I saw an ad in the General Aviation News that I thought I'd post.
"180-HP conversion for C-170B,complete FWF,O-360-A1A,714 SMOH,Hartzell top prop 124 TTSN,laser ignition,all ACC. FTC's, $28,000/OBO. 208-659-7985"
Eric
180hp engine set-up for sale
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
Eric,
I talked to several folks who've done the conversion, and the verdict upon completion is ...
"I think I'm glad I did it." I had considered this up until talking to them. I guess you lose some useful load in the conversion. Climbs like a banshee, but also uses a lot more gas. Like anything else, there are tradeoffs.
Hoog
I talked to several folks who've done the conversion, and the verdict upon completion is ...
"I think I'm glad I did it." I had considered this up until talking to them. I guess you lose some useful load in the conversion. Climbs like a banshee, but also uses a lot more gas. Like anything else, there are tradeoffs.Hoog
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
Take the cost (value) of a decent 170 with a runout C-145,add $28K to buy this FWF set-up,plus another couple thou for installation,sign-off,etc and you're getting pretty close to being able to buy a 180. I recently rode in a friend's 180-horse 170B--while it's a lot more airplane than my 145 powered ragwing,it ain't no Skywagon!
Eric
Eric
There's a word or two of truth (hi Eric). The 180 conversionszero.one.victor wrote:Take the cost (value) of a decent 170 with a runout C-145,add $28K to buy this FWF set-up,plus another couple thou for installation,sign-off,etc and you're getting pretty close to being able to buy a 180. I recently rode in a friend's 180-horse 170B--while it's a lot more airplane than my 145 powered ragwing,it ain't no Skywagon!
Eric
and Continental 210 conversions (or Franklin for that matter)
aren't cheap. And you still don't get the usefull load of a C-180....
Just this last weekend, I flew to a little mountain strip (Pacific Northwest)
with (3) early C-180s and we had a little fun flying some formation (got
some good pics, perhaps I'll post links to them when I get them). But
when them 180 guys got tired of flying around at 17 inches and 2200
rpm, they shoved the throttle forward, and within 5 or 10 minutes, I
couldn't see them any longer! (they were gone!). The 170 is a
sweet flying machine but needs another 100hp or so.... The C-180 is
a real airplane. Let's face it.... Anyone who buys a 170 - myself
included (or a Maule or whatever) really wants a 180. We just can't
(or won't) write the !@#$%^ check!
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
CAN'T WRITE THE 0($&))(x CHECK
If a man has unlimited funds and needs to sooth his ego and play-act like a bush pilot he can go all the way up to a Pilatus or Helio. The only limit is how much money to turn loose. I ran across an article this morning that may goose the horsepower hounds into a feeding frenzy. I will put the link in another post.
Many of us though love our C170s for what they are, not what they can become. I dont want to mess up the personality of my '52 by hanging a 4-banger Lycoming on the front and trying to make out like it's a C180. Most owners of C180/185s use them for working airplanes. There are lots of planes that take off quicker, climb faster and cruise 15K faster but none of them look like a 170. The profile of the "Classic" 170 is what many of us are hooked on.
OLE GAR
Many of us though love our C170s for what they are, not what they can become. I dont want to mess up the personality of my '52 by hanging a 4-banger Lycoming on the front and trying to make out like it's a C180. Most owners of C180/185s use them for working airplanes. There are lots of planes that take off quicker, climb faster and cruise 15K faster but none of them look like a 170. The profile of the "Classic" 170 is what many of us are hooked on.
OLE GAR
LINK UP TO WOP-POWER
http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*
48585291!_h-www.landings.com/_landings
/pacflyer/sep5-2002/Sn-22-Italian-Bird-D.html
THINKING OF HANGING A LYCOMING BEATER ON
YOUR 170? HOW ABOUT A TURBINE CONVERSION?
48585291!_h-www.landings.com/_landings
/pacflyer/sep5-2002/Sn-22-Italian-Bird-D.html
THINKING OF HANGING A LYCOMING BEATER ON
YOUR 170? HOW ABOUT A TURBINE CONVERSION?
