Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: C-170B/180hp

  1. #1

    Default C-170B/180hp

    Wondered if anyone had any experience with 180hp converson on the 170? Several friends have said they are quite the performer if you can find one. Have seen several around plus a 220hp Franklin. Other standards seem to be 180gear.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    alaska
    Posts
    184

    Default

    I really liked mine. Got off the gound well with the constant speed prop. Not real fast and burned 9 to 10 gph. Had stock fuel tanks with 37 gallons useable, if I remember right which was not enough range. It had 180 gear legs. A nice airplane.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Sandpoint, ID
    Posts
    1,969

    Default

    I have a '48 with 145 horse and have flown the 0-360 in a B model, it was a fine plane...and the best thing about the B is the bigger flaps. They do get up quicker but the extra weight and fuel burn has convinced me to stay with the 0-300 that runs smooth as a watch and burns 7 GPH at 100k. The O-360 seems to be closer to 10 GPH. If I were moving up in a Cessna, it would be a 180, cause I can't afford to feed a 185.
    Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bush, AK
    Posts
    164

    Default

    I have one. Are you wondering about doing the conversion or ones that have the conversion?

  5. #5
    Member mit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    702

    Default

    If I had the money I would put one in! More importantly is to know what your major mission is going to be? I know a of people that have cubs that don't utilize them and would be better of with 145 horse 170's.
    Tim

  6. #6

    Default

    I was curious about the prrformance of the 0-360 in the 170B. had heard the stock Cont. was like an entirely different plane. Been sort of looking. Thanks for the replies.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    alaska
    Posts
    184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bodak View Post
    I was curious about the prrformance of the 0-360 in the 170B. had heard the stock Cont. was like an entirely different plane. Been sort of looking. Thanks for the replies.

    The 170 owners forum is a good place to visit and they do have a discussion comparing the two.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FAI
    Posts
    2,294

    Default

    Everybody I know w/a Continental says they are anemic, and do not produce the rated 145hp (pending style of prop). Smooth, consistent, low maintenance, dependable; yes, very true. I've flown in a few aircraft w/ the O-300, and have no issues w/ them, keeping in mind the lack of horsepower. In an aircraft of this weight, the difference in produced hp, 180 to something less than 145, is huge. I do not have the weight specs in front of me, but the continental is 6 cyl, the Lycoming 4. You'd add weight for the Lycoming due to the constant speed prop. Somebody has the specs on hand I'm sure.
    I'm running the O-320 at 160hp w/ constant speed in my 170B. So far I've not worried about trying to compare to either the 145 or 180. I'm burning about 8gph conservatively, likely a bit less. Hard to say since I typically do a lot of landings/take offs and refill w/ jugs, so nothing is metered.
    It's pretty hard to compare a factory 170 w/ a modified aircraft; O-360, 180 gear, Sportsman's STOL, etc.
    ARR

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    49

    Default

    I flew a 140 this winter, then got back in my 145hp 170. The 170 felt like a rocket afterwards.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    I have flown lots of regular c170Bs and a few 180 horse 170Bs. Including a couple fixed pitch 180 horse versions. The fixed pitch were OK for floats and a short field, but since they were flat props they did nothing for cruise other than eat more gas.
    The 180 horse versions with constant speed props always felt a bit nose heavy during aggressive braking... Maybe I just imagined that....
    Make sure you stay away from the older Lady Legs gear. I have tried a couple of those and it is like going around a corner on a water-bed.
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bush, AK
    Posts
    164

    Default

    About the only thing I really wish my 170 had was more range. 37 gallons isn't enough. Sure you can pack jugs, and I do, but the one time I got pinched by my destination being fogged in along with the rest of the north side of the range, I got a bad feeling very fast knowing I couldn't round trip anchorage to McGrath. Aside from that? I fly the crap out of it with a smile!

