Talk me out of a c170

S

Seth.A

Pre-Flight
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
78
Display Name
Display name:
Seth.A
What’s not to love about a 1950 170A? There’s a nice looking one for sale near me and I’m just now starting to really research the type. Figured checking in with the poa brain trust was worth doing.
 
Get a really good and thorough prebuy. 73 years is a lot of time for metal to crack and corrode. Plenty of time for shortcut maintenance. Plenty of time for a previous owner to have deferred a lot of defects. And there are plenty of SBs on those old airframes. For instance, those gear legs have a tendency to corrode on their bottom surfaces, and any pitting there raises the risk of cracking and failure immensely. And guess how many gear legs are available. New or used.

BTDT with a 170 like that. Too many shortcuts, too many "owner-maintained" things that had to be fixed or replaced because they were so dangerous.
 
Speed is the major drawback... a Pacer / Tri-Pacer in good shape would be a worthy competitor.

For the record, I think I've flown 4-5 170s with various clients. I like the plane, but it wouldn't be at the top of my list.
 
Last edited:
for those more knowledgable than me - what engine does a 170 of this age use?

If the answer is the 6-cyl 300, that's kinda another thing, no?
 
Cool… go for it. I rent a ‘48 straight 170 with a metalized wing and a Conti O-300. Apparently it’s a good leap of improvements to the A model. But when you get it, upgrade the gear. Stock gear is springy.
 
Rgbeard said:
for those more knowledgable than me - what engine does a 170 of this age use?

If the answer is the 6-cyl 300, that's kinda another thing, no?
Click to expand...

Standard motor for any 170 is a Continental O-300.

Good engine if it has been taken care of. Costs more to O/H than your average 4 cylinder and some parts (like crankshafts) are difficult to find.
 
Great flying airplane, have hundreds of hours in the 170A, which came with a metal wing but no dihedral at all. In summer pretend that it’s a two+ up airplane with say 125-130hp up front because that’s how it will feel and fly.

The stock landing gear tend to waddle a bit; the fix is early C180 gear which is a wonderful change if you find one so equipped.

Happy to answer any specific questions. It’s a nice fly tailwheel airplane.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Speed is the major drawback... a Pacer / Tri-Pacer in good shape would be a worthy competitor.
Click to expand...
This. It burns a good amount of gas through those 6 cylinders for the speed you're not getting. It's an honest flying plane, but not really suited for for adults. I flew mine right at max gross once, carrying hurricane relief supplies. It was an experience. If you like Cessnas and taildraggers, and want to occasionally carry kids in the back, it's a decent plane. If you really want to go offroading and carry four and gear, get a 180.
 
Note that if the mission is for you solo or sometimes you and not-too-big-friend, the 120/140 are nicer flying machines.

As noted by several, the 170 is pretty close to a two-up machine in most cases. That’s said, I’ve flown one coast to coast in a few days with no issues.
 
The Cessna 170 is one of the nicest planes you will ever fly. Controls light as a feather. Mild ground handling with an effective rudder. Four seats. Fits a 6’2” tall guy like me perfectly.

Maintenance? Fixed gear, fixed pitch prop, manual flaps, manual trim. It doesn’t get much simpler.

The Cessna 170B model has the same wing as early 172 Skyhawks, wing parts interchangeable. Also shares some parts with the Bird Dog.

Forward visibility is amazing with the low panel, and down slanted cowl.

I have the PPONK gearbox with C180 legs. Fresh Continental O-300. Takeoff in 600-800’, and lands much shorter. Honest 500 FPM climb. Just enough of a challenge to land that it makes it fun.

CDD3F359-93FE-4B47-BB83-4A7E33E6FDEA.jpeg 02396F09-51DF-4832-985C-EF35E6C904F3.jpeg DC2DDE1A-E447-457E-AF8D-E440D8425612.jpeg DB09CE35-4E8D-44F3-B383-6FB04BF2EC4D.jpeg 878B1315-B816-4314-BEB4-1627133F0732.jpeg 72617401-66BE-4540-888B-FC2CD64F64C7.jpeg 535649B5-BE62-4C82-A1B5-0962A03F025A.jpeg 72C9BF5D-DA33-4D45-8D6E-93F8D863E65B.jpeg
 
Also, the Cessna 170 Club has amazing support information and is quite active. Our Texas chapter gets together every month. That’s how I found my plane, after joining.
 