Last edited by flyguy on Tue Sep 24, 2002 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JUST IN CASE THE LINK DIDN'T WORK
Italian-Bird-D
An Italian version of what looks suspiciously like a Cessna L-19 Bird Dog is now being
sold in the U.S.
The familiar look is not too surprising, since L-19s is what they started out as back in
the 1960s.
Built under license in Italy as liaison aircraft for the Italian Army, they were designated
Siai-Marchetti SM.1019s. When their original 213-hp Continental engines proved
inadequate, the Italians bypassed the 260-hp upgrade and went straight to turboprop
power.
While modifying the planes to accommodate a 317-shp Allison 250-B14D turbine
engine, so many changes were made to the airframe that they ceased to be a truly
Cessna design. A larger vertical stabilizer and a second door were two of the many
performance-enhancing changes.
But it was the Allison engine turning a three-blade propeller with beta capability that
made the SM.1019 an all-new airplane with outstanding STOL performance. The
original L-19's 100-knot top speed gave way to a 150-knot cruise speed at 80% power.
Siai-Marchetti converted 100 L-19s for the Italian Army and after an average of 25
years service and about 1,600 flight hours, many are finally being surplussed. With
their warbird appeal undeniable, four have already been imported into North America
by Glen Pearce and Russ Popel of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
An Italian version of what looks suspiciously like a Cessna L-19 Bird Dog is now being
sold in the U.S.
The familiar look is not too surprising, since L-19s is what they started out as back in
the 1960s.
Built under license in Italy as liaison aircraft for the Italian Army, they were designated
Siai-Marchetti SM.1019s. When their original 213-hp Continental engines proved
inadequate, the Italians bypassed the 260-hp upgrade and went straight to turboprop
power.
While modifying the planes to accommodate a 317-shp Allison 250-B14D turbine
engine, so many changes were made to the airframe that they ceased to be a truly
Cessna design. A larger vertical stabilizer and a second door were two of the many
performance-enhancing changes.
But it was the Allison engine turning a three-blade propeller with beta capability that
made the SM.1019 an all-new airplane with outstanding STOL performance. The
original L-19's 100-knot top speed gave way to a 150-knot cruise speed at 80% power.
Siai-Marchetti converted 100 L-19s for the Italian Army and after an average of 25
years service and about 1,600 flight hours, many are finally being surplussed. With
their warbird appeal undeniable, four have already been imported into North America
by Glen Pearce and Russ Popel of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Re: CAN'T WRITE THE 0($&))(x CHECK
I hear you... I also like the looks of the 170 (I like the roundedflyguy wrote:If a man has unlimited funds and needs to sooth his ego and play-act like a bush pilot he can go all the way up to a Pilatus or Helio. The only limit is how much money to turn loose. I ran across an article this morning that may goose the horsepower hounds into a feeding frenzy. I will put the link in another post.
Many of us though love our C170s for what they are, not what they can become. I dont want to mess up the personality of my '52 by hanging a 4-banger Lycoming on the front and trying to make out like it's a C180. Most owners of C180/185s use them for working airplanes. There are lots of planes that take off quicker, climb faster and cruise 15K faster but none of them look like a 170. The profile of the "Classic" 170 is what many of us are hooked on.
OLE GAR
tail surfaces). I bought one, so I guess I liked 'em enough to
write the check. The mistake I made was flying a friend's light-
weight C-180 (it's arguably one of the lightest early C-180s around)
15 minutes before I flew my 170 for the 1st time.
I just wish I had more horsepower, that's all (who doesn't....).
And for those of us who like to play-act like we're a bush pilot
(or at least go camping/fishing with our airplanes in my neck
of the woods), horsepower can be a life-saver.
BTW, I saw one of those Siai-Marchettis at Sun & Fun last year.
Cool machine.... (but being turbine powered, it did stink!).
I've always thought a Bird Dog with a P-Ponk engine (-50)
would be a neat machine too.
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
You're right Joe.... (I own 2 Corvettes so I understand yourN1478D wrote:Comparing the 180 and the 170 does not seem fair. It would be like comparing a corvette to a firebird. A 180 is obviously a great machine, but it is more expensive to maintain and insure just like the vette. Dave Mason has it fiqured out - he has one of each
analogy). Bottom line: I wanted a 180 but I couldn't write the
check.... I'm going to have fun with my 170 until such time as I
can write the check (for a 180!).
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
You know guys, the 727-100 is a great ol' airplane. It handles great. It has interesting systems. It's just a great character of an ol' bird. It's obsolete. It can be fast. But on a ISA-plus day, it's really underpowered.
You know, the DH-125 is a great ol' airplane, too. It's a dream to handle. It's got per-snickity and quirky ol' systems. It's got personality and even tho' it's outdated,...I'd love to take one on a trip again. It's also underpowered. I wish I could afford to buy one and feed it.
I love the looks of old Martin 202's. And I'd give anything to find the guy that landed the other day in Austin with an immaculate old Convair 440 with it's big round motors and orginal old overstuffed chairs complete with stainless ash-trays in the armrests and white, starched linen covers on it's headrests, it's rear-galley, and black/white steam-driven gyros. I want to get his permission to just sit and daydream in that cockpit. The cacophonic music that thing made as it climbed out over my house thru 10,000 feet made me stop, look up, and daydream of the era I'd missed by being born too late.
The Lockheed Constellation is a great memory. THREE round tails! ("if it ain't got 4 motors and 3 tails I ain't flyin' it!" -old airline captain.)
I truly love the old airplanes with round tailfeathers and metal interiors and cloth headliners.
There are lots of later airplanes that have more horsepower and snazzy features,...but the 727, the 125, the Martins, Convairs, and Constellations and the 170s all have something in common (along with a whole list of other great rides).....they have CLASS!
As a pilot, it may not be such a hot thing to go to work in an old workhorse. But as an aviator one of the greatest satisfactions I get is having the opportunity, ability, and talent to be able to take a challenge like an underpowered Classic airplane and sing a song of flight with her like ordinary pilots can never do. I can coax her into a gentle short-field lift-off and over trees that ordinary pilots just haven't the "cajones" to do.
I love the 170 for the challenge and the rewards she gives me, while ordinary "pilots's", if they're not paying attention... may simply miss the point.
You know, the DH-125 is a great ol' airplane, too. It's a dream to handle. It's got per-snickity and quirky ol' systems. It's got personality and even tho' it's outdated,...I'd love to take one on a trip again. It's also underpowered. I wish I could afford to buy one and feed it.
I love the looks of old Martin 202's. And I'd give anything to find the guy that landed the other day in Austin with an immaculate old Convair 440 with it's big round motors and orginal old overstuffed chairs complete with stainless ash-trays in the armrests and white, starched linen covers on it's headrests, it's rear-galley, and black/white steam-driven gyros. I want to get his permission to just sit and daydream in that cockpit. The cacophonic music that thing made as it climbed out over my house thru 10,000 feet made me stop, look up, and daydream of the era I'd missed by being born too late.
The Lockheed Constellation is a great memory. THREE round tails! ("if it ain't got 4 motors and 3 tails I ain't flyin' it!" -old airline captain.)
I truly love the old airplanes with round tailfeathers and metal interiors and cloth headliners.
There are lots of later airplanes that have more horsepower and snazzy features,...but the 727, the 125, the Martins, Convairs, and Constellations and the 170s all have something in common (along with a whole list of other great rides).....they have CLASS!
As a pilot, it may not be such a hot thing to go to work in an old workhorse. But as an aviator one of the greatest satisfactions I get is having the opportunity, ability, and talent to be able to take a challenge like an underpowered Classic airplane and sing a song of flight with her like ordinary pilots can never do. I can coax her into a gentle short-field lift-off and over trees that ordinary pilots just haven't the "cajones" to do.
I love the 170 for the challenge and the rewards she gives me, while ordinary "pilots's", if they're not paying attention... may simply miss the point.
I'll admit I ain't the greatest pilot in the world, I hesitate
to call myself an aviator, and I'm not really a horsepower/
performance freak either.
I took a liking to the 170 a number of years ago when I flew a
'53 around for awhile. That '53 170 put a smile on my face,
which is why I went out and looked for, found & bought my '54.
