Is this the best Cessna for bush flying?

The 170 is without doubt a great airplane. It’s difficult to nail down what is the best airplane. One thing for sure though, that one is a gorgeous example.

I am a fan of the 170 because I’m a fan of its little cousin the 140.

As far as the best for bush flying, I think it could be a contender if it had more power. For that kind of flying it would be great to have enough power to get out of anywhere you could get it in. The L19 might approach that level of performance.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Everyone calls everything baby 180's.
120/140 = baby 180
150/tw conversion = baby 180
170 = baby 180
172/tw conversion = baby 180
175/tw conversion = baby 180
Maule = Poor man's 180

Should probably just get a 180.
Click to expand...

Very true. But, a friend with a 180 built a 170 to sell. He said it was a wonderful thing to fly, totally different than the 180. I never flew it, but he had nothing but good things to say about it.
 
It has the same problem as other planes. It needs a bigger engine, but adding a bigger engine changes the balance. For people that live in the “bush”? Useful load is priority one. So no, a 170 isn’t the best.
 
Here’s a mental exercise for the “bush” conversation. Assume full gross ops, standard day and near sea level. I don’t drive Caravans but they’re very popular in the bush. Let’s just say 1500’. 1200’- 207. 1000’- 206. 800’- 185. 600’- 180. 400’- 170B. With reduced space you have to reduce load. Less than those numbers is possible but you have to fly light, and that isn’t why you buy bigger, more powerful airplanes. Under 400’? Buy a Supercub. Under 200’? Buy a helicopter.
 
Stewartb said:
Here’s a mental exercise for the “bush” conversation. Assume full gross ops, standard day and near sea level. I don’t drive Caravans but they’re very popular in the bush. Let’s just say 1500’. 1200’- 207. 1000’- 206. 800’- 185. 600’- 180. 400’- 170B. With reduced space you have to reduce load. Less than those numbers is possible but you have to fly light, and that isn’t why you buy bigger, more powerful airplanes. Under 400’? Buy a Supercub. Under 200’? Buy a helicopter.
Click to expand...

Where would you put a 182 in that list? And don’t say “the hangar” :p
 
Depends on the strip surface. 182s are great airplanes. 180s are better for cargo and the trimming tail contributes to that.
 
Is that the best Cessna for bush flying?
It is if that's what you own and are trying to monetize your Youtube Channel.

It's like asking if my 1960 Rambler American Classic station wagon with the 6 cylinder, 3 speed stick (on the column) and air conditioning is the best Rambler for off road use.
Yes it is. You pour enough time and money into it, it will do anything.

Don't mind me. I'm just crabby because another aircraft deal fell through. Let's just say the described aircraft and the real aircraft were vastly different.
BTW: Having flown an L-19 in 2019, I'd say that would be the best.
 
Shepherd said:
Is that the best Cessna for bush flying?
It is if that's what you own and are trying to monetize your Youtube Channel.

It's like asking if my 1960 Rambler American Classic station wagon with the 6 cylinder, 3 speed stick (on the column) and air conditioning is the best Rambler for off road use.
Yes it is. You pour enough time and money into it, it will do anything.

Don't mind me. I'm just crabby because another aircraft deal fell through. Let's just say the described aircraft and the real aircraft were vastly different.
BTW: Having flown an L-19 in 2019, I'd say that would be the best.
Click to expand...

My first car was a 66 Rambler American. Impossible to find now.
 
motoadve said:
it depends on the mission
Click to expand...

As stated, it depends on the mission. For me I found the C-206 was best for my missions. I needed to carry at least 4 folks and all their gear and land in under 800 feet for off airport work. I used to fly river rafters to a 600 feet goat trail landing area. I usually departed that same 600 feet with loads of less than 200 pounds. There was a few times I had to take 1 or 2 passengers out. Take off started in the parking area, full power, then 45 degree turn to the left onto the goat trail, and rotate at 60 knots indicated leaving about 30 to 50 feet of goat trail behind depending on time of day. Go/no go decision was made during the left turn.

