What price is speed?

[C170BDan]

OK... now I have been reading about these "slow" 170's and "fast" 170's that SOME people keep joking about. Where was the 170 "Speed Showdown" that determined who was slow and who was fast!? Always get a big kick out of seeing pilots brag about their go fast machines. The Cessna 185 that is at Bonanza speeds (yeah... which model Bonanza?) and Cessna 170's blowin the doors off of 180hp 172's.

Is Frank's 170C that slow!? Is Joe's 170A that fast!? And I dont know what to think about George's '53! Someone splain it to me? When it comes down to it... Joe, Frank and I would all land within a few minutes of each other!

Blue Skies,

[Harold Holiman]

George would get there after dark.

Harold

[N1478D]

George would get there after dark.

Harold

George DOES land (get there is actually more accurate) after dark!

I don't get it Dan, we have all flown in formation together - You, Frank, me, and others. You know the answer, you must just be picking on George. All 170's are the same speed, except for ole George.

[Harold Holiman]

As far as equally matched planes, when Sammy and I delivered N180SC to Leonard, we played with different power settings all the way on our trip. Both Leonard's plane and my plane are 1953 overgrown 170's (180's). (Leonard also has two 170's). At every power setting, we could never notice over one or two mph difference. I'm trying to talk him into flying to Tehachapi along with us. As a side note, 180's will fly as slow as George's 170 as proven when he was our fearless leader on the flight to and from Kitty Hawk

Harold
N92CP
#893

[N170BP]

A good friend flies along side me now & then in a '53 C-180.

If I recall correctly, the power setting he uses is 18" and
2000 rpm.

Long story short, after a cross country trip, we both gassed
up at the same place (took off with full tanks). Both my
170 and his 180 took the same amount of fuel on (within
a 1/2 a gallon)

Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP

[GAHorn]

Yep, per mile, the gallons at similar speeds are similar for similarly configured airplanes. My 206 burned 13 gph and ran along at 144 kts. The C-175 my friend had covered the same distance at his cruise of 110 kts with the same fuel burn, just a bit more time. The same course took the same fuel recently in my 170. MPG is approximately equal for these types/configs aircraft (high wing fixed gear Cessna's). The difference was time (which interestingly can be an expensive proposition when you consider per hour mx reserves.)
Miles Bown wrote an article back in a 1990 "Cessna 170 News" issue about his B-model easily passing up an otherwise identical A model, commenting word to the effect that "I thought A-models were supposed to be faster?!" It boils down to individual aircraft characteristics, instrument accuracy (or inaccuracy), rigging, pilot technique and other such subtleties.
I have personally flown past another identical airplane only to discover that his IAS was almost 5 mph more than mine, and my RPM was more than his. (Afterwards we checked the calibration of the tachs and found his running slow. His AS indicator had come out of a wrecked airplane, so he sent it off for overhaul. I don't know the outcome of that.)

[zero.one.victor]

Actually George,I would guess that the same amount had to be put away for mx reserve per trip,with your 206 & your 170. The 206 will get there in less hours,but the overhaul is gonna be more,so the mx reserve cost per mile is gonna be about the same. I would guess an engine overhaul on a 206 is gonna be about 50% more than on a 170,if you figure in accessories (prop/guv'ner,etc).
On the same note, I once had a guy trying to tell me that it was no more expensive to own & operate a Bonanza than a 170. He cited the miles-per-gallon thing,& talked about pulling the power way back on the Bonanza to achieve a 100-knot cruise. Sounded great,until I brought up purchase price,insurance cost, & annual inspection cost--that kinda blew holes in his theory.

Eric

[zero.one.victor]

I just noticed that the subject of this topic is "what price is speed?"
Speed is expensive. Pretty is expensive. I'm hoping to find an airplane someday that's slow enough & ugly enough that it costs nothing to fly it! (some might say that my current mount comes pretty close to qualifying! )

Eric

[funseventy]

My wife flew a 108 hp Colt TD from Fallon, NV to Denton TX while I flew formation with her in a 235 hp Maule and we burned within 10 gallons of each other on that big trip. 1 gallon difference per stop.

On another trip I was flyin a 150 hp Super Cub on floats from Fairbanks to Anchorage and she was flying our 230 Hp 180 on floats in formation. When we gassed up at Nancy lake she took 26 gallons in the 180 and I put 27.5 in the Cub! Pretty funny!

