Cessna 170

[cbmontgo]

I keep getting a bug to look at a 170B with metal wings and IFR-capable.

I believe that these have the Continentail 0-300 engine. I did a search, but can't find what the TBO is on these. Any reliability issues with this engine?

What are your thoughts on these airplanes? I am used to 172s and have never flown a taildragger.

 

[tonycondon]

O-300 is 1.5 O-200's. Tom will tell you more.

Personally I would take the fabric wing but i like useful load and am not afraid of fabric.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I keep getting a bug to look at a 170B with metal wings and IFR-capable.

I believe that these have the Continentail 0-300 engine. I did a search, but can't find what the TBO is on these. Any reliability issues with this engine?

What are your thoughts on these airplanes? I am used to 172s and have never flown a taildragger.

Do it!

I own a '48 170, but have flown B models as well. They are all good airplanes. I just like the older style of the '48 (and it was a bit cheaper than a B model).

All came with 145 hp O-300s....although you may find some with upgraded engines. The B models tend to be preferred by the bush types as having more utility and consequently run more than the 48's and A's. The B model is essentially an early model 172 with conventional gear. IIRC the wing is exactly the same.

I believe official TBO on the O-300 is either 1800 or 2000, but as with most airplanes, that will vary with use and maintenance. They are solid engines, although overhaul cost will tend to be a bit higher with the 6 cylinders than your typical 4-banger.

IMHO a 170 is a perfect taildragger to learn in.

Like Tony said, Tom D will be able to give you a better A&P perspective on the airplane as he has alot of experience with them.

Also, if you are interested, check out the 170 Association forum:
http://www.cessna170.org/forums/index.php

 

[flyingron]

Get a carb temp guage if it doesn't already have one.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Get a carb temp guage if it doesn't already have one.

Good point - while you don't necessarily need the gauge, be advised that if you are not used to the O-300, the carb ices up alot more easily than on Lycs, so you best not forget the carb heat in the pattern.

 

[Tim]

Owned two since 1981 or so the first one was a 1948. Have a B now much prefer the B. The engines are as bullet proof as you can get. They are excellent airplanes. Many many many many mods, to do many different missions. The 170 Ass is the place to go to get all the info you would ever need. Don't know why you need a Carb air Gage? I have always had plenty of waring of carb ice and it is rare. Of course all my flying is in Alaska.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Don't know why you need a Carb air Gage? I have always had plenty of waring of carb ice and it is rare.

I think he was just implying that the O-300 will ice up alot easier than the Lycomings found on more modern Cessnas.

 

[flyingron]

It's not rare at all. It'll ice up on the ground. Try flying in places where the ambient is above 0F.

 

[Tim]

It's not rare at all. It'll ice up on the ground. Try flying in places where the ambient is above 0F.

Thats what I said! Wait it's in the 60's today!

 

[Tim]

I think he was just implying that the O-300 will ice up alot easier than the Lycomings found on more modern Cessnas.

Modern Cessna's

 

[denverpilot]

Beat me to it. I was happy to learn that airplanes older than me are still considered "modern". I have white hair. Not a lot, but some.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Modern Cessna's

I said more modern. Any airplane built in the 70's is consideredd more modern than my airplane that came out of the factory the year my dad was born.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Carb ice aside -which yes you need to pay attention to but no isn't likely to manifest itself every day, week or even month unless you are flying in the red or "orange-ish" yellow portion of the carb ice probability chart constantly - the 170 is a great plane and the O-300 is a great engine. I flew the heck out of a 56 model 172 for a while then bought my 170B. Mine is a bit heavy for the species and has a useful load of 749 lbs. Most have more like 800 lbs - I have a lot of mods which added weight.

It has very few ADs to worry about and annual inspections and prebuys are straightforward.

 

[cbmontgo]

Carb ice aside -which yes you need to pay attention to but no isn't likely to manifest itself every day, week or even month unless you are flying in the red or "orange-ish" yellow portion of the carb ice probability chart constantly - the 170 is a great plane and the O-300 is a great engine. I flew the heck out of a 56 model 172 for a while then bought my 170B. Mine is a bit heavy for the species and has a useful load of 749 lbs. Most have more like 800 lbs - I have a lot of mods which added weight.

It has very few ADs to worry about and annual inspections and prebuys are straightforward.

Thanks for the input guys.

Hey alaskaflyer...that useful load is empty tanks, right?

