Talk to me about Cessna 170s

L

Lindberg

Final Approach
Joined
Sep 25, 2013
Messages
7,316
Location
North Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Lindberg
A partner and I are looking at maybe buying one. The goal is a side-by-side taildragger that he can use to finish his private (just a few hours to go) and I can use for 100 hamburger runs. I have about 75 hours of tailwheel time.

Travel isn't really the goal, except a cross country camping trip with the kids would be cool. Right now, the kids are little, and my wife doesn't like flying, so carrying for adults would be a rare, if ever, event.

We were also considering a Luscombe, but I've been advised that would not be a good choice.

Opinions?
 
:popcorn:
 
I would avoid the straight Cessna 170 and opt of an A or B model. The original 170 had pathetic flaps that were prone to cracking. It's evident in the price difference too between the models.
 
Lindberg said:
A partner and I are looking at maybe buying one. The goal is a side-by-side taildragger that he can use to finish his private (just a few hours to go) and I can use for 100 hamburger runs. I have about 75 hours of tailwheel time.

Travel isn't really the goal, except a cross country camping trip with the kids would be cool. Right now, the kids are little, and my wife doesn't like flying, so carrying for adults would be a rare, if ever, event.

We were also considering a Luscombe, but I've been advised that would not be a good choice.

Opinions?
Click to expand...
Does he already have tailwheel time? If not - he should finish up in whatever he's already been flying, THEN jump into the 170. Luscombes are fine, but maybe your mission requirements are different.
 
I'd also look at Stinsons, better STOL, payload, ground handling and flight responsiveness, just you loose a little on the cruise speed.
 
170s are good solid airplanes. I grew up riding with my mom (mostly) and dad in mom's stock 170B. Reasonable airplane for a couple of adults, bags and full fuel or dad and kids and fuel. I really enjoyed the one I flew with 180hp and CS prop.

I know a couple of folks who learned in 170s without issue. If you have 75 hours t/w, you'll likely be fine. Unless your potential partner has some t/w time, it might take him a few extra hours in transition, but hey, you are both buying it to fly, right? What a few more hours? Just more time to enjoy it!

A 170B is on my short list of airplanes to own one day.
 
Nothing wrong with the rag wings. I have a rag wing. Better useful load, arguably better performance. If you don't push the flap extension speed, there shouldn't be much of an issue with them cracking.

I think they actually represent a pretty good value in the marketplace.
 
James331 said:
I'd also look at Stinsons, better STOL, payload, ground handling and flight responsiveness, just you loose a little on the cruise speed.
Click to expand...
And contend with a Franklin engine. and a rag and tube fuselage that was not Linseed oil coated at the factory. rusting rear longerons is a big problem.
 
Grum.Man said:
I would avoid the straight Cessna 170 and opt of an A or B model. The original 170 had pathetic flaps that were prone to cracking. It's evident in the price difference too between the models.
Click to expand...
Thank you and the others that believe that, you are keeping the prices low. there were only 712 of them built in 1948, and those who have them love them.
 
Tom-D said:
And contend with a Franklin engine. and a rag and tube fuselage that was not Linseed oil coated at the factory. rusting rear longerons is a big problem.
Click to expand...

Mine was just fine, Rag over metal has MAJOR advantages compared to sheet metal too, from weight to field repairs.

The engine is easy enough to support, univair has a good amount of stuff from airboxes to seals, carbs and exhaust and mags are more or less standard issue, jugs and cranks and whatnot are on barnstormers all the time, the yahoo group is very active.

I'd still be rocking my Stinson if it wasn't for me getting my 185, and I only got my 185 because making a beautiful VFR plane into a /G amphib that could plan 120kts would have not only ruined what made the Stinson such a sweetheart light handling 4 seat plane, but would have been $$$.

That said, it took a six figure airframe to get me out of my S108, that should tell you something.
 
James331 said:
The engine is easy enough to support, univair has a good amount of stuff from airboxes to seals, carbs and exhaust and mags are more or less standard issue, jugs and cranks and whatnot are on barnstormers all the time, the yahoo group is very active.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Univair has some stuff, but not nearly enough. Cessna doesn't support this airplane. The last ones were built over 60 years ago. There are many parts that are simply not available, and used parts often have issues like cracks or wear that make them little better than what you have. If you have to have one, get a really good prebuy inspection. There is no such thing as a cheap old airplane. I deal with disappointing airplanes way too often. You'll lose less money on a good prebuy that results in a no-buy than you will in a casual prebuy and purchase and the subsequent surprises.