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FAI
    Posts
    2,294

    Default

    Interesting comment on the Lady Legs. I looked around for some insight, and finding none negative, had the set that came w/ my 170 installed at annual. They sit up higher than the standard gear, and seem stiffer. Right now I'm on skis, so have yet to fly them w/ the 8.50 tires yet. I saw no reason to add more money to an already really deep pot for 180 gear since I had the Lady legs already. In time I'll lean toward 180 gear, but at this point, have my money invested in other options. Couple of guys I know w/ lady legs like them, but I have no idea if they have experience w/ 180 gear.
    I know a couple of guys w/ the composite props. That drops the weight out front quite a bit.
    Curious, who has the weights for the C-145 fixed pitch, O-320 constant, and the O-360 constant speed? Be interesting to see the comparisons. Then too, lets not forget about the Franklin 220 mods. I'd like to hear from somebody whose flown the 170 in multiple configurations, including the Franklin, that can compare them. I've flown with the 220 in a Maule, and loved it, but can't compare in the 170.
    ARR

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Instead of buying the 180 gear, buy the 180 and leave the gear on it....

  14. #14
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    The landing gear legs (flat spring, Wittman gear) were of two types on original Cessna 170 aircraft. The early gear thru SN 25611 and the Late gear thru the rest of production starting with SN 25612.

    By the way, I goofed in the way I typed a previous sentence, the "Lady Legs" were the later stiffer versions. The original gear legs are a wee bit more spongy and they do not like the added weight of an 0-360 and a constant speed prop. Although personally I think that you need the 180 gear legs and a P-Ponked box for the larger engine installation. But at that point you might as well just buy a C-180. At least the legal useful load while be better.

    Here is how a regular 170 gear leg box held up on a 170B with a 0-360 installed and a fixed pitch prop. This was from the side load while ground looping in soft wet ground.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FAI
    Posts
    2,294

    Default

    Ah, that makes sense on the gear, thx. Being as that Hope was set up w/ the O-320, standard gear, and 8.50, I had nothing to compare with. I did not do any off strip work this summer either. Based on asphalt or improved gravel strips, the set up did well. I had no issues. I am looking forward to putting the 8.50 back on and seeing if I can detect any differences, and then spend a little time off strip this summer. Later, Hope will be put on a set of 29" or 31" Bushwheels in time to get practice in before hunting season begins.
    As for "buy a 180", personally, the 170 is a great a/c and does more than I require, so far, all of the time. Why fly a more expensive a/c, w/ higher operating cost, when most of the flying done just does not need the lift capability? Sure, come September I might like the added lift, but for me, and I think most pilots, that is one or two months a year. A guy just has to figure out what he can afford to fly regularly to stay current and on top of his game as a pilot.
    ARR

  16. #16
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    It all depends on what you can do with the plane as-bought. I have seen a few tricked out C-170Bs which cost the owners $65,000 to $80,000 by the time they added everything they wanted. Now if you can buy one all set up like that for $55K to $60K, that might be a good deal.
    I have also flown a couple local beater 170s with the original engines, hardly any radios and stripped-out interiors. They do just fine when kept light.
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    alaska
    Posts
    184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Float Pilot View Post
    I have also flown a couple local beater 170s with the original engines, hardly any radios and stripped-out interiors. They do just fine when kept light.
    I agree. My first 170B was light and it performed well with the 0300.

  18. #18
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    The price on this....http://www.barnstormers.com/cat.php?mode=listing&main=

    means a lot more fuel to burn compared to this
    ...http://www.barnstormers.com/cat.php?mode=listing&main=
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FAI
    Posts
    2,294

    Default

    Ok, I'm dumb as a box. Could not find what you were linking too. I did find a turbo powered 170 for $65K. Cool. Maybe? I lucked out w/ the 170 I found. Could I be happy w/a C-145, sure. Heck, I'd be happy w/ a 85hp in a T-Cart if that's what I had. Just a chance to fly is huge. Would I change out my 160hp for a 145 at this point? Nope. Rather have more hp than less.
    Talking about aircraft stuff is cool, almost as cool as flying.
    ARR

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Sandpoint, ID
    Posts
    1,969

    Default

    I think Float broke the code...light with a 145 is pretty good. I haven't had the back seat in mine in 5 or 6 years...reminds me I need to change the W&B. My old Loran is sitting with a pile of junk and so is the ADF and the old Cessna radio and the 20 or so pounds of wire, brackets and antennas that went with them. All together that's pretty close to half a person.

    I agree on the tanks being a little short...a belly pod with another 20 gals would be nice.

    Anyone know if you can get 9.5:1 pistons approved? Lycon says a bump up on compression is worth 3 hp per cyl...in a 300 Cont that's 18 hp...might make a difference with no added weight...better exhaust and electronic ignition...hmmm...guess that's why I'm building an EAB.
    Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •