Winter Flying

wa4jr · Post by **wa4jr** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:35 pm

Just thought I'd relate a recent winter flying experience and see if anyone has any thoughts. On our return from Memphis after the Thanksgiving holiday, we were flying up behind a winter weather area hoping it would clear as we moved along east toward Norhern Virginia. The first leg up to Murray KY was fine. After fueling up with tasty mogas, we were off to FGX in Northern KY for our last fuel stop, but we never made it. Shortly after leaving Murray on an IFR flight plan, I entered the overcast at about 3800 on my way to 5000. Since the overcast tops were only about 7000, the clouds were very bright and forward vis was nil. Ice began to build on the windshield and although I could hardly see the pitot tube, I could see it turning into an ice sickle. The climb performance on my plane with full fuel and family is anemic at best...often requiring step climbs to make 7000 with 9000 just about the absolute ceiling. I had the fleeting thought that if I could only punch up above the overcast I could sail on and let the ice sublimate off. In a 170 with the O-300...not a chance especially given the building ice load. I was not too worried about losing the airspeed indication since that is no big deal...but then I remembered those darn venturi tubes. Did not want to lose airspeed, AI and DG with ice on the plane in IMC. How vulnerable are the venturi tubes to ice? Has anyone ever had one ice up to the point that they do not work any longer?

So I call Ft. Cambell approach and get cleared back down to 3000 into VMC conditions. Just after the descent the cabin filled with the nasty smell of mogas. Now I'm thinking that the carb bowl has loosened up and fuel is spilling into the engine bay. The smell does not dissipate and the ceiling continues to lower as we get close to Madisonville KY, so I terminate the flight here in a howling NW wind...direct crosswind.

An inspection of the engine bay reveals no fuel leaks, but on the back of my plane I see the problem. During the abrupt descent out of the clouds with nearly full tanks, fuel ported overboard from the gooseneck. Had fuel stains all over the top of the ship and some must have leaked into a seam and filled the cabin with the nasty smell. Must have lost a heck of a lot out of the gooseneck as my fuel burn figure for that leg was around 11 GPH when it was around 8.5 GPH for other segments. Once fuel starts out of the gooseneck, with vented caps, can a siphon action set up where fuel continues to pour out of the gooseneck in level flight???

At any rate, shortly after landing in Madisonville KY, the backwash around the NE moving low pressure center brought in quite a snow storm and we ended up putting the bird in a heated hangar for the night, went to Crackerbarrel for a big lunch, and then to the Best Western for the night. The trip was completed the next day with no major problems except the horrible low level winds from the NW setting up quite a mountain wave effect over the Appalacians. Could not make 9000 to stay on top, so settled for 8000 and punched through a couple of the big "mountain wave" cloud banks. Pickup up a bit more ice, but after exiting the second wave cloud bank, the Shenandoah Valley appeared before us with great VMC conditions all the way to the ground. Cancelled IFR with Potomac and headed for New Market. Took two tries to get down in a blazing crosswind, but we were glad to get the trip finished and the ship put back in our hangar.

This is our last cross country trip until good flying weather returns with no chance of icing. I guess I have to face the fact that the 170 is just not going to be the most appropriate family traveling machine. The 180 would have had enough power to provide a bit of safety margin, but then in the same price class as the 180 are earlier Piper Arrows and Commanches along with Mooneys...all with much more speed and comfort. Problem is the tailwheel is in the wrong place...but since it can be retracted in flight it will be out of site.

So...are there any answers for my questions of venturi ice and fuel venting. Are there others that have purhased a 170 thinking it might be a good family machine and found it came up short? If so what are the mods that would make the 170 a good cross country machine. I have the IO-360 and instrument panel conversions under consideration, but after all that is done....I've spent enough money to get a slick Commanche or Arrow. Dilemma Dilemma. Or I can just stick to Spring, Summer, and Fall flying in primarily VFR conditions, and save the Winter season for aircraft MX and upgrade work.

doakes · Post by **doakes** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:23 pm

John,
I am glad that you and your family made it home safely

A thought, keep the 170 for the VFR and rent the IFR ship for the not so often trip. It would keep you in the 170 and you would not have to have the expense of the upgrade.
Have a very Merry Chtristmas
Dave

AR Dave · Post by **AR Dave** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:55 am

Well I've 100% made my mind up. There is NO WAY I'm giving up my 8043 prop for 6-10 mph gained cruise speed at the cost of climb. Actually on a trip over to Heber Springs this week I told my co-pilot the situation and she told me to stay with the climb performance. Leaving Heber we climbed at 1000 fpm up to 10,000 feet. Then at 2550 rpm's and dropping 250/300 fpm we screamed down to Russellville.
wa4jr, when I'm climbing blind, 1000 fpm isn't fast enough for me. Usual Cabin conversation - Do you see anything yet, anything now, now, huh? But that's better than the going back down.