 

[cbmontgo]

My biggest issue with these 170B is the cost as compared to a P model Skyhawk or even a late 60s Skylane. I LOVE the look of the 170, but to get one with the little things that I want, they are in the $ 40-50K+ range. At that price, my wife is gonna push for something that can carry all of us.

Something is just sexier about a taildragger though. I picture myself loading up my hunting gear with the kids and flying out to some strip somewhere and setting up camp under the wing. A 170 just looks meant for that sort of mission.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Yes that is useful load not payload. With full fuel most have a payload around 500-525lbs. And yes they carry a premium just as the 180 does over an earlier 182.

 

[zaitcev]

Modern Cessna's

Maybe he means Corvalis and Skycatcher?

 

[denverpilot]

Corvalis isn't a real Cessna. (Blatant troll...)

 

[Fearless Tower]

My biggest issue with these 170B is the cost as compared to a P model Skyhawk or even a late 60s Skylane. I LOVE the look of the 170, but to get one with the little things that I want, they are in the $ 40-50K+ range. At that price, my wife is gonna push for something that can carry all of us.

If the cost is a concern, you might look at A models, good A models can usually be had for cheaper than Bs. 48's are even cheaper (25-35k)....but there's a catch with the 48.

I wouldn't recommend a '48 unless you really like the look of the early model. I personally love mine, but the reason I don't recommend them in general is that the '48 can be a lot more problematic to keep airworthy than the A and B models. Reason is that the '48 is kind of an oddball. It is more like an overgrown 140 than a 170A or B. Several systems were altered/improved with the A and B leaving the '48 in limbo with aftermarket parts. Also, alot of the STCs don't cover the '48 (just not enough demand for manufacturers to go through the trouble of getting the approval).

 

[Tom-D]

Get a carb temp guage if it doesn't already have one.

Why? the C-145-A that the Cessna 170 series came from the factory is an engine that the carb mounts directly to the oil sump exactly like the 0-320. They have no carb ice problems beyond what the normal late model 172 have.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Why? the C-145-A that the Cessna 170 series came from the factory is an engine that the carb mounts directly to the oil sump exactly like the 0-320. They have no carb ice problems beyond what the normal late model 172 have.

Tom, are you saying that the carb in the 170s is mounted differently than it is in the early 172s with C-154/O-300s?

 

[Tom-D]

Good point - while you don't necessarily need the gauge, be advised that if you are not used to the O-300, the carb ices up alot more easily than on Lycs, so you best not forget the carb heat in the pattern.

That is an old wives tale.. the C-145/ 0-300 has the carb mounted directly to the oil sump just like the Lycoming 0-320 and it uses the same make and model carb.

Want pictures ?

 

[Tom-D]

Tom, are you saying that the carb in the 170s is mounted differently than it is in the early 172s with C-154/O-300s?

No it is exactly the same engine. but the fable of carb icing on the 0300-A-D is more than the Lycomng 0-320 is pure BS..

just because the two companies address the problem differently, does not mean the problem is more or less on one than the other.

 

[Fearless Tower]

That is an old wives tale.. the C-145/ 0-300 has the carb mounted directly to the oil sump just like the Lycoming 0-320 and it uses the same make and model carb.

Interesting....So how did the wives tale start?

Can't say I have ever personally experienced carb ice in either the 170 or the 172C, but I have always been diligent about using carb heat in the pattern.

 

[Tom-D]

If the cost is a concern, you might look at A models, good A models can usually be had for cheaper than Bs. 48's are even cheaper (25-35k)....but there's a catch with the 48.

I wouldn't recommend a '48 unless you really like the look of the early model. I personally love mine, but the reason I don't recommend them in general is that the '48 can be a lot more problematic to keep airworthy than the A and B models. Reason is that the '48 is kind of an oddball. It is more like an overgrown 140 than a 170A or B. Several systems were altered/improved with the A and B leaving the '48 in limbo with aftermarket parts. Also, alot of the STCs don't cover the '48 (just not enough demand for manufacturers to go through the trouble of getting the approval).

I bought N2623V from a friend here at Oak Harbor, rebuilt the aircraft totally and flew it around for a year and sold it for about 3X the market at the time, and have been kicking my self ever since, They are the best of the series and have no problems getting parts for them, it takes the same engine parts as all the early 170/2 series, they are faster and have a better useful load that either the A or the B,

all the airframe parts are made in the field and any repair is completed on a 337 because the aircraft has no maintenance manuals. the 100 series maintenance manual didn't come out until 1968.