There are numerous differences between the 170/170A/170B and many of the parts are not interchangeable. Some airplanes might have the wrong stuff in them. Control surface travels, for instance, might be way off. There never was a maintenance manual for the 170s, and all a mechanic has to go on is a tiny bit of info in the owner's manual and the TCDS. Not much at all. The IPCs aren't much better. Documentation was minimal in those days, when things were a lot simpler and the regs not nearly so fussy.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Does he already have tailwheel time? If not - he should finish up in whatever he's already been flying, THEN jump into the 170. Luscombes are fine, but maybe your mission requirements are different.
Click to expand...
Most of his training was in a Citabria, so he has TW experience. I'm sure it will take some time for each of us to get up to speed in a new type.

I looked at a 170A that is in very good shape. I appreciate everyone's input.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Yeah, Univair has some stuff, but not nearly enough. Cessna doesn't support this airplane. The last ones were built over 60 years ago. There are many parts that are simply not available, and used parts often have issues like cracks or wear that make them little better than what you have. If you have to have one, get a really good prebuy inspection. There is no such thing as a cheap old airplane. I deal with disappointing airplanes way too often. You'll lose less money on a good prebuy that results in a no-buy than you will in a casual prebuy and purchase and the subsequent surprises.

There are numerous differences between the 170/170A/170B and many of the parts are not interchangeable. Some airplanes might have the wrong stuff in them. Control surface travels, for instance, might be way off. There never was a maintenance manual for the 170s, and all a mechanic has to go on is a tiny bit of info in the owner's manual and the TCDS. Not much at all. The IPCs aren't much better. Documentation was minimal in those days, when things were a lot simpler and the regs not nearly so fussy.
Click to expand...
Tell me what parts can not be manufactured in the field? There was a accident last year where a piper PA-28 chewed a very nice 170. that aircraft has been totally restored and is near flying again. There isn't a single piece of flight control that can't be repaired or manufactured by a decent A&P with minimal tools. The 0-300 is totally rebuildable to Rebuilt standards, as is any of the up graded engines.
The problem areas are several, corroded Spar carry thru, corroded rear cabin former/bulkheads, cracked rear fuselage bulkhead below the elevator bell crank. your suggestion for a good pretty is noted as it will be on any aircraft purchase.
And OBTW the 170 has one of the best type clubs going, and they will sell you the 170 maintenance notes, Any A&P even touching a 170 should have a copy, apparently you don't.
 
170A-B are great planes. I see no reason at all to avoid them. Get one, post pictures!
 
Lindberg said:
Most of his training was in a Citabria, so he has TW experience. I'm sure it will take some time for each of us to get up to speed in a new type.
Click to expand...

The two pilots that were trained tail wheel in a Citabria could not fly my 170. the site picture, and the aircraft feel is totally different.
 
UngaWunga said:
170A-B are great planes. I see no reason at all to avoid them. Get one, post pictures!
Click to expand...
How many hours do you have in a rag wing? very little I suspect.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Tell me what parts can not be manufactured in the field? There was a accident last year where a piper PA-28 chewed a very nice 170. that aircraft has been totally restored and is near flying again. There isn't a single piece of flight control that can't be repaired or manufactured by a decent A&P with minimal tools. The 0-300 is totally rebuildable to Rebuilt standards, as is any of the up graded engines.
The problem areas are several, corroded Spar carry thru, corroded rear cabin former/bulkheads, cracked rear fuselage bulkhead below the elevator bell crank. your suggestion for a good pretty is noted as it will be on any aircraft purchase.
And OBTW the 170 has one of the best type clubs going, and they will sell you the 170 maintenance notes, Any A&P even touching a 170 should have a copy, apparently you don't.
Click to expand...

Much of the flight control stuff is welded steel. In Canada, at least, welding is specialized maintenance that few qualify for, and if a part is to be made one needs the data for that part, and that can be hard to get. One has to reverse-engineer that part, including metallurgical analysis, and it ain't cheap. Maybe the US has more freedom that way, or maybe there are laws there, too, that are being ignored?

