Like we used to say back in my Harley riding days,there's no substitute for cubic inches!
Eric
Franklin Conversion: Should I?
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
The answer to your prayers.
Hi SJ
I have the perfect solution, you sell me that Babe of yours and upgrade to a C180!
That one of the nicest birds I have seen in a while. You definately need the speed, without a doubt the upgrade will not do the job!
I am tired of flying at .86 Mach, I need to reduce my speed and watch the grass grow.
Very interested!
Ian
(Gooney)
I agree with one of the earlier posts the Gooney Bird rules!!!!!!
I have the perfect solution, you sell me that Babe of yours and upgrade to a C180!
That one of the nicest birds I have seen in a while. You definately need the speed, without a doubt the upgrade will not do the job!
I am tired of flying at .86 Mach, I need to reduce my speed and watch the grass grow.
Very interested!
Ian
(Gooney)
I agree with one of the earlier posts the Gooney Bird rules!!!!!!
-
dkalwishky
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 2:20 am
Sj, one thing I have been considering in an engine upgrade as well. I toyed with the idea of a C180 or 185 but the insurance was quite high. Even though you may invest moeny into an engine upgrade to make the C170 more of what you want and more like a C180, then insurance you pay from year to year may be a little bit cheaper and thus over the long term the engine upgrade might not cost as much as you think..
Just my 2 cents worth
Just my 2 cents worth
-
Dave Clark
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 6:25 pm
Bruno
That's a hard question because of all the variables. I bought my complete 180 Lyc FWF (cowl and all) used with a 1100 hour engine for $18k. I've seen another package like it advertised last Fall for $28k but lower time engine. The cost of a new setup would have to be about $5k for the STC (with all (?) parts other than the engine and prop), $23 for engine and $7500 for prop and spinner. I think you'd need to figure a couple of thousand for repairs and incidentals as you will get involved with other things. Plus then there is the labor factor. After I sold off my old FWF with 600 hours on a great engine my base cost is $9k net. Even with that I'll have $60k and a full four months of full time work (I'm an IA) in my plane, but it will be exactly what I want and worth that much. I admit I've done a lot of other improvements and restoration along the way. If you're really interested and if you have a nice plane now I suggest you look at one that has already been converted and sell your present one. There is a good looking one that has been on the for sale forum for a while that has the 180.
I have a bit of experience with the 220 Franklin. I had a Stinson 108 for a short while and I needed to overhaul that engine prior to reselling it. I've posted some comments on other threads about this. My guess is that the costs to convert would be very close to the Lycoming for a new package. You'll find it hard to find a used 220 Franklin. You should think a long time about 10.5 to 1 compression ratios and if you really need all that power. It is nice to sit behind though, it has turbine like smoothness!
That's a hard question because of all the variables. I bought my complete 180 Lyc FWF (cowl and all) used with a 1100 hour engine for $18k. I've seen another package like it advertised last Fall for $28k but lower time engine. The cost of a new setup would have to be about $5k for the STC (with all (?) parts other than the engine and prop), $23 for engine and $7500 for prop and spinner. I think you'd need to figure a couple of thousand for repairs and incidentals as you will get involved with other things. Plus then there is the labor factor. After I sold off my old FWF with 600 hours on a great engine my base cost is $9k net. Even with that I'll have $60k and a full four months of full time work (I'm an IA) in my plane, but it will be exactly what I want and worth that much. I admit I've done a lot of other improvements and restoration along the way. If you're really interested and if you have a nice plane now I suggest you look at one that has already been converted and sell your present one. There is a good looking one that has been on the for sale forum for a while that has the 180.
I have a bit of experience with the 220 Franklin. I had a Stinson 108 for a short while and I needed to overhaul that engine prior to reselling it. I've posted some comments on other threads about this. My guess is that the costs to convert would be very close to the Lycoming for a new package. You'll find it hard to find a used 220 Franklin. You should think a long time about 10.5 to 1 compression ratios and if you really need all that power. It is nice to sit behind though, it has turbine like smoothness!
