most common 180ph upgrade?

[GAHorn]

...The "FUZZ Rider" got nervous because I just left the CS prop at 2400 all the time. I told him that I normally just had a FP prop and didn't understand CS props.....
I asked him that starting in my log book back in 1942 had he seen PT-22, BT-13, AT-6, AT-7, AT-11, A-35, C-45, C-47, C-64, B-17, etc., etc.? ...This was the guy that worried about my leaving the RPM at only 2400 in an otherwize empty airplane with only two abord.

Yeah...those BT13 thru B17 props were left at full rpm too, to scare the enemy,... heh?

(No wonder they made you take another checkride.)

[blueldr]

When we discuss the difference in weight of the various engines, I really don't remember the dry weight of the Continental IO-360 but I was told that Lycomings were slightly heavier for equal horsepower. I think that they are probably very close to equal, and the accessories, oil coolers. and props would be significant factors in the weight of an installation.

[blueldr]

George,
The old BT-13 had a Hamilton Standard Counter Weight Propeller all right, but it was only configured as a two position prop on the BT-13 and BT-15 trainers. Post WWII, the surplussed-to-civilian airplanes were generally modified to a constant speed set up with the installation of a govbernor in place of the oil control valve. The same propeller was used as it was on all the other P&W R-985 engine installations requiring a constant speed prop.
When I was an Aviation Cadet, the BT-13 used low pitch for up to 2300 RPM for Take off and climb and then shifted the prop to high pitch for about 1800 for cruise. I soon discovered that by judicious shuttling of the prop control I could become a "Governor" and maintain the engine rpm at 2100 insted of 1800 and have the fastest BT-13 on the cross country training flight. My time on the trip was fast enough for some smart SOB instructor to figure out what I had done and I had to spend that week end walking off penalty "Tours".

[akclimber]

When we discuss the difference in weight of the various engines, I really don't remember the dry weight of the Continental IO-360 but I was told that Lycomings were slightly heavier for equal horsepower. I think that they are probably very close to equal, and the accessories, oil coolers. and props would be significant factors in the weight of an installation.

Thanks for some good points. With my 180hp 170, I found the right combination fo MP and RPM that the engine runs very smooth at, and can't really tell the difference from the O-300 172 I used to fly. However, I flew in a 185 recently that was soooo smooth, I was amazed! The owner said he just had the prop balanced, so maybe that would help a lot? A 182 I flew before that, had this weird vibration that made my feet tingle through the rudders.
Do you guys balance your props regularly?
Regading weight, looks like you're right:
Continental IO 360: dry weight: 327 (http://www.tcmlink.com/EngSpecSheetDocs/IO360C.pdf)
Lycoming IO 360: dry weight: 324 (http://www.lycoming.com/engines/series/ ... Insert.pdf)

[170C]

If I remember correctly the IO-360 Lycoming is a 200 hp engine and if it is the same tbo as the 180 horse, its 2000 hrs. The Continental IO-360 is 210 hp with a tbo of 1200/1500 hrs. That Lycoming is (from what I have heard/read) a bullet proof engine. The main differences would be 200 vs 210 hp; the tbo times and the much smoother Continental. Of course the smoothness comes with maintaining two more cylinders as we do with our O-300's. Both are going to be really expensive to get purchased & installed plus having to deal with the FAA, but do improve performance significantly. Of course if one had the time & $$ one could try to get the 210 hp expermental Lycoming engine approved for a 170, but its still not as smooth as the Continental. We always want more performance don't we

[GAHorn]

That Lycoming TBO is a sales-gimmick. No one seems to remember having to "top" them at 1100-1200 hours...same as the TCM engines.
The Lycoming vibrates more than the TCM because it's similar horsepower in only 4 "bangs" versus 6. This leads to cracking of that goofy, ugly cowl.
The TCM's disadvantage is...when you have to "top" it....you have to do 6...instead of only 4.

