The International Cessna 170 Association

George,it sounds like you favor the 6 cylinder engines where conversions are concerned. At the old group site,I posted a message about Johnny Williams in San Angelo Texas & his TSIO-360 conversion. I believe the tail number is N 3JX. Have you ever seen this plane? It must be an awesome performer,the IO's are 195 or 210 horsepower depending on RPM limits I guess. I don't know if the turbo gives you more horsepower or just the same horsepower up higher.

Eric

I havent' seen his work, but he's well thought of out there, only about 1 hour west of me.

zero.one.victor wrote:George,it sounds like you favor the 6 cylinder engines where conversions are concerned. At the old group site,I posted a message about Johnny Williams in San Angelo Texas & his TSIO-360 conversion. I believe the tail number is N 3JX. Have you ever seen this plane? It must be an awesome performer,the IO's are 195 or 210 horsepower depending on RPM limits I guess. I don't know if the turbo gives you more horsepower or just the same horsepower up higher.

Eric

You know Eric, the Army T41B, and Air Force T41C was nothing but a trickcycle (pun intended) 170 called a 172, with an IO-360 and constant speed. The Air Force had several hundred of them and they had nice smooth cowls with no bumps. First produced in 1962 and running thru 1987 total production was 864 "Mescalero's". The test pilot called it a real "noisemaker" and noted it's hot-rod performance.

Tom Anderson/XP Mods has an STC for the IO-360 conversion.He's about a half-hour from me in Arlington WA. I know of 2 guys who have an IO-360 powered 170,one with constant speed & one with fixed pitch,and they're both pretty happy with them. They were both in the old yahoo club--Pete & Craig,are you among us?
I seem to recall that Blue Leader was working on his conversion--how's that going,Dick?

Eric

Is there any advantage other than climb rate ? If on floats great idea strap on as much power as you can.I wonder in cruise how much the elevator is deflected and how much drag is produced by that deflection.

c170b53 wrote:Is there any advantage other than climb rate ? If on floats great idea strap on as much power as you can.I wonder in cruise how much the elevator is deflected and how much drag is produced by that deflection.

There should be no more change in "elevator deflection" than previously. Elevator position inflight will be determined by aircraft CG. The CG range of converted airplanes is the same as before the conversion. Climb rate and takeoff distance is where the most advantage is made by increased hp. Cruise will increase some, but not tremendously because drag increases as the square of velocity and the conversion doesn't reduce the drag. (It may increase it a bit tho'.) Range will likely decrease as will payload.

So Eric which of the two props work best, the fixed or the constant speed? My guess would be the fixed. The cruise speed would be tough to get real high to take advantage of the constant speed.

I really like the idea of this conversion. Set it up with a fixed pitched toward the high cruise side. Simpler and lighter. Use the power to get off and climb then when on a trip go high and you could get a low enough fuel burn to use standard fuel tanks and still get acceptable range.

Dave, don't know which prop set-up is better,I've never flown in either plane. I was hoping the owners would be among us & would pipe up with their comments.
I go back & forth on this. I like the IDEA of a fixed pitch prop,light & simple. And inexpensive! Then again,the versatility of a constant speed appeals to me also. I notice all but one of the Lycoming 360 converted 170's I've seen are equipped with C/S props.
I think the ideal for our type of plane would be a 2-speed prop,such as the Aeromatic, only manually controllable. Low pitch for takeoff,then pull it back to high pitch for cruise. Hopefully it would be fairly light. There was a 2-speed controllable McCauley available for 170's at one time,it's listed on the TC--I assume that it was unsatisfactory or else it'd still be available.

Eric

Eric
That's what Im saying.... I would bet you'd only get a few MPH out of the constant speed at a very high price. I want simple and cheap that's why I sold the 180. I also want the same weight in the nose so it handles the same. I don't care how fast it is as my trips are only 17 minutes except for getting back and forth.