Kelly

[GAHorn]

Based upon TBO and estimated average overhaul costs, the larger/faster aircraft end up costing more per hour, so it's not economical to slow a higher performance airplane down to fly formation with a lower performance airplane.
An example is again the 206 vs the 170. Both will burn approximately the same fuel over the same distance, but the 170 engine's per hour mx reserve is $8.10/hour while the 206's is $13.20/hour. Therefore the 206 will cost more to operate at speeds less than it's optimum cruise. Add to that it's TBO of only 1700 hours vs the O300's 1800 hours and (regardless of anecdotal evidence to the contrary) the basis of operation is more expensive per hour for the 206.
So why have a 206? Well, it hauls more payload, and it does it at faster speeds. But it simply costs more to do so, fuel costs per mile notwithstanding. Fuel ain't the only thing to consider, was my point.
(The above figures were obtained from my copy of Light Plane Mx's operating costs profiles, and are based upon a normally aspirated IO-520 powered 206. The turbo'ed 206's numbers are even worse! The turbo'ed TBO is only 1400 hours and the turbo burns even more fuel and has addt'l overhaul costs. So does the constant speed prop, prop governor, cowl flaps, more expensive tires/wheels/brakes and other such un-noticeables like required 100 LL in lieu of mogas or 80/87 etc. etc.) Don't even think about a retractible paying it's own way in comparison. The mx costs (and insurance) of a retracting landing gear never pays for itself until you get into high altitude/high speed pressurized aircraft where pressurization far exceeds landing gear costs.
In short, speed is expensive. The 170, with it's ability to match/beat higher performance aircraft in MPG costs, is one of the most economical flying machines available, if in good condition, and if kept that way.

[C170BDan]

I just noticed that the subject of this topic is "what price is speed?"
Speed is expensive. Pretty is expensive. I'm hoping to find an airplane someday that's slow enough & ugly enough that it costs nothing to fly it! (some might say that my current mount comes pretty close to qualifying! )

Eric

OH... I love it Eric! I was trying to lighten up this forum and it went both ways... fun and technical! Joe... I have flown in formation with George's '53 with the previous owner. It wasnt so slow then! So is it the guy in the pilot seat? (Sorry, George! I havent even met you in person yet and these guys have me pokin fun at you!) The other factor in all of this is what RPM are we all crusin around at? I cruise at 2500. Like Joe said I think most 170s with O-300s are going about the same speeds. (This talk of different aircraft types on similar flights reminds me of the story that Kelly tells about beating a Bonanza with an Aeronca Chief on a short cross country!)

Blue Skies,

[zero.one.victor]

Musta been a "Super-Chief" with 85 rip-snortin' horses!

Eric

[GAHorn]

Hey, Dan! If you didn't razz me like the rest of these malcontents, then I'd question if you really were an aviator!
I have to admit, Bill did an exceptional job on "my" airplane. I've made a small change or two, and have a couple more things to "perfect" but overall,...it's a real pleasure to enjoy his work. He's become a real fine friend as well. That's the way an airplane transfer should work. The transaction should be so satisfactory for both parties that they form a friendship over the deal!
Now, if we could find 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, and 55 models all in the same area we could shoot a really fine photo! Yes? Someplace with a 1950's terminal bldg and girls in pony tails, bobby-sox and poodle skirts!
(Saw a 1953 Chevrolet Cabriolet, red convertible, one of only 9 made, this last weekend during the Manhattan automobile show. That'd certainly look fine in my hangar! Guess I'll just keep looking for a 53 Chevy pickup and little red Cushman!)

[funseventy]

OK, The short version!

For those of you from Texas you will know the spots. It's about 85 miles or so.

My boss and I were going to Lake Texoma from Denton Muni. I was loading my girlfriend in the Chief as he said, "Do you want to race?" I said Yes while hand propping and then I jump in and took off on the ramp where we were parked. He still had to load his V35TC with his family of 5. I ran the A65 at 2200 RPM's up from the normal 2150, Wow!

I thought I had it made until I was on Downwind and he passed over the top of me and I watched his gear come down. He landed to the south which then requires a back taxi and the parking area is then quite a taxi from the end of the runway. I just wheeled in and landed in the grass next to the parking area and beat him to the spot. It was a cheat but it was a WIN!

[Harold Holiman]

George,

Your idea for a picture of all year model 170's in one picture sounds like a good project to do at the convention. Perhaps there will be one of each year model in attendance and maby Miles knows of an old air base or other airport nearby that still has 50's era buildings.
In your area, the Hanger Hotel in Fredrickburg looks like it would be an excellent vintage photo spot.
On the speed issue, when you and I were flying along side each other, your indicated speed was 3-5 mph faster than mine and when I was flying along side N180SC his indicated speed was a little faster than mine also.

Harold