Hey Gang,

The DeathStar (C175-A Model) finally completed its first "mission" since I purchased it in August...I actually flew it last Friday down to Florida to see my wife & then back on Sunday to Ft Benning and work...ran like a scalded ape...I'm really liking this plane...a lot...I am going through a decision process however...and it has to do with whether this is gonna be my "training airplane for IFR" w/a subsequent sale and purchase of something else...or is it gonna be THE PLANE that I'm gonna put all my heart soul and meager allowance my wife allows me into. Here's my big question...

A spreadsheet I have shows the A&B models (stock) having an empty weight of 1312 and GW of 2350...w/full fuel that gives a payload of 725...not bad, but not great...Same sheet shows the C model w/1325 EW and GW of 2450...w/full fuel that's 812 lbs of payload...Are those numbers correct for the C model...or is there possibly a typo(s) in the sheet? If they are, what mods to the A&B models got the increased GW?

I'm really looking for any excuse I can to keep this plane...or absent that...go with a C model for the extra payload...if in fact it exists. All comentary is welcome...to include diparaging comments about my inability to read the fine print. :-) I'm gonna [post this in a couple of other sites also...sorry for the repeats.

Darth

Without digging out the exact weights I can tell you with the Lycoming conversion my empty weight was reduced and I think it was a net 75 lbs or somewhere in that area. This was an actual weight compared to previous estimated weights prior to my ownership.

My gross weight remained unchanged. Perhaps my one regret with the whole conversion to the Lycoming engine. However the two other major providers of this same engine conversion both have a gross weight increase. I'll let them comment on the actual amount but I think it's 2,500 gross or might be as high as 2,550, please check with them.

Maybe Kris can chime in on the empty and gross weights of his Continental IO360 conversion. From what I've read, the O-470 has a gross weight increase but it is mostly if not all eaten up by the additional weight of the engine and weight in the tail.

This is not a real scientific answer but I hope this gives you ideas to work with.

Jim

Jim,

Thanx for the quick reply. You are pinging ALL the areas I am concerned about...Where I'm trying to go, is a net increase in the payload...an engine conversion don't do me much good, if the GW is as you say "eaten up" by extra weight of he engine. If there is a conversion out there that will do the trick...w/o killing the other performance attirbutes of this plane (STOL, fuel economy) I'd shore 'nuff like to hear about it from folks who know. If I haven't menitoned it...I REALLY LIKE this airframe. :-)

Regards,

Darth

There was a p172d up in lake chelan for sale with an 0-360 c/s the p172d had a 2550 gw and i bet the 0-360 was quite light. I think that plane would have a big haul capacity.
KenW

Hi Mike,

I have been really sick for several days.

The question you ask depends on what your needs or dream machine is. No question a newer 182 will give you a couple hundred more pounds, maybe more, gross weight. They are nice to load down because big and lots of power. But double or triple your money from what you paid for your 175.

Key decision points in my veiw:

Want Manual or Electric Flaps?
Want a fastback or rear windows?
Want 10gph or 14gph
Want 120-130kts or 135-140kts
Want the most punch for size, or is average for the class OK?
Want a lighter or heavier feeling airplane?
Got extra money for insurance on a bigger plane?

The 175 you have might have cost $35,000, just a typical value. An mid 60's 182 is maybe $60,000, typ?

Some planes have bladders, some metal tanks.
You can get a 2500lbs gross with Del air, XP mods, Stoots Aviation, and I think the Franklin 220from Classic aire, maybe, conversions.

You can also sell you plane and buy a Hawk XP from the late 70's for $65K or so. All the modern Electric flaps and other stuff, but 175 sized and same engine as my 175. Grossed at 2500, they probably still only have an 900lb useful load - but I am just guessing.

I would not sell your airplane to buy any other 175/P172D unless you found one you liked better or already had what you want. The C's have an obsolete constant speed prop and are tough to find parts for unless they have a conversion.

Hope this helps!

Kris,

Take two beers and call me in the morning :-) Hope you are feeling better...My SWMBO has the crud this week also, and she ain't a nice person to be around right now. I really appreciate your reply...You put point on all the factors I've been juggling...I really don't want to buy a 182...the model that would give the performance I want/need is the N-Model...and they are pretty pricey...not to mention, If I go that route, I'm buying someone else's airplane and then have to throw $$$ at it to make it "mine," if you know what I mean. If I can get the performance enhancements I want (little more speed, little more payload), while mainining the characteristics I like on the current airframe (STOL, Fuel Burn), w/o breaking the bank then I will be a happy camper. PLUS, I (like you) will have created my "dream airplane."

