Question: Avcon 180 HP Conversion
Philip W. Kineyko
Hello,
Does anyone out in cyberspace have any experience with a 180 HP
conversion (Avcon or other) to a Cessna 172?
I currently own a 1964 172 and want more speed, like who dosen't.
I'm debating between a C182 or having my 172 upgraded to a 180 HP
Lycoming. I requested info from Avcon on the upgrade process but
have not heard from them yet. If anyone has had this performed
to their plan or knows of someone who has I would love to hear
about performance figures, i.e. cruise, climb, maintenance, cost
of the upgrade and by who?
Thank you for your time....
Phil Kineyko
N5637T
Gregory Travis
In article <34F708...@injersey.com>,
Do NOT go with Avcon. In fact, do not go with any kit that utilizes
a constant-speed prop. You will gain nothing in useful load, the
aircraft will become heavier, and you will realize no increase in
cruise speed.
DO go with one of the two fixed-pitch vendors, such as Penn Yan or Airplains.
Both market virtually identical kits. The workmanship and quality are
great.
greg, with 600 hours on a 1994 conversion of C172N from 160->180HP
(Airplains kit).
Rod Farlee
"Philip W. Kineyko" <fl...@injersey.com> writes:
>I currently own a 1964 172 and want more speed, like who dosen't. I'm
>debating between a C182 or having my 172 upgraded to a 180 HP
The most popular 180 hp STCs for the 172 (Air Plains, Penn Yan, Avcon)
apply only to the 1968 and later Lycoming-powered 172s, I think. This is
much easier, because the O-320 and O-360 use the same engine mount,
the cowling is wide enough, and some STCs allow the exhaust and
baffling to be spliced to add the 1-1/2" width at low cost.
The earlier Continental O-300 powered 172s would have to replace
essentially everything forward of the firewall (engine mount, nose gear,
cowling, baffling, exhaust, air box, prop, spinner), and presumably modify
the firewall too, so it would be a much more involved and expensive
conversion. STCs have been issued for converting these earlier models,
but I don't know that any that are being actively marketed.
Realize that power makes a dramatic improvement in rate of climb and
takeoff distances, but not in cruise speed. For much less money than the
conversion would cost (if it is even available), one could trade a 1964 172
for for a 1964 Cherokee 180, and fly faster than a 180 hp 172. It will require
more runway, but it will carry more weight, too. And there are many other
alternatives (Tiger, a previously-converted 172 or 177, C-177B, C-182,
Dakota, Comanche, etc).
- Rod Farlee
Leonard Wojcik
Gregory Travis wrote:
>
> In article <34F708...@injersey.com>,
> Philip W. Kineyko <fl...@injersey.com> wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >Does anyone out in cyberspace have any experience with a 180 HP
> >conversion (Avcon or other) to a Cessna 172?
> >
>
> a constant-speed prop. You will gain nothing in useful load, the
> aircraft will become heavier, and you will realize no increase in
> cruise speed.
To the contrary, I have an AVCON conversion with constant speed prop
which will certainly outclimb the fixed pitch versions. In addition the
CS prop allows better preformance when it is hot and better service
ceiling.... I regularly fly at or above 15000 on long cross country
flights.... fuel economy is also better, especially at altitude. I
typically burn 8 gph for a 120 kt cruise. For the 1964 C172 you will
have to get a new motor mount to fit the dynafocal Lycoming. It will
cost lots of bucks, but when you are done you will have an aircraft that
is inexpensive to maintain and operate.
>
> greg, with 600 hours on a 1994 conversion of C172N from 160->180HP
> (Airplains kit).
I've got more than 1600 on mine :-)
--
Leonard Wojcik Leonard.d...@wojciktech.com
Gregory Travis
In article <34F8B7...@wojciktech.com>,
Leonard Wojcik <Leonard.d...@wojciktech.com> wrote:
>Gregory Travis wrote:
>>
>> In article <34F708...@injersey.com>,
>> Philip W. Kineyko <fl...@injersey.com> wrote:
>> >Hello,
>> >
>> >Does anyone out in cyberspace have any experience with a 180 HP
>> >conversion (Avcon or other) to a Cessna 172?
>> >
>> >I currently own a 1964 172 and want more speed, like who dosen't.
>>
>> Do NOT go with Avcon. In fact, do not go with any kit that utilizes
>> a constant-speed prop. You will gain nothing in useful load, the
>> aircraft will become heavier, and you will realize no increase in
>> cruise speed.
>
>To the contrary, I have an AVCON conversion with constant speed prop
>which will certainly outclimb the fixed pitch versions. In addition the
>CS prop allows better preformance when it is hot and better service
>ceiling....
You'll note that I said nothing about climb performance. I will be
the first to admit that the CS version (Avcon) will be a better climber
than a fixed pitch bird. But there is no difference in cruise speed.
> I regularly fly at or above 15000 on long cross country
>flights.... fuel economy is also better, especially at altitude. I
>typically burn 8 gph for a 120 kt cruise.
Good point - a constant speed prop will allow you to trade prop RPM
for manifold pressure while still getting the same engine power. This
helps fuel economy.
