Lyc IO360 upgrade

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

swixtt
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:49 pm

Re: Lyc IO360 upgrade

Post by swixtt »

Daves tests show the IO360M1B w/cold air sump @ 2200# GW - T/O under 500' & less than 5 sec.
Climb Out @ GW 1200fpm +
Cruise Speed @ GW @ 6000' MSL 24" & 2400 RPM 150MPH +
Fuel Burn 8.5 gph
These #'s are w/80" Hartzel C/S. I can now put Hartzels composite Trail Blazer on which he says it is pulling alot stronger. I have found that the M1B is 30#'s lighter than the O360. It is going to be interesting & fun to get to my own testing, but if it is anywhere close to these stats, it pretty much raises the bar in my mind.

Just for conversation, last year at Valdez Dave w/his 175 & IO390 STC left the pavement in 78'. Yes you heard correctly 78'![/quote]


impressive!! where is that video?
flyboy122
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:30 am

Re: Lyc IO360 upgrade

Post by flyboy122 »

I have the Avcon conversion with a O-360-AIA and Hartzell constant speed. At 65% cruise, it indicates 115mph and burns about 8.2 gph. If go to 75% (24 square) I pick up another 5mph and burn about 9 gph. The carb limits how much I can effectively lean the engine. The engineer/nerd/pilot in me thinks that with fuel injection I could run lean of peak and knock another half gallon off fuel burn. But the mechanic/aircraft owner in me likes the simplicity and low cost of the carb.

To me what really makes the conversion is the constant speed prop. It allows the engine to develop full power for takeoff, but dial back for efficient cruise. The big engine is fun, but probably overkill unless you live in the mountains or fly off sandbars. The prop, though, well....I would have hard time giving that up.

DEM
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10313
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Re: Lyc IO360 upgrade

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

DEM, you hit the nail on the head. Extra phonies up front is nice but I'd think there would be far fewer conversions if there was a constant speed prop for the 0-300 to allow it to achieve 145 hp on takeoff.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
User avatar
JohnNielsen
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:21 pm

Re: Lyc IO360 upgrade

Post by JohnNielsen »

I have the DelAir O-360 conversion on my '55 170B along with a couple dozen other mods. Last week I ended up being the 'truck' to carry 4 other planes worth of gear and a very tall passenger who could not get comfy in the tandem planes. Anyway we spend two days cruising the upper midwest at 100kts. I was turning 1900 RPM, 20" MP, leaned to 50 rich of peak at 5.4 GPH. I have the MT 3-blade composite prop on my plane. The STC is just approved for ALL -360 conversions.
Attachments
John's 55 170B
John's 55 170B
flyboy122
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:30 am

Re: Lyc IO360 upgrade

Post by flyboy122 »

Hey John,

What's the price on that prop with the STC?

Thanks,
DEM
Logpile
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 5:31 am

Re: Lyc IO360 upgrade

Post by Logpile »

I'm new to the 170B, an upgrade from my Hotrod 160HP 150 TD with manual flaps and 31's.
So far I really like the 170 with the Lyc O-360.
The plane came with a HEAVY Hartzell three blade I will make somebody a heck of a deal on...
Just ordered a new MTV-9-B/200 to take its place.
Thanks John, I cant wait to get home and get it installed.
Ill post some number as soon as I get them.

Terry.
VFR52170B
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:04 am

Re: Lyc IO360 upgrade

Post by VFR52170B »

Bruce Fenstermacher wrote:DEM, you hit the nail on the head. Extra phonies up front is nice but I'd think there would be far fewer conversions if there was a constant speed prop for the 0-300 to allow it to achieve 145 hp on takeoff.

If and only if...right?
I remember reading some debate on this, regarding the feasibly of STC's for such a thing.. Did anything ever transpire?

And reading John's post.. Do I see clearly, 5.4GPH / 100kts? - Assuming that's KIAS ? Am very intrigued by this 3-blade MT STC on these 360's, as I had spoke with Mr. Nielson the other day. These numbers are quite impressive.

