Accessory Case Mods?

[sethkirk]

Hey everybody! Im a new 170 Assn member and Im helping my family restore our 55' We'd really like to not have the venturi system on our restoration (sorry origalility gurus) and would love to know if there are any other mods out there (other than the belt drive) that are avail. This 170 will be loaded with alterations such as a new panel and center stack radios, and we would love to bypass the Studebaker style vacum system. No offence to all of you that have BEAUTIFUL classic restorations, ours just could never be that, so well not even try to go back to orignal. I heard something about an io-360 acc. case that could be installed to our o-300 case at LAL (170 mx forum), but I caught the end of the conversation and only made a quick not to put a question on the forum for conversation. I appreciate the input Greatly!!!!! Thanks!!

Seth Kirkpatrick
kirk-300@hotmail.com
(262)325-7104
(JVL)

[russfarris]

Seth: You have unwittingly offended two groups in a single post! Studebaker owners (me) and originality freaks

All kidding aside, I think you have misunderstood the originality issue. The vast majority of 170s have venturis for practicality. I would say the majority of owners here could care less about originality. Even the die hards like George Horn and myself have installed items like baggage doors and heated pitots.

Here are your options: no AH or DG, just an electric turn and bank; VFR only. Or, install a Continenetal O-300D on a field approval; it has a pad on the accessory case for a vacuum pump. Finally, my choice - an electric AH and DG, and a small venturi driven turn and bank. (or install an O-360, and my choice is the IO-360 Bluedr has.) I would be shocked if the IO-360 accessory section would even come close to working, let alone legal - Dick????

I get the impression you don't like the looks of it, that's OK I tell younger pilots it's a DEER WARNING HORN!

Other than appearance, we have the venturi because it is simple, works as long as you are still flying and practical. I have many an IFR hour in my 170 with one.

And I have never seen a Studebaker with a venturi, or gyros Welcome to the group, Seth - post pictures of your airplane when you can. Russ Farris

[GAHorn]

Everything Russ said is true, sort of. I am a Studebaker and an originality nut.

And the originality of any of these airplanes is measured in degrees. (There are no truly-original airplanes out there other than the replica Wright Flyer...and it's a copy.)

As for the installation of a O-300=D ...it does not require a field approval. Our association owns the STC which is available for a pittance to members.

The reason for venturiis is just like Russ said: reliability and simplicity. But if you want to complicate your life and put a failure-prone vac.pump on ... avoid the out-of-production/lack-of-support belt-driven STC'd version..... go the expensive O-300-D route. To make it more reliable, stay away from dry pumps and use a Pesco or Garwin wet-pump and it'll last longer than you will.

The rule only requires that there exist two separate power sources for gyros. That does not preclude two electric gyro systems, provided they are indeed totally separate (with each of them having battery back-up,... one of them having it's own dedicated battery.) But beware: electric (DC) gyros are expensive and failure prone. Much, much more failure prone than vacuum gyros on venturi systems.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Seth,

Good thing you apologized twice to us venturi lovers else we wouldn't answer you. What an idle threat that last statement is. We couldn't keep our fingers off the keyboard for just that.

What engine do you have now. C-145-2 or 0-300A. If it is an 0-300-A you could convert it to a D model with a D model accessory case which has the vacuum pump pad. Continental has provided a SB I believe that you would use for approval for this. Problem is you wouldn't really be converting to a D model unless you also changed out the crank to a D model six bolt and then that would also require a different propellor. Don't worry it's just money.

Know once you've convinced your IA (and Feds) that you have converted your A to a D model with or without the crank and prop change then you buy the Associations STC that allows the installation of a D model engine in your 170. Or If you convince authorities that you can modify your 0-300-A model with just the D accessory case but it is still an a model then no STC to install the engine is needed as it is still a 0-300-A.

BTW how ever you use the D accessory case you will also have to get an angle starter and rewire for its use as well. And if you happen to have the older 3 hole sump you'll have to find a good 5 hole sump as well. It's only money remember that. Venturis aren't looking so bad now are they?

But wait. If you have a C-145-2 you could do all the above but while the C-145 is essentially the same motor and all the parts will fit, Continental doesn't mention that in their SB and so approvals might be a bit harder to come by.

