Which model is the plane for me?

[BradW]

I'm a new member, lurking here to see if the 170 is the plane for me. (Private SEL Instrument, approx 300 hours total & 10 tailwheel) I was originally thinking about something like a Champ, then I thought I'd need an all metal model since I most likely can't afford a hangar (although I haven't really researched this cost yet). This took me to the C120/140. Since most of my time is in Cessna's, this seems logical, except I think I could really use the 4 seats (just me and my wife now, but could be a kid in the near future.... also the occasional hop with another couple). Also, seems like a better platform for very light IFR

1) Am I on the right track rulling out the ragwing to be stored outside? I'm in Jacksonville, FL... most likely keeping it at either St Augustine or Herlong

2) I'm handy, & really like the idea of finding something that could be a light project, but I'd want to do most work myself. I don't want to get into anything too major or that would take a long time. I've always been rental scum before, so how realistic is it to find an AI that would work with me, and to what extent can I expect to be able to do myself?

The sharing of your wisdom is appreciated!
Brad

[Kyle Wolfe]

Hey Brad - Welcome.

I went through a similar decision process 18 months ago. Was thinking about a champ but my wife likes flying (she too has her ticket) and didn't want to always sit in the back where visibility is limited (she knows me too well ). So then I thought about the 120/140. Great little airplane. But that's the problem. Little. I'm 215 and to realistically carry anything you've got to go to a bigger a/c than the 120/140. So we bought a 54 170B. It was already redone and we could immediately fly. Stretched our budget but we don't regret it at all.

Seems like anyone who flys the 170 enjoys it. We love the round tail look.

If I were to park it outside I'd go the metal route with an A or B. If you enjoy the rebuild process - go for it. But everything I've read and been told is that it's not necessarily a cheaper route. Guess you just have to decide what's more important.

You'll get great info from this site. Do some searches, learn and ask questions. Good luck on the decision.

[N1478D]

Hi Brad, Glad You Are Here,

Other thoughts to go along with the good ones from Kyle:

A hangar can be cheaper in the long run than parking outside. The wear and tear from the sun and heat on the panel, interior upholstery, etc and the wind constantly moving the cables, hinges, bearings, etc will cost more to maintain in most cases than the cost of a hangar.

You could easily start off with a 120/140, get your feet wet on aircraft ownership and then move up to a 170, or start off with a 170. There seems to be alot more good 120/140's available in the marketplace than the 170 line so a good deal on a 120/140 might be easier.

The older IA's and AP's are usually interested in keeping the knowledge flow going and would really enjoy passing the knowledge on to someone like yourself. You just have to hang out at an airport and get to know them, tough job but someone has to do it. That is one of the many great enjoyments of aircraft ownership - learning all of that, it never really ends.

The two couple thing is fun, but it doesn't happen as often as you believe when first starting out and you could always rent if you need a heavy hauler.

[zero.one.victor]

A 170 of any model is an ideal all-around first airplane. For many of us, it's also our last. An all-metal A or B would probably be a better choice for outside parking, but don't be too leery of a ragwing if one comes along at the right price. Modern fabric holds up pretty well to the elements (UV) if it's been properly finished with enough silver. Or you can get canvas wing covers that go on & off easily. A "ragwing" with metal-skinned wings is also an option, although it wouldn't be my choice.
When I found a real good deal on a ragwing, I bought it to tide me over til I found the right B model. That was 7 years & 1200 hours ago! And no, I'm not looking too hard for that B model now.
Better plan on eventually getting a hangar, as much for a place to work on your airplane, store airplane stuff, and hang out as for just parking the airplane in. Metal airplanes suffer outside in salty humid environments.
Good hunting.

Eric

[BradW]

Thanks for the comments Kyle, Joe, & Eric. Yeah, I can totally understand that a hangar would be the way to go. At this point though, I'm figuring on being outside at least for a while. I don't even know what the availability is in my area for hangars.
Re. the comments about the new materials holding up to UV.... Is it likely that I may find one with old materials that don't hold up? Ballpark, what does it take to recover one?
Brad

[K90D]

20 years ago when I was looking to purchase my 1st airplane a wise old A&P said lets look for a Cessna 170. I thought no it's too big to start out with no tail wheel time. After several pipers pa-12 j5 pa-15 pa-17 which were all great airplanes and I wish I had them all I purchased a 170a this last August. I should of bought the 170 20 years ago. It's a great airplane and prices are continuing to climb.
Every airplane belongs inside.
Fabric work is very labor intensive.$$$$$ Sooner or later the fabric will have to be replaced.