I sure have a good co-pilot and I'm glad she's willing to stick her head out the Bubble Windows for me too!

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:20 am

John,IMHO the 170 is a great 2+2 fun airplane.That's 2 adults & 2 suitcases. It's an acceptable family machine if it's VFR fun flights over sea level terrain. If it's gonna be IFR,high,hot,heavy, &/or serious traveling,I would say a 180/182 class airplane is much more appropriate. Or a retractable type,if that sort of machine appeals to yopu. You pretty much validated that theory with the trip you described.

Eric

russfarris · Post by **russfarris** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:05 am

Hi John; yep, you've discovered the 170s limitations as a serious cross-country flyer. I came to this same conclusion over a year ago; do a search on IFR in a 170 if you didn't read my lengthy missive.

For VFR fun flying, this airplane can't be beat! And for short cross countries, say up to about 200 NM, it works OK too. Throw in headwinds,
the possibilty of even light icing and mountain wave activity, and you have one limited IFR machine (I'm speaking of the stock Continental engine, of course.) It pretty much croaks above about 7,000 feet with any load at all. In the winter, with the wind blowing from the west at 30 knots or more, the wave from the Smokies hundreds of miles downwind can be impressive - I've been at 7,000 feet, WOT at 65 MPH, just to maintain altitude! As for icing, I've encountered it just once - the windshield iced over in about five minutes and I pulled the plug and descended to warmer air FAST, so the venturis didn't have a chance to ice up, thank God. I agree with GA; by the time the venturis ice up enough to cause a problem, you are headed for the deck anyway...no way could this airplane carry any appreciable load of ice.

A 180, or excuse the expression, a 182 is a much higher performing airplane with an excess of horsepower a stock 170 can only dream about.
If I was going to buy a more modern X-C airplane, I would look at the Cardinal RG, very nice little airplanes indeed.

But, I'm still looking for the perfect 180, I know it's out there...Russ Farris

You fly for ACA, right? You'll love the Airbus! I've been on it for a few months now. It's a wonderful airplane; all the urban legends about it are totally untrue...

russfarris · Post by **russfarris** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:12 am

John - before I forget - does your airplane have the small hole drilled in the back of the gooseneck? The purpose of it was to provide another vent source in case the gooseneck got clogged by ice or bugs, but what happens is, the hole is in a low pressure area and sucks fuel right out!
(It's in Bill Thompson's Cessna: Wings to the World book.)

With the required vented fuel cap (or caps, like on mine) you have an alternate vent source...I'm curious if this was your problem, let us know...
Russ Farris

wa4jr · Post by **wa4jr** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:48 am

Well, it's nice to think about an older Arrow or Commanche while looking through TAP. Prices are good and XC performance is good...but then the operating expenses (retract gear) would be increased as well. Climbing to 10,000 at 1,000 fpm? In a 170? This would be a good one for April Fools Day

Honestly...I know you have a climb prop which helped, but what was your load at the time...or did you have JATO bottles on the ship

In my case the loss in cruise speed is unacceptable as my ship is already too slow...makes those 600-1200 mile trips to visit relatives take all day and then some. So each time I get into this can of worms I end up at the same fork in the road. One fork says take a winter and install the IO-360 along with a modern panel. The other fork leads to a 180 in need of TLC (so I can afford to buy it) and then most likely a modern panel. Each fork would likely be the same in terms of cost...but the larger 180 airframe would certainly be more comfortable for my wife and I along with our two girls. I love the round tail feathers, but the more I think about it, the more I lean to the 180. Darn, then there is no mogas TLC for the 180 is there? I think this may be a good project for some university "think tank"

Oh and yes I do fly for ACA. The A-320s if they come, will be nice. We just have to avoid the hostile takeover attemp by Ornstein and his MESA Air Group that is currently underway

N170BP · Post by **N170BP** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:44 am

You can run the older, carbureted low compression O-470s
on mogas. The U motor (and S I think? etc.) are higher
compression and require 100LL.

Most all my 180 buds have older models and they
run mogas when they can.

Oh, you asked if there was an "STC" for mogas.....

Who cares?

Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 6:40 am

According to the Petersen Aviation brochure I have, their 87 octane cargas STC is available for the Cessna 180 thru 180J,and the Continental O-470-A,J,K,L,R,& S. Also the O-470-11 as found in the Cessna 305 (L-19) Bird Dog. Also the IO-470-J & K.