The 170 has a great type club, with a great parts locator if you need him.

The "48" 170 rag wing is the first year of the series and only 714 were delivered, it has a fabric wing which most have been updated to ceconite and ura coatings the aircraft empty weight is 1000-1200 pounds and the max gross is 2200, it is the only true 4 place 170. but it only came from the factory with 3, 12 gallon tanks, many have had the 4th added. ( it's a common up grade) My 48 would show a true 131 mph at 2500 leaned to best power, and run that way all day at 7. gallons per hour. with 2 aboard and full tanks.
Barb and I made two long cross countries in that aircraft and enjoyed both the 48 has no vac system installed from the factory, but many have a venturi system installed in the field. They do not make good IFR platforms.

the 48 has no dorsal fin so it wanders in cruise and you can't take your eyes off it for very long..if you are trying to hold course.

The "A" is the metal wing version of the 48, still no vac pumps just venturis, and it is a bit heavier with the dorsal fin and metal wings, and it suffers the penalty of the added weight, my friends 170-A (a 49) trues out at about 125 MPH with 2 aboard and half a tank of fuel.

The "B" Mine (2801C) was the nicest of the 170 I have owned and If I own another it will be the "B" 1953/4/5/6/7 full metal aircraft with 40 degree Fowler flaps, 5 degrees of dihedral, dorsal fin, big elevators, and big rudder.
Empty weight is usually between 1200 and 1350 pounds and gross is still 2200 with big tanks (42 gal useful).

None of the 170s will have a good IFR gauge setup, and unless it has been upgraded to the 0-300-D it will not have a vac pump. you are stuck with venturis and a non standard scan.

the things you do want on a 170:

cleveland wheels a brakes, scott 3200 tail wheel, solid steel axles, and the pee ponk gear mod, 1 piece wind screen, hanlon and wilson mufflers, baratone exhaust pipes, and 172 parking brake.

the 170 park brake system will cause you to land with both brakes locked, (not good) it's a POS

hollow axles are prone to cracking,

the rear cabin bulkhead is prone to corrosion, as is the main spar carry thru, and the rear fuselage bulkhead is prone to cracking, other wise they are pretty good aircraft, I feel they are a good investment the market has held up these past few years when the rest of the aircraft have suffered a big drop in prices.

some pictures 2801C and 2623V I don't have any of 29S I sold it before I got it home.

 

[Tom-D]

Interesting....So how did the wives tale start?

Can't say I have ever personally experienced carb ice in either the 170 or the 172C, but I have always been diligent about using carb heat in the pattern.

Many of the C- series Continentals have a remote mounted carb. the 0-470 being the biggest offender of the icing problem in the 182, and the 0-200 in the 150, so Continental got a bad reputation, and it carried over to the C-145/0-300-A

Contrary to public belief the C-170 and the early 172 did not have a 0-300-A installed at the factory.

 

[Skylane81E]

The ONLY reason a Lyc might make less ice than a NON O200/O470 TCM is the passing of the aircharge through the warm oil sump.

However I iced the carb in a Lyc equiped 172 on the ground during a preinspection run once, so I'm not convinced that they aren't ice prone.

I still recomend a carb air temp guage, but I think they are a good idea for ANY carburated engine simply for allowing the use of partial carb heat to keep the carb temp just out of the danger zone. My standard ops for carb ice are heat on full to clear the ice then I set it to just above the yellow arc (works out to about 10*C) to prevent recurrance of the ice.

I DO NOT recomend partial carb heat with out a working CAT guage as it is possible to warm air into the temp range that allows carb heat.

 

[cbmontgo]

I bought N2623V from a friend here at Oak Harbor, rebuilt the aircraft totally and flew it around for a year and sold it for about 3X the market at the time, and have been kicking my self ever since, They are the best of the series and have no problems getting parts for them, it takes the same engine parts as all the early 170/2 series, they are faster and have a better useful load that either the A or the B,

all the airframe parts are made in the field and any repair is completed on a 337 because the aircraft has no maintenance manuals. the 100 series maintenance manual didn't come out until 1968.

The 170 has a great type club, with a great parts locator if you need him.