Flying a Champ at 500 AGL with the engine going pocketa-pocketa-
pocketa and smelling the earth pass below me also puts a smile on my
face.
I just took a liking to the C-180 as well, that's all.... I also took a
liking to another type of aircraft that is a long-term project of mine
(been working on it for over 6 years now).
Another factor is nearly all my pilot friends own 180s (one owns a
C-182) so when we want to go have some fun somewhere together
(camp/fish, whatever), it'd be nice if I had an airplane that could keep
up!
Long story short; I like all old muscle cars, but the Vettes are my
favorites.
I like all old/classic aircraft, but some "float my boat" more
than others.
I guess if I had the dough, I'd own both types (a 170 & a 180).
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
to call myself an aviator, and I'm not really a horsepower/
performance freak either.
I took a liking to the 170 a number of years ago when I flew a
'53 around for awhile. That '53 170 put a smile on my face,
which is why I went out and looked for, found & bought my '54.
Flying a Champ at 500 AGL with the engine going pocketa-pocketa-
pocketa and smelling the earth pass below me also puts a smile on my
face.
I just took a liking to the C-180 as well, that's all.... I also took a
liking to another type of aircraft that is a long-term project of mine
(been working on it for over 6 years now).
Another factor is nearly all my pilot friends own 180s (one owns a
C-182) so when we want to go have some fun somewhere together
(camp/fish, whatever), it'd be nice if I had an airplane that could keep
up!
Long story short; I like all old muscle cars, but the Vettes are my
favorites.
I like all old/classic aircraft, but some "float my boat" more
than others.
I guess if I had the dough, I'd own both types (a 170 & a 180).
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
Everybody's tastes are a little different,as are their needs.And their missions.
One of my good flying buddies has owned a variey of airplanes,including a Pacer and several different Cessna's--140,170,and 180. His favorite is his current mount--a 65 horse Luscombe 8A.
The ideal would be a DC-3 and a Cub! But the 170 comes close to being the ideal compromise,especially if you're on a workingman's budget.
Eric
One of my good flying buddies has owned a variey of airplanes,including a Pacer and several different Cessna's--140,170,and 180. His favorite is his current mount--a 65 horse Luscombe 8A.
The ideal would be a DC-3 and a Cub! But the 170 comes close to being the ideal compromise,especially if you're on a workingman's budget.
Eric
-
eichenberger
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 8:27 pm
Without getting into the issues of wanting a 180, can those who have a Lyc. O-360 conversion tell me how they really like it? The only bad thing that I've heard, other than the cost, is that the W & B gets a little goofy with the weight of the constant speed prop out there in front. Any truth to that?
How much useful load is typically lost with the conversion?
Lastly, the increase in climb should be obvious, since all of the extra power is devoted to climbing. But, what has been the experience in cruise speed increase? I remember back about 20 years ago when our CAP unit had an old 172 that originally had an O-300 and was converted to O-360. My memory is that the cruise didn't go up much, but the climb rate surely did.
How much useful load is typically lost with the conversion?
Lastly, the increase in climb should be obvious, since all of the extra power is devoted to climbing. But, what has been the experience in cruise speed increase? I remember back about 20 years ago when our CAP unit had an old 172 that originally had an O-300 and was converted to O-360. My memory is that the cruise didn't go up much, but the climb rate surely did.
My first 170 with 0360 had no change in weight and balance due to the conversion. A lighter engine, 4 banger, vs 6, and heaver prop made a net change of zero. Performance, not a lot of change light, but a world of change heavy loaded, makes a true 4 place out of it. Three point forward visability is better than most other planes, even super cubs, C-180-185 does not compare. Maintenance etc, about the same as the stock 170. Extra fuel burn is a handicap. Desired additional mods for Alaska work, larger fuel tanks, Sportsman stol kit, long prop. None of which is needed if you are airport hopping state side. With a long enough runway you can haul as much as you are nuts enough to put in it, and get away with it. ( usually ) Had a fellow tell me he once hauled 1600 pounds of cement plus him and full fuel, said it took a bit more runway but otherwise handled fine. He got to thinking about the weight enroute and counted the sacks when he unloaded. I've never come close to that and never will but it's been done.