duckhunter10
Registered User
any pireps good or bad,
-
There is no better time to show your support for SuperCub.Org than during our annual calendar campaign! All the details are HERE
170b pireps
- Thread starter duckhunter10
- Start date
bob turner
Registered User
Not much experience. Not impressed. Get an early 180 with a good engine. That’s a good airplane!
Stinson isn’t bad if you are on a budget. I have had a 165 and a 180 Stinson, and loved them.
Stinson isn’t bad if you are on a budget. I have had a 165 and a 180 Stinson, and loved them.
sj
Staff member
Northwest Arkansas
I had one for a few years, flew it to both coasts. Most economical plane I have ever owned. Would land in 200’ but need 1000 to get off. It had the O300. I was planning a 180hp upgrade but bought a 180 instead. There were not many stcs for them back then, don’t know if that has changed. I wanted to be able to have an autopilot and there were no current models approved.
sj
sj
RaisedByWolves
FRIEND
Tx
sj
Staff member
Northwest Arkansas
And a LOT more useful load…
hotrod180
FRIEND
Port Townsend, WA
I owned a ragwing 170 for about 11 years.
The 170's are a good airplane, about like a 172--
not the best at anything, but it does everything pretty well.
An early 180 is about like a 170B, only more so-- like a 170 on steroids.
They also cost much more, which is why it took me so long to buy one.
When I finally bought one, after wanting one for about 15 years,
I wondered why I waited so long.
A stock 170B is a pretty good airplane, and a 180-210hp one is even better,
but stockers are pretty expensive these days, and hotrodded ones are priced pretty close to 180s.
I agree with Raised By Wolves:
"I feel like if you buy the airplane, and then upgrade to 180hp between the engine, prop, and labor, you’d be money ahead to buy a 180.
And you have a hell of a lot more airplane with a 180".
The 170's are a good airplane, about like a 172--
not the best at anything, but it does everything pretty well.
An early 180 is about like a 170B, only more so-- like a 170 on steroids.
They also cost much more, which is why it took me so long to buy one.
When I finally bought one, after wanting one for about 15 years,
I wondered why I waited so long.
A stock 170B is a pretty good airplane, and a 180-210hp one is even better,
but stockers are pretty expensive these days, and hotrodded ones are priced pretty close to 180s.
I agree with Raised By Wolves:
"I feel like if you buy the airplane, and then upgrade to 180hp between the engine, prop, and labor, you’d be money ahead to buy a 180.
And you have a hell of a lot more airplane with a 180".
TR Dunn
MEMBER
The 170 sits in the transition region between the lighter and higher power-to-weight ratio tandem style aircraft and its bigger and more powerful sibling the venerable 180. As others have correctly stated, matching the stock 170 to an appropriate mission not exceeding its original design capabilities will result in a satisfying experience, however, demanding more will not. Skis are a prime example, heavy enough to limit moving around by hand, and lacking the power to perform with the above referenced groups. Hence my analogy of it sitting in the transition region. Sure, power may be upgraded, however, it will always have limited useful load. Once again it all comes down to mission and what one desires to achieve with the aircraft. For perspective, I base my assessment on providing a fair amount of instruction in the 170B and the ownership of a 180H since 1993. The 180/185 series is "all singing, all dancing" in the realm of off-airport and utility functionality...it does it all, it's the F-4 of the working aircraft.
TR
Richgj3
BENEFACTOR
LI,NY
Just sold mine after 4 years. Not because I didn’t like it. More to do with realizing after 56 years of flying and 8 airplane it feels like time to take a break. The 170B is a great two place airplane. Three if two are less than 160 each. If you want to know how it flys in the air, go fly a 172 pre 1968 with the O-300.
Years ago I had a 1958 C172 with the Bolen TW conversion. Bolen made their own gear. Did not use gear from any Cessna. That airplane was easier to make good landings consistently than my 170B. Maybe I was better back then but I remember flying a friend‘s 170B and being surprised how springy the gear was/is.
On the plus side, the International 170 Association is a good resource and parts are readily available for most things a 70 year old airplane might need. For a price. I kept mine at a hard surface airport with 4,000 foot runway. No problem with Gross Weight take offs there but 2000 feet of grass with trees at both ends I invoke my 2 person rule. I also had a cruise prop. 76/55. 53 is standard and 51 is climb. An 80 inch prop is also approved as a climb prop (can’t recall the pitch) but they are hard to find.