[cmsusllc]

George, It's the Continental that needs the top at 800 to 1200 hours, not Lycoming 0-360'S. I know of two that went 4000 hours, no tops. I recently sold mine with 3000 hours without a cylinder ever being removed with all compressions over 74 and 18 hours per quart of oil. I'll bet there are at least 100 0-360;s on our field ( lots of RV"s ) and nobody is having to top as you suggested. More vibration, yes, cowl cracks, yes.
Scott

[marathonrunner]

I totally elominated cowl cracks. I will have to post a picture of what I made. The scat hose is the problem. I made a box that I riveted to the airbox. I did get a field approval for it. YOu can uncowl the engine without any problem or having to detach or re attach the scat hose because it is not there. The air box and air filter are all one piece attached to the carburetor and I did make a leg that attaches up to the bolt through the alternator bracket I believe. I am not in country so would have to uncowl and take a picture when I return. The cowling then fits over the airfilter box. It is a clean and straightforward installation and I made a couple and got them field approved. I really do not think it would be that difficult to do it even now. Before I did this I did have cowl cracks which is what made me come up with a better mouse trap so to speak.

The main vibration is from start up and shut down. It does like to shake with those four cylinders and that much horsepower.

[cfzxo]

The Doyn 180 hp STC on my 170-B has the one piece air box. Buddy a couple of miles over has the Avcon STC with the scat hose connection to carb. I have never noticed any problems with either if in good repair. A leg attached would be a definate improvement on my Doyn STC. Thanks for that info.
Bill

[marathonrunner]

I will post a picture. It is long and triangular in shape and rivets across the top of the box and goes straight up to the mounting area. I did it so long ago I really cannot remember how it looks. It has never had any problems or cracking...yet

[GAHorn]

George, It's the Continental that needs the top at 800 to 1200 hours, not Lycoming 0-360'S. I know of two that went 4000 hours, no tops. I recently sold mine with 3000 hours without a cylinder ever being removed with all compressions over 74 and 18 hours per quart of oil. I'll bet there are at least 100 0-360;s on our field ( lots of RV"s ) and nobody is having to top as you suggested. More vibration, yes, cowl cracks, yes.
Scott

I don't doubt your enthusiasm or your personal experience. But of the 100 O-360s on your field...how many of them have been operated past 1000-1200 hours? I'll bet you don't really know.

Lycoming had so many problems with longevity they developed special sodium-filled valves in their attempts to make TBO.
They finally increased the size of the valve stems to accomodate their too-common failures, and then declared their engines were "2,000 TBO"....which, just like TCM, is actually an imposed limitation. There are thousands of both types that exceed TBO, but their owners all seem to have short memories over coffee and beer as to when and how much maintenance has been accomplished to achieve those operating hours.
Lycoming has a fantastic marketing team that has managed to get people to forget their valve problems, oil pump failures (AD note), galled hydraulic lifters, failed camshafts (remember the AD note they have requiring special oil additives), valve-stem "wiggle" tests, total loss of lubrication due to ruptured circulation and coolers, and condemned crankshafts (remember the Navasota crankshaft mfr'r they tried to shift blame to?..and sued...and lost?).
Yes, TCM has had a few...but LYcoming has enjoyed a (undeserved) rosie-reputation due largely to an aggressive marketing team. IMO

[bagarre]

So, what's the opinions on the TCM IO-360? As reliable as the O-300?

[canav8]

Blueldr, did you do your IO-360 conversion under a field approval or did you have an STC? I am considering this as well. Doug

[blueldr]

I bought the STC and the engine mount from Tom Anderson at XP Mods. The price at that time was
$4,995. I was allowed $300 trade in on a C-337 rear engine mount that I got with my engine. Tom used the rear engine mount from the Cessna 337 to make his mounts. When I bought my engine, the seller traded me the engine mount for the 24v starter and generator. I was planning on a light weight 12v starter and I had a 12v alternator off of the C-145. I was also given a discount for paying cash with long green. I was on a trip to Arlington , Washington, and picked it up there.

[Kyle]

Gents, As I’ve been reading all the posts relating to putting the continental IO-360 in our 170's it occurs to me that many members probably face the same situation that I do – not having the financial resources to get an STC purchased where available, and then contract with companies to do all the remaining work IE: engine mounts and whatever else. Personally, I would be more than willing to donate some money to the association for that purpose. If a number of us did this, perhaps the association could purchase what was needed to get this STC to work and be able to offer it to members at a cost that would cover the associations expenses but still be within reach. Perhaps the original folks who put in some feed money could get a discount or something. I would gladly send $500.00 in to the cause if I knew in the end I could get the STC, and we had a company lined up to make the mounts. I’m not advocating it would only cost my original $500.00, maybe that’s just a deposit – I’m not sure.

Basically it’s harnessing some collective buying power through the association. One of you out there must be smart on this kind of thing… Is this crazy?

Kyle T.