What does POA think of the Cessna 170?

[N3368K]

I was more referring to the terminology, that taildragger is a cooler term than conventional gear.

The FAA frowns on using cool terms. Taildragger is cool. Conventional gear, in the age of trikes, is confusing. The FAA loves confusion.

 

[Ted]

I would consider one in your situation. I would consider one in my situation, too.

I don't know enough to say which model of 170 to get, but I typically find that the earlier version of any airplane is usually designed right, and then the later versions add weight for features that may or may not be needed or beneficial. The earlier ones are often more fun for this reason. Good example is looking at 310s - the most fun one I ever flew was an early Tuna Tank model. I found the Rs to be a lot less fun. The extra weight was very noticeable and they flew more like trucks, whereas the short nose ones were more sporty, and the earlier you got the sportier they flew. I suspect the difference is similarly noticeable on the rag wing vs. metal wing 170s.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Backcountry flying has had a massive uptick in popularity in the last years and as a result is making the planes capable of it very expensive and very hard to find. If you do find a good one for sale I'd jump on it, it'd be pretty hard to go wrong with a 170, nearly as simple as it gets. Just look at the 180/185/206/ Dehavilland Beaver markets. The prices are going pretty insane.

 

[Lindberg]

I've owned a 1948 rag wing for a year now. I enjoy it. It is not fast. It does not climb fast. But it's honest and easy to fly.

 

[Tom-D]

If you're gong to buy a 170, the 170B introduced in 1952 is the one to get. It has an all metal wing with 3° dihedral and semi-Fowler "Para-Lift" flaps.

http://www.cessna170.org/

And they are slower and heavier. Less useful load. Already in an aircraft that is a better 2 place.

 

[Tom-D]

Great airplanes!
O-145 engine parts availability can be an issue..... Crankshafts and oil pan.

The 0-300-A cranks can now be taken .020 under, the 0-300-D crank can be used also.
I have 4 good sumps if you want one, all have been lined you'll never need another.

 

[Tom-D]

That's a beautiful airplane.

The 172 conversions do not have the light feel and the easy handling of the true 170.

 

[3393RP]

The 172 conversions do not have the light feel and the easy handling of the true 170.

That's interesting. I would have guessed otherwise.

 

[texasclouds]

How does the 170 feel on the controls than the 172? edit: tricycle 172

 

[Lowflynjack]

How does the 170 feel on the controls than the 172?

I've never flown a 172 that was converted, I've barely flown a 172 at all.

I can tell you each 170 model is different, though. I routinely fly a 170B and find it kind of truck-like compared to the 170A. I would say the 170B would be more stable because of this, but I prefer to fly the 170A. Having the monster flaps on the 170B can be fun, but honestly I rarely use them beyond two notches, so I wouldn't rule out a nice 170A if you find one.

 

[texasclouds]

I meant vs your typical trike 172.

 

[Lowflynjack]

I meant vs your typical trike 172.

From the little I've flown a 172, it handles most like the 170B, which makes sense because they have very similar wings that I've seen interchanged.

 

[Tom-D]

The larger tail feathers of the 172 square tails, produce a heavier feel than the rounded tail feathers of the 170..
FOI..there are three different sizes of Elevators for the 170, ( it goes by S/N rather than model)
The larger the flight control the heavier the feel.

 

[Tom-D]

I've never flown a 172 that was converted, I've barely flown a 172 at all.

I can tell you each 170 model is different, though. I routinely fly a 170B and find it kind of truck-like compared to the 170A. I would say the 170B would be more stable because of this, but I prefer to fly the 170A. Having the monster flaps on the 170B can be fun, but honestly I rarely use them beyond two notches, so I wouldn't rule out a nice 170A if you find one.

Find a 48 rag wing,, fly it once, and you'll throw rocks at the A.

 

[pigpenracing]

I meant vs your typical trike 172.

If you ever get over to Brenham we can fly my 140 and 172. The 140 isn't exactly like a 170 but will give you the idea....

 

[texasclouds]

I think I saw a 170 at CLL Saturday when I got back from my 150NM solo cross country. Lots of planes were flying in for the Aggie game.

 

[flyingron]

Nearly all of my tail dragger time is in a 170. Nice little plane. Better visibility than most.

 

[catmandu]

I got my tailwheel endorsement in the aforementioned 180hp CS version, 180 gear, G500. Took it solo up and down the Sierras for a buncha hours over a few days. That was fun.

So I think the answer is there is no bad 170.

 

[Tantalum]

I've always liked the lines of the 170

Yes, for a high wing it actually sits real pretty on the ground and has a relatively imposing look on the ramp, esp the 180.. real old school man's plane

Incidentally, I'm a total Cirrus fan boy and *love* the ride in the SR22TN with Perspective, but I had some time (4 hrs or so) in a 182 a week or two ago (not my first time PIC in one) and it is a pretty solid platform. Not the fastest, or most fuel miserly, but it's got a pretty rugged feel to it. I bet the 180 tail wheel feels even manlier

 

[Mtns2Skies]

I bet the 180 tail wheel feels even manlier

It does.

 

[Huckster79]

I just bought her little sister, a 140, I love her already. Still gotta finish my TW endorsement so its that new to me, BUT my 22,000+ hour (no airline time) instructor was very impressed with her on the ride home, he thought she flew and handled great-though dancier on the rudder than his super cub he said... Though I'm smaller than a 170 I've heard they share a lot in common, actually even some parts like main landing gear and such. I had/have zero interest in something new and fancy. If I won the lotto, hard to do when I don't play, but if I did, I would still have an old gal-now it would get a bottom to top restoration, but it would be vintage and steam gauge laden..

 

[Tom-D]

I just bought her little sister, a 140, I love her already. Still gotta finish my TW endorsement so its that new to me, BUT my 22,000+ hour (no airline time) instructor was very impressed with her on the ride home, he thought she flew and handled great-though dancier on the rudder than his super cub he said... Though I'm smaller than a 170 I've heard they share a lot in common, actually even some parts like main landing gear and such. I had/have zero interest in something new and fancy. If I won the lotto, hard to do when I don't play, but if I did, I would still have an old gal-now it would get a bottom to top restoration, but it would be vintage and steam gauge laden..

Nothing on the 140 will fit the 170.
Unless..
you have a 0-200 installed, then the cylinders will fit.

The 48 170 looks like a overgrown 140, and it is bigger in all respects.

 

[Huckster79]

Nothing on the 140 will fit the 170.
Unless..
you have a 0-200 installed, then the cylinders will fit.

The 48 170 looks like a overgrown 140, and it is bigger in all respects.

I meant share a lot in terms of style and feel (I'm only told on the feel)... I said some parts, I should have been more specific and said we share a few accessories, like winterization kits. I was told the mains are the same unit with a different step. I didn't mean to imply they were full of interchangeable parts, but I think that is how it sounded...