (in Jamaica where I was the Cessna dealer for 20 years), also a Helio Courier, owned a Pitts S1-S for 8 years and competed in the Nationals twice and gave many air shows, even got two hours in a P-51, operated a lovely DC-3 for a while and now, in my twilight years, (I'm 70) am fortunate enough to have a sweet Cessna 170B which I've recently named "Simple Pleasure".
Thought I'd share this with y'all-
Rudy

[David Laseter]

wa4jr - The ONLY reason I havn't done it, is because you can't get legally get insurance for it. But those that have put the longer pistons in their O-300's' get 15 more horses. Also, affecting my decision was that you need the New Millenium Cylinders and I don't have all 6 yet. Ya'll know I'm not a mechanic and get the details mixed up sometimes, but it don't take much of a demonstration to see this difference. If they ever approve the longer pistons - I'm All over it!
At least one of the Hot Rod Club is among us, so be thoughtful!
Dave