- Joseph
User avatar
blueldr
Posts: 4442
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 3:16 am

Re: Lyc IO360 upgrade

Post by blueldr »

100 knots = 115 mph on 5.4 gph? I'd have to see that myself. I just can't immagine that much speed with the horsepower produced with that fuel burn.

The specific fuel consumption on most of these engines is about .42 lbs of fuel/hp/hr. 32.4 lbs of fuel at .42 hp/hr = about 77 hp. Thats about 43% of power on a 180 hp engine and even less on a higher HP engine.

Stock engine cruise speed of about 115 mph will normally burn about 6.5 gph which is about 93 hp back on the lean side of peak.
BL
User avatar
JohnNielsen
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:21 pm

Re: Lyc IO360 upgrade

Post by JohnNielsen »

The MT 83" 2-blade or 79" 3-blade composite prop is now STC'd for the 170/172/175 with ANY lycoming -360 series engine conversion installed. Cost is about the same as the Hartzell TB 2-blade.

John Nielsen, Partner
http://www.Flight-Resource.com
Attachments
MT 3-blade Composite prop on C170B
MT 3-blade Composite prop on C170B
cworman
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:35 pm

Re: Lyc IO360 upgrade

Post by cworman »

Nice to see the conversations on the Lyc conv. I have been out of the country for the last 10 days, & have been anxious to see the responses.

Did anyone see Mr. Stoots at the convention? I had to call him for some info & he was in Alabama !! I told him about the convention & he was going to try to drop in.

On the Del aire conversion, do you have any pics under the hood? I have heard it is a very nice clean install.
cworman N2218B
User avatar
rhege
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 5:10 pm

Re: Lyc IO360 upgrade

Post by rhege »

I run a Lycoming IO-360-A36B in my 170 with a 80” propeller. This engine has the counterweighted crankshafts which eliminates the need for a prop damper used with the Hartzell top prop. There is a compromise as the engine is weightier but the weight is moved back in the direction of center CG rather than on the nose. The other advantage is when dropping two of 6 cylinders to 4 vibration increases which the counterweights help with. Understandably the engine gives the 170 much greater performances than the stock 145 hp. The down fall of this engine may be that it is an 8.7 compression engine which requires 100LL. A lower compression engine could use auto fuel. I don’t have to concern myself with carb ice. I can lean the engine more accurately. I have had it asked of me why didn’t you just go with a Cessna 180? Being lighter than a 180 and have better visibly over the nose are the two biggest reasons. Having a straightforward airplane to maintain. Not have to deal with a Continental engine (personal preference) two less cylinders to deal with (plugs, repairs,) and removable tanks rather than dealing with bladders and or the wet wing (185’s). Some negatives that I will have to concede is the later 180’s have more area in the rear as they have transformed the aft fuselage from the 170 and early 180’s. Also the horizontal trim that I don’t like maintaining provides the 180 a faster cruise speed where 170 use a trim tab that just forms added drag. I have varied sentiment on the 180 stringer vs the leaf spring. I recognize that they progressed to the stinger for improved aerodynamics. I cogitate that the leaf spring is more merciful to the airframe than the stringer. 180 drivers largely will not land 3 point due to pitiable visibility over the nose and in rough country to save the tail. A 170 in 3 point attitude is not concern as visibility is not an aspect and the tail is dampened with the multi-leaf. There unquestionably other area’s that the 180 is appropriate for off strip landing. The 180 use a series of doublers around the gear box and forward fuselage for augmented strength. I have added these to my 170 for the improved strength along with a PPonk. The 180 has greater fuel capacity. I installed 175 wings with larger tanks. I use 180 gear with 29” Bushwheels and a baby bush wheel on the tail. In winter I use Fluidyne 3000 wheel skis with 8:00’s. Having the capacity to cross into two worlds is treasured to me. I can load my 170 similar to a 180 and contend with them. I can cruise in comfort with a Cessna. The other world I can dive into is with the super cub. Myself and some gear I can get into numerous tight cub strips. An empty 170 with a 200hp is a rocket. Look at the Valdez stol competition and compare the cub statistics against the 170’s with the big engines. Undisputable the cubs still beat, but the 170 drivers are nipping at their heels. I heard it said a 170 with big engine is a four place super cub. It all comes back to what your desires and your requirements are. As far fuel burn, I have misgiving of Dave S. test figures. I generally run at about 55% power and a fuel burn of 7 gal at 110 miles hr. understandably faster if I remove 29” Bushwheels. Not quite the 150 miles an hour At 8.5 he is asserting. Nevertheless apples to apples I would be about 130 at that power setting and altitude with smaller tires. Stock or altered the 170 is a prodigious airplane.
cworman
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:35 pm