Eric

rudymantel · Post by **rudymantel** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:45 pm

On Thursday Jane and I are off on our annual trip from South Florida to Northern Virginia (Manassas). This time we plan to RON with cousins in Columbia SC which will break up the trip nicely. The Javelin tank gives ample range for the first 4.5 hr leg to CAE.
Last year we picked up some light ice fter dark which was gone by the time we made our ILS to Manassas with a strong crosswind on the approach but not happily on the runway. Broke out at 400'. I had to promise Jane this year we'd only fly in decent wx.
The 170 is a limited x-c machine but it's affordable and 90% of my flights are in the local area or in Florida so it's not worth springing for a more costly airplane.
But the 180 is sure nice and a good x-c airplane with all three wheels correctly located. As I recall, it's an honest 125 k airplane.
Rudy

Bill Rusk · Post by **Bill Rusk** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:21 am

John

The interior size of the C-180 cabin is exactly the same as the 170. 40 inches across, same length etc. Your family will not be any more comfortable. I have heard that the later model C-180's used the C-182 fuselage but I have not ever been able to verify that. The C-182 is wider, 44 inches, and would be more comfortable. Although the idea to rent for the occasional X/C is good and logical it has the drawback that you are now doing IFR in an Unfamiliar airplane. Something to consider.

Bill

AR Dave · Post by **AR Dave** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:22 am

Front seats 390 lbs, 45 mins fuel burned off the full tanks, probably 25 lbs of Christmas gifts in the backseat. Plane empty 1373 lbs on books.
I don't remember at what rate it climbs when our 3 kids are in the back, never worried about it. Wouldn't be discussing it now, if Joe hadn't flown with me and pointed out that 1000 fpm was a good climb rate. Thnx a lot Joe!

Until joining this Forum I had no idea that 170’s (all 145 hp) could perform so differently. From Cruise speeds of 140 mph @ 2450 rpm’s, to Climb rates of at least 1000 fpm. Maybe that’s how Cessna came up with the best climb / speed combination in the 7653 prop.

Good Luck!

eichenberger · Post by **eichenberger** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:17 pm

Hi John - Allow me to relate what I went through.
In 1980 we bought our 170B because my wife was expecting our child, and our Cessna 150 wasn't going to hack it anymore.
We flew mainly locally and very short x-c flights.
Then, we flew a trip from here in central Ohio to the Carolinas and Georgia. While returning, facing into the northwesterly headwinds, barely keeping up with the semis below us, we talked about a faster airplane.
We sold the 170 and bought a Comanche 180. Our 170 had 800 tires on it, which made it even slower, and negated getting wheel fairings.
The Comanche is a nice flying airplane, and the 180 is OK if you don't need a lot to make a lot of gross weight takeoffs from shorter fields. It's useful load was well over 900 pounds, and even with full fuel, the cabin would hold close to 700 pounds. A Comanche 250 goes 14% faster than a 180, but burns 50% more fuel. For me, that decision was a no-brainer; since about 80% of my flying is one or two people, no need to burn that much gas.
All Comanches were fully corrosion proofed during manufacture, and corrosion, even today, is a rarity in one.
A 180 with 60 gallons of gas has great range, and will cruise at reasonable power settings right at 160 mph.
We kept the Comanche for 7 years. After that, we didn't own another airplane for 6 more years.
Comanches have their bad points, which are primarily maintenance costs, insurance costs, and some recurring ADs that can bite if the inspection turns up a problem.
Email me at jeichenberger@ehlawyers.com, or call me at 614-798-1600 if you ever want to really discuss Comanches in detail. After owning one for 7 years, and really thinking now about getting another one, I may help in your decision.
Unless you're really small, and never need to carry 4 adults, I wouldn't even consider an older, short bodied Mooney.
Cessna 182s are great, but they burn a boat load of gas to feed that big engine, and if you ever have to overhaul a 6 cylinder O-470, look out. But, if you need an airplane that will carry a great load, still go about 150 - 160 mph, and want fixed gear, go for the 180 or 182.
Jerry Eichenberger

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:27 pm

180/182 cabin size: I don't know what year it started,but if you compare a later-model 180 fuselage with an early one,you will see that the top of the early airplane slopes down toward the tail smoothly. The later fuselage has a sort of hump in it which apparently correspond with a little head room for the back seat. I never noticed this until a friend pointed out the difference between a late & early 180 parked next to each other at a fly-in--it's a fairly subtle difference,hard to pick up on unless you compare the two airplanes side-by-side. I suspect it may have started when they introduced the 3-window,6-passenger "185" fuselage?
For what it's worth,I would prefer the earlier versions of either a 180 or a 182 if & when I buy one--lighter & better looking.

Eric

russfarris · Post by **russfarris** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 8:09 pm

The 1960 180 I looked at the other day had the break in the fuse top Eric talked about, and I think that was the first year for the "hump". I believe 1964 was the first three window model. I also prefer the looks of the earlier 180. Russ Farris