What does POA think of the Cessna 170?

texasclouds

texasclouds

En-Route
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
3,908
Location
Bryan, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Mark
I stumbled upon a YouTube video about it and it looks like a sweet plane. Any experience flying/owning one?


D1B7C8D8-FA0B-4DED-8930-EA16A21B15E0.jpeg EE99DC05-82E1-4840-9479-16E5112D0F57.jpeg EF654F0E-E6E9-42F4-B9B4-CB6C301C16EC.jpeg E6126157-BD40-47E7-AC43-A3CC241CC4F0.jpeg 6B76D888-2D0E-48AE-A99C-4903E9B71866.png
5F10CDBD-ADFC-450C-88DA-7AC8C452A794.png
 

Attachments

  • 4128B2F5-B51C-4AB6-981E-99D57E652565.jpeg
    4128B2F5-B51C-4AB6-981E-99D57E652565.jpeg
    185.2 KB · Views: 52
Great airplanes!
O-145 engine parts availability can be an issue..... Crankshafts and oil pan.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I’ve owned 2. About as simple as you can get.
Click to expand...

Good match for a fresh private pilot with tail endorsement? 50-350 mile cross countries with wife and son.

I noticed the two on Trade-A-Plane are vfr, and the more expensive 180s seem to be commonly ifr.
 
texasclouds said:
Good match for a fresh private pilot with tail endorsement? 50-350 mile cross countries with wife and son.

I noticed the two on Trade-A-Plane are vfr, and the more expensive 180s seem to be commonly ifr.
Click to expand...
Perfect match for a fresh private pilot looking to build tailweel time.

I got my tail wheel endorsement in a 170 at around 70 hours.

My first airplane I bought was a 1948 170. Great airplane for a family of 3 to fly around in on weekends.

Only downside is the engine support like Howard mentioned. The engines run very smooth, but certain engine parts like crankshafts are very hard to find and they are more expensive to overhaul because of 6 cylinders.

There are STCs though to change engines, and you can usually find the parts you need if you look in the right places.
 
I've always liked the lines of the 170. Beautiful plane. I only have about two hours or so in one but I'd love to get more time in them. It is one of the planes that have been on my list of planes to possibly own.
 
I haven't flown one for many many years. I loved the plane. easy peasy to fly with nice ground handling. I went from an Aeronca Champ to a 170 with a 40 minute checkout way back when. I had about 60 hours or so. This was back in the 50's.
 
I love them. They’re not the fastest planes, but plan at 115-120 mph st 9gph. They make pretty good photo planes, and they get a lot of attention too!
 
Remember something: they are ALL old airplanes. All of them. And they are made of easily-corroded aluminum alloys. Many have sat outside for decades, other have been inside but neglected. Pollutants accumulate. Pests like birds or mice get into them. Some owners stop flying them (medical, maybe) but they ground-run them and introduce vast amounts of water into the crankcase that eats the engine from the inside. The wind bangs control surfaces around; even if they're somewhat blocked they still move, wearing hinges and cables and pulleys. The 170 had no control lock and most guys just used the seat belt on the yoke, which prevented the worst of aileron and elevator banging but did nothing for the rudder. I have seen bashed and broken rudder stops from that, especially if the airplane had been backed into its tiedown spot and the tailwheel left pointing backwards, meaning that its steering was unlocked and the steering springs couldn't damp the rudder's movement. I have seen expensive damage to the rudder hinges, caused by incorrect installation of the vertical fin. The fin has two of the hinges and the tailcone has the third, and if the fin isn't properly shimmed during installation to get those three hinge points lined up, you'll wreck the hinges and probably crack the rudder spar too. The control systems in old airplanes are usually way out of rig; I found a 170 trim rigged so badly that the jackscrew could have backed right out of the tube nut, which could have let the tab flutter and destroy the airplane.

There are three versions of the 170. Big differences in them, so don't expect all the parts to be interchangeable. At least there are enough airplanes around that there are some outfits making some parts.

