most common 180ph upgrade?

[blueldr]

marathonrunner

To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely NO way to change a certified airplane to experimental and then use it in the manner of a homebuilt. ANY change to EXPERIMENTAL will have conditions tied to it that will seriously restrict normal use.

FYI, none of the Continental IO-360 installations I've seen, except the XP Mods, uses a header tank. I personally would not have it without one since you have no way of knowing where the return fuel is going.
With a header tank the fuel return just goes back to the header and then back to the engine again. No fuel ever has to go back to the wing tanks. The header tank is vented to the wing tanks.

[marathonrunner]

Well, I do know of some former certified airplanes that are definitely in the experimental category. I had to do that with my 170 for the float STC and it did have restrictions such as you mentioned. Some do not and I am not sure the rules for that. I never wanted to do it so never looked into it.

Yes going back to a header tank is another option and not the wing. I do not know how the STC is written. I just know with that fuel injection system you do have to run the fuel somewhere unlike a Bendix system. I am hoping it has alternate air as well that is either qutomatic and spring loaded door or a knob that you pull from within the cockpit.

[blueldr]

In my discussions with the local FSDO and OKC, I could not find anyone in the FAA anywhere that could tell me of any method of changing my registration to experimental and then being able to operate it in other than restricted conditions where permission from the FAA was required to go almost any place out of my designated area and do any thing with the plane.
I would have been delighted to have been able to change the registration to experimental and operate it like a homebuilt, but it apparently just couldn't be done legally.

[bagarre]

Correct, You can move into Experimental for the purpose of testing a proposed modification that will lead to an approved STC. However, there are tight restrictions on what you can and can not do while in Experimental. IE,no joy riding. They also normally give you an amount of time to be Experimental and at the end you either have the modifications approved or you unmodify the airplane back to the TDCS.

SO, IF someone wanted to develop a new STC for the TCM IO-360, you'd probably have to go into the Experimental category for an amount of time in order to perform flight tests...Considering the STC exists and it's just a motor mount that is the problem...making your own STC would be considered the very long and expensive road.

Another complication may be the person that currently owns the STC. I have not dealt with him personally, other than a phone call and a bunch of emails. In my conversations with him, I see no reason to not trust or rely on him as a businessman. However, I have not found another person who HAS dealt with him that feels this way. Every person (5 or 6) that I have talked to about him says to be very very careful when dealing with him. Take everything with a grain of salt but, if I go this route, I would consider the STC purchase to be paperwork only and no support. That's fine for me as my IA owned a 170 before and has done two similar engine swaps on 172s. Others may find the support to be a desirable thing tho.

[marathonrunner]

You are correct about the rules for experimental, just not the application. I personally know of two aircraft that were put into experimental category several years/decades ago and are still in that category. The FAA often does not know or apply their own rules. That can be a benefit until something happens where another agency like the NTSB gets involved. I started another link discussing this very issue as regards to float installations and horsepower. Just because the floats are on the TCDS for the original 145 does not make them legal in any way for higher horse power. You see many on floats with 180 H.P. that are not legal. Fortunately for those owners the FAA does not know or care about this. They look for the cockroach in the corner and ignore the elephant in the room. The same goes with STOL kits and vortex generators. It is up to the person doing the installation to determine compatibility with the TCDS, other modifications in the form of field approvals or STC's. If you look at the regs and then walk around airports it shows that this is nota common practice.

Even purchasing the STC and getting a kit and instructions together and modifying it to be user/installer friendly will be time consuming and expensive IF done correctly.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Well it's probably less the agency knowing their rules than pilots knowing their rules. You see there are several different categories of Experimental. We are most familier with the build 51% of the aircraft for educational purposes type of Experimental. Then there is the R&D Experimental with has been discussed here. And there is also a Experimental Exhibition Only. Most war birds that did not fall under a TCDS are flown and shown under this category.

But it is not just for war birds. You can modify the heck out of your Certified aircraft and then have it re-certified in this class. The circumstances which you can fly this type of aircraft can be very restrictive. Usually a home base is selected. The aircraft must remain within a certain distance from the base. It can not be flown unless you are training or doing maintenance flights. All other flights are approved by the FSDO. How the FSDO wants to approve flights is the key.