To answer your questions specifically:

1. Manual Flaps for sure

2. 10 GPH (no brainer here)

3. 120-130 is good enough...anything more w/o excess fuel burn is gravy

4. Most Punch...If I understand the question correctly

5. I like solid, but this one feels prett good...It's not an ultralite like a 152 :-)

6. Who does??? :-)


"You can get a 2500lbs gross with Del air, XP mods, Stoots Aviation, and I think the Franklin 220from Classic aire..."

Do you have web sites...contact person, fon, on all these? This "project" ain't gonna happen soon, but I am doing the initial research. My annual is in May. Once I get there and detemine the "scope" of the problem so to speak, I'll be in a better position to decide on customizing The DeathStar...or begging my SWMBO for $$$ to get a 182 (fat chance).

If there's other folks out there tht have had contact w/some of these guys that do conversions, I'd be interested in hearing about results. I read Karls article in the Flyer and was fascinated/impressed by what he's done w/his bird...a real live Indiana Jones Airplane!!

Again, thanx for the great info...don't forget t take your medicine (2 beers).

Darth

PS "The C's have an obsolete constant speed prop and are tough to find parts for unless they have a conversion." Great info BTW....that comment alond proves the value of info sharing forums like this!!

Sounds like you should keep and convert. Do not expect it to be cheaper than a 182 by the time you invest in everything. But you will have your dream Bird for the same price as someone else's airplane, ehh?

I'll dig you up some contact info.

Have heard about a wing extension mod that brings gross up to 2550. used mainly for float conversions. Any body have details on this?

Company called "Wing-X." Not STC'd for the US...Yet...I e-mailed the guy & he sad approval was "pending." I can send you the link when I get to work, or you can Google it. Loks like a pretty interesting option...unless you have the old style hangar doors.

Regards,

Darth

The Cessna dealer in Kamloops is a dealer and installer for the Wing-X extensions. They add 3ft to the wings and take the gross to 2550.
Ken Wardstrom in Surrey

Kenny,

Any chance you could ping him and see what the "street" says as to US approval timeline? I know they are working it and it is one of the options on my "short list."

Regards,

Darth

http://www.wingxstol.com/images/support/Guide172.pdf

Darth,

I contacted the Wing-X guys at least 4 years ago about the extensions and gross weight increase. I was told then that they were expecting a US STC soon!!!!!! Also, their gross weight increase is only good with a 180 hp engine installed.

One of the best things I did for my '58 model was to put on the Micro-VG's. I did this while living in Wichita, where 15 knots is considered a calm day and it was never blowing down the runway. It made a big difference in crosswind handling and made short filed operations a lot easier. With my old GO-300 getting in and out of a 1300' runway (or hay field) is easy with a little practice and good technique.

My power off stall speed is ?, the airspeed neddle is dead and all I am doing is a tail slide. Power on stall is a non-event, you have to stomp on a rudder pedal to get a wing to fall off both power on & power off. Slow flight is about 45 mph indicated and you still have aileron effectivity.

The Owner's Manual for my C175A shows the weight of full fuel (40.8 gal) as 245 lbs. which plus the "licensed" empty weight of 1386 lbs plus oil at 19 lbs yields an "empty weight" of 1650 lbs. 2350 - 1650 = 700 useful load with full fuel. With a Lycoming O-360 fixed pitch Bush conversion, PowerFlow Exhaust and all the other stuff my empty weight comes up to 1501 lbs. My useful load with full fuel is 2350 - (1501 empty wt. + 245 fuel) = 604 lbs. I don't know if this would be a typical useful load or not but it is an actual example of a well equipped IFR certified C175A. So the various STC's, and radio gear has only cost me about 100 lbs of useful load.

A couple of points come to mind.

Cessna includes the weight of "unuseable fuel in the "licensed" empty weight of the plane but not the engine oil which they consider to be part of the "useful" load. In calculating the W & B my mechanic chose to include the engine oil in "empty weight" rather than as part of the useful load. It makes calculating W&B for an actual flight more straight forward.

The info on your spreadsheet for the empty weight of a C175A does not match the wt given in the Owner's Manual so this should be taken as a caution to double check data from non-official sources. I would consider a loss of 74 lbs of useful load (1386 Cessna's empty wt - 1312 spreadsheet empty wt) a significant difference not to mention a big disappointment if I based a purchase decision on the expectation of being able to carry that 74 lbs.

The 54 LBS unusable fuel has bothered me for some time. Does anyone know if there is a mod that can change this amount of unusable fuel? The newer 172's with long range tanks have unusable fuel something like .5 gallons per tank. Why the extra 4 gallons in our tanks???

