• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Aqua 2400s and Cessna 175, opinions please

skukum12

skukum12

MEMBER
The Last Frontier
Gang,

I am considering a Cessna 175 on Aqua 2400s. O-360, c/s prop.

This float flying is almost 100 percent new to me. I do have a handful of take offs and landings in a C180 on 2870s. I don't know what I don’t know.

Pros, cons? Run away? Run to the bank? Hit me!
 
I have not flown Aqua 2400s on a 175, but I have flown them on a few other airframes, and they are good performing floats. So, they should do well enough on the 180 hp 175. Keep it as light as practical and should be a LOT of fun.

MTV
 
I have flown the same setup your talking about and I think it’s a great combo in my opinion.
Respect it for the plane it is and you will have a great flying machine with much lower operating costs than its big brother the 180.
 
Thanks gentlemen. Will be doing a pre purchase inspection next week. Had a meticulous friend do a pre pre inspection and he gave it the thumbs up.

Mission for this plane is a float rating then off to explore some of the watery spots in Alaska. Fishing rod and camping gear always with me. I have a feeling someone will talk me into moving moose meat at some point.
 
stewartb said:
What’s gross?

If there’s a weakness it’ll be the rudder.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Rudder is nearly the size of a 180 rudder, if it’s an early one.

DA9D4B98-9736-429E-9578-B59B52708FBD.jpeg

MTV
 

Attachments

  • DA9D4B98-9736-429E-9578-B59B52708FBD.jpeg
    DA9D4B98-9736-429E-9578-B59B52708FBD.jpeg
    106.1 KB · Views: 47
mvivion said:
Seriously? Rudder is nearly the size of a 180 rudder, if it’s an early one.

View attachment 62916

MTV
Click to expand...

I have two customers with 175’s ones a straight tail and one is slant. They both have the 470. Say they run out of elevator. The 470 makes you put a bunch of lead in the tail

Did the annual on floats in the water. The flat tops are really nice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I’ve flown one with the 470, and they are VERY nose heavy. Lots of power, though. Mine is a 58 with an O-360 Lyc.

MTV
 
Seriously. On floats the rudder is weak. Weak for direction control on the hump and weak in crosswind taxi. Oversize water rudders help. It’ll keep you on your toes when taxiing on flowing water. Learn to anticipate the lag and know when to add throttle. Night and day compared to a 180 on floats.
 
For comparison look at the rudder deflection angles for the C-175 vs C-180 in their TCDS. Yes they are different and generally the 175 has less deflection...some models even less on floats than conventional. A local has a C-175 on PK floats. He had turning issues in wind until he didn't. Said there was some adjustment required.

C-175 TCDS
C-180 TCDS

Gary
 
BC12D-4-85 said:
For comparison look at the rudder deflection angles for the C-175 vs C-180 in their TCDS. Yes they are different and generally the 175 has less deflection...some models even less on floats than conventional. A local has a C-175 on PK floats. He had turning issues in wind until he didn't. Said there was some adjustment required.

C-175 TCDS
C-180 TCDS

Gary
Click to expand...

Interesting limitation on floats, for sure. I wonder why that restriction...... ?

That said, having flown a J-3 on EDO 1320s with one water rudder and a Beaver on EDO 4850s with stock water rudders, both in Kodiak, there are ways to turn..... We did install 4930 water rudders on that Beaver after I whined enough, though.....

MTV
 
There might be some relation between potential rudder deflection and subsequent longitudinal stability (Pete would know). Adding a ventral fin or dorsal forward extension to the vert stab might allow greater rudder swing? Maybe Cessna didn't have either when the C-175 was first certified on floats?

Gary
 
Baumanns on a 175 require a ventral fin, not sure on Aqua, but might help make a difference? Or could make it harder to turn?
John
 
I "think" the original float for the C-175 was an Edo 248B-2440. Any floatplane rudder deflection might have been tuned to them. Maybe MTV can have a look at the flight manual to see what Cessna offered as optional equipment or if a fin/ fillet was required on floats. Also Aqua 2400's STC might include info on additional fins/fillets or rudder swing dimensions.

Gary
 
Interesting….the TC provides required rudder deflection for “seaplane” version, yet there are no floats listed in the TC.

I assume that implies that any floats installed would have to be STCd, and the STC would specify any requirement for a ventral fin. That said, 180s on EDO 2960s required a ventral fin, if they were equipped with the early, low dorsal.

In any case, thanks Gary, now I have an excuse when I swerve all over a runway…..”Dang that rudder deflection!”.