Dave
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
A couple comments:
1) I believe the Franklin most people are installing these days is the PZL-Franklin imported from Poland,NOT the old Franklin. I am told they are different engines,with the new one being the better product. Of course,the outfit that sells them (and some guys who bought them) told me this! At the least,it does have the advantage of being a brand new (true zero time) engine.
2) insurance: I believe that for similar airplanes (and the same pilot),the insurance outfits base premium on horsepower and value. Therefore a 220 horse 170 that's worth $65K is gonna cost about the same to insure as a 225 or 230 horse 180 that's worth $65K.
3) I've asked before about what people have invested in their engine upgrades,Dave is one of the few to come right out with the information.As he pointed out,if you factor in the labor --"a full four months of full time work (I'm an IA)"--it is a very expensive proposition if you have to hire all the work done. Even if you can do most or all of it yourself,it still ain't cheap! STC,new engine,and new prop & spinner adds up to about $35K for the O-360 Lyc,using Dave's figures.Whew! From what I can tell,the IO-360 Cont & the Franklin conversions might be a little less spendy,but they're still up there.
Kinda makes the old C-145 sound better and better,doesn't it? But if you want it & can afford it--GO FOR IT!
Eric
1) I believe the Franklin most people are installing these days is the PZL-Franklin imported from Poland,NOT the old Franklin. I am told they are different engines,with the new one being the better product. Of course,the outfit that sells them (and some guys who bought them) told me this! At the least,it does have the advantage of being a brand new (true zero time) engine.
2) insurance: I believe that for similar airplanes (and the same pilot),the insurance outfits base premium on horsepower and value. Therefore a 220 horse 170 that's worth $65K is gonna cost about the same to insure as a 225 or 230 horse 180 that's worth $65K.
3) I've asked before about what people have invested in their engine upgrades,Dave is one of the few to come right out with the information.As he pointed out,if you factor in the labor --"a full four months of full time work (I'm an IA)"--it is a very expensive proposition if you have to hire all the work done. Even if you can do most or all of it yourself,it still ain't cheap! STC,new engine,and new prop & spinner adds up to about $35K for the O-360 Lyc,using Dave's figures.Whew! From what I can tell,the IO-360 Cont & the Franklin conversions might be a little less spendy,but they're still up there.
Kinda makes the old C-145 sound better and better,doesn't it? But if you want it & can afford it--GO FOR IT!
Eric
-
Tom Downey
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 4:50 am
Franklin vs Franklin
Just a reminder,,,, the PZL Franklin is NOT the Franklin on the type certificate as an alternate engine.
Tom Downey A&P-IA
-
Dave Clark
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 6:25 pm
The PZL is essentially the same as the old engine. I'm pretty sure the Poles own the type certificate. Still no oil filter! You need to add an external one. I bought many new polish parts from the fellows in Colorado who incidently are great guys. I think they hold the STC now for the Franklin into the 170. There is a shop near them who will do the conversion on a flat rate deal. One 170 owner has done this several years ago. His name is Jeff Marken and he used to have a website.
I would think the time for just the conversion could be only a week or two. Most of my time in that four months was in other restoration work to prepare for the actual install.
Once again the cheapest way to get the larger engines is to buy an airplane already done.
I would think the time for just the conversion could be only a week or two. Most of my time in that four months was in other restoration work to prepare for the actual install.
Once again the cheapest way to get the larger engines is to buy an airplane already done.
Dave
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
Thanks for all the information, opinions, and advice. It's a tough call. The ol' 170 looks good and is in pretty darn good shape, so the upgrade is tempting.
Ian, if you would give me $55,000 for it, I will go buy a 180... But you have to pay shipping to your location....
sj
Ian, if you would give me $55,000 for it, I will go buy a 180... But you have to pay shipping to your location....
sj
1952 170B
Steve Johnson
Lake Waukomis, MO
Email: Steve (at) Supercub (dot) Org
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
Okay, as a owner of a converted 170B, I'll stick my neck out boast about the engine upgrade, . . . and wait for the tomatoes to fly. 
I have a 180 hp 170B, but I bought it that way in May of 1997. So I benefited from somebody else's investment. My plane was a true bush plane -- light, automobile parts, paint falling off, etc.... and an amazing performer.