I have a friend who flys in our weekly breakfast group with just such a plane. He took a C-150, converted it to a tail dragger and put a Lycoming 0-235 on it. All except the engine could be STC'd. The engine is STC'd for a 152. Feds wouldn't five him a field approval for the work he'd already accomplished. So he let it sit for about 3 years in his hanger. Then he finally found a Fed, (probably the first he ever asked) that walked him through the process (my friend is not a paper work bureaucracy type of guy) and he put is plane in this Experimental category.

He is restriction is 300 kn miles from his base without receiving an exemption. He must tell the FSDO everywhere he plans to fly his airplane within the 300 kn mile circle prior to him flying other than training or maintenance. The deal is my friend faxes them a list of all the places he wants to go in the beginning of the year. He simply lists every possibility he can think of. If they don't respond denying the flight, he's approved. If he finds a flight he didn't list he faxes it to them a day before the flight and if he doesn't hear from them he's OK. He then covers all other flights with "training" and "maintenance". To the casual observer pilot you would think he has no restrictions but he does. And one of these days the Fed might change the rules and actually look at the faxes he sends. This is his biggest fear.

[marathonrunner]

OK so it is possible to have a certified airplane in experimental category. Not wanting to do that I did not know the rules or have ever investigated them. Still if you are certified and have an airworthiness certificate, you do need to have all modifications approved and legal. This is for your own protection, the people you put in your aircraft, keeping your insurance valid and in force, if you have any. If not it keeps you from possible violations should an accident/incident occur.

With regards to the guys with a STOL kit and V.G's it is probably not compatible unless it is approved by either STC and flight testing has been done. With floats and different horsepower, I got the co-ordinated approval when an FAA inspector pointed out to me that my installation was illegal with the increased horsepower. I know no one else did that so they are all flying on floats illegally and it could bite them in the future. Luckily for them he is long retired and the new crop, like I said earlier, either is ignorant of their own rules or do not care or both.

This certainly is not part of the topic of this thread. Again to get that STC and make it user/installer friendly will be time consuming and expensive if it is done correctly. How many 170's are flying and how many will want this modification. I would think the number is small. It would have to be a very expensive STC to recoup just the expenses involved in obtaining it and putting a kit together.

[180Pilot]

I am in the process of installing an o360 A1A in my 1961 cessna 172b. Everything is coming from a wrecked cessna 175 I bought from an insurance Company. The 175 is a 58 model with the stepped firewall. The Mount bolted right up with "0" changes. The carb box I am using is from a 180 (58) bolting up to a MA4-5 carb. The bottom cowl mounts with some minor alterations. Top cowl needs more but doable sheetmetal work.
Mine is a DOYN Conversion done originally in 1970. I have log entry and 337 but no diagrams or other paperwork. I am using two solenoids in my install not just one. Wiring diagram seems to be my downfall.
Ed Tuohy A&P IA 1910164
PS
Don't bother the folks in Wichita. They want anonymity.

[c170b53]

Ed, have you kept count of how many planes you have resurrected ?

[roamak]

Dang I wish I was home!! There is a gent with a nice 170 tied down a few planes from mine at Merrill field that has a IO-360 in it and its for sale! At least it was 3 months ago when I left for work for the summer....I talked to him for a while about the IO-360 but don't ever remember him saying how it was approved or what stc was used. I thought Stoots was doing IO-360's but maybe just 0-360's. If that plane is still there in September or October I will try to remember this thread and get some info on a 170 already flying with the IO-360. I bet they rip!!
Greg

[ghostflyer]

