The International Cessna 170 Association

John, the Czechs sold the rights to the Franklin to Pratt & Whitney along with some turbine rights. P&W only wanted the turbine stuff and has no intention at present to support the Franklin. (And the "new" 220 Franklin is not the same as the "old" Franklins.)
There is no happy Franklin outlook in sight (unless you have one of the original factory-equipped 165's in your 170,...I'd advise against a Franklin conversion...even if you can find a new one somewhere which you can't.)

I ran into a company @ SnF that was adertising the fact that Franklin engines were becoming available again and was supposedly a distributor. I'll dig around and see if I can find his info.

For the last 4 years a "Franklin Distributor" has had a table at Reklaw, and made similar claims. But their table only contains aftermarket lightweight starters and old used Franklin parts such as pistons (no gears, no shafts, no cylinders, no cases), unless you consider aftermarket rocker-box gaskets to be "new Franklin parts".
(It's sad actually. The Franklin would be a welcome addition to the field of choices for engine upgrades.)

That might be the guy. It certainly wasn't a large commercial appearing operation like you'd expect from a manufacturer. More like a guy who opened the doors to his van and set up a canopy and a couple chairs. Didn't make a big impression... which could be why I can't find his info...

I too heard the rummor about Franklins coming back. I heard that some of the old PZL gang got together and formed a new company and bought the rights to the 220 Franklin from P&W. Last I heard they were still jumping through the hoops with the feds to start up production. They have been saying that production will start up right away for a couple of years now. Time will tell. I friend of mine has been on thier wait list for a new motor for quite a while. They are quoting him $20,000-$25,000 for a factory new motor with no core once they get going. He is about to give up waiting though and go with the IO-360.
Shawn

wa4jr wrote:... I am a dedicated mogas user when I can find it, although on my last trip through KY, I got 100LL for $3.15/gal which is less expensive than premium mogas....go figure I still want more power, and I still want to stay with the 170, and I still want to stay with Continental. So my question is has the IO-360 ever been granted a mogas STC? If not, why not? Is it a high compression engine or is it due to the fuel injection? ...

John, the IO-360-B engine was certificated for 80/87. It has a 6.5:1 compression ratio (compared to the majority of IO-360 engines which have 8.5:1. The B engine is otherwise similar, except producing 180 hp at 2700 rpm (as opposed to the other's 195 or 210 at 2800 rpm.), which causes me to wonder if the prop were adjusted to allow 2800 rpm for T.O ... if the B engine couldn't be used at 195 hp.

Type Certificate: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... E/E1CE.pdf

However.... considering that autogas now is ethanol-laced...I wonder if you still wish to use mogas? (For you mogas users, you might find it interesting to note that in some rural areas non-ethanol mogas is still available. In Spicewood and Marble Falls the auto gas dealers tell me they are still getting/selling non-ethanol fuels.)

John another problem most people don't talk about when discussing the auto STC's are that they are actually 2 STCs. One for an engine and one for an airframe.

A particular engine or a particular airframe can have an STC but if the combination of engine and airframe is not on each STC list as being eligible the combination is on and the STCs don't apply.

Besides the 170 with the low compression 180 other examples of this are the Cherokee 140 with a 0-0320 160HP.

Of course field approvals might be easier to obtain for combinations not already approved than it would be with out the individual STCs that are already available.

And of course like many many things who will know or care till there is a problem.

I cannot understand why a person would spend $25K or more for an engine conversion to get a little better climb rate. You burn more gas all the time get very little cruise increase and never recoup your investment.
Having lived in Raton NM and owned a 170A at that time was a no problem experience. The field was over 6000'asl and I flew in the mountains often. The 172 square tail I am converting to a tail dragger is getting a rebuilt 0300 and it will be just fine considering the gas savings and conversion saving. Maybe if you want great performance you need to get a 180 as they are a real performer.