During the past 6 years, I have put a lot of money into the plane, including an overhaul of the engine, new prop, paint, sportsman stol, etc... I now have it just the way I want it (except for the wiplines I want to trade up to from the Edo 2000 when I hit the lottery). But the paint, sportsman, longer blades, and fancy strobes added some significant weight. It still out-performs most stock 180s when fully loaded.
Here's my (very biased) opinion on the comparison between the 170B, the converted 170B, and the 180:
1) the stock 170B is underpowered on floats. If you're a big guy, pack a light lunch, but not much else. (just kidding, you can get more in, but not a lot). Ski performance is o.k. with Landis 2500s, but wheel skis or penetration skis are too heavy and have too much drag in heavy or deep snow.
2) the 180 hp 170B can get off of the water with full wing tanks PLUS over 1000 pounds. If it'll float, it'll fly. I think this is true with either the Edo 2000s, PK 2300s, or Wip 2100s. On floats with the Lyc., you'll get 4 hours of fllight at 24 squared, running at about 105-110 mph with full wing tanks and heavily loaded. If you have fuel in the javelin, your weight will be limited ON FLOATS, due to a lack of floatation in the back. Even though you have a heavier engine, the Edo 2000s are slightly under floated in the back, thus requiring you to load forward. In the summer, on wheels, fly with the javelin full, or put your survival gear in the extended baggage area and she'll fly better.
3) With the Franklin, you have the option of running Edo 2440s and hauling even bigger loads. The fuel burn is at least 1 gal/hr more than the lyc., and possibly 2 gal/hr more. This is an AMAZING performer. I know of no Cessna 180 (except for a buddy that has the 300 hp conversion) that can out perform the Franklin powered plane. And it flies considerably faster than the 170B with the 180 hp conversion.
3) To get the same range with the Cessan 180, you need a lot more fuel. And with the bigger floats and heavier plane, it just won't carry the same loads as the Franklin. I have seen some 180s that carry the same loads as the lyc 170B, others that were dogs and couldn't come close, and some that can carry more. I don't know enough about the different types of Cessna 180s to explain why this is, but I've noticed a HUGE difference between their performances. This summer, for instance, a buddy's 180 tried to get off of the water 3 times, without success, with a load LIGHTER than mine and unlimited water to work with! I got off, first try! Even though he flew faster, he still arrived at the destination after me. It must have had something to do with the multiple stops in-between take-offs to unload a little gear and burn a little more fuel. With full tanks, that 180 was a dog.
4) And how 'bout them expensive annuals. It sounds like the annuals on 180s are more expensive. Perhaps that's just an incorrect rumor.
In Alaska, where float and ski operations are much more common, a conversion (any of the conversions), is the way to go. I have the Fli-Lite 3000 wheel skis and have been able to fly all winter (during our Seattle-like winter we've been having). With the stock plane, the weight and drag of the wheel skis in the snow would seriously limit the usefullness of the plane. The speed isn't a factor for me -- I'll get there when I get there. It's the ability to take what I need and get off the water (frozen or wet) that matters.
SJ, you're plane will still look beautiful, even with the bubbles on the cowling. I appreciate, and respect, the members' dedication to the original 170, 170A and 170B. But if you are comparing the converted 170B and with the 180, I think there's no comparison -- the converted 170B is a MUCH better plane. Not to mention the view, easy of handling, etc................ of the 170B.
BUT, perhaps the conversion is not as useful in the Lower 48.
Okay, let the tomatoes fly
-Rob Stone
N2814C
Anchorage, Ak
I have a 180 hp 170B, but I bought it that way in May of 1997. So I benefited from somebody else's investment. My plane was a true bush plane -- light, automobile parts, paint falling off, etc.... and an amazing performer.
During the past 6 years, I have put a lot of money into the plane, including an overhaul of the engine, new prop, paint, sportsman stol, etc... I now have it just the way I want it (except for the wiplines I want to trade up to from the Edo 2000 when I hit the lottery). But the paint, sportsman, longer blades, and fancy strobes added some significant weight. It still out-performs most stock 180s when fully loaded.