Definitely had to be on airspeed+/- 0, and definitely had to hit the same spot on every landing, while watching for folks and/or animals crossing. A real good way to get the adrenaline flowing...
 
A long time ago a friend made a graph of gross loads, speed and fuel consumption for piston Cessnas. The single load cost per pound of payload moved was about the same for all piston engine Cessnas based on gross weight payload. The cost of total weight moved favored the bigger planes doing it in fewer trips. If you don't take much stuff a 206 doesn't make sense any more than a 152 does for an air freight carrier.
 
Stewartb said:
A long time ago a friend made a graph of gross loads, speed and fuel consumption for piston Cessnas. The single load cost per pound of payload moved was about the same for all piston engine Cessnas based on gross weight payload. The cost of total weight moved favored the bigger planes doing it in fewer trips. If you don't take much stuff a 206 doesn't make sense any more than a 152 does for an air freight carrier.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. Not sure I believe it completely, but it probably is reasonably true.
 
I heard that side loading the180 gear can cause failures. I think there is an STC out to beef up the gear.
 
Pponk gear box mod. Steve Knopp used to fly heavy loads off of sloped beaches in western Alaska. Most guys won't come close to maxing out their gear structure. Owners see "heavy duty" and they all want it. I've had a kit in my parts box for over 20 years. None of my mechanics I've had in that time would install it. It isn't necessary.
 
Shepherd said:
BTW: Having flown an L-19 in 2019, I'd say that would be the best.
Click to expand...

Our L-19 comments aren't gettin' any love. But few have been up in one, I realize.

Damn thing is impressive if we have to stick to Cessna.

I'm going with Helio Courier if we are allowed a different brand. Ha.

But a modified 170...? It's okay... And will perform better than most pilots flying it until they have some time in it. So it's ... "Fine".

I wouldn't turn down a free one... Heh.

Oh and I didn't land the L-19 ... I hear that can be quite entertaining if you squish those long springy legs real hard. Boiiiiing.
 
A friend had one with an Allison turbine. He said it was fun. Apparently not fun enough to keep it.
 
denverpilot: Gently, gently on the L-19 landing.
Which takes some practice because it will go downhill with full flaps almost fast enough to make your ears bleed.
 
Zeldman said:
As stated, it depends on the mission. For me I found the C-206 was best for my missions. I needed to carry at least 4 folks and all their gear and land in under 800 feet for off airport work. I used to fly river rafters to a 600 feet goat trail landing area. I usually departed that same 600 feet with loads of less than 200 pounds. There was a few times I had to take 1 or 2 passengers out. Take off started in the parking area, full power, then 45 degree turn to the left onto the goat trail, and rotate at 60 knots indicated leaving about 30 to 50 feet of goat trail behind depending on time of day. Go/no go decision was made during the left turn.

Definitely had to be on airspeed+/- 0, and definitely had to hit the same spot on every landing, while watching for folks and/or animals crossing. A real good way to get the adrenaline flowing...
Click to expand...

Sounds like you needed more goats. :)
 
There is a reason everyone compares their plane of choice to a 180. Because a 180 is pretty tough to beat. They are expensive these days, but are still a great airplane. A 170 with an 0360 is a wonderful thing, but it is NOT a 180 anything. It handles differently, it can't carry as much and doesn't go nearly as fast.
My 180 has a 520, a sportsman cuff, 185 gear legs, 29" bushwheels, and all the other "cool" stc's. I cruise at 18" and 2300rpm doing 140 to 145 over the ground. I can land it in less than 800' and get it off the ground pretty quick, I left Telluride yesterday with DA over 11,000 and was off a few hundred feet before the 1000' markers. (with the girlfriend, bags, and survival gear)
To me a 170 with an O360 would be a great fun toy, a cross between a 180 and a Cub. But its not something you are going to go camping in for a week with a girlfriend that brings everything including the kitchen sink!
 