A very good prebuy is in order.
 
A nosewheel drops the value a lot! The straight-tail 172s are a lot cheaper than a nice 170
Stan Cooper said:
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/
Click to expand...
I would buy any of the three. I like the B and will admit it may be the most capable, but the A seems so much more docile in the air and I've never really "needed" the big flaps on the B, though they are fun sometimes! You can get a better deal on an A model. The original ragwing 170s are my favorites. They're lighter and have the round tail which if find more aesthetically pleasing, and they're the cheapest. Only made them one year though, so some have concerns over finding parts.
 
Pilawt said:
Actually, the new tail had been designed for the prototype 170C, which was already flying and likely would have been the 1957 model had the 172 not been given the go-ahead.
Click to expand...
They should have made the 170C. The 172s that have been converted look cool with that straight tail.
172-taildragger-matt-abrams.jpg
 
Dan Thomas said:
Remember something: they are ALL old airplanes. All of them. And they are made of easily-corroded aluminum alloys. Many have sat outside for decades, other have been inside but neglected. Pollutants accumulate. Pests like birds or mice get into them. Some owners stop flying them (medical, maybe) but they ground-run them and introduce vast amounts of water into the crankcase that eats the engine from the inside. The wind bangs control surfaces around; even if they're somewhat blocked they still move, wearing hinges and cables and pulleys. The 170 had no control lock and most guys just used the seat belt on the yoke, which prevented the worst of aileron and elevator banging but did nothing for the rudder. I have seen bashed and broken rudder stops from that, especially if the airplane had been backed into its tiedown spot and the tailwheel left pointing backwards, meaning that its steering was unlocked and the steering springs couldn't damp the rudder's movement. I have seen expensive damage to the rudder hinges, caused by incorrect installation of the vertical fin. The fin has two of the hinges and the tailcone has the third, and if the fin isn't properly shimmed during installation to get those three hinge points lined up, you'll wreck the hinges and probably crack the rudder spar too. The control systems in old airplanes are usually way out of rig; I found a 170 trim rigged so badly that the jackscrew could have backed right out of the tube nut, which could have let the tab flutter and destroy the airplane.

There are three versions of the 170. Big differences in them, so don't expect all the parts to be interchangeable. At least there are enough airplanes around that there are some outfits making some parts.

A very good prebuy is in order.
Click to expand...

Valid points, but you make it sound worse than it is. And those issues apply to most aging airplane types.

Easily identified by a proper prebuy.
 
One advantage of buying a 170 is that it has very good type club support. The 170 Association is well worth the membership fee.
 
Mine is a 1954 B model, easy to work on, annuals are not that expensive if you find an IA that will let you do some of the work. Prices seem to be up lately on the B models

Pros: Smoooth engine, mine flies straight and level hands off, great over the nose visibility, easy to land, and the big flaps are great for short fields. Not a great IFR plane like a 182 or other but do able, a basic VFR airplane and it does get a lot of attention wherever you go,a classic for sure, very easy on the wallet, love that flap handle,

Cons:
Cockpit little tight for two larger guys, seats are not that comfy, it is really is a two place airplane with two upfront and full fuel, watch the CG in this scenario,not a rocket ship, on hot days those trees at the end look really big, not that fast but who cares you are flying and just out boring holes in the sky,

All in all it is one fun airplane to fly. Read the 170 forums !
 
Fearless Tower said:
Valid points, but you make it sound worse than it is. And those issues apply to most aging airplane types.

Easily identified by a proper prebuy.
Click to expand...

I have seen it as bad, and worse, than I outlined, and have seen the costs. I don't like new owners getting nasty surprises. Optimism is often little more than wishful thinking, and wishful thinking can't eliminate the problems I have found in old airplanes.
 
strangebird said:
Mine is a 1954 B model...
Cons:
Cockpit little tight for two larger guys, seats are not that comfy, it is really is a two place airplane with two upfront and full fuel, watch the CG in this scenario,not a rocket ship, on hot days those trees at the end look really big, not that fast but who cares you are flying and just out boring holes in the sky,

All in all it is one fun airplane to fly. Read the 170 forums !
Click to expand...