1951 170-A
1979 Bolens G194
2003 Black Lab Iris

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Brade I'd buy the best 170 of any model you can afford. If its a rag wing get wing covers. If it's got old fabric, fly it till you don't feel comfortable or you can't find an IA to say it's airworthy. Then recover. It's not that difficult of a task and is within the ability of anyone able to follow instructions. It does take time but not as much as doing a whole plane such as a Cub. If you don't want to tackle the job or pay some one to do it then sell the plane.
The number one thing with any plane purchase is to buy it right. What I mean is a fair price. If you don't over pay for the plane you'll be able to sell it again at a fair price and you shouldn't lose anything and have gotten some flight time and experience out of the aircraft.
I'd buy a 170 over a 120/140 for all the size reasons already mentioned.
St Augustine is a neat airport but it doesn't strike me as a place you'll find a cooperative IA. I'd look for a smaller airport where your more likely to find an "experienced" IA who thinks it's more important to keep people flying than to make big bucks.

[doug8082a]

Hi Brad,

I'd go for the 170. It's a great airplane and having the extra room over a 120/140 is worth it. Don't let the size bother you. I bought mine when i had 110 hours total and 10 tailwheel. That was five years ago and all has been well.

I agree with the previous comments and wholeheartedly agree with Bruce re: buy the best 170 you can afford. If you buy one that "just needs a little work", it'll likely turn out to be a lot more than you'd like, especially for your first "own" airplane.

Buy a good one and fly the pants off it.

[ak2711c]

Brad, Stits and Ceconite fabric both hold up pretty well. They degrade cosmeticaly faster than they do structurally. As long as it is done properly it is not uncommon to get 20 years or better out of the fabric. The materials to cover the wings are the cheap part. The labor is what gets expensive. A rough ballpark is 100 hours per wing for an experienced mechanic. That does not include any internal repairs, and there are always some. If you can get an IA to supervise you though you could recover them yourself. All metal planes are much less maintenance and maintain there cosmetic looks much longer.
Now at the risk of getting brow beat. The fabric/metal wings are not the only differences between the 170, 170A, and 170B. Now I am going into dangerous teritorry. There were many performance and safety improvements made between each model. Research the differences between the models and take that into consideration in your desicion making. Good luck!
Shawn

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I agree with Shawn in every respect. Todays aircraft coverings are airworthy far after they look like they should be. I'm in the middle of recovering my Cub and can't argue the amount of time Shawn thinks it would take to recover. But what I will say is that if you can do the work yourself and you have a place to accomplish it, then do it if you have to. Think of the project as a 2 or 3 month spare time project. You will learn a lot about your plane and have fun at the same time. And when your done you can say you did it and amaze your fellow pilots. Those 200 hours will fly by.

As for the different models Shawn is also correct. I own what is essentially a 52 B model. I fly an A model as much as my B. One of the nicest flying 170s I've flown was a rag wing that I had every intention of buying but is now owned by a fellow friend and member. I sometimes wish I had a 53 or 54 B model so that I'd have the improved heat and defrost system but I like the older style cowl found on the 52 and earlier. Everything is a trade off.

[BradW]

Thanks Guys! You've taken some of my 'edge' off about the rag wing.

I just got my copy of the Cessna 170 book in the mail yesterday. I assume it will go a long way in helping me to understand the finer points of each model. Bruce, I have noticed the different cowl styles and like you, like the older one. I surely didn't know the cutoff, and also about the heating system upgrades.... I look forward to reading The Book to learn more, but as one of you said earlier, I know not to limit myself too much to a particular variant.