MTV
 
For later models (like C-185) Cessna put the equipment options like approved floats in the Flight Manual, with only references like installed float models, placards, and operating limitations in the TCDS. Check the FM for the C-175 and see what they have listed. If not Cessna's original work an STC would apply. The C-172-75 TCDS does list the Edo 248B-2440 floats for the C-172 around P. 17 of TCDS 3A17.

Gary
 
BC12D-4-85 said:
I "think" the original float for the C-175 was an Edo 248B-2440. Any floatplane rudder deflection might have been tuned to them. Maybe MTV can have a look at the flight manual to see what Cessna offered as optional equipment or if a fin/ fillet was required on floats. Also Aqua 2400's STC might include info on additional fins/fillets or rudder swing dimensions.

Gary
Click to expand...
EDO lists the model 338-2200 for the 175. The 172XP used the 248B2440. Both airplanes are approved on the same TC.

The model 175 rudder travel was reduced from 16* on wheels to 12* on floats. Then: on the model 175A & B the rudder travel was increased to 19*.

MTV,
Many years ago FAA stopped publishing the list of approved equipment on some TCs (not all). That doesn't mean Cessna didn't approve a set of floats on the TC. Other than being listed on the original equipment list, I'm not sure where to quickly find the approval.
 
A and B models got the swept tail so gave up some rudder authority. I'd bet the travel increase was to offset the tail change.
 
There's a C-172 with a O-360 or 390 locally on Aqua 2400's. Does real good/owner is pleased. I see in the pic above for N9361B they installed a leading edge fillet to the vertical stabilizer. Good as a ventral fin maybe. Has to be a fun airplane to fly to a good fishing hole.

Gary
 
BC12D-4-85 said:
For later models (like C-185) Cessna put the equipment options like approved floats in the Flight Manual, with only references like installed float models, placards, and operating limitations in the TCDS. Check the FM for the C-175 and see what they have listed. If not Cessna's original work an STC would apply. The C-172-75 TCDS does list the Edo 248B-2440 floats for the C-172 around P. 17 of TCDS 3A17.

Gary
Click to expand...

No AFM for my airplane, per serial number: “The basic required equipment as prescribed in the applicable airworthiness requirements (see Certification Basis) must be installed in the aircraft for certification. This equipment mustinclude a current Airplane Flight Manual effective S/N R1722930 and on, S/N 172RG0001 and on.”

But, as Pete noted, later aircraft had floats listed in their equipment list. I just didn’t think the 175 was that “late” in that context.

MTV
 
One thing to consider on the 175: They all have either 9 or 10 gallons of unusable fuel, depending on model year. That’s a lot of unusable weight to haul around. And, they seem to be fairly heavy.

MTV
 
mvivion said:
One thing to consider on the 175: They all have either 9 or 10 gallons of unusable fuel, depending on model year. That’s a lot of unusable weight to haul around. And, they seem to be fairly heavy.

MTV
Click to expand...
Unusable fuel is determined during flight testing when the airplane is placed in unusual attitudes while simulating rough air. The amount remaining when the engine begins to run rough is declared to be the unusable fuel. So, while 9 or 10 gallons may be the official unusable amount, in reality if maintaining level smooth flight you may be able to use more of it. Not suggesting this is so, just that it is possible.
 
mvivion said:
One thing to consider on the 175: They all have either 9 or 10 gallons of unusable fuel, depending on model year. That’s a lot of unusable weight to haul around. And, they seem to be fairly heavy.

MTV
Click to expand...

Any idea why so much?
 
skukum12 said:
Any idea why so much?
Click to expand...

I was told there’s only one fuel pickup in each tank. Not sure that’s true, and haven’t been motivated to find out, so take that as a rumor.

That said, Cessna did some things on these planes that make you wonder. Pilot side window opens, passenger side doesn’t. Duh, saved a lot of $ there.

MTV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Steve's Aircraft (Brian)
Cessna 170B and the case of the missing tail spring U bolt.
Replies
12
Views
10K
mvivion
mvivion
sj
Panel Discussion: Cessna 180 Upgrades on Poor Webjanitor Budget
4 5 6
Replies
156
Views
64K
Farmboy
Farmboy
aktango58
Open Letter To StewartB
Replies
2
Views
2K
jk
jk
Gunny
Hendrick-Sullivan 4-Place Supercub
2
Replies
45
Views
34K
Steve Pierce
Steve Pierce
wireweinie
Master switch, revisited
Replies
18
Views
9K
wireweinie
wireweinie
Back
Top