Re: Lyc IO360 upgrade

Post by cworman »

Mr. Rodak,

Thanks for your comments. I agree with you on the Stoots numbers. Thats why I say, if I get anywhere "close" to those #'s, I will be thrilled. I really enjoyed both of my 180's, one was an "H" & the last was a "J", so I was fortunate enough to dip into both earlier & later model characteristics. (I personally liked the H better, much crisper & quicker on reaction time) I am very anxious to get the 170 project underway, as Dave will not be back in Alaska until the 16th to start shipping parts & paper. The IO360 B1E is setting @ Arlins Aircraft service in Belgrade, Mt just waiting. So as things progress I will be putting out more info.
Keep the knowledge coming & I thank you for it!!

FYI - Del Aire is owned by a fellow named Chris now. I had a nice conversation with him the other day. Said he has been there 14+ years & he now owns it all. Seemed like a nice guy & has all the extra STC's that Harry had.
cworman N2218B
User avatar
170C
Posts: 3182
Joined: Tue May 06, 2003 11:59 am

Re: Lyc IO360 upgrade

Post by 170C »

RODAK, very interesting data that you shared. Thanks! The various conversions you guys do is interesting to read, especially when you compare what your conversion does or doesn't do compared to other conversions and/ or a stock C-180. What is the horsepower on your engine? Is that continuous? You mention the visibility advantage of the 170 vs 180. Are you comparing the 170 to later model 180's with the squared off instrument panel/glare shield or with the early 180's with the same glare shield & tapering cowling as 170's. One thing you didn't mention was why you chose to go with the Lycoming vs the Continental IO-360 other than you prefer Lycomings over Continental. Maybe the damper helps offset some of the airframe damaging vibration of 4 cylinder Lyc's vs the easy on the airframe 6 cylinder Continentals. Just curious.
OLE POKEY
170C
Director:
2012-2018
User avatar
DaveF
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:44 am

Re: Lyc IO360 upgrade

Post by DaveF »

170C wrote: some of the airframe damaging vibration of 4 cylinder Lyc's.
Come on, guys, this is getting out of hand. Airframe damage is not a known unavoidable side effect of a Lycoming conversion. The O-360 may not purr like an O-300, but it's really an aesthetic consideration, not one that should affect your choice of engines. What might drive your choice is that the Lycoming and Continental conversions are in no way equivalent. One is largely turnkey and the other is for the unusually dedicated owner and unusually skilled mechanic. If you've been following Metal Master's account of his IO-360 installation, you'll see that lots of invention, fabrication, and searching for parts is required. You don't just buy a parts and paperwork kit and do the job.
User avatar
rhege
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 5:10 pm

Re: Lyc IO360 upgrade

Post by rhege »

