Talk to me about Cessna 170s

Lowflynjack said:
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!
Click to expand...

I think your pics can probably make any airplane ever made look pretty Jack!

I love the classic lines of the 170 regardless of the model.
 
Tom-D said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

Used to be one at Harvey, I'd love to go up in one, good looking plane to boot!


Mtns2Skies said:
I want it's big brother ;)

Cessna180A.jpg
Click to expand...

Or it's big brother ;)

n1924u-private-cessna-185-skywagon_PlanespottersNet_284902.jpg
 
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...
The 170 is a ***** cat to fly and land it is one of the easiest TW airplanes that I have flown, if you want to learn about 170's join the Cessna 170 organization tons of info on there. well worth it, get B model .
 
I did my tailwheel transition in a 170B. Nice little plane. Not too hard to deal with as taildraggers go.
 
Love the looks of the straight 170 and the B -- different but attractive in their own ways. Nothing wrong with a 170A (except it lacks the big flaps), but we're so used to seeing Cessnas with dihedral, it just looks like somebody broke it. The early 172's squared-off tailfeathers were originally designed for a planned, but never built, 170C. That would have been pretty, too.
 
So should an A be cheaper than a B? The one I am interested in looks like a good deal based on being very well maintained and having a modern but dated (e.g. GNC 300XL gps) panel. But I'm comparing the asking price to mostly B models.
 
GRG55 said:
They feel different from each other, or different compared to other taildraggers?
Click to expand...
Mainly compared to other aircraft. If you've flown a Champ or Cub for instance, it is very different transitioning to the spring steel feel.
 
B's will be about $10,000 more than the A if in equal condition. You can do the Lycoming O-360 C/S prop mod to the B but not the A. Don
 
The spring steel gear is a bit different but nothing big to any competent t/w pilot. Certainly nothing to shy away from.
 
170 is good, 180 is better. You know, for 170 money you might find a 195 then you be stylin and smilin.
 
txflyer said:
170 is good, 180 is better. You know, for 170 money you might find a 195 then you be stylin and smilin.
Click to expand...

I probably wouldn't take a 195 into many of the places I would fly a C170. The 195 seems a yuuuuge plane by comparison. More a fly-in breakfast attention getter than a working man's backcountry steed.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
I think your pics can probably make any airplane ever made look pretty Jack!

I love the classic lines of the 170 regardless of the model.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I'm with you on the 170s, I like them all too! In fact, I don't think I've ever met a tailwheel plane I didn't like!
 
If you are serious about buying a 170, contact me by PM for the contact info of the owner of a beautiful 48, that I discovered for sale today.

this 48 is as nice as 3934V (Greg's 170.) and a lot cheaper. and about 36 serial numbers newer than his. (no it is not polished0.


I will give you the contact info... that's all.
 
195 has a gas gobbling, maintenance intensive radial engine in it. Not in the same class as a 170 at all.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Yes, but if you come in a STAGGERWING, you get the girl!
Click to expand...


Heck, if you come in a staggerwing you can have my girl if I can ride in it.!

Just fair warning..she's Spartin Greek so you have to physically subdue her or she'll kick your ass.
 
If I get to fly her once, I'll fly a 195. If I get to keep her, I'll take the 170. I prefer a low maintenance kind of girl. :cool:
 
I used to be able to jump in and out of the 140 with ease. Been flying it for 35 years and it's like Tom D says the older it gets the harder it is to get in it. Don
 
Got news for all of you, it ain't the airplanes. Or if it is, it isn't limited to them. Everything is harder to get into and out of these days. :(
 
Fearless Tower said:
I always wondered....if the Staggerwing was such a great airplane, why did Walter Beech own a Cabin Waco???
Click to expand...

Like every good wife Olive told him as a married man he had to stick to something practical. :rolleyes:

Hands up everyone here with a wife or an ex that hasn't heard that. :D
 
GRG55 said:
Like every good wife Olive told him as a married man he had to stick to something practical. :rolleyes:

Hands up everyone here with a wife or an ex that hasn't heard that. :D
Click to expand...

Life's too short for that nonsense.
 
A C-177 taildragger now that'd be something wouldn't it?

Like sitting down in a warm bath for us old fogey's with a wing for shade and no struts.

You could put it up on tundra's if it sits a tad too low. It would be like getting in a Ford 150 with even bigger doors.
 
Tom-D said:
I find that the older these little aircraft get, the harder they are to get into and out of.
Click to expand...
You got that right, last time i got in the front seat of my J-3 I thought they would have to use the jaws of life to get me out.
 
I don't know of any elegant way of getting in and out of a Supercub, especially with 31" tundras. Don
 
yakdriver said:
I don't know of any elegant way of getting in and out of a Supercub, especially with 31" tundras. Don
Click to expand...

Getting into or out of a Cub make the Champ/Citabria seem like getting into a car. The Cub's wing struts are exactly where they need to be to cause maximum possible inconvenience.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Getting into or out of a Cub make the Champ/Citabria seem like getting into a car. The Cub's wing struts are exactly where they need to be to cause maximum possible inconvenience.
Click to expand...

Yep. Been riding in Cubs since birth and flying them for 38 years. At best, it is awkward. I'll no longer even think about getting in the front seat these days.
 
That and it also seems like the 140 fuselage is shrinking in width. Aluminum must shrink as it ages. The doors just seem like they are getting closer together. Even though they were designed for the 170 lb person I still love flying the old airplanes. A little cramped for a big guy but a lot of fun. Right now I get to fly a 1941 N3N, two 1946 C-140's. 1948 Stinson 108, 1954 Supercub and a 1948 Luscombe 8E. The 170 would be a good airplane and time builder for you guys. I say go for it. Don
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top