Question about auto gas STC

I am currently interested in an older C-172 (Cont. 0-300 engine) that has an
STC for auto gas. My questions a

1. Can I continue to use AVgas instead of auto fuel?

2. I often fly into/out of Big Bear City, Ca. (elev. 6500ft.) I've been able
to get out lightly loaded (me and one in the right seat) at a density altitude
of 8,100 with one of our clubs 172s with the 320H2AD engines at 160 hp. What
difference would I see with the 15 fewer horses up front?

3. Can you give me a rough idea of cost to add a 2nd Nav-comm with Glideslope
and then have the whole thing certified for IFR? I would probably try to find a
good quality used one from one of the local shops.

Thanks for any help you can give to a rookie getting ready to make a first
purchase.

Jim

In article ,
(JimT96309) wrote:

I am currently interested in an older C-172 (Cont. 0-300 engine) that has an
STC for auto gas. My questions a

1. Can I continue to use AVgas instead of auto fuel?

Yes -- the STC allows mixing and switching back and forth.



2. I often fly into/out of Big Bear City, Ca. (elev. 6500ft.) I've been
able
to get out lightly loaded (me and one in the right seat) at a density
altitude
of 8,100 with one of our clubs 172s with the 320H2AD engines at 160 hp. What
difference would I see with the 15 fewer horses up front?


How do you get 15 fewer horses? You may actually get a few more with
mogas.


3. Can you give me a rough idea of cost to add a 2nd Nav-comm with
Glideslope
and then have the whole thing certified for IFR? I would probably try to find
a
good quality used one from one of the local shops.


I can't help you there. Check with some reputable avionics shops.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
2. I often fly into/out of Big Bear City, Ca. (elev. 6500ft.) I've
been
able
to get out lightly loaded (me and one in the right seat) at a density
altitude
of 8,100 with one of our clubs 172s with the 320H2AD engines at 160 hp.
What
difference would I see with the 15 fewer horses up front?


How do you get 15 fewer horses? You may actually get a few more with
mogas.

His has 15 fewer than the clubs 172 with the O320. The O300 bird won't
perform as well unless it is lighter.

How do you get 15 fewer horses? You may actually get a few more with
mogas.

It is my understanding that the 0-300 is only rated at 145 hp.

That is correct. I believe the 145 HP O-300 was replaced by the
Lycoming 150HP O-320 around '68. We had an O-300 in ours and decided
to replace it with a O-360 (180 HP). Glad we did. Continental doesn't
make the O-300 any more, and the extra 35 HP is great. It's a little
expensive (somewhere around $32K) but you get a factory new engine. I
love having the extra power and getting to keep the manual 40 degree
flaps. (Ours is a '64 E model.)

JimT96309 wrote:
How do you get 15 fewer horses? You may actually get a few more with
mogas.


It is my understanding that the 0-300 is only rated at 145 hp.


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

We had an O-300 in ours and decided
to replace it with a O-360 (180 HP). Glad we did. Continental doesn't
make the O-300 any more, and the extra 35 HP is great. It's a little
expensive (somewhere around $32K) but you get a factory new engine. I
love having the extra power and getting to keep the manual 40 degree
flaps. (Ours is a '64 E model.)

I have a '67 and when the time comes, I will probably upgrade to the 180 hp.
How much more fuel do you burn now? Did you install any new fuel tanks or do
you still carry 36 gallons?

I was up today for 1.8 and burned only 14 gallons of mogas. :-)



www.Rosspilot.com

On 02 Jun 2004 19:55:40 GMT, ospam (Rosspilot)
wrote:

We had an O-300 in ours and decided
to replace it with a O-360 (180 HP). Glad we did. Continental doesn't
make the O-300 any more, and the extra 35 HP is great. It's a little
expensive (somewhere around $32K) but you get a factory new engine. I
love having the extra power and getting to keep the manual 40 degree
flaps. (Ours is a '64 E model.)

I have a '67 and when the time comes, I will probably upgrade to the 180 hp.
How much more fuel do you burn now? Did you install any new fuel tanks or do
you still carry 36 gallons?

I was up today for 1.8 and burned only 14 gallons of mogas. :-)



www.Rosspilot.com



As a rule of thumb you can use a half a pound per horse power per
hour.

i.e. 75% power of a 160hp engine is 120hp, so .5*120 = 60lbs per
hour, or 10 gallons an hour in cruise. How you lean, and other things
obviously modify this number somewhat, but it's a good rule of thumb.

HTH.
z

On 02 Jun 2004 01:52:19 GMT, (JimT96309) wrote:

I am currently interested in an older C-172 (Cont. 0-300 engine) that has an
STC for auto gas. My questions a

1. Can I continue to use AVgas instead of auto fuel?

Yes.

2. I often fly into/out of Big Bear City, Ca. (elev. 6500ft.) I've been able
to get out lightly loaded (me and one in the right seat) at a density altitude
of 8,100 with one of our clubs 172s with the 320H2AD engines at 160 hp. What
difference would I see with the 15 fewer horses up front?

172s with the 0-300 were also made with a different wing design. It
is not a "high lift wing" like you are used to. You will not get the
same take-off performance out of it.

3. Can you give me a rough idea of cost to add a 2nd Nav-comm with Glideslope
and then have the whole thing certified for IFR? I would probably try to find a
good quality used one from one of the local shops.

Figure 5 grand and you might be happy when you get the bill.

Thanks for any help you can give to a rookie getting ready to make a first
purchase.


Don't know if you're partial to 172s for any reason, but you may want
to open up the search to other aircraft. Piper and Grumman may offer
you something with suitable performance and a slightly less expensive
purchase price. Obviously this opens up a whole bunch of other
questions you need to answer for yourself, but if high altitude ops
are your primary concern I thought it worth mentioning.

Jim



Good Luck!!

z

2. I often fly into/out of Big Bear City, Ca. (elev. 6500ft.) I've been able
to get out lightly loaded (me and one in the right seat) at a density altitude
of 8,100 with one of our clubs 172s with the 320H2AD engines at 160 hp. What
difference would I see with the 15 fewer horses up front?

Don't know if you're partial to 172s for any reason, but you may want
to open up the search to other aircraft. Piper and Grumman may offer
you something with suitable performance and a slightly less expensive
purchase price.

Are 180hp (less expensive ^ ) Grumman's really suitable for frequent
8000+' DA takeoffs ?

"Martin Kosina" wrote in message
om...

Are 180hp (less expensive ^ ) Grumman's really suitable for frequent
8000+' DA takeoffs ?


They are suitable for one attempt.