Weight increase

Plummit · Post by **Plummit** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:58 pm

Is there a way to get a gross weight increase on the 170? I've seen something for the 172, but how about the 170?

regards

~Marc

Robert Eilers · Post by **Robert Eilers** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:22 pm

If anyone would know it would be Harry Dellicker (DELAIR) in Poterville, CA. He seems to have most of the C170 STCs 559-784-9440.

Post by **Bruce Fenstermacher** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:38 pm

I've not head of any available and you would think if there was the guys with the 180 Lycomings and 210 Continentals would be talking about it.

Jr.CubBuilder · Post by **Jr.CubBuilder** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:59 pm

I asked Harry about it last spring he said he hadn't gotten one yet. I don't think from what he was telling me then that he would. The plane will do it, but there are engineering/structural question marks that would have to be proven. I think the major one in particular is fully loaded with full 40 degrees of flaps. Then the other problem is that the 170s cover three different wing models ragwing, A model, then B model. each one would need seperate approval. Just not cost effective given the size of the fleet and the number of potential STC sales.

jatkins · Post by **jatkins** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:43 am

There is a company, " Xwing stol" that sells a gross weight increas for the 170A and 170B , BUT you need to have 180 hp or more. The weight increase goes to 2400lbs !!!!!

and you need to put there wing tip extensions on as well. http://www.wingxstol.com/

Check it out it is pretty cool.

John

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:56 pm

jatkins wrote:There is a company, " Xwing stol" that sells a gross weight increas for the 170A and 170B , BUT you need to have 180 hp or more. The weight increase goes to 2400lbs !!!!! and you need to put there wing tip extensions on as well. http://www.wingxstol.com/

Check it out it is pretty cool.

John

This would be great for a floatplane but no way would a modified plane fit in my hangar

john rogers · Post by **john rogers** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:36 pm

Several years ago I purchased Del-Air's 180 HP conversion kit and STC for my C-170 B (Mfg 12-1955) which I have yet to install. At that time the Del-Air 180 HP STC did not have an increase in gross weight for the C-170.

The Del-Air 180 HP conversion kit for certain C-172's did have a 200 pound gross weight increase. Harry Dellicker owner of Del-Air has be working with the FAA to obtain a 200 poubd gross weight increase for the C-170. Harry indicated if and when the gross weight increase for his C-170 180HP STC is approved it will be applied retroactively to the Del-Air 180 HP STC's previously sold by Del-Air.

I agree with the above post that indicates one should contact Harry Dellicker regarding an increase in gross weight for the C-170 with Del-Air's 180 HP conversion. To obtain the current status of Harry's efforts cal him at (559)784-9440.

Post by **GAHorn** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:37 pm

I'll bet some folks will recall that certain 172's got factory gross wt increases at certain serials. Most folks did not notice that the flap settings of those airplanes were no longer the full 40-degree settings available in earlier models, or they didn't realize the connection between the two events.
In order to meet certification requirements, the airplane must be capable of going around with certain climb reserves from the full-flap setting. One way to do this is to reduce the gross weight of the airplane (due to lack of available horsepower.) Another way is to reduce the amount of available landing flap setting. (Also affects approach-speed, which in-turn adds go-around reserve momentum.)
At some point, the gross weight of the airplane becomes limited for TWO reasons: Lack of available horsepower,... and strength of the rear doorpost (which supports the stresses of the flap settings.)
The point I'm attempting to make is, that although horsepower may be sufficient to overcome the drag of landing-flaps... structural integrity of the airplane may be compromised when too much weight is added, unless structural beef-ups are incorporated.
(This has less to do with what a person can stuff into the airplane and still get a climb out of the machine, than it does with avoiding structural problems. Don't forget that in a single-strut, all-metal wing such as ours, that all that weight tries to twist the wing forward and trailing-edge up. The structure resists such torque/twist by using all metal skins which, in concert with ribs and spars, form "boxes" and which are anchored at the rear doorpost. The flaps add further "twist" to the equation....another reason the flaps are restricted as to operating speeds. And gross-weight.)

spiro · Post by **spiro** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:28 pm

2300# gross on PK-2300's.

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:25 am

gahorn wrote: (CLIP) Don't forget that in a single-strut, all-metal wing such as ours, that all that weight tries to twist the wing forward and trailing-edge up. The structure resists such torque/twist by using all metal skins which, in concert with ribs and spars, form "boxes" and which are anchored at the rear doorpost. The flaps add further "twist" to the equation....another reason the flaps are restricted as to operating speeds. And gross-weight.)

Good one George. Additionally that twist has saved some lives. I have a friend who pulled out from a graveyard spiral after getting to VFR in a low ceiling condition. He pulled so hard the wings actually twisted and relieved themselves thus unloading the wing and allowing him to take control of the plane and land it. The wings had a permanent twist and were replaced. This was a C-182. Many aircraft the wings would have just folded up. YIKES

Plummit · Post by **Plummit** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:27 pm

[quote=" To obtain the current status of Harry's efforts cal him at (559)781-9440.[/quote]

"Were sorry, the number you have reached is no longer in service......"

regards

~Marc

doug8082a · Post by **doug8082a** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:55 pm

Plummit wrote:" To obtain the current status of Harry's efforts cal him at (559)781-9440.

"Were sorry, the number you have reached is no longer in service......"

regards

~Marc

I believe the number you have is a typo. The correct number should be 559-784-9440

Plummit · Post by **Plummit** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:47 pm

doug8082a wrote:
Plummit wrote:" To obtain the current status of Harry's efforts cal him at (559)781-9440.

"Were sorry, the number you have reached is no longer in service......"

regards

~Marc
I believe the number you have is a typo. The correct number should be 559-784-9440

Thanks Doug, that number works and Harry was very forthcoming with info on the phone.

It seems that even though he has the GVWR increase on the 172, the problem with the 170 is the Firewall. The 170 uses a flat firewall and the 172 uses an offset (I think that was the word he used) firewall. He applied for the increase based on the 172 but the FAA turned him down citing the different part numbers used between the 2 A/C

In order to get the increase he has to have an engineer compare the parts and submit the application again. That's where the cost is.

regards

~Marc

jrenwick · Post by **jrenwick** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:44 am

So, if you have a 172 with the gross weight increase and you do a TW conversion on it, do you get to keep the gross weight increase?

John

john rogers · Post by **john rogers** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:24 am

Doug,

Thanks for correcting my typo. I wished I could blame it on fat fingers.

John

The International Cessna 170 Association

Weight increase

Weight increase

C-170 Gross Weight Increase

Re: C-170 Gross Weight Increase

Re: C-170 Gross Weight Increase

Re: C-170 Gross Weight Increase

Thanks Doug