The "48" 170 rag wing is the first year of the series and only 714 were delivered, it has a fabric wing which most have been updated to ceconite and ura coatings the aircraft empty weight is 1000-1200 pounds and the max gross is 2200, it is the only true 4 place 170. but it only came from the factory with 3, 12 gallon tanks, many have had the 4th added. ( it's a common up grade) My 48 would show a true 131 mph at 2500 leaned to best power, and run that way all day at 7. gallons per hour. with 2 aboard and full tanks.
Barb and I made two long cross countries in that aircraft and enjoyed both the 48 has no vac system installed from the factory, but many have a venturi system installed in the field. They do not make good IFR platforms.

the 48 has no dorsal fin so it wanders in cruise and you can't take your eyes off it for very long..if you are trying to hold course.

The "A" is the metal wing version of the 48, still no vac pumps just venturis, and it is a bit heavier with the dorsal fin and metal wings, and it suffers the penalty of the added weight, my friends 170-A (a 49) trues out at about 125 MPH with 2 aboard and half a tank of fuel.

The "B" Mine (2801C) was the nicest of the 170 I have owned and If I own another it will be the "B" 1953/4/5/6/7 full metal aircraft with 40 degree Fowler flaps, 5 degrees of dihedral, dorsal fin, big elevators, and big rudder.
Empty weight is usually between 1200 and 1350 pounds and gross is still 2200 with big tanks (42 gal useful).

None of the 170s will have a good IFR gauge setup, and unless it has been upgraded to the 0-300-D it will not have a vac pump. you are stuck with venturis and a non standard scan.

the things you do want on a 170:

cleveland wheels a brakes, scott 3200 tail wheel, solid steel axles, and the pee ponk gear mod, 1 piece wind screen, hanlon and wilson mufflers, baratone exhaust pipes, and 172 parking brake.

the 170 park brake system will cause you to land with both brakes locked, (not good) it's a POS

hollow axles are prone to cracking,

the rear cabin bulkhead is prone to corrosion, as is the main spar carry thru, and the rear fuselage bulkhead is prone to cracking, other wise they are pretty good aircraft, I feel they are a good investment the market has held up these past few years when the rest of the aircraft have suffered a big drop in prices.

some pictures 2801C and 2623V I don't have any of 29S I sold it before I got it home.

Thanks, Tom. This is a huge help.

...and beautiful airplane by the way.

 

[Tom-D]

Thanks, Tom. This is a huge help.

...and beautiful airplane by the way.

If you are really contemplating buying a 170, join the 170 association.

http://www.cessna170.org/

and get their book "" The Cessna 170 Thirty six years of a classic""

that's every thing you should know to buy one.

 

[jhausch]

The ONLY reason a Lyc might make less ice than a NON O200/O470 TCM is the passing of the aircharge through the warm oil sump.

Or the conducted heat from the sump to the carb itself....

 

[Fearless Tower]

They are the best of the series and have no problems getting parts for them, it takes the same engine parts as all the early 170/2 series

As a current '48 owner (finishing up an extensive first annual turned restoration), I can say that statement about parts is not entirely true.

The engines may be the same, but several of the associated systems are different. Let's use the fuel system for example - the '48 has the fuel system of a 140. It is not the same as the system in the As and Bs and the parts are not interchangeable.

Now, with that in mind, let's look at something simple like the gascolator. The '48 gascolator is not the same as the one on the A or B. The original Koehler gascolators used by Cessna were old tractor parts. The original gascolators are no longer made, but there are aftermarket all-metal gascolators that are STC/PMA'd for the 170 A and B and there is one approved for the 140. Even though the 140 part is the same as the '48 170, there isn't enough demand for the manufacturer to go through the process to get the part approved in the '48. Now you could get a 337 to put that part in the '48, but Field Approvals are becoming a more and more of a pain in the arse to get approved than they used to. My A&P and I tried to go that route and the FAA guy was being such a pain about it that I finally went with a salvage part that I bought from someone in the 140 Association. This is just one example of the challenges I have found with the '48. Yes, I could have eventually gotten the 337, but I decided that it was just not worth it at the time.

Don't get me wrong, I love my '48, but it is worth noting the potential challenges that come with the model. That is why I say don't get a '48 jsut because the purchase price is lower....buy a '48 because you want to own a '48.

 

[Tom-D]

As a current '48 owner (finishing up an extensive first annual turned restoration), I can say that statement about parts is not entirely true.

The engines may be the same, but several of the associated systems are different. Let's use the fuel system for example - the '48 has the fuel system of a 140. It is not the same as the system in the As and Bs and the parts are not interchangeable.