Before I did my conversion my empty weight was 1,503.7 (calculated). After the conversion it is 1,531.25 (weighed). The CG moved from 37.73 (calculated) to 38.91 (weighed). The new weights are with full oil as well.

I suppose the weight differences come from the constant speed prop and prop governor.

I talked to AVCON about the gross weight increase. Apparently all the data is there for the increase but the testing was never completed. Unfortunately there is no future testing planned so the gross weight increase is unlikely. That's unfortunate, I could use the extra 200 lbs useful load they estimate they would have. Add to that a mod for usable fuel and there is 250 lbs. more usable load.


Jim

Clay,
Thanx for the link...looks like a major gyration to slap these rascals on...maybe this goes on my "maybe later list."

Darth

James,

You're pinging all the points I've been looking at on this...You are absolutely right...a thrid party spread sheet is "urban legend" until proven correct empirically. Once I get "ground truth," most likely by actually weighing this beast, then I can get a better idea as to how to proceed. I appreciate the comments.

Regards,

Darth

Rick,

I'd be real interested in your flap, airspeed & RPM combinations for 45 degree entry, downwind, base & final. I've got the GO 300 in the DeathStar.

Darth

Darth,

I'll get you some good numbers in a couple of weeks. It is frigid up here right now and I am trying to finish my annual.....but of course the day job is getting in the way of that. I get to spend next week in OKC for training.

Mike (Darth)

I would not get too wrapped up in someone else's numbers. You may just want to get an instructor for an hour or so to walk you through a few landings based on airspeed and rate of descent. The extra weight in the right seat gives you a more realistic feel if you plan to fly with family and friends anyway. There are a lot of variables such as wind, temps, weight, loading, prop, rigging, and stuff on your aircraft that affects rate of descent or creates drag or airflow that is unique to your aircraft.

I personally use several different combinations depending on where I am. We have everything from ultra-lights to big twins in the pattern with a parallel gravel strip for cubs and other paper airplanes. I like to fly a tight pattern normally, but the trainers come in from town frequently to practice without a tower, so sometimes you fly a pretty wide swath. My experience with the GO-300 says use a steep approach and make sure you stay within gliding distance at all times!

Appreciate it. That job thing su&*s don't it.

Darth

Hey Doc,

Absolutely agree...especially on the instructor part. I lost my primary (Instrument Instructor) a few weeks back...he got a job w/the Big Boys...as soon as I get another one qued up, I'm gonna go fly the pattern w/him...I was just looking for some starting numbers.

re: the GO300, steep approach & gliding distance, what's the thought process there? And...follow on...How do you "mix" steep approach w/for want of a better phrase a "slightlypowered on, power off" final?

Regards,

Darth

Use lots of flaps- you can drag drag drag...

Vader,

Actually the steep approach/stay close thought should apply to all aircraft, I just threw in the reference to the GO-300 to embellish on the "lawn dart" reputation it has given the 175. Take-off and landing are statistically the two occasions when your engine is likely to act up in a manner that brings you back to earth in the most abrupt manner. Maintaining pattern altitude within dead-stick glide distance until ready to set er down leaves you with more options to land safely on the airstrip than dragging in long and low. Getting into the habit of setting it down as close to the numbers leaves the maximum amount of runway to get stopped, which is important on ice or straight skis (no brakes). Conversely, always leave as much runway for take-off and climb quikly in case you need to set it back down!

Even with a little power in, you will find that if you slow up early and use lots of flaps, the 175 can be trimmed up to one of the sweetest steep descents you can experience!

I have been reading some real interesting debate about full stall landings. They have been drilling that into us for years and was partially the impetus for the bi-annial review. Now I am hearing, "why slow up to the point when you lose aileron effectiveness?" (which occurs in a stall/spin).

I was flying with a young instructor once and asked him what year the bi-annial review was implemented and why. He had just assumed it was always required and did not know it was primarily to get pilots to slow down the "hot" landings that were causing the aviation accident rate to increase in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

I sense there is still good in you Darth, go enjoy that aircraft!

Doc,

Thanx for the mentorship. I have never understood the "full-stall" reasoning either. Seems like another case of "we've always done it that way." I guess I'll just have to go out and fly it more...Oh Darn! Maybe some of us could have a fly-in somewhere central sometime & some of you more experienced fellers (in the 175) could do an informal clinic. OK...I'm off to work...got a few rebellions to put down and a couple of planets to destroy.

Regards,

Darth