The biggest drawbacks, as I see them, for the CS prop upgrade is
that it is significantly heavier than the fixed-pitch version (about
40 lbs more if I recall correctly) AND you are not eligible for the
gross-weight increase. So you end up losing a lot of useful
load.
greg
Keith Arnold
On 28 Feb 1998 12:52:22 -0500, gr...@sherrill.kiva.net (Gregory Travis)
wrote:
>In article <34F708...@injersey.com>,
>Philip W. Kineyko <fl...@injersey.com> wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>Does anyone out in cyberspace have any experience with a 180 HP
>>conversion (Avcon or other) to a Cessna 172?
>>
>>I currently own a 1964 172 and want more speed, like who dosen't.
>>I'm debating between a C182 or having my 172 upgraded to a 180 HP
>>Lycoming. I requested info from Avcon on the upgrade process but
>>have not heard from them yet. If anyone has had this performed
>>to their plan or knows of someone who has I would love to hear
>>about performance figures, i.e. cruise, climb, maintenance, cost
>>of the upgrade and by who?
>
>Do NOT go with Avcon. In fact, do not go with any kit that utilizes
>a constant-speed prop. You will gain nothing in useful load, the
>aircraft will become heavier, and you will realize no increase in
>cruise speed.
>
>DO go with one of the two fixed-pitch vendors, such as Penn Yan or Airplains.
>Both market virtually identical kits. The workmanship and quality are
>great.
>
>greg, with 600 hours on a 1994 conversion of C172N from 160->180HP
> (Airplains kit).
=========:
Keith wonders:
Why is the only performance criteria speed. The constant speed prop
will greatly improve initial acceleration, shorten ground roll, give
greater climb etc. If you want speed get a Mooney.
ô¿ô - Keith - 182L/STOL N3431R - Chino, California
N33° 58' 46" W117° 38' 41"
Herman L. Price
Leonard Wojcik wrote:
>
> Gregory Travis wrote:
> >
> > In article <34F708...@injersey.com>,
> > Philip W. Kineyko <fl...@injersey.com> wrote:
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >Does anyone out in cyberspace have any experience with a 180 HP
> > >conversion (Avcon or other) to a Cessna 172?
> > >
> > >I currently own a 1964 172 and want more speed, like who dosen't.
> >
> > a constant-speed prop. You will gain nothing in useful load, the
> > aircraft will become heavier, and you will realize no increase in
> > cruise speed.
>
> which will certainly outclimb the fixed pitch versions. In addition the
> CS prop allows better preformance when it is hot and better service
> flights.... fuel economy is also better, especially at altitude. I
> have to get a new motor mount to fit the dynafocal Lycoming. It will
> cost lots of bucks, but when you are done you will have an aircraft that
> is inexpensive to maintain and operate.
> >
>
> > (Airplains kit).
>
conversion using the 180 HP Lyc. O-360 with a constant speed prop.
Wonderful engine, wonderful prop. Climb and cruise were improved
significantly over the original 175HP GO-300 engine with fixed pitch
prop; moreso than can be account for by just the 5 extra HP. I was most
pleased. Wish I still had the plane.
Herman Price
"Spam away . . . my delete key works fine"
paul thacker
> >debating between a C182 or having my 172 upgraded to a 180 HP
>
> The most popular 180 hp STCs for the 172 (Air Plains, Penn Yan, Avcon)
> apply only to the 1968 and later Lycoming-powered 172s, I think. This is
> much easier, because the O-320 and O-360 use the same engine mount,
> the cowling is wide enough, and some STCs allow the exhaust and
> baffling to be spliced to add the 1-1/2" width at low cost.
>
> The earlier Continental O-300 powered 172s would have to replace
> essentially everything forward of the firewall (engine mount, nose gear,
> cowling, baffling, exhaust, air box, prop, spinner), and presumably modify
> the firewall too, so it would be a much more involved and expensive
> conversion. STCs have been issued for converting these earlier models,
> but I don't know that any that are being actively marketed.
>
> Realize that power makes a dramatic improvement in rate of climb and
> takeoff distances, but not in cruise speed. For much less money than the
> conversion would cost (if it is even available), one could trade a 1964 172
> for for a 1964 Cherokee 180, and fly faster than a 180 hp 172. It will require
>
> more runway, but it will carry more weight, too. And there are many other
> alternatives (Tiger, a previously-converted 172 or 177, C-177B, C-182,
> Dakota, Comanche, etc).
> - Rod Farlee
172s. It is currently being marketed for the "D thru P" (1963 and newer)
models. I know this because I called them, talked to one of their
mechanics, and had them send me a bunch of literature. The pre-'68
conversion replaces everything forward of the firewall except the carb
heat box (it gets modified), the vacuum pump, and the cowl (also
modified). I don't believe the nose gear gets replaced, but the prop and
the engine mount definitely do.
The whole package costs about 30K and takes about a week if you have
them do the installation. You can save some money by buying the STC and
some or all of the new parts and either doing the install yourself or
having your mechanic do it. This affects the warranty, of course.