If I can figure a way to make it work, I'll just try to find a good one, and deal with what comes along. I just hope I can find a mechanic to work with. I guess going to the airports and talking with the mechanics will be part of my homework.
Brad

[170C]

Brad, welcome aboard! You have just joined a great organization with a super group of airplane lovers. You won't regret it. There have been a lot of good responses to your question and I can't really add to them. However, I will tell you that my first plane was a C-182--a great all around airplane. I was in a 3 person (all friends) partnership--worked out great. We sold the 182 & I purchased a '50 model C-140A (I learned to fly in a '48 C-140). They are a great, economical plane to own & operate. More agile than the 170 due to size, but a lot of fun type plane and @ 4.5-5 gallons per hour it is hard to beat. But, as you mentioned, the luxury of 4 seats and/or the extra baggage space and, in my opinion, a more comfortable plane to fly, the 170 is most likely your best option. I can sure understand the economics of possibly having to tie your plane down outside, but I strongly recommend you get it inside as quickly as possible. The elements plus who know who around an airport will eventually cost you a bunch anyway. Maybe you can find an airport with a community hangar (at less cost) or maybe even find a privately owned hangar that someone would agree to rent you space in.

Good luck & let us know how your search goes.

[Mike Smith]

I used to own a C-140A (metal wing with small flaps). It was a great airplane but if you're thinking that some "light" IFR work might be in your future then you'd probably be hard pressed to find an IFR -120/140. Though many -170's are VFR, there are more of them that are IFR than the 2 seaters. I currently have a 1949 C-170A and love it! These are what I see as the benefits of a -170 over a -120/140:
1. More shoulder room
2. More room for baggage when only two people are traveling
3. More panel room for my "light" IFR stuff (by light I mean that I only have one of everything - AI, DG, Comm, Nav, etc. and no autopilot)

Disadvantages:
1. Slightly more expensive per hour to operate (in my experience, not much more, but a little bit. Plus if you get an IFR one then you'll have those associated costs too).
2. Higher buy-in price ... but you get more for you buck too.
3. hummm, that's about it

Things that are about the same for the two types:
1. Cross country speed, both get about 100 knots no-wind (my C-140A had an O-200 100hp engine).
2. Low fuel cost (-140 was 5.8gph; -170 is 7.8gph)
3. Low annual cost (minimal moving parts; fixed gear,prop & manual flaps)
4. Tailwheel classics!!

Good Luck!!

[zero.one.victor]

I go along with Mike's views on 140 versus 170. The 170 is a good 2 people plus 2 kids or camping gear airplane. Plenty of couples go airplane camping in 140's, but you have to be much more weight & bulk conscious. Think backpacking versus car-camping.I fly alone most of the time, and sometimes think a 4 seat airplane is more than I really need. But I'm alot happier with the 170 than I was with my old 2 seater (a Cessna 150). I'd still like a 2-seater (like a PA-11!) but it'd probably be in addition to (not instead of) my 170.
The 170 costs more to buy & insure, & a bit more to operate, but is much more versatile. Also way easier to jump in & out of without a bunch of contortions. Performance is better than the 140-- but marginal compared to the 180. It's all relative. You just have to give some thought to weight/heat/altitude limitations.
At the risk of being called disloyal, I'd recommend that you also look at Stinson 108's & Piper Pacers. I think the Pacer is an under-rated airplane and usually a real good value for the money. A bit smaller inside than the 170, but makes up for it by being a better performing & sportier handling airplane. If I wasn't already a 170 owner I'd probably have a Pacer.
Of course, both the 108 & the Pacer have the disadvantage of tube & fabric construction if you're planning on keeping it outside. Fabric airplanes do have some advantages over all-metal, though, so it's all a trade-off.

Eric

[BradW]

Thanks again, everyone, for some great feedback!

Thanks for the point-out on the Pacer. Don't know much about them, but I'm leaning towards Cessna & all metal as a goal (not that there's anything wrong with fabric..... I really like the champs....just my situation). BTW, is the ragwing 170 lighter than the A & B models?

I've pretty much ruled out a two place, unless I just can't find a good 4 place, or otherwise make it work. Thinking back a couple years to the last time I rented a C152; It had been a long time since I had flown one, having rented mostly C172, 172RG, & 177RG.... It was a solo flight, but I felt wedged in, & I'm close to FAA average. Also, it was a clear spring day as I recall, and that light little plane surely bounced quite a bit. I remember thinking that this was a good reminder of why I didn't rent 150's and 152's any more. Extending this to the classics, I'm thinking the 170 is much more of the plane for me, compared to the 120/140 series....if I make it work with my wallet and wife, and find a good plane.... not necessarily in that order
Brad