Here's my (very biased) opinion on the comparison between the 170B, the converted 170B, and the 180:
1) the stock 170B is underpowered on floats. If you're a big guy, pack a light lunch, but not much else. (just kidding, you can get more in, but not a lot). Ski performance is o.k. with Landis 2500s, but wheel skis or penetration skis are too heavy and have too much drag in heavy or deep snow.
2) the 180 hp 170B can get off of the water with full wing tanks PLUS over 1000 pounds. If it'll float, it'll fly. I think this is true with either the Edo 2000s, PK 2300s, or Wip 2100s. On floats with the Lyc., you'll get 4 hours of fllight at 24 squared, running at about 105-110 mph with full wing tanks and heavily loaded. If you have fuel in the javelin, your weight will be limited ON FLOATS, due to a lack of floatation in the back. Even though you have a heavier engine, the Edo 2000s are slightly under floated in the back, thus requiring you to load forward. In the summer, on wheels, fly with the javelin full, or put your survival gear in the extended baggage area and she'll fly better.
3) With the Franklin, you have the option of running Edo 2440s and hauling even bigger loads. The fuel burn is at least 1 gal/hr more than the lyc., and possibly 2 gal/hr more. This is an AMAZING performer. I know of no Cessna 180 (except for a buddy that has the 300 hp conversion)
that can out perform the Franklin powered plane. And it flies considerably faster than the 170B with the 180 hp conversion.3) To get the same range with the Cessan 180, you need a lot more fuel. And with the bigger floats and heavier plane, it just won't carry the same loads as the Franklin. I have seen some 180s that carry the same loads as the lyc 170B, others that were dogs and couldn't come close, and some that can carry more. I don't know enough about the different types of Cessna 180s to explain why this is, but I've noticed a HUGE difference between their performances. This summer, for instance, a buddy's 180 tried to get off of the water 3 times, without success, with a load LIGHTER than mine and unlimited water to work with! I got off, first try! Even though he flew faster, he still arrived at the destination after me. It must have had something to do with the multiple stops in-between take-offs to unload a little gear and burn a little more fuel. With full tanks, that 180 was a dog.
4) And how 'bout them expensive annuals. It sounds like the annuals on 180s are more expensive. Perhaps that's just an incorrect rumor.
In Alaska, where float and ski operations are much more common, a conversion (any of the conversions), is the way to go. I have the Fli-Lite 3000 wheel skis and have been able to fly all winter (during our Seattle-like winter we've been having). With the stock plane, the weight and drag of the wheel skis in the snow would seriously limit the usefullness of the plane. The speed isn't a factor for me -- I'll get there when I get there. It's the ability to take what I need and get off the water (frozen or wet) that matters.
SJ, you're plane will still look beautiful, even with the bubbles on the cowling. I appreciate, and respect, the members' dedication to the original 170, 170A and 170B. But if you are comparing the converted 170B and with the 180, I think there's no comparison -- the converted 170B is a MUCH better plane. Not to mention the view, easy of handling, etc................ of the 170B.
BUT, perhaps the conversion is not as useful in the Lower 48.
Okay, let the tomatoes fly
-Rob Stone
N2814C
Anchorage, Ak
-
Dave Clark
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 6:25 pm
Rob
You just discovered the picture problem. Oh how I would love to post some. I guess you need to have a website to put the pictures on and then hyperlink to them.
The early 180s were far lighter. I liked your comparisons on floats and hope it's the same for wheels when I'm high and/or hot. One thing I've noticed while installing the Lycoming is how much easier it will be to work on. I'm about a week or two from that first flight so you've gotten me really excited.
You just discovered the picture problem. Oh how I would love to post some. I guess you need to have a website to put the pictures on and then hyperlink to them.
The early 180s were far lighter. I liked your comparisons on floats and hope it's the same for wheels when I'm high and/or hot. One thing I've noticed while installing the Lycoming is how much easier it will be to work on. I'm about a week or two from that first flight so you've gotten me really excited.