Me, my wife, son, bags, and full fuel is within the envelope.

I did take three adults up once (four total). They were small adults though.
 
Last edited:
I love her little sister the 140, flown mine all over the country including Johnson creek Idaho twice. Same gear basically sure it’s springy- it’s just fine.

ive flown behind 0-300s a few times, no power beast but dang is it a smooth running engine!

my bird has fanfic wings- big deal- they work! Modern fabric if it’s in good shape over aluminum and hangared it’s good for a lifetime!

yes they are old do inspect well and fly the **** out of it!
 
Huckster79 said:
I love her little sister the 140, flown mine all over the country including Johnson creek Idaho twice. Same gear basically sure it’s springy- it’s just fine.

ive flown behind 0-300s a few times, no power beast but dang is it a smooth running engine!

my bird has fanfic wings- big deal- they work! Modern fabric if it’s in good shape over aluminum and hangared it’s good for a lifetime!

yes they are old do inspect well and fly the **** out of it!
Click to expand...

The 120/140 IMHO are more sprightly to fly. And the gear seem much less springy to me compared to the 170. Also ended up doing the P-ponk and 180 gear on mine which was splendid. That plus a 360 would be the perfect combo since the C145 burns about as much fuel anyhow.
 
I actually prefer flying the A over the B. The dihedral they added made it more stable, but less fun! Hard to go wrong with one if you do a good prebuy. When one hits the market, it doesn't stay very long. It'll burn 9gph, go about 120-125mph and you'll have tons of fun in it.

Most of the negative comments you're getting are from the same people who wouldn't want a 172. Not for everyone, but great planes. My friend and I have flown his 170B all over the US.
 
I have a 1951 170A and love it! It is a great flyer. Great looks. A tame taildragger that you can see over the nose. The 170 Association is probably one of the best type clubs out there. The 170 is simple to work on and has very few AD's. There are a couple rights of passage in 170 maintenance (fuel tank selector valve is hard to get to and will some day leak, door latch springs will break but can be improved). Just like any 75 year old design, parts are not plentiful, but I really haven't had any trouble getting anything either. Word is O-300 cranks are hard to get if you need one, but there is also a company out there who recently has been increasing activity to keep O-300's going (Airworx LLC).

Sure the 170B flaps might let you land shorter than on a 170A, but unless you have more horsepower you can still land a 170A shorter than you can take off. Plus no flap tracks to wear out. I am based out of a 2500' grass strip (650' elevation) and it is a great performer there. No worries about getting out or getting stopped. So in my mind no huge need for the B model (unless you are going to upgrade engine, want to put on a leading edge STC, or add extended baggage). The one time every year I wish I had a B model is when I need to crawl in the back to inspect the tail cone because the A model has aileron cables going up the middle of the access to the tailcone where on the B it is wide open. But even my 250 lb frame can squeeze past it to lubricate the flight control pulleys.

It isn't going to break any speed records, but it is a very utilitarian plane. My wife and I have thrown mountain bikes and tons of luggage in the back. Plenty of room for camping supplies for two. Depending on the size of the people, you can take your wife and another couple to the nearby $100 hamburger.

There is also an active population of people replacing the O-300 with 180hp - 210hp motors. I can only imagine how well that plane would perform.

Other common upgrades include: larger tires, 180 gear legs, adding baggage doors, Rosen visors, door stewards, folding jump seats, thicker windshield with no center strap, tail pull handles, lightweight starters, and more.

I purchased a bit of a project plane and have put a lot of work into it. So just like any other 70 year old plane you might want to buy, get a good pre-buy inspection. Ideally by someone who knows the type.

Good luck!
 
Steamflyer said:
The 120/140 IMHO are more sprightly to fly. And the gear seem much less springy to me compared to the 170. Also ended up doing the P-ponk and 180 gear on mine which was splendid. That plus a 360 would be the perfect combo since the C145 burns about as much fuel anyhow.
Click to expand...

interesting I thought it was same basic gear- but yes a 360 would be great! I’m in a club w a 172 w the 0-360 and it’s the right engine for the airframe- gotta think it would be the same for the venerable 170… the Skyhawk with one is true 4 adult bird- balance is a bit tough but weights not a big issue- though I don’t think the 170 gets a legal gross weight increase- one still would have a lot more confidence pouring the coals on w 180 ponies pulling ya skyward!
 