Speaking of props, the earlier 170’s including early B’s used the C145 engine and later used the O-300. Essentially the same engine and interchangeable except that the 145 has an 8 bolt prop flange and the O-300 has 6. 8 bolt props are harder to find in my experience.
Years ago I had a 1958 C172 with the Bolen TW conversion. Bolen made their own gear. Did not use gear from any Cessna. That airplane was easier to make good landings consistently than my 170B. Maybe I was better back then but I remember flying a friend‘s 170B and being surprised how springy the gear was/is.
On the plus side, the International 170 Association is a good resource and parts are readily available for most things a 70 year old airplane might need. For a price. I kept mine at a hard surface airport with 4,000 foot runway. No problem with Gross Weight take offs there but 2000 feet of grass with trees at both ends I invoke my 2 person rule. I also had a cruise prop. 76/55. 53 is standard and 51 is climb. An 80 inch prop is also approved as a climb prop (can’t recall the pitch) but they are hard to find.
Speaking of props, the earlier 170’s including early B’s used the C145 engine and later used the O-300. Essentially the same engine and interchangeable except that the 145 has an 8 bolt prop flange and the O-300 has 6. 8 bolt props are harder to find in my experience.
mvivion
SPONSOR
Bozeman,MT
I owned a 1952 170B for most of twenty years, and I still rue the day that I sold it. Long story there. That airplane was equipped with a Lyc O-360. For years, flying around Alaska, I heard stories from very experienced pilots about seeing that 170 parked next to a wrecked plane, or just someplace the storyteller couldn’t figure out where that 170 landed. The previous owner, one Graham Mower, was for years an insurance adjuster, amongst other things. Graham had been a P-51 pilot in WWII, and was a bit braver than I. Oh, and he picked the plane up new in Witchita……think about that. Prefer a 180? A lot to recommend that, of course, and I owned a 66 H model for a while, so I’m familiar with the breed. But, shoot, if useful load is your concern, buy a 206 and don’t look back…..it’ll land anywhere that 180 will….
But if you want no shit performance in tight places, find a good big engine 170B. It’s a fantastic two person and lots of gear plane. Not fast, but it’ll land and take off places the 180 drivers would shudder to think about, let alone land there. Like any airplane, it’s a niche airplane. Then again, so is a 180. Of all the planes I’ve owned, that’s the one I’d REALLY like to have back
But if you want no shit performance in tight places, find a good big engine 170B. It’s a fantastic two person and lots of gear plane. Not fast, but it’ll land and take off places the 180 drivers would shudder to think about, let alone land there. Like any airplane, it’s a niche airplane. Then again, so is a 180. Of all the planes I’ve owned, that’s the one I’d REALLY like to have back
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
Hey Mike, your C-170B hung around here for years with new owner. Not sure if it's still is, but will look and take a pic if so.
Gary
Gary
mvivion
SPONSOR
Bozeman,MT
I’d love to see it Gary. It was parked at Chena Marina. I used to hear from the owner, but havnt for some time
alaskadrifter
Registered User
Alaska
170s have gotten spendy lately.
If you’re looking at them due to budget restraints you should also look at Pacers.
If you’re looking at them due to budget restraints you should also look at Pacers.
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
stoldriver
Registered User
Arizona
I owned an O300 powered 170b for 17 years and have owned my 180 now for about 22 years. I have spent a lot of time in each. In my opinion, they are both great airplanes. I think the 170b was a sweeter flying airplane than the 180. Seemed lighter and more balanced on the controls. The 180 hauls a much better load with a larger margin of safety. The 180 is also significantly faster. If you only fly by yourself or with one other, aren't in a huge hurry, and don't operate out of airstrips much above 5000' elevation, the 170b is a great airplane. I was completely satisfied with my 170 for many years. I bought my 180 after I got married and had two kids and had a long takeoff roll at Show Low one day. The things that jumped out at me when I switched were the great increase in takeoff acceleration, the much better tailwheel steering, the heavier controls, and the additional speed of the 180. I can't speak to the engine upgrades in the 170.