By larger guys do you mean over 200 LBS? I'm 175, wife 130, son 150. Son is about to go to collage so most of our flying with be me and the wife...and probably a 70 lbs dog.
 
Dan Thomas said:
I have seen it as bad, and worse, than I outlined, and have seen the costs. I don't like new owners getting nasty surprises. Optimism is often little more than wishful thinking, and wishful thinking can't eliminate the problems I have found in old airplanes.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your warnings. Believe me when I say I will try my best not to rush into a purchase. That doesn't mean squat when you fall in love with one though I'm sure.
 
Lowflynjack said:
They should have made the 170C. The 172s that have been converted look cool with that straight tail.
Click to expand...
The 170C prototype was an older 170B airframe (note the pre-1955-style cabin windows) fitted with the new tailfeathers designed by Harry Clements:

Screen Shot 2018-11-05 at 7.12.24 AM.jpeg

Clements described the evolution of the 170C into the 172 (https://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/tracking-the-conception-birth-and-life-of-the-172/):

Still the company was not yet committed [to tricycle gear] and we had proceeded with the next model change to the continuing 170 line, the 170 C. The main change to it was to replace the old elliptical-shaped tail surfaces with modern, more efficient straight ones, like we already had on the 180. And their design was a task I was given, to be done along with the myriad other projects we had going at that time. It was not a technical challenge and sort of slipped my mind, but as a reward it got me the opportunity to fly some of the tests of the 170C prototype, which we went so far as to certificate.

And then the sales of the 170B begin to slip. Quickly, and secretly, work on a tri-gear version began, using the 170C as a foundation, with the main effort being to design the nose gear and its installation in the airframe. About this time I transferred to Cessna’s Military Airplane Division to work on the T-37, and the next thing I knew was that the tri-gear version of the 170 was introduced, and was called the 172. And its sales were so good that the 170 line was essentially discontinued and any concern of the Tri-Pacer as a serious competitor discounted.
Click to expand...
 
texasclouds said:
I appreciate your warnings. Believe me when I say I will try my best not to rush into a purchase. That doesn't mean squat when you fall in love with one though I'm sure.
Click to expand...
Come out to T74 some weekend and I'll show you the 170A in the photos above, as well as the 170B I fly in all the time. You can also talk to @Travis L about what he went through looking for the perfect plane.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Come out to T74 some weekend and I'll show you the 170A in the photos above, as well as the 170B I fly in all the time. You can also talk to @Travis L about what he went through looking for the perfect plane.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll do a cross country up there once I get my PPL (hopefully by end of year, seems like weather and life have delayed my original end of October goal). 56nm from CLL, perfect for a cross country!
 
I flew one with 180hp Lycoming O-360 and CS prop conversion on a delivery. Nice airplane.
 
While I'm here might as well make a statement on this thread..
the 170 series of Cessna is no better or worse than any 75 year old aircraft. I would venture a much greater percentage have been restored to pristine condition than most other Make/models.
Others here have made big deal of their short comings but I will tell you after owning 4 restoring 3 they are great aircraft for doing the job they were intended for.
Prefer the 48 rag wing to the A & B they are lighter and faster than later versions and will land anywhere a A or B will.
with todays fabric systems there is no reason they need a hangar.
0-300- parts are not difficult to find, the 0-300-D cranks can now be used in the -A. it requires a STC to use the later version prop. Cylinders have 2 manufactures, TCM and Superior.
Fresno Airparts have all other parts.
Cost of for the 0-300- overhaul today is averaging around $22k (if your crank can be reused)
All metal parts can be built by most FBOs or companies that do metal work.
There are three engine options the Lycoming 0-360 / 180, the TCM IO360 / 210 and the 0-300-D /145 plus a couple others we don't hear much about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top