Now, with that in mind, let's look at something simple like the gascolator. The '48 gascolator is not the same as the one on the A or B. The original Koehler gascolators used by Cessna were old tractor parts. The original gascolators are no longer made, but there are aftermarket all-metal gascolators that are STC/PMA'd for the 170 A and B and there is one approved for the 140. Even though the 140 part is the same as the '48 170, there isn't enough demand for the manufacturer to go through the process to get the part approved in the '48. Now you could get a 337 to put that part in the '48, but Field Approvals are becoming a more and more of a pain in the arse to get approved than they used to. My A&P and I tried to go that route and the FAA guy was being such a pain about it that I finally went with a salvage part that I bought from someone in the 140 Association. This is just one example of the challenges I have found with the '48. Yes, I could have eventually gotten the 337, but I decided that it was just not worth it at the time.

Don't get me wrong, I love my '48, but it is worth noting the potential challenges that come with the model. That is why I say don't get a '48 jsut because the purchase price is lower....buy a '48 because you want to own a '48.

So you find an A&P-IA that knows how to gain a field approval for the later version of the gascolator. or hunt the junk yards.

I never had any problems with any of the parts to restore 2623V none zero nada.

I used a glass bowl gascolator on my 170 with a preapproved 337 which I got by return mail.

This is all about your A&P-IA's ability and his credibility at FSDO.

 

[Fearless Tower]

So you find an A&P-IA that knows how to gain a field approval for the later version of the gascolator. or hunt the junk yards.

This is all about your A&P-IA's ability and his credibility at FSDO.

My A&P IA has the credibility....what doesn't help is when the old DER retires and is replaced by a new young pup who treats the process like a nuclear engineering inspection. Unfortunately, this is not a unique situation. FSDOs are becoming this way around the country (as evidenced by discussion on the 170 board and recent discussions with other 170 owners at the convention).

Like I said above, I could have continued to push for the 337, but found it was a whole lot quicker to get the salvage part....I still had to wait to find that.

 

[Tom-D]

My A&P IA has the credibility....what doesn't help is when the old DER retires and is replaced by a new young pup who treats the process like a nuclear engineering inspection. Unfortunately, this is not a unique situation. FSDOs are becoming this way around the country (as evidenced by discussion on the 170 board and recent discussions with other 170 owners at the convention).

Like I said above, I could have continued to push for the 337, but found it was a whole lot quicker to get the salvage part....I still had to wait to find that.

Those old grey beards have always had a problem with the FAA, most of us don't.

and remember all the folks at FAA have a boss.

A call to my PMI explaining the problem, no parts, no support, or a request to back fit a field approval for equipment already installed years ago, and ask what he wants to see in the cover letter and block 8. Getting it right the first time and it usually comes back in the return mail.

OBTW,,,, when you are dealing directly with the FAA at FSDO you are not dealing with a DER.. your A&P-IA should have dealt directly with FSDO. and his PMI.

 

[Fearless Tower]

OBTW,,,, when you are dealing directly with the FAA at FSDO you are not dealing with a DER.. your A&P-IA should have dealt directly with FSDO. and his PMI.

To be honest, I do not know if he was working directly with the DER or the FSDO. I just know that he was getting the run-around with the new guy. I just got tired of waiting once I found a suitable orginal.

 

[Tim]

No it is exactly the same engine. but the fable of carb icing on the 0300-A-D is more than the Lycomng 0-320 is pure BS..

just because the two companies address the problem differently, does not mean the problem is more or less on one than the other.

Tom, Tom, Tom. You just don't understand, Carb Heat fixes everything! Engine runs rough pull carb heat, landing light doesn't work pull carb heat, plane fly's left wing low pull carb heat! You know that is what your flight instructor taught you! And You know flight instructors are Gods gift to Aviation!

 

[alaskaflyer]

plane fly's left wing low pull carb heat!

Damn! I wish I'd thought of that!

 

[Skylane81E]

Hey my PMI was the one that offered the field aproval I did. Granted all I did was install the rec light lense on the wing tip that had never been issued seperate certification from the wing tip containing it. BUT because it wasn't an "approved" part and it's a 135 plane....

Have I mentioned I like my PMI recently?

 

[catmandu]

C-170's rock!

But I am newly biased: Last Wednesday morning, I had never set my butt in the seat of an airframe with conventional landing gear. As of last night, I have 33.4 hours, and 289 landings in a 170B, half of that solo, most at high DA airfields.

It was one of those good aviation weeks, to say the least!