Oh, and L-19's they are a goofy thing! Two seats, fixed pitch prop, weird engine. Like a 180 but with fewer seats, less cargo area, and slower cruise speed.
 
Wagondriver said:
Oh, and L-19's they are a goofy thing! Two seats, fixed pitch prop, weird engine. Like a 180 but with fewer seats, less cargo area, and slower cruise speed.
Click to expand...
Heh. But the 180 needs rocket tubes. Pbbbbbt!

;-)
 
Wagondriver said:
Oh, and L-19's they are a goofy thing! Two seats, fixed pitch prop, weird engine. Like a 180 but with fewer seats, less cargo area, and slower cruise speed.
Click to expand...

Not all of them have a fixed pitch prop.

For many years I had a desire to own an L19. I learned to fly at an airport that for whatever reason has a whole bunch of them. A pilot I know who flies everything under the Sun except airliners and is a natural born pilot with a BUNCH of L19 time, says he won’t land one with full flaps unless it is absolutely necessary. They have 60 degrees of flaps maximum.

All that said, I would STILL like to at least fly an L19 some day, and I expect the opportunity some day.
 
60° of semi-Fowler flaps isn’t something I’d care for on my Cessna. With my stock Camberlift wings, standard tail, and standard gear 40° of flap works great. More drag needs other mods to make it useful. I have 60° of full Fowler flaps on my Cub and they allow very steep approaches but the Cub has other wing, tail, and suspension mods to utilize it.

What guys imagine when they talk about bush flying is usually landing on a smooth sandbar somewhere. Go land on rough terrain and very quickly you’ll want something lighter than a Cessna and something that has better gear for the task. Not many guys are willing to beat up their Cessnas to go where Cubs go. But Cubs have optimized gear, bigger softer tires, land slower, and weigh less. And they’re easier to fix when you bend something!
 
I’ve never seen an L-19 used in real off-airport conditions. Not the smooth gravel bars some guys think is “bush” flying, but I’ve never seen one there, either. For rough use the Cessna of choice in the real bush is an early 180 because they’re lighter than later Skywagons. My Later model 180 has 1400# useful load and that’s what was important to me. I’ve had opportunities to buy 185s and even considered a 206 but I stayed with what I have. I’m a pretty typical Cessna owner around my neighborhood. For short and rough most of us have Cubs so we don’t have to take the Cessnas where they don’t belong. Mission defines equipment, or equipment limits mission. Everybody has their own priorities.
 
They were used as liaison and forward observation planes. STOL wasn’t their strength. But do tell if you know different.
 
Trying to find where I said even one word about STOL. The claim made by someone in an earlier post was that it was not suitable for rough fields.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
@Wagondriver is that 140-145 kt TAS or GS? If TAS, what do you see at say 22/2450?
Click to expand...

That is ground speed MPH. With no wind, its pretty consistent, with 8.50's it was about 10 mph faster. As far as higher power settings, I cruise usually at 12,500 or 11,500 so I have little experience with higher manifold pressures, and my engine feels smoothest at 2300, so max throttle and 2300 is what I do.
 
Stewartb said:
Here’s a mental exercise for the “bush” conversation. Assume full gross ops, standard day and near sea level. I don’t drive Caravans but they’re very popular in the bush. Let’s just say 1500’. 1200’- 207. 1000’- 206. 800’- 185. 600’- 180. 400’- 170B. With reduced space you have to reduce load
Click to expand...

I’ve driven almost everything on your list and I agree 100%.

I can’t say a 170B would ever make my list of “ultimate” bush plane. There’s a reason Beavers have been around for almost 75 years and cost half a million dollars. Most definitely the quintessential bush plane, and my favorite I’ve flown.

I would say the 180/185 is the best compromise of cost/capability around which would make them the “ultimate” bush plane in my opinion. A decked out 180/185 with a good pilot can follow a super cub to 90% of places, do it 50 knots faster and haul 2-3x as much. That’s assuming some mods done to the 180/185. My buddy has a 185 with the Robinson kit and I have seen him do some pretty unbelievable stuff with it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top