Venturis looking better all the time.

Why not just use all electric instruments rather than the vacuum driven ones? They only cost money but maybe less than converting to a vacuum pump.

[Robert Eilers]

Seth - I have to second what everyone else is telling you about the venturi system. Like George says, If you have the money and want to buy into the possibility of vacuum pump failure install a pump. But, I have to say you really don't need a vacuum pump. I have an IFR 170B and fly IFR all the time. My DG and Horizon are powered by the venturi. I back them up with a electric turn coordinator. Probably the most reliable IFR system I have ever flown behind.

[blueldr]

Russ suggested an IO-360 conversion to acquire a vacuum pump pad. Pretty pricey! I always figure that the cost of that conversion will run about $30,000 if you can do all of the work yourself. Unfortunately, the STC to accomplish that conversion is no longer available. Believe me, it makes one helluva C-170.

[mit]

shakes head and walks away from this one...........

[GAHorn]

Ya know, Russ.... we are falling-down on the job as Studebaker owners. We failed to correct him on the "Studebaker style vacuum system" mis-comment.

Seth.... it was Studebaker that got RID of the vacuum-driven windshield wiper system common on late-40/early-50's cars. Studebaker was the FIRST mfr'r to introduce electric windshield wipers. (For those younger than bluEldr out there.... vacuum-driven winshield-wipers would slow-down and STOP...when accelerating..... a real irritation in a driving rain when you pull out to pass.

Other Studebaker firsts:
Automatic transmission. (Used ordinary motor oil for fluid. This tranny was so good Edsel Ford bought it (out-wittingly) from Studebaker and then shut down it's production to avoid the competition for the 2-speed "Ford-O-Matic" slush-drive. Studebaker had forgotten to include language in the sale that would insure it's cont'd production. This might be the only thing Edsel ever did that truly imitated Henry.)

Hill-Holder. This kept the brakes applied when you came to a stop facing up-hill and pressed the clutch in on a manual transmission, and prevented you from rolling backwards into the car behind you. The brakes automatically released as the clutch was released when it was time to "go". Subaru re-introduced this novelty in the 1970's (claiming it as their own new-invention) failing to pay royalities to Studebaker (AMC) and had to drop it from their line in embarrassment.

Push-button radio tuning.

One piece windshields. (and safety-glass.)

INfra-red (glow-in-the-dark) instrument panel lighting.

[170C]

You Studebaker types failed to mention Studebakers WWII mfg of aircraft engines (lot of B-17's had them) AND prior to the automobile development, they built a bunch of wagons that were used all over the country.

[blueldr]

George,
The Studebaker hill holder, as I remember it, did not work off of the brakes at all. It was a function of the sprag clutch in the Borg Warner Overdrive. It could be applied very simply by adding a switch to the system in any car that was equipped with a Borg Warner Overdrive. I've seen them on Jeepsters, Fords, and Chrysler products. It was just that Studebaker was the first to use the Borg Warner Overdrive as an option and apparently had an exclusive on it for a long time. They had the Hill holder switch on the clutch pedal, and it released as the pedal was released. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that BW originally had a copyright on the name "Overdrive".

PS-- As Ole Pokey said, Studebaker also built airplane engines during WWll. They were Wright R-1820 Radials primarily for the Boeing B-17.

[sethkirk]

Wow! You guys are awesome!! Im still laughing Guess the Venturi is still the way too go. Us young guys are a bit over eager and underpaid (ie DREAMERS) Ill get some pics out as soon as I can. Thanks for allll the great responces. This was my first posting and you guys are a blast. I HAVE SOOOOOO MUCH TO LEARN! Cant wait to meet some of you in Duluth!! Later Gents! Seth

[russfarris]

I was going to write a lengthy missive on the workings of the Hill Holder, but fortunately the Wikipedia article linked below describes it well. I had a Studebaker Champ pick-up years ago that had it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill-holder

I'm down to two - a 1964 Avanti and a 1963 GT Hawk with a factory supercharged engine and four speed tranny. Today, I entered the exciting world of pulling the rear axles, replacing the oil seals and re-packing the bearings on the GT. Working on cars is so nasty and greasy compared to airplanes...

