The International Cessna 170 Association

Looked at Carbon Cub design, new to me

Prices on Cubs is a jaw dropper. The cowling seems to be distinctive. Did the design influence other aircraft updates such as Mooney?

Is there any current development for updated new design carbon fiber cowling for the Cessna 170?

What could be the benefits to the owner?

How much increase in resale value could be anticipated? A little or big jump like the Cub?

What do you think?

Kyle Fosso, is currently talking to some people about trying to develop a composite structured cowling. Initilally it will probably be for IO-360 installations though.

Jughea

Here’s one for the Lycoming installation.

Would CF be any lighter or resist cracking? I have a CF extended baggage from AirGlas that is lighter than any other extended baggage at 5 pounds.

Re-thinking the cowl without the limitations of sheet metal would probably get more speed without sacrificing cooling but the shape of the cowl makes a 170 a 170 as much as the shape of the tail.
Would be interesting to see how much of a gain you could get out of it.

If I'm not mistaken the Mooney cowling and mods to it and other aircraft like the Mooney, by people such as Lopresti, are what influenced the Carbon Cub, not the otherway around.

There are many Cub owners, myself included, who have no desire to own a Carbon Cub. I do not consider a Carbon Cub a Cub. It is another airplane.

I would not, and I imagine most 170 aficionados would join me, want to own a 170 with a carbon cowling. At least a carbon cowl that did not look exactly like the original in every detail.

Selkirk is making carbon fiber (CF) cowls for the C-180/185 that look exactly like the original. They are beautifully made but time will tell how they stand up. At +-$8000 each, I don't know how many 170 owners would be willing to pay that for one. 1/4 to 1/5 of the value of the plane is tougher to swallow than 1/10 to 1/12 of the value as in the 180/185.

It all boils down to profit for the manufacturer. If there was enough demand, I'm sure it would be done, maybe some day.

The amount of cooling drag most airplanes generate, including our beloved 170's, is hard to believe. We did a couple cowling conversions, one on a Meyers 200 and then on our RV-8, and the speed increase was substantial. We saw about 10mph on both planes, and in both cases we saw no increase in engine temps. You don't necessarily need the trendy round inlets, but things like inlet area, baffling, spinner clearance, and inlet distance from the prop all play a role. It's a bunch of simple little details that add up to a big difference.

When I was a kid I got ride in Jim Younkin's "Mystery Pacer" a tricked out Piper Pacer with the above mentioned cowl mods and every other possible gap faired in for speed. I don't recall to the total speed gain, but it was fast! And it looked pretty neat too.

Personally, I think a 170 with a modern cowl, speedy wheel pants, and some other fairings would look pretty cool. 170's in general have good lines. They have an aggressive stance, and look fast. Done right, I think the mods would accentuate those lines, not mention probably make the airplane faster and more efficient. How much? Probably not that much but who knows and it would be a fun project if the FAA wouldn't pitch a fit.

However, I fully realize some may consider that sacrilege. To each his own, I guess. Mine has already been modded so much (180hp conversion pretty much kills any originality in the cowl) that going further wouldn't be much more of a felony, and there are enough stock ones around to enjoy that it wouldn't make me feel guilty about butchering history.

DEM

I've slept since then but,....I believe it was Tom Downey who once posted (at the old Classic Cessna 170 site) a version of cowl-flaps on a 170. It was a real simple piano-hinged flap and likely made for significant drag reduction at cruise.

Cowling on C 170 is already a very good looker. Always impressed visually and mechanically with design.

My original thinking was more along the lines of enhanced value for the airplane.
Like pay 2000 to 2500.00 for a carbon Fiber cowl and increase the aircraft value by 12- 20,000.

Why should use of a few carbon panels on a Piper Cub design cause such an enormous spike in perceived value?

Is there some PR Marketing Plan that convinces buyers to pay Titanium prices for carbon fiber?

Now I am thinking maybe it is best to just do "New Paint" and keep values modest.

I think the carbon cub crowd is shaped differently than the person who would buy a 170.

170 folks dont seem to worry about a few extra pounds here and there while the carbon cub guys are real weight weenies (name taken from bicycle crowds) and will pay a lot to save a little.

I wonder how much weight you could save going with CF in a few select places.
CF doors would be easier to make than a cowling and would save more weight too,

Could you please give an example of a $2500 option or modification which increases value by $12,000 to $20,000?

I don't believe I am familiar with this concept.
I do lead a relatively boring life though.

sfarringer wrote:Could you please give an example of a $2500 option or modification which increases value by $12,000 to $20,000?

I don't believe I am familiar with this concept.
I do lead a relatively boring life though.

I think he mean't a $12,000 or $20,000 modification that increases value by $2,500.
I have a few of those myself

The internals /shape of a cooling intake area are very important ,so have a look at the lastest cessna 182 and see how it curves inside and then have a look at where the air exits. There is a small aero foil section screwed to the fuselage edge on the firewall. One big surprise that I got was when my bars that covered my intakes on my original cowl [170A] cracked and I removed them my CHT ,s dropped about 10 degs totally. The "VAN" site has some very good info on intakes and design.
Carbon fibre cowls do not like impacts and vibration at all . While they are very strong over all they have their limitations.
Intakes and exits of engine air is a very dark science while drag reduction is a good thing ,thermodynamics is the governing factor .if you want your aircraft to go faster and use less fuel , clean out all the junk and wash and polish the aircraft and get your wife to go on a diet .

I can attest a Carbon Cub is not a Cub. I won't even have a RC model of one.

ghostflyer wrote:....and get your wife to go on a diet .

I'm TELLIN' ROZ!you said this!