Some of the aluminum stuff has been formed from 2024-O sheet, then heat-treated to T3. That ain't cheap, either.

In Canada we do have the Owner-Maintenance category, which allows the airplane to become almost like a homebuilt. The owner can fabricate and install parts. That category is intended to keep old, unsupported airplanes flying, but we can't fly such aircraft into the US. The 170 series qualify for that category if the owner chooses.

And I am in contact with the 170 club. I have all the stuff Cessna has for the airplane, including all service bulletins and letters, IPCs, the works. There still isn't much, and there are issues that the 170 club has no answers for, issues I find repeatedly in the forums. Elevator and trim tab travels are an example. It's near impossible to achieve the specified elevator stop angles in some of these airplanes, even when all the correct parts are installed and there's been no damage.
 
Tom-D said:
The two pilots that were trained tail wheel in a Citabria could not fly my 170. the site picture, and the aircraft feel is totally different.
Click to expand...
^^^He's right you know. I've flown 4 different 170 family planes and they do feel differently.
 
RyanShort1 said:
^^^He's right you know. I've flown 4 different 170 family planes and they do feel differently.
Click to expand...
And then,, Greg got into 34V and rolled a near perfect landing the first go. go figure.. good is good no matter who you are. :)
 
Tom-D said:
And then,, Greg got into 34V and rolled a near perfect landing the first go. go figure.. good is good no matter who you are. :)
Click to expand...
There are some planes I could probably do that in. I'd probably be in trouble the next time I try just for saying it, but my first and only Stearman landing to date fit that category.
 
Last edited:
Dan Thomas said:
Much of the flight control stuff is welded steel. In Canada, at least, welding is specialized maintenance that few qualify for, and if a part is to be made one needs the data for that part, and that can be hard to get. One has to reverse-engineer that part, including metallurgical analysis, and it ain't cheap. Maybe the US has more freedom that way, or maybe there are laws there, too, that are being ignored?

Some of the aluminum stuff has been formed from 2024-O sheet, then heat-treated to T3. That ain't cheap, either.

In Canada we do have the Owner-Maintenance category, which allows the airplane to become almost like a homebuilt. The owner can fabricate and install parts. That category is intended to keep old, unsupported airplanes flying, but we can't fly such aircraft into the US. The 170 series qualify for that category if the owner chooses.

And I am in contact with the 170 club. I have all the stuff Cessna has for the airplane, including all service bulletins and letters, IPCs, the works. There still isn't much, and there are issues that the 170 club has no answers for, issues I find repeatedly in the forums. Elevator and trim tab travels are an example. It's near impossible to achieve the specified elevator stop angles in some of these airplanes, even when all the correct parts are installed and there's been no damage.
Click to expand...

Welding down here is a A&P common practice. but the junk yards are full of these parts. In all my years of caring for the 170s, I've never seen one that was worth salvage that needed any of this type of part.

the second part of your response, Aircraft North West in Bo Wa. will make any wrinkle skin for the 170, 172 or what have you. and the cost is no more costly than any other aircraft. (nothing is cheap any more) another is no reason to heat treat, the skins are stamped from 2024-T3. As for you AME's up north, send Karl the whole part, he will repair like new and return with paper that you can use.

As far as the 170 club not having much?? for the simple sheet skin and rivet aircraft you really don't need much. Down here we only need to use the Cessna structural repair manual as data for approval on a 337 and the FSDO always approves :)
 
RyanShort1 said:
^^^He's right you know. I've flown 4 different 170 family planes and they do feel differently.
Click to expand...

They feel different from each other, or different compared to other taildraggers?

I've read in several articles over the years the C170 is one of the nicest handling single engine light airplanes ever made - apparently no really bad habits??
I think the most recent article I read with this sort of view was written by Jeff Skiles who used to own a Waco and now flies a 185 if I recall.
 
It's just how you learned your tailwheel fundamentals, if you got a solid foundation the transition from a 7ECA to a 170, S108, A9, C140, 185, whatever, shouldn't be a big deal.

I will say the best ground handling tailwheel, with the best suspension is the Stinson 108, hands down.
 
James331 said:
It's just how you learned your tailwheel fundamentals, if you got a solid foundation the transition from a 7ECA to a 170, S108, A9, C140, 185, whatever, shouldn't be a big deal.

