The International Cessna 170 Association

Saw this on Barnstormers today. A creative way to get more panel space.

I like it!!

The panel has the piano switches so maybe it is a 170? Looks like they moved the trim wheel to the column. What is the control below that? Flaps? Strange! It reminds me of a later model 172 setup, but there's no cowl flaps on 172's, except the Hawk XP, as we'd see on a 182. Somebody will explain it I'm sure.

Is this a very early 182?? I would love to know how they got approvals for all this .

ghostflyer wrote:Is this a very early 182?? I would love to know how they got approvals for all this .

Canadian 170.

I've operated a few airplanes with those types of controls (usually larger types) and this sort of control was also offered on some Pipers of later design.
If placed low on the quadrant it can be difficult to operate accurately or to select small incremental changes, especially in turbulence. The design is better suited to throttle quadrants placed higher or more in-line with the elbow (such as on an armrest), IMO.

Ick. I had a throttle quadrant in my Cherokee and hated it. Much more difficult to make small adjustments than with push-pull controls, especially the mixture.

Why would you install nose bowl landing lights? Getting too much bulb life on your wing-mounted bulbs?

Ick.

DaveF wrote:Ick. I had a throttle quadrant in my Cherokee and hated it. Much more difficult to make small adjustments than with push-pull controls, especially the mixture.

Why would you install nose bowl landing lights? Getting too much bulb life on your wing-mounted bulbs?

Ick.

You’re my hero, Dave.

In the barnstormers add it has a 160 HP Lycoming engine installed not a 180 HP. What it does not have in the add is that it has a cowl flap. Obvious from the pictures in the add. It has a fixed pitch prop, float fittings, and another prop an 80/41 with the airplane for float plane use. I have to wonder if they got the whole thing approved under a single approval. Or exactly what is approved. After all it is Canadian registered.

Gosh, i would love to see the log book and see how it is written up. To me its a bit of a waste having a 160hp and not 180hp plus in your 170 . Due to the expense and effort plus what STC allows a 160 hp in a 170 . While I am no expert on Canadian rules and regs , i am having a hard time getting my head around the legalalties . OOPS , forgot about SA135CE by D’ Shannon. They had a STC for the 160hp.

Thats's what I have the Doyn version.
As for the plane in discussion, it's likely in the Owner Maintenance category. I'm not a fan of this category but it works for some, especially since the GA infrastructure in Canada is almost gone. Just a shame that an educated owner can't do more to his private aircraft and stay within the type design. This example illustrates what happens when the books get thrown away.
I wonder what speeds are seen with the cowl flaps and how has the lower cowl been reinforced for such a mod.

Close; it’s registered in the amateur built category where you normally see RV’s