Dave
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
Gret infomation folks, THANKS!
I may get yelled at and this post may get deleted for sugguesting things they don't want you to do, but you are welcome to use my picture repository on the supercub.org site if you like. You have to upload your picture to:
ftp://ftp.supercub.org/cubloads
Login as: supercub password: cub
Then in your post, link to your picture like this:
http://www.supercub.org/upload/mypicture.jpg and put the IMG tags around it.
And it looks like this:
BE SURE TO MAKE YOUR PICTURE OF RESONABLE SIZE, SOMEWHERE AT OR AROUND 100K OR IT WILL TAKE FOREVER TO LOAD, BE WAY TOO BIG ON SCREEN, AND PEOPLE WILL COMBINE YOUR NAME WITH CERTAIN EXPLETIVES.
sj
I may get yelled at and this post may get deleted for sugguesting things they don't want you to do, but you are welcome to use my picture repository on the supercub.org site if you like. You have to upload your picture to:
ftp://ftp.supercub.org/cubloads
Login as: supercub password: cub
Then in your post, link to your picture like this:
http://www.supercub.org/upload/mypicture.jpg and put the IMG tags around it.
And it looks like this:
BE SURE TO MAKE YOUR PICTURE OF RESONABLE SIZE, SOMEWHERE AT OR AROUND 100K OR IT WILL TAKE FOREVER TO LOAD, BE WAY TOO BIG ON SCREEN, AND PEOPLE WILL COMBINE YOUR NAME WITH CERTAIN EXPLETIVES.
sj
1952 170B
Steve Johnson
Lake Waukomis, MO
Email: Steve (at) Supercub (dot) Org
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
I don't want to discourage anymore from modifying their 170--if you want it and can afford it,GO FOR IT!
A couple comments:
1) A far as I can tell,both the Cont IO-360 and the 220 Franklin are 100LL only,no car gas approval available. They might run OK on premium (?),but it'd be a bootleg deal. The O-360 Lycoming is stc-able for cargas,most models of that engine (for example the A1A) require 91 octane (premium). The O-470 in the Skywagon is STC-able for cargas,I believe most if not all models can use 87 octane (regular). Of course,if the price of cargas doesn't stabilize,it'll soon cost more than avgas! Availablity of cargas vs. avgas might be a factor in back country operations.
2) I've only flown in one 180-horse 170B, but takeoff,climb,and cruise were all less impressive than any 180 I've ever been in. Maybe that particular airplane/engine was just a dog,I don't know.
3) I'm not a seaplane pilot,but the example of a particular 180 having trouble getting off the water might be a case of it being underfloated? Or of the CG not being right for optimum float op's?
I love the 170 for what it is--I've considered 180 horse (or more) conversions but have decided to enjoy it in it's pure 145 horsepower form. If I do decide I need (or want!) more airplane,I will probably go with a Skywagon. If anyone else decides otherwise,more power (get it?) to them!
Eric
A couple comments:
1) A far as I can tell,both the Cont IO-360 and the 220 Franklin are 100LL only,no car gas approval available. They might run OK on premium (?),but it'd be a bootleg deal. The O-360 Lycoming is stc-able for cargas,most models of that engine (for example the A1A) require 91 octane (premium). The O-470 in the Skywagon is STC-able for cargas,I believe most if not all models can use 87 octane (regular). Of course,if the price of cargas doesn't stabilize,it'll soon cost more than avgas! Availablity of cargas vs. avgas might be a factor in back country operations.
2) I've only flown in one 180-horse 170B, but takeoff,climb,and cruise were all less impressive than any 180 I've ever been in. Maybe that particular airplane/engine was just a dog,I don't know.
3) I'm not a seaplane pilot,but the example of a particular 180 having trouble getting off the water might be a case of it being underfloated? Or of the CG not being right for optimum float op's?
I love the 170 for what it is--I've considered 180 horse (or more) conversions but have decided to enjoy it in it's pure 145 horsepower form. If I do decide I need (or want!) more airplane,I will probably go with a Skywagon. If anyone else decides otherwise,more power (get it?) to them!
Eric