I will say the best ground handling tailwheel, with the best suspension is the Stinson 108, hands down.
Click to expand...
You'll change your mind the first time you taxi a Fairchild. The main gear is 11 feet part, hydraulic dampened and a fully steerable tail wheel driven from the rudder pedals.
Stinson took lessons from Fairchild :)
 
170B with the O-360 C/S prop conversion is a great airplane but a ragwing is not that bad either. Do not even look at a metalized wing 170. It makes them heavier and just ruins the flying characteristics. Also parts for the O-300 are getting a little hard to find and spendy. Very docile and easy tailwheel to fly. Don
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Nothing wrong with the rag wings. I have a rag wing. Better useful load, arguably better performance. If you don't push the flap extension speed, there shouldn't be much of an issue with them cracking.
Click to expand...
I think they're by far the prettiest 170s. Without the dorsal fin, and the two struts, they look like a big 140. I wouldn't mind having one to have a little more baggage room!
1948origschemeN3929VGreen.jpg
 
Lindberg said:
A partner and I are looking at maybe buying one. The goal is a side-by-side taildragger that he can use to finish his private (just a few hours to go) and I can use for 100 hamburger runs. I have about 75 hours of tailwheel time.

Travel isn't really the goal, except a cross country camping trip with the kids would be cool. Right now, the kids are little, and my wife doesn't like flying, so carrying for adults would be a rare, if ever, event.

We were also considering a Luscombe, but I've been advised that would not be a good choice.

Opinions?
Click to expand...
Any flavor of 170 would be perfect for your mission.

I can't speak personally to the A models, but have flown a few '48s and B's. I still own a '48. B's seem to have greater demand and command higher prices. '48s are a little more if a niche market if that is something to consider. You can get a '48 cheaper than a B. Personally, I prefer the '48. I just like the look and feel better. The B model is really just an early model 172 with the little wheel in back. It has the same wing as the 172.

The 170 is a very honest airplane. I got my tailwheel endorsement in a '48 as a ~60 hour private pilot. Once you get through the initial tailwheel adjustment, it is one of the easiest tailwheels to fly.

It is great for two guys and camping gear. Perfect for $100 hamburger runs. I load my wife and kids in ours and go weekend flying. With no luggage, it handles the load fine.

170s have great support and a very good type club. IMO, the only real downside of the 170 is the engine. The O-300 is a great running engine. The only thing wrong with it is it uses 6 cylinders to give you the same HP as other more common 4 bangers which translates to more expensive overhauls and cranks can be a bear to find if you ever have to replace one. I wouldn't avoid a 170 based on that by any means, but it is worth considering as you crunch numbers and go shopping. There are some engine upgrade STCs if you ever need to change the motor.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Any flavor of 170 would be perfect for your mission.

I can't speak personally to the A models, but have flown a few '48s and B's. I still own a '48. B's seem to have greater demand and command higher prices. '48s are a little more if a niche market if that is something to consider. You can get a '48 cheaper than a B. Personally, I prefer the '48. I just like the look and feel better. The B model is really just an early model 172 with the little wheel in back. It has the same wing as the 172.

The 170 is a very honest airplane. I got my tailwheel endorsement in a '48 as a ~60 hour private pilot. Once you get through the initial tailwheel adjustment, it is one of the easiest tailwheels to fly.

It is great for two guys and camping gear. Perfect for $100 hamburger runs. I load my wife and kids in ours and go weekend flying. With no luggage, it handles the load fine.

170s have great support and a very good type club. IMO, the only real downside of the 170 is the engine. The O-300 is a great running engine. The only thing wrong with it is it uses 6 cylinders to give you the same HP as other more common 4 bangers which translates to more expensive overhauls and cranks can be a bear to find if you ever have to replace one. I wouldn't avoid a 170 based on that by any means, but it is worth considering as you crunch numbers and go shopping. There are some engine upgrade STCs if you ever need to change the motor.
Click to expand...
Fully agree, but will add, the cost difference between 4 Lycoming cylinders and 6 TCM cylinders isn't that much, 0-300 cylinders are $935.00 and the lycoming cylinders for the 0-360 is $1,115.73, so that's about 1100 bucks. that is for new cylinders, prices for overhauled cylinders vary from shop to shop. but who wants overhauled cylinders? 1100 bucks for a better running smoother engine is well worth it to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top