Warner-powered 170 / Low wing 170

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

User avatar
n2582d
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 4:58 am

Warner-powered 170 / Low wing 170

Post by n2582d »

It seems that before Continental produced the C-145 in 1947 Cessna was considering using the Warner engine as a power plant for the 170. Here's a quote from the June 1946 issue of Flying magazine on pg. 40:
The new Cessna 170 and 190, which are new all-metal developments of the pre-war fabric-covered Airmaster, also will feature this new landing gear. The 170 and 190 differ only in their engines; one model will be powered with a Warner engine, the other with a Jacobs.
Tom, you've got a lot of experience with Warner engines. What's your opinion of how good the combination of a 170 airframe and a Warner 145 would have been? How does the weight of the Warner 145 or 165 compare to the C-145? I've often wished the Zoche diesel radial would have been a successfully produced engine.

Harry Clements was an aeronautical engineer for Cessna. He wrote, "Tracking the conception, birth and life of the 172" in Air Facts Journal. In a comment on May 24, 2012 following this article he wrote,
I have another heresy to relate. About the time for the 172, and with the recent and prospective successes of Cessna’s low wing M310, T-37, and M620 I did a preliminary design of sportier appearing, low wing versions of the 170-172 and 180-182, so we would have a family of good looking low wing aircraft. They didn’t resonate with Cessna management. Given the success of the 172 and 182, they may have been right, though I notice that Wikepedia’s list of later, competetive airplanes to the 172 all are low wing configurations.
Gary
User avatar
T. C. Downey
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:58 am

Re: Warner-powered 170 / Low wing 170

Post by T. C. Downey »

n2582d wrote:Tom, you've got a lot of experience with Warner engines. What's your opinion of how good the combination of a 170 airframe and a Warner 145 would have been?
The Warner powered 170 would be one sweet aircraft. the warner was an easy engine to start, run, and maintain.
here's the warner running

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wrfc5YOpBY8
hilltop170
Posts: 3481
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 6:05 pm

Re: Warner-powered 170 / Low wing 170

Post by hilltop170 »

I have often thought a 170 with one of the 33-1/2" diameter 150hp Australian Rotec R3600 radials, http://www.rotecradialengines.com, would make a great looking airplane.
Rotec R-3600
Rotec R-3600
Richard Pulley
2014-2016 TIC170A Past President
1951 170A, N1715D, s/n 20158, O-300D
Owned from 1973 to 1984.
Bought again in 2006 after 22 years.
It's not for sale!
User avatar
Brad Brady
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:54 am

Re: Warner-powered 170 / Low wing 170

Post by Brad Brady »

T. C. Downey wrote:
n2582d wrote:Tom, you've got a lot of experience with Warner engines. What's your opinion of how good the combination of a 170 airframe and a Warner 145 would have been?
The Warner powered 170 would be one sweet aircraft. the warner was an easy engine to start, run, and maintain.
here's the warner running

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wrfc5YOpBY8
I agree that a Werner would be a wonderful engine in a 170. The 145 would be less acceptable to me, cuz each ten hours you need to grease the rockers. A 165 would be my preference. Not just because of the higher power, but self oiling rockers....just saying...I love round engines!!!!
User avatar
Brad Brady
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:54 am

Re: Warner-powered 170 / Low wing 170

Post by Brad Brady »

photo.JPG
Original UC-61 was powered by a werner 145. Upgrades were to the Ranger 220. This is the only known Jake powered 245 UC-61 known to me. Owned by My Dad and Joe Hauk....Sweet flying aircraft. Helen Keller could drive this thing....
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20968
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Warner-powered 170 / Low wing 170

Post by GAHorn »

A radial engine would have been too much drag for a 170.... and the Flying magazine article clearly wasn't from a position of knowledge, as the 170 and the 190 hardly "differ only in their engines" .... what about the wings? And the seating capacity? And the cantilever versus strut? And the dimensions? And the stance? And the flight controls? etc etc etc
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
T. C. Downey
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:58 am

Re: Warner-powered 170 / Low wing 170

Post by T. C. Downey »

gahorn wrote:A radial engine would have been too much drag for a 170....
the 170's speed that wouldn't mean squat it would be like 105MPH.

the warner weighs 292# and the 0-300 weighs 268# that's a difference of 24# but the warner's CG sets nearer the fire wall, I doubt the CG would change that much.

the difference between a warner powered F-24 and a ranger powered on is about 4 MPH.

At these speeds drag doesn't mean that much.
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20968
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Warner-powered 170 / Low wing 170

Post by GAHorn »

All other things being equal...that would have been true. The problem with a radial in a 170 would be the center of thrustline would be much higher and a larger cowl would result...and I believe the drag penalty would be noticeable.

I also believe the visibility over the nose would be horrible (like the 190/195.) Surely these considerations were what moved Cessna to adopt the TCM product (not to mention production capacity, etc..)
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
T. C. Downey
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:58 am

Re: Warner-powered 170 / Low wing 170

Post by T. C. Downey »

Aryana wrote:Cleaning up all that oil and buying it in 1 gallon increments isn't all that much fun...but I still like round engines. We have a bunch of Yaks with M-14s on my field and they are great engines.
My Warner ran 25 to the qt, and didn't leak a drop.
User avatar
Brad Brady
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:54 am

Re: Warner-powered 170 / Low wing 170

Post by Brad Brady »

Aryana wrote:Brad, what came to be of the 170 sitting on the ground there?
Aryana,
Unfortunately, still "sitting". I have all the parts to rebuild the engine, just no time!
User avatar
n2582d
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 4:58 am

Re: Warner-powered 170 / Low wing 170

Post by n2582d »

I received an e-mail today from Harry Clements telling me about an article he recently wrote in Air Facts Journal about his preliminary low wing 170 design. He ended his e-mail by saying,
If you, or any association member, has questions about the 170 "replacement" project I would be happy to discuss it (preferably by e-mail). There are several things I did not include in the short article.
I've encouraged him to respond here. I think it would have been a great airplane ... as a taildragger with a stick!
Low Wing 170.jpg
Gary
User avatar
Ryan Smith
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:26 am

Re: Warner-powered 170 / Low wing 170

Post by Ryan Smith »

It looks by "replacement 170", he means that his design replaces everything that makes a 170 what it is with the exact opposite of what's on a 170...

Buy a Meyers 200 (which is what that airplane looks like to me) and call it a day.
flyboy122
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:30 am

Re: Warner-powered 170 / Low wing 170

Post by flyboy122 »

Ryan Smith wrote:
Buy a Meyers 200 (which is what that airplane looks like to me) and call it a day.
We owned a 200 for years. HIGHLY underated. Completely blows the doors off a Bonanza/Comanche/Mooney/Etc... Unfortunately they are hand built so if you or your A&P aren't clever fabricators you are kinda screwed.

I've got lotsa Warner time, and a sweeter engine there isn't, but it's a lot of engine. Around 500 cubic inches. And with the stock cast rings TBO wasn't very high either.

DEM
Post Reply