Rod is correct when he says the improvements will be primarily climb
rate and takeoff distance. Cruise speed will be improved slightly, but
will amount to only a few minutes of time saved on what I would call an
average trip (2-3 hours). There is a gross weight increase with the
conversion, but it is only available for '68 and later models.
Airplains has a web site at www.airplains.com. It is little more than an
advertisement, however, offering few specific details. They will send
you an info package if you call and ask (1-800-752-8481).
I have a '65 172N, and would also like better performance. The only
reason I would consider the conversion instead of trading up to a 182 or
similar airplane is if I was really happy with everthing about the
airplane except the performance (panel, paint, interior, airframe
condition, etc.) and wanted to keep it for a long time. You will never
recover the cost of the conversion at resale.
Paul
N5425R
Ross Richardson
In article <34FEDD...@ccgate.hac.com>, pjth...@ccgate.hac.com says...
>
>Rod Farlee wrote:
>>
>> "Philip W. Kineyko" <fl...@injersey.com> writes:
>> >I currently own a 1964 172 and want more speed, like who dosen't. I'm
>> >debating between a C182 or having my 172 upgraded to a 180 HP
>> >Lycoming. I requested info from Avcon on the upgrade...
>>
>advertisement, however, offering few specific details. They will send
>you an info package if you call and ask (1-800-752-8481).
>
>I have a '65 172N, and would also like better performance. The only
>reason I would consider the conversion instead of trading up to a 182 or
>similar airplane is if I was really happy with everthing about the
>airplane except the performance (panel, paint, interior, airframe
>condition, etc.) and wanted to keep it for a long time. You will never
>recover the cost of the conversion at resale.
>
>Paul
>N5425R
First, a '65 172N??? My '65 is an "F" model.
I bought my 172 with the Avcon (AKA, Doyn or Bush). I have said before on this
NG that I really like the conversion with the C/S prop, et al, but the folks
that own the STC are difficult to work with. Paul is correct in the the pre '68
models do not get the gross weight increase as the later models. But the 172 is
a wonderful airplane with 180 hp and the C/S prop. Airplains and Penn-Yan do
conversions.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Richardson I'd rather be flying...
972-952-3170
N7905U 180hp C-172F
E-mail: r...@ti.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
The expressed opinions are mine alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------
jga...@hotmail.com
In article <19980228183...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
rodf...@aol.com (Rod Farlee) wrote:
<snip>
>
> The earlier Continental O-300 powered 172s would have to replace
> essentially everything forward of the firewall (engine mount, nose gear,
> cowling, baffling, exhaust, air box, prop, spinner), and presumably modify
> the firewall too, so it would be a much more involved and expensive
> conversion. STCs have been issued for converting these earlier models,
> but I don't know that any that are being actively marketed.
>
> - Rod Farlee
>
Just last weekend I saw a '57 172 (O-300) with an AVCON conversion that was
done about a year and a half ago. I think they are still available, but as
you said, with all the modifications required, the price would be pretty
steep.
BTW - The owner claimed it cruised at 130mph which is not much faster than
the original. My '59 (basically the same plane) cruised at 120mph with the
O-300.
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Keith Arnold
On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 17:14:29 -0600, jga...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Just last weekend I saw a '57 172 (O-300) with an AVCON conversion that was
>done about a year and a half ago. I think they are still available, but as
>you said, with all the modifications required, the price would be pretty
>steep.
>
> BTW - The owner claimed it cruised at 130mph which is not much faster than
>the original. My '59 (basically the same plane) cruised at 120mph with the
>O-300.
>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
===========>
Keith commented:
I wonder just how much more speed 30 hp will give. I think I've heard
that you have to quadruple the power to double the speed. Is that
right?
ô¿ô - Keith - 182L/STOL - Chino, California
John R. Johnson
That is quite right. If you look at the power required curves and the
power available curves for the aircraft with both engines you will see
that there is a modest increase in speed compared to the increase in power.
However, there is a marked increase in rate of climb. The constant speed
prop helps considerably also, because it shifts the power available curve
upward substantially at the lower airspeeds where the power required is
least, allowing even greater increases in the rate of climb.
Whenever a larger engine is installed in an existing airplane, most of
the gain shows up as climb rate. Most of the cost shows up in a decrease
in useful load. Both because of the increase in engine weight and in an
increase if fuel required for a given range.
John
Rod Farlee
kar...@jps.net (Keith Arnold) writes:
>I wonder just how much more speed 30 hp will give. I think I've heard
>that you have to quadruple the power to double the speed.
It's even worse than that.
At best glide (max L/D), power required increases linearly with airspeed.
At speeds far above best glide, parasitic drag dominates, and power
required increases with airspeed cubed. Typical cruise speed approaches
this limit.
On the other hand, the larger engine does allow you to have a coarser
prop pitch or a constant speed prop, which means there is more power
available at cruise. And it allows you to climb higher faster, and cruise
there at a higher true airspeed, and the 180 hp engine has higher
compression ratio and is about 5% more efficient. But fuel consumption
will increase almost with indicated airspeed cubed, and range will decrease
almost with indicated airspeed squared.
- Rod Farlee
Carl M Miller
Have heard good things about the Penn Yan conversion. Might want to
check them out.
Carl