Wayne
Wayne
Fishsticks
PATRON
I have a 52 170B with an 0300. I bought it for 70k in 2022. (I think prices are coming down) I put an 8042, Sportsman Cuff, and 8.5's on it and it's pretty perfect for bouncing around to local 2000' sea level grass strips. With a cruise prop you need to be real careful with your strip selection in the summer. Even with my ham fisted flying I can get it down and stopped in a few hundred and off in well under 1000'. The climb prop and cuff make a massive difference in climb performance, double the climb rate for the same loads and temps. It does make it slow though, I now cruise at 95mph at 2500 RPM. The extended baggage is fantastic, surfboards and bikes fit with ease. The instrument panel is cut extremely low. Forward visibility on the ground and in the air is excellent.
Full coverage with 200TT and 0 Tailwheel was 2400 a year on a 70k hull. With 200 in type it went down to 1600. I initially really wanted a Maule. My insurance quotes were all north of 6k a year for 100k hull.
I'm nearly at TBO. Hopefully I can continue on condition long enough to save up for a bit more HP. The Stoots io370 conversion is 195hp and you get a constant speed for the low price of $90k.... There is also a high compression 0300 available from Airworx which offers 170hp to the tune of $50k. If you are in Canada high comp pistons and a Sterna ground adjustable are possible.
Ultimately, there is no argument that the 180/185 is a far more capable aircraft than a 170. I think that dollar for dollar the Pacer is probably a better bush plane. Most of my flying is bumping around locally for lunch and to go to the beach. Its pretty stupendous for that. For me it exists in the same space as owning a small boat, the costs and use cases are very similar. If I needed a traveling machine, had deeper pockets, or lived somewhere with serious DA, I would want something else.
Full coverage with 200TT and 0 Tailwheel was 2400 a year on a 70k hull. With 200 in type it went down to 1600. I initially really wanted a Maule. My insurance quotes were all north of 6k a year for 100k hull.
I'm nearly at TBO. Hopefully I can continue on condition long enough to save up for a bit more HP. The Stoots io370 conversion is 195hp and you get a constant speed for the low price of $90k.... There is also a high compression 0300 available from Airworx which offers 170hp to the tune of $50k. If you are in Canada high comp pistons and a Sterna ground adjustable are possible.
Ultimately, there is no argument that the 180/185 is a far more capable aircraft than a 170. I think that dollar for dollar the Pacer is probably a better bush plane. Most of my flying is bumping around locally for lunch and to go to the beach. Its pretty stupendous for that. For me it exists in the same space as owning a small boat, the costs and use cases are very similar. If I needed a traveling machine, had deeper pockets, or lived somewhere with serious DA, I would want something else.
Richgj3
BENEFACTOR
LI,NY
Well, 180/and higher HP with a CS prop will certainly improve take off and climb. The 170 forum on the International Cessna 170 website is full of pros and cons. I’ve never flown one with the upgrade. I don’t think any of the STC increase GW. They do increase empty weight a bit.
My C145 170B with a 76/55 cruise prop will indicate 120-122 mph at 75% power at sea level. It will climb at 5-700 fpm with two people and full tanks, once it gets going. Acceleration is anemic at best but on a hard surface not an issue. I imagine with the extra HP and CS prop the major difference would be acceleration (ground roll) and climb performance. Full consumption I think would not be much different since the O-300 is not the most fuel efficient package. As far a cruise speed we all know that’s more a function of the airframe than the engine. Ask anybody with a 450 Stearman. I would expect the 170 with 180 and CS to do better in cruise. I would guess maybe 140 mph but I really don’t know. MTV?
As long as we are sharing picture, here’s 2444D which I just sold but resides in my hangar until at least the new owners get the time they need in it from an instructor (me).
My C145 170B with a 76/55 cruise prop will indicate 120-122 mph at 75% power at sea level. It will climb at 5-700 fpm with two people and full tanks, once it gets going. Acceleration is anemic at best but on a hard surface not an issue. I imagine with the extra HP and CS prop the major difference would be acceleration (ground roll) and climb performance. Full consumption I think would not be much different since the O-300 is not the most fuel efficient package. As far a cruise speed we all know that’s more a function of the airframe than the engine. Ask anybody with a 450 Stearman. I would expect the 170 with 180 and CS to do better in cruise. I would guess maybe 140 mph but I really don’t know. MTV?
As long as we are sharing picture, here’s 2444D which I just sold but resides in my hangar until at least the new owners get the time they need in it from an instructor (me).