N171TD, Why would you spend your money and time to make a tail dragger out of a 172? I for one have converted my 170B with a Lyc 0360 and I am delighted with the results. And unless our economy goes to heck in a handbasket, I will recoup as much if not more than what I put in the conversion. When you finish your conversion, I will meet you at Angel Fire, NM. We'll load up and compare performances. One can purchase an average early 180 for about what I have in my 170, but you won't get one with a fresh overhaul, new radios, new interior, new paint, new prop, etc. Not beating up on your choices or opinion, just stating that a good conversion done right, is the right choice for the right person. Jon

Jamie and I left Trinidad, Colorado at gross wt. in the summer (!) and climbed up thru Alamosa Pass on our way to Montrose/Salt Lake, at gross wt with a cruise prop. Public airport runways rarely limit a stock 170, which will get up to oxygen altitudes and cruise along for a lot less money than engine conversions. You gotta give it a little time, but she'll do the job. Afterall...we bought these planes to FLY....not to actually get somewhere fast! (but let's face it...who doesn't like raw HORSEPOWER and takeoff/climb power!) There's been several times I'd surely have appreciated more horsepower than the 118-120 we get a takeoff.

I would convert my 170 to a Lyc. 180 in a heart beat if I could justify having just one plane.

Instead I have two airplanes because after all, as nice as a 170 with any power plant is, it's not a Cub.

About every other day or so I dream about my third plane. A Mustang II with a Lyc 180 or maybe a RV6 because there are more of them to buy (but I'd rather have a Mustang II).

Reality is I should sell all my planes but then I'd have to take up some other hobby like horseback riding. Then of course I'd have to have two horses. It never ends.

To each his own.

So the IO-360B is a low compression engine....hummm. So the only potential problem would come from the fuel injection system. The fuel sold around here at COSTCO is ethanol free so I don't have any worries for now. That may change at any time though if the corn lobby has it's way. I don't know how some of you fellas fly these stock 170s out in the mountains. Even my passengers complain about the miserable climb rate. I hate wallering around fighting for a 100 to 300 ft/mn climb rate once I get around 5000 feet, having to level out at times, do step climbs and teasing the stall horn...oh yes, making ATC mad because I can't keep up a decent climb rate and then being vectored out of the way to make way for a 172 with training wheel to swoosh by How do you guys get a good climb rate out of a fully loaded 170 (or even half loaded) with the O-300? I don't mind getting 300 ft/mn, but I want it smooth and consistent at some speed above 80 mph. I already have a climb prop and perhaps its a good thing or I might need 6000 feet to break ground One thing I've thought about is that my O-300 is just plain tired. 1200 hours and 33 years since OH, still makes compression but has a lot of crankcase pressurization due to worn rings. Question of the hour....do you think a newly overhauled O-300 might give me the performance that everyone else seems to be getting with their O-300 engines

wa4jr wrote: ....do you think a newly overhauled O-300 might give me the performance that everyone else seems to be getting with their O-300 engines

No.

Ok I just couldn't say NO.

John more than likely your engine won't develop more power if rebuilt. Of course your wallet will be lighter so you may FEEL it develops more power. Perception is reality in many cases.

Let's look at it another way. If it's not making rated power it's not airworthy and needs to be rebuild. Now that I've said this your engine is making all the power it should and a rebuilt one then won't make anymore right John. See how you answered your own question.

Rebuild it because it won't make rated power OR more likely you don't trust it.

My lovely wife has answered the question here as well. She has stated that she thinks I should have the engine overhauled since 33 years have passed since last overhaul and it makes her a bit nervous. She also said while the engine is out, I should have the ship painted. I like her thinking. So this winter...it will be an overhauled O-300A or IO-360. I love the O-300 for it's basic simplicity and good sound, but when my Angelflight passengers start to get nervous and ask questions about the slow climbs in terms of airspeed and climb rate, I really start thinking about the IO-360. Decisions,decisions.