N8087A Finnaly home at Provincetown

[Kyle]

Hello Everyone,

Last week, my 170B - 8087A finnaly came home to P-town. Funny thing was that the new registration came in the mail two days after the plane arrived, it almost beat the plane home. I had a buddy fly me down to Rowan County, NC (RUQ), picked up the previous owner and we continued to Newberry, SC (27J) where the plane was being inspected / annualed. The previous owner was VERY gracious in making the flight home to Cape Cod.

In Newberry, the plane was annualed by Mr. Todd Clamp of Clamps Aero Service. Just as helpful and accomidating as one can ask for. Helped with everything long distance too boot.

We added a few items ..... shoulder harnesses (reel type) and a Rieff combination of cylinder band / pan heaters. Winter in the North East I needed a way to pre-heat and have had sucsess with the Rieff products before. Door seals were replaced as age had caught up with what was on their. Other than that, just a new tach, spark plugs and tailwheel maintenance was all that completed the list.

Trip home was great fun. RON at Burlington NC. Set out the next morning at 0630 with about a 3 hr leg to Chorman, DE (D74) for fuel & bladder relief. nice folks their .... lots of agricultural planes, including a brand new Thrust (5 bladed & turbine powered) as well as a couple B-18's. Next leg was also about 3 hrs to Providence RI (PVD). Foulded a plug (unable to clear by leaning) and a helpful mechanic at PVD cleaned it and back off to Provincetown for a 1700 arrival.

Very happy with the planes performance. About 8.3 gallons per hr at 5500' with an OAT of 0 to 2 deg C. Roughly 113-115 indicated. Is that in the ball park for what others see?

Noticed I have to re-felt the cans, the air was comming right in, got colder as we came farther north. Also it was flying a bit left wing down (sure that was me and not the plane), subsequently, the fuel was filling the left tank as we flew. Pilot correction needed.

Can anyone tell me if a yoke locking bar is available, and from what source? Addtionally, that small fuel vent pipe on top, does it induce water into the system in hard rain while sitting on the ramp?

Look forward to meeting some of the other members in the future.

Regards,

[doug8082a]

Kyle, Congratulations and welcome to the world of 170 ownership! Look forward to seeing you around the area.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Kyle and Doug I'm sure you both notice your N-numbers are only 5 a part.

Kyle you shouldn't have trouble with water getting in the vent at the top. Other places like the fuel caps yes.

Of course there could be a lot of reasons you flew one wing low including the pilot. And I guest it is possible than if you flew one wing low consistently for a long time that fuel could transfer from one tank to the other.

A more common scenario is that one gas tank drained faster than the other. This is very common. As the one tank drained the other tank and wing got heavier and you flew with that wing low.

The uneven fuel flow has been discussed here from time to time with no concrete reason that I can remember ever being pinned down as to the culprit.

Good luck with our plane.

[CraigH]

A more common scenario is that one gas tank drained faster than the other. This is very common. As the one tank drained the other tank and wing got heavier and you flew with that wing low.

The uneven fuel flow has been discussed here from time to time with no concrete reason that I can remember ever being pinned down as to the culprit.

Congratulations on the plane! I'm a relatively new 170 owner myself, and have experienced the fuel tank feeding phenomenon that Bruce described. My right tank seems to feed at about 1.3 times the flow of the left tank when left on the BOTH switch. Not a problem really IMHO, just something to be aware of. On long trips, I usually start out feeding from the left tank for half an hour then switch over to BOTH.

[doug8082a]

Yup Bruce, I did notice those N#s... I'm anxious to have a look at it.

I have the same fuel flow issue myself. Kyle, let's get together soon and compare planes.

[15A]

We flew in to Ptown Sunday on a poker run for the Red Cross. Kyle's plane caught all of our eyes ! It's a cream-puff. Wait 'til you see it !!!

[cessna170bdriver]

Very happy with the planes performance. About 8.3 gallons per hr at 5500' with an OAT of 0 to 2 deg C. Roughly 113-115 indicated. Is that in the ball park for what others see?

Kyle, if you used block time (time on the clock from startup to shutdown) to figure burn rate, then 8.3 gph sounds on the high side. Were you leaning? A very long-time member who I trust very much tells me that this "low thyroid" (his words) engine can't be over leaned, especially over 3000 ft. Not leaning adequately could also be your spark plug fouling problem. I run full rich only when taking off near sea level. Even taxiing (at any altitude) I lean as far as it will still run. Using these "agressive" leaning techniques, I've run the last 500 hours or so using straight 100LL with no stuck valves or plug fouling that couldn't be cleared with a short full-power run up.

I will pass on to my uncle your good words about Mr. Clamp. I knew his recommendation could be trusted.

I wish you and '87A many years of flying pleasure.

Miles

[jwmcgu]

Kyle,
Send me your email address and I'll send you an article that I compiled that shows how to make an inexpensive control lock.
Jwmcgu@meta-net.net
John McGuire
N2488D '52 170B

PS My right tank drains quicker also.

[cessna170bdriver]

I seem to recall that it's been discussed here that the tank with the vented cap will drain slightly quicker than the other, even though they also have a common vent on top. That would match up with my experience.

Miles

[blueldr]

With some experience and practice you should be able to reduce the fuel burn down to 6.8 to7.1 GPH at the power setting for the air speeds you were flying. If you're flying at an altitude of at least 5,000 ft., there's no way you can damage the engine by over leaning. This holds true at any power setting of 70% or less at any altitude. The cost savings between overhauls will be significant.

[zero.one.victor]

Mine burns somewhere around 7.7 gph overall per tach hour, based on long-term records.
I figure that's probably pretty close to what it's actually burning in cruise flight, and burning more during climbs and less during descents.

Eric

[Dave Clark]

8018A here so I guess I'm the older sibling Probably not many days apart off the line.

7500 - 8500 ft cruise altitude WOT should be the optimum most long trips and would see the flow more like 7.0 GPH.

I'm sure Eric rarely gets that high there in Puget Sound.

[AR Dave]

Air Vents
http://cessna170.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 93&start=0
Fuel Vents
http://cessna170.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... light=vent
To-Do-List
http://cessna170.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 69&start=0

[Kyle]

ALLCON,

Many thanks for your well wishes and helpful information. I'm sure the fouled plug was do to not leaning and prolonged time on deck at Providence. I'll be coming up to speed on my leaning procedures, ground ops included.

IN the coming weeks I'll also be exploring the assorted hints you all have provided. Again my thanks to all.

Doug, we'll have to hook up as soon as scheduling permits, really glad to hear you kept your plane.

Regards,

Kyle

[GAHorn]

Leaning on the ground has no effect in our carbureted engines, actually. At least not at typical operating rpms. The idle jet is not affected by the mixture control at all, and the engine operates completely on the idle jet below 1000 rpms. (But leaning on the ground and near idle is an effective technique with fuel injected engines.)
I think it's important to know WHY the engine is unlikely to be injured by aggressive leaning at altitude. It's because it's generally accepted that at power settings below 65% it's not harmful to aggressively lean engines because the gas temps are incapable of injuring valves at/below such a power setting. The performance charts (found in the Owner's Manual) show that Wide Open Throttle is unlikely to result in power greater than 65% above 5,000 feet, and pretty difficult to achieve above 3,000' with the most common propellers.
Congratulations on your "new" 170!