Every B-17 I have ever seen at has at least one Studebaker-license built Wright R-1820. Look for the Studebaker wagon wheel logo on the front case.

Studebaker also license built GE J47 jet engines for the B-47 program in the 1950s.

They were the only wagon/buggy manufacturer that became an automobile company. Russ Farris

[GAHorn]

That description of Hill-Holder's mechanism in Wikipedia is a perfect example of why "wiki" boards are not always accurate. Anyone who wants (or is "authorized" at other boards) can "edit" Wikipedia and make it say whatever they believe, regardless of veracity. (The other side of that coin is that, with wide-involvement of knowlegeable participants, it evolves towards accuracy in most cases.....as long as the ignorant or micheivous don't interfere.)

The "Hill Holder" on my 1951 Studebaker Starlite Coupe has very simple mechanics and totally NOT like Wikipedia describes.

Here's how it works:

A cast-iron cylinder lies beneath the floorboards. It is nothing more than a check-valve that has an internal "rolling ball". It is oriented longitudinally, and it's forward end is inclined upwards about 15-degrees. Brake fluid, under pressure from the master cylinder whenever the brakes are applied, must pass thru this cylinder before continuing to the wheel brake-actuating cylinders. When the car comes to a stop on a hill (facing upwards) the check-ball rolls by gravity to the rear of the cylinder where it seats and captures the fluid pressure, thereby holding the brakes even though the brake pedal may be released by the driver. (The ball, via a mechanical interconnecting rod attached to the clutch mechanism, is only enabled to roll to it's aft/check position when the clutch is also depressed.
So.. now you have a car facing uphill with the brakes and the clutch applied....so the brake wheel cylinders have retained their brake pressure via that check-ball.
When the driver releases the clutch (when the light changes to green) ....as the clutch engages and the car surges/strains against the brakes....the interconnecting mechanical rod "up-ends" or moves the check-ball off it's seat and releases the brake pressure allowing the car to move forward.
Since the Hill-Holder cylinder's forward end is inclined slightly uphill.... it will only be operational if the car is also facing uphill. If the car is facing downhill....the check-ball has rolled to the fwd end of the cylinder and cannot engage it's seat....therefore no braking pressure is retained.
Simple.

Subaru (and others), after they'd been "discovered" to have stolen the idea, had to create a more complicated system to work-around the Studebaker-design in order to avoid accusations they had merely stolen the idea. Theirs is not nearly so simple nor so reliable.

Here's a diagram/dwg of the installation in a Studebaker truck:

norol_instructions1c.gif

Don't forget that Studebaker also produced many thousands of other vehicles and parts during WW-II, one of which was exclusively produced by them. Anyone who ever skied at Mammoth in the early days will recall being towed uphill behind a Studebaker designed/built Weasel. The OSS (predecessor of the CIA) produced a film demonstrating the secret vehicle, which was designed to be arctic/amphibious and for the specific purpose of invading Norway to destroy the Nazi atomic-bomb production efforts.
http://www.realmilitaryflix.com/public/441.cfm

More trivia: The central portion of Texas is widely called "the Hill country". The Studebaker Drivers Club local is known as "The Hill Holders"...(they "hold" Studebakers). Here's a link to their newsletter (enjoy the duck-hunter cartoon) : http://www.hillcountrystudebakerclub.or ... _03_04.pdf

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Once again George you have baffled us with your knowledge of such things as main stream as the Hill-Holder and the Weasel. Fascinating tidbit of information that the Subaru product wasn't as reliable. No doubt that was an exhaustive study.

[ron74887]

Talk about a thread highjacking!!!! Seth, I think have a copy of an STC that allows you to put the "D" accessory on a "A" engine (with permission to use by the Holder Mr. Johnson from the state of Washington--I believe.) since yours is a 55. it probably is an "A" engine--But as Bruce stated you have to install an angle drive starter to use the vacuum pad. therfore rewiring the plane for a push button starter. Jim Wildharber is that not the STC I sent You? you will continue to have and "A" engine. Or convert to a "D" engine,6 bolt prop and all. As George stated, you will have to use the STC---field approval is a thing of the past since there is an STC covering this. Ron