Great plane if it fits your mission. My buddy has a '59. He had just put a STOL kit on it when the engine started making metal, now he's scrounging for parts.
 
Lindberg said:
Maybe it's the difference between a 170 and 170A, but "effective rudder" is the last complement I would have given my '48.
Click to expand...

I would second that last place comment. The 170 rudder is not as effective as, for example, the 120 rudder. In fact, I find the 120 will handle more crosswind than either the 170 or the 180. Part of what makes it so nice to fly.
 
Thanks all for the info. This particular example was evidently restored in the 90s, but its not clear how extensive that restoration was. it seems like it ticks all my boxes (ie. simple, conventional gear, good enough for hauling me and my wife around the PNW on the weekends), and the price is right. This would be my first foray into airplane ownership and the idea of a 73 year old airplane with north of 11K hours does make me fairly nervous.

here's the TAP link https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...model=170A&listing_id=2409573&s-type=aircraft
 
Dana said:
Great plane if it fits your mission. My buddy has a '59. He had just put a STOL kit on it when the engine started making metal, now he's scrounging for parts.
Click to expand...
Is he looking for an overhauled c145 then? I know someone who was building one up don’t know if he finished it yet and/or sold it.
 
Seth.A said:
Thanks all for the info. This particular example was evidently restored in the 90s, but its not clear how extensive that restoration was. it seems like it ticks all my boxes (ie. simple, conventional gear, good enough for hauling me and my wife around the PNW on the weekends), and the price is right. This would be my first foray into airplane ownership and the idea of a 73 year old airplane with north of 11K hours does make me fairly nervous.

here's the TAP link https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...model=170A&listing_id=2409573&s-type=aircraft
Click to expand...

Also it’s hours were possibly put on during low level flight. They are very strong airframes of course - good prebuy should teach.
 
Dana said:
Great plane if it fits your mission. My buddy has a '59. He had just put a STOL kit on it when the engine started making metal, now he's scrounging for parts.
Click to expand...
Parts for a '59 170 would be impossible to find! :D Maybe a '49?
 
Steamflyer said:
Is he looking for an overhauled c145 then? I know someone who was building one up don’t know if he finished it yet and/or sold it.
Click to expand...

I think he's got most of what he needs now; the crankshaft was the big issue. He's rebuilding it himself (under an A&P's supervision, of course).

Lowflynjack said:
Parts for a '59 170 would be impossible to find! :D Maybe a '49?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I guess you're right I must've misremembered... not my area of expertise.
 
An acquaintance owns a 170 and pretty much ended up rebuilding the whole thing. You need to find someone that has poured all his money into his/her 170 and then you come along a buy it and get all that sweat labor for free! Otherwise, you may be the one left holding the bag (and open wallet) and become a supporter of the local A&P and his family for the next few years. Caveat emptor…
 
Brad Smith said:
An acquaintance owns a 170 and pretty much ended up rebuilding the whole thing. You need to find someone that has poured all his money into his/her 170 and then you come along a buy it and get all that sweat labor for free! Otherwise, you may be the one left holding the bag (and open wallet) and become a supporter of the local A&P and his family for the next few years. Caveat emptor…
Click to expand...

If you find one that has been truly rebuilt (aside from structural issues) with things like new cables, hardware, pulleys, engine, paint, etc., it’s probably not for sale. Very few “turnkey” 70+ year old aircraft out there. Also depends on your standard. But needing to “rebuild” an old airplane is not at all uncommon!
 
Huckster79 said:
I love her little sister the 140, flown mine all over the country including Johnson creek Idaho twice. Same gear basically sure it’s springy- it’s just fine.

ive flown behind 0-300s a few times, no power beast but dang is it a smooth running engine!

my bird has fanfic wings- big deal- they work! Modern fabric if it’s in good shape over aluminum and hangared it’s good for a lifetime!

yes they are old do inspect well and fly the **** out of it!
Click to expand...

I too love my ragwing 140. I think we have compared notes before. Mine was restored ca.1980 and has always been hangared. Everything still in wonderful shape although it’s been through an engine overhaul since then. There’s no reason a person couldn’t find a 170 in the same condition. The museum here had one donated that’s a beautiful example.

A few other planes have come and gone from my hangar, but the 140 is part of the family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top