There are numerous vibrations related with aircraft engines. Everyone recognizes the dynamic and static balance. Think about the tire and weight. We put weight on the light side of propeller by various means. When we overhaul propellers we hang the propeller in a prop balancer and when the propeller is balanced you can put the propeller in any position in 360 degrees and the propeller will stay in that position. The propeller is balanced at overhaul but the propeller engine combo may not be. It would not matter what engine you use when talking about this type of vibration. This vibration can and should be reduced to as close to zero as possible. Anything below one is good. The issue that makes a Lycoming 4 cylinder vibrate more so than a 6 cylinder is a type of inherent balance. Take a look at one of these in utmost simplest terms. Let's draw a 360 degree circle. Now take a 180 hp rated engine. We have 4 cylinders so each cylinder is capable of generating 45 hp in principle. Every time a cylinder fires it racks the prop with a 45 hp pulse. Take a 210 hp 6 cylinder it racks the prop with 35 hp. I know this is very rudimentary portrayal and additional conception can be Googled. If you consider what is the one prop engine combination that breaks the most tips of a NON maintained propeller is a 4 cylinder 180 hp fixed pitch propeller. Here are the circumstances. A nick from a rock hits the prop a few inches from tip. The nick is NOT dressed out and the nick digresses into a small crack. One day under full power and the tip breaks off. This is not unusual with this engine prop combination and only when the prop is not maintained. The same nick on a 6 cylinder or less horsepower engine usually won't fail unless the prop is severely neglected. Constant speed propellers don't seem to have this problem as the hub nullifies the thrust pulses. The whole point is yes Lycoming 4 cylinders will Vibrate more so than a 6 cylinder. This does not mean Lycomings are bad or should not be used, quite the contrary. But one should use some common sense when mounting a 180 on front of a Cessna 170. Look at the different engine motor mounts. Some of the mounts are a softer rubber some are firmer rubber. Make sure you use the correct rubber mounts on your install. Maintain your airplane. A neglected airplane is almost always the seed to problems. Excessive engine movement will generate problems which we have all seen. Think about your truck stuck in the mud. You start rocking it back and forth until finally you have enough inertia to break free. The same applies to a loose engine or incorrectly mounted one. Eventually something will break or bend. The next item is engine power management. This has to be a individual preference. I do not run my engine at max power for prolonged times even though I have no limitations. In other words I go full power, establish a positive rate and set climb power. In my case I'm running 200 hp I don't want 50 hp at each firing pulse hammered away on my propeller and airframe. It just creates excessive stress, heat and forces that I feel aren't warranted. This style of power management is not the best approach for everyone. I am not recommending this. You as the PIC will need to decide for yourself. Remember that the most probable place for an engine fail is at first power reduction.
The Lycoming engine is a great addition to the 170. I like that Lycoming as they have a terrific technical support and a superior product line. I can typically go into any local FBO a get any part I need generally right off the self. Lycoming are not as immense as the continental's. In other words I have some area to work or inspect things. Continental's require some addition real estate compared to Lycomings plus the added cost of maintaining two more cylinders. The simple dynafocal motor mount that are used with Lycomings almost never crack or break. I like the Lycoming engine weights to hp when compared to other manufactures and fuel burn efficiency. Continental's are respectable engines but they have some shortcomings that I don't like. Lycomings do also but we'll just sweep those under the rug. The entire idea for me was to keep it modest. When I was building the picture-perfect airplane I thought what is it I want this airplane for? What will I do with it? I wanted to take off and land like a super cub. I wanted the speed of a Mooney. The load capability of a 185 and comfort of a Cessna and I wanted the maintenance requirements of a Aeronca 7ac champ. I concluded with a Lycoming 200 hp 170b. Even though my 170 is modified I still wanted to try to keep the airplane looking as typical as I could while having better components installed. (I know some will dispute that better components remark) I did not want a compound cowl that would be challenging maintaining. It’s still a learning curve and I'm always trying to improve it. I was able to use stock Cessna lower cowl skins and the upper is similar to the earlier 170 as I have two cowl doors that are opened with cam locks. Think about a super cub top cowl. The Lycoming engine on a 170 is a boundless combination that I exceedingly endorse. As more get installed innovative ideas and enhancements are being developed. A straightforward airplane that behaves well, undemanding to maintain and works in a variety of envelopes. It all comes back to asking yourself what plane I need for my type of flying I do.
Post Reply