O-470 Powerd C-170

mod cessna · Post by **mod cessna** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:39 am

Anyone ever put a 470 in a C-170? Would this not work just as well as the continental 360 that everyone puts in if not better?
I am not doing nor do i know of anyone who has i just think it would be cool. What a sleeper it would be!

hilltop170 · Post by **hilltop170** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:56 am

I know a guy in Oregon who put an O-540 Lyc on a Super Cub, no approvals but he did good work. Looked like a stock Cub except the cowl was one cylinder longer. He flew it to Alaska and back on floats and never got busted by the feds. He had to stop every two hours for fuel.

I'm not sure but would guess the O-470 is wide enough that a different cowl would have to be used, like maybe off a C-180. I know the O-470-K is heavier and 230hp. That would require some engineering on the airframe to beef it up, maybe like the 180.

My O-300-D uses 7.5gph leaned out in cruise. A stock C-180 with O-470 uses 12gph leaned in cruise. That would give 2 hours plus reserve in a 170. Even with a Javelin tank or Flint tanks total fuel would be marginal.

Then when you add up the extra engine weight, constant speed prop, extra fuel, heavy landing gear to carry the extra weight, and required gear/ballast in the back to make the CG right, there won't be a very useful amount of useful load left.

Not to mention how much all this is going to cost including the engineering since no Fed is going to sign off a field approval without it. You'll have well over $100,000 in it before its over.

You can get a good C-180 with 850-900 lbs useful load for about $90,000 with a fresh annual, ready to go and Cessna already did all the engineering and test flying.

BUT, if it sounds like a project someone wants to do, I sure would like a ride in it when you're done.

Post by **GAHorn** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:30 pm

I visited once with the TCM rep about this and he said they'd looked at it and found that engine too heavy and too thirsty for the airframe. I always flight-planned 13 gph for a 182 and 37 divided by 13 is a two-hour flight with a 45 min. reserve to flame-out.

theduckhunter · Post by **theduckhunter** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:49 pm

Or,, instead of this conversion, someone could buy an early 180, put 170 tail feathers on in and paint cessna 170 on the side. Then at the big flyins the question could be to figure out what it really is? If my 180 had 170 tail feathers, then I would have everything!!!!!!!

mod cessna · Post by **mod cessna** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:44 pm

A 180 would be much more practical but you always hear about someone who went a little overboard.

Hiltop170 ---- Here is one. http://www.supercub.org/photoclass/show ... t=6&page=1

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:53 pm

I personally think it would be more practical and easier to re-engine a C-170 with a TSIO-360 Continental. I believe it would produce upwards of 220 HP, be considerly lighter and more compact than the O-470. After all, the IO-360 fits right inside the present cowling without changing the present C-170 flat plate area.

As far as the O-470 is concerned, why not "P Ponk" it out to 520 cu.in.,or even use a 550. they're all the same physical size. You would probably have to beef up the rear fusealage to handle all the balance weight.

There any number of ways that a dedicated engineering ---hole ,like myself, can come up with ridiculous ideas on how to piss away money on airplanes, and believe me, I have done it.---more than once!

hilltop170 · Post by **hilltop170** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:29 pm

Mod Cessna-
That is the one I was talking about!!! Byron Root built it up and decided it still wasn't enough so he designed and built the Sherpa which still looks like a cub but is the size of a Beaver and has a 400hp IO-720 Lycoming! These pictures give no indication of it's size.
http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepSherpa.html

Scroll down towards the bottom of this link to the picture of the four guys standing UNDER the engine and note the 48" tires!
http://www.sherpaaircraft.com/news/historyII.htm

I think Robbie has the best idea. But instead of a 170, take the tail feathers off a 195 and put them on a 180. Now that would be kool. Cessna did just the opposite before they designed the 180, they converted a 195 with a square tail and IO-470 engine. Not too kool.

ak2711c · Post by **ak2711c** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:35 pm

The 0-470 is considerably heavier than a IO-360 and burns more fuel. If you port and flow balance the IO-360 you end up with 230hp anyways.
Shawn

Post by **GAHorn** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:34 pm

I'd love to have a 190/195, because I love the looks and that tail. But the operating costs of a 190/195 would probably ruin my happiness. (I almost traded my 206 for one and kept the 206 because it was cheaper to operate and carried more.)
I have a 170 because I can afford the costs of that pretty tail. I'll keep the 170.

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:19 am

gahorn wrote:I'd love to have a 190/195, because I love the looks and that tail. But the operating costs of a 190/195 would probably ruin my happiness. (I almost traded my 206 for one and kept the 206 because it was cheaper to operate and carried more.)
I have a 170 because I can afford the costs of that pretty tail. I'll keep the 170.

George check out ebay item 140093702586 my old 195. I had her over ten years and 600 hours. Many trophies and fond memories. They really are not much more money to maintain than a 180 or 206 if you do the work yourself. All the effort is in front of the firewall but many of those parts can be found very reasonable.I bought and sold some other 190's and 195's and in all engine configurations except the rare 450 Pratt and must say the L-6 R915 is the best one for the airframe. C185 performance. With a MP limit of 26" the effects of altitude on perfrmance don't start in until 4,000 ft or so. Every round tail Cessna lover should do his best to experience the 195.

mit · Post by **mit** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:27 am

Cut to the chase, its called a 180

Hineywheel Bill · Post by **Hineywheel Bill** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:23 am

There is a STC for a O-470 on a Stinson 108-3 which would be relatively comparable. It's a real go getter for short field op's. Bill N76447

hilltop170 · Post by **hilltop170** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:25 am

Dave-
I'm going to be flying out west the next couple of weeks on a no-planned-destination trip. I've never been to Payson before, is it worth breaking my rules and planning a stop there?

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:19 pm

hilltop170 wrote:Dave-
I'm going to be flying out west the next couple of weeks on a no-planned-destination trip. I've never been to Payson before, is it worth breaking my rules and planning a stop there?

Richard...it depends on what rules you would break

If it's just the no pre-planning thing then I think you'd find it interesting here. I'll be around and would be glad to loan you a car and show you around a bit. If you're camping there is a campground on the airport as well as a restaurant. Hope to see you.

hilltop170 · Post by **hilltop170** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:29 pm

Dave-
Thanks for the hospitality, I've always wondered about Payson but just never stopped there. The engine on my plane was overhauled there years ago. I think I'll break the no-planned-destination rule and take you up on your offer.

I'm also an MG fan, have had several As and Bs over the years.

PM me with the best way to contact you. Should be fun.
Thanks again