The original thread stated "most common 180 ph upgrade". so going back to that ,its my belief after many hours of research ,I found the lycoming conversion was the most common. I looked at all the STC holders available at the time and the best sources of engines and their parts availability. Stoots of alaska wasnt available when I did my conversion but were going through the process. I felt the process would take years due to the alledged rapid movement of the FAA. Then I read about Harry Delicker at Porterville in California. I then found a group in Australia that was doing a Harry Delicker conversion on a 175 and they were very happy how the conversion was going.[ Except some one stole their engine] After talking to Harry [many hours] I was convinced this was the way to go. There was another group called Bush conversions and after talking with a FAA inspector [a good friend]who explained of what was happening to this group ,so they were crossed off the list. I then read about a Franklin engine powered 170. I saw photos and it looked great BUT no spares in Australia and STC hard to obtain.
It was weighed up also between the Lycoming and Continental and realistally there is no commonality with both of these engines to the airframe using the old engine as a yard stick. It is harder to modify the airframe to accept the newer Continental than the lycoming. Many people will argue that when the Lycoming has to be fitted the cowls have to be modified. Yes the blisters fitted only took about 2 hours total. However my cowls were extensively cracked so it was included into the repairs and a new nose bowl with the intake fitted. The Continental has to have return fuel lines different heater ducting and it goes on and on plus the availability of engine and propellor. The availability of the STC was a big issue also.
I did a trip to Alaska [What a beautiful place] and found a number of 170,s and they all had Lycomings fitted. who did their conversions I do not know. I asked one owner and he just smiled at me and said " Man it goes great" enough said. I then saw a couple of aircraft [180 hp] at Oshkosh and talked with the owners.
I then purchased a out of hours lycoming that needed overhaul and it was used to model for the fittment of oil lines ,ducting electrical wiring. The engine was then overhaulled using 100% new parts from Superior . A fixed pitch prop from Sensenich has been fitted to keep the c of g within aircraft specs.
I used Harry Delickers STC and found it easy to use and good value for money and if you get into trouble Harry will help you out. [This is not a paid advertisment]

[cowboy]

I was walking around PAMR last month and there was a 170 with the 180 mod for sale. Could be the same one. If not, you've got another choice!

[GAHorn]

Just bein' "picky".... but ...... what, exactly is a 180ph upgrade? (I've heard of 180 H.P.....but ph..??)

Next...what manufacturer....other than Lycoming...makes a 180 H.P. engine that can be installed into a 170 or any other airplane for that matter? (In other words.....Lycoming 180's are the only game in-town....so that's the default "most common" installation.)

I suppose the intent of the O.P. was actually "which STC...is the most common for 180 HP Lycomings?"

The Bush conversion has zero support. (In fact, the folks who purport to offer that STC cannot be depended upon at all for anything other than to cash your check.)

This leaves Harry Dellicker on top of the dogpile. His products and his shop/work-product generally receives good reviews.

[Ocean53]

http://www.thelandinggearworks.com/powe ... onversion/

Has anybody checked into this company? I believe the CEO is the original stc holder mentioned earlier but do they make a mount? Seems like they are advertising it as the conversion kit which most all the other kits include what is needed. Not sure if this is a new deal or old. Looking hard for a big engine 170. Would love an io-360 but they are even more impossible to find than a descent 180hp. Have owned a c145 170 and loved the way it flew but with the heat in SE Texas and me being 6'4 275 lbs that's not a whole lot of juice to fly my wife, son and any amount of fuel. If somebody knows of one in good shape besides the 2 or 3 on barnstormers, controller, ect I would love to have a look. If I can't find one we will be buying a peachy 145horse and making the swap. Yes I'm aware the cost and similar 180 money ect but I'm set on a 170 for many reasons.

[GAHorn]

http://www.thelandinggearworks.com/powe ... onversion/

Has anybody checked into this company? I believe the CEO is the original stc holder mentioned earlier but do they make a mount? Seems like they are advertising it as the conversion kit which most all the other kits include what is needed. Not sure if this is a new deal or old. Looking hard for a big engine 170. Would love an io-360 but they are even more impossible to find than a descent 180hp. Have owned a c145 170 and loved the way it flew but with the heat in SE Texas and me being 6'4 275 lbs that's not a whole lot of juice to fly my wife, son and any amount of fuel. If somebody knows of one in good shape besides the 2 or 3 on barnstormers, controller, ect I would love to have a look. If I can't find one we will be buying a peachy 145horse and making the swap. Yes I'm aware the cost and similar 180 money ect but I'm set on a 170 for many reasons.

You should ask them if they make a mount.

I'm sure you realize that even with more horsepower, the 170 will not carry you, your wife, the son, and "any amount of fuel"...due to the fact that most conversions ADD weight which is subtracted from the original 2200 lb gross weight...which remains. None of the engine conversions increases the gross weight of the aircraft.