Arctic flying and 170 purchase

nolson · Post by **nolson** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:50 pm

I live in Kotzebue, AK and am seriously looking for a way to leave town. This has led me in the direction of a 170. My questions are related to what model would be best for me (ragwing, A or B, 180csp or not) and the overall performance differences between them. I am leaning towards a 170 with the 180 hp upgrade and was hoping for some feedback related to how much performance you actually gain. Also, how can a VGs and other STOL mods increase the shortfield performance on a stock or upgraded 170.

I plan to be doing a lot of off airport stuff and my plane will be outside at all times which may or may not be a good thing for a ragwing. Anyone out there have any comments/suggestions?

AR Dave · Post by **AR Dave** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 2:00 am

How much money do you want to spend?

mvivion · Post by **mvivion** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:45 am

nolson,

I wouldn't consider anything but a B if I were going off airport or onto floats. The flaps really do make the difference, and the purchase price of the two models isn't that much different.

There is substantial performance difference between the bigger engines and stock, but hard to measure. More noticeable when on floats, or facing tall trees at the end of a short strip.

Mike Vivion

Roesbery · Post by **Roesbery** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:10 pm

Watch for any of the higher hp 170Bs'. The stock plane light is marginal, heavy needs too much runway. If you are going to have a passenger or two and camp gear and meat and a 6 or 800 foot strip you will need to shuttle to a longer strip most likely. The 180 hp is good, with 80 inch prop better, with sportsman kit better yet. The IO 360, 200hp Lycoming. the IO 360, 210hp Continental, and the Franklin 220hp are what are most available. Used to be some 170 hp Lycomings around but not likely to find any now days. Your looking at between 40 and 80 thousand for such a setup. Sometimes less for one that needs a lot of TLC. If you have a good local A&P metal man that you can work with will make the dinged bargans more feasable. Hope this helps. Charlie

mvivion · Post by **mvivion** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 12:16 am

Good advice from Charlie. One thing I'd add is you want to stay away from the 170 hp (O-340 Lycoming powered) airplanes. That engine is no longer supported by anyone, and parts are really hard to come by.

Mike

nolson · Post by **nolson** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 9:51 pm

Thanks for the replies. I agree that a higher hp 170B would be ideal for what I am looking to do. They seem few and far between and that sellers are figuring upgrade costs into their prices. Would I expect to get that elevated price in a resale (not that it would ever happen, but possible)? I am also a little concerned about maintaining a constant speed prop in an arctic environment. Any feedback on this?

Roesbery · Post by **Roesbery** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:20 am

Unless things change, a 170 bought today and maintained and flown will sell for more dollars years from now. Granted those dollars won't buy as much as now. At least that has been the pattern for the last 25 or 30 years. Not many cars you can say that about. As for the constant speed prop in your area, should not be a problem. Used to live in the Fairbanks area and never had any problems winter ( down to -50F ) or summer.

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:25 am

A stock engined C-170 will do a pretty good job on short fields with a 46" to 50" pitched prop. They admittedly aren't worth a damn for the long cross country legs, but most bush type flying seems to be relatively short legs. My suggestion for your first airplane would be a stock C-170B with minimum weight and VFR instrumentation. Get rid of the back seat and the gyros and all superflous items that are not essential to flight. Get the prop tweaked to about a 48" pitch. Learn to fly it right up to its limits and then think about putting stuff back on as needed. Don't get sucked in to leading edge cuffs, vortex generators ,etc. The airplane is really quite capable just the way Cessna built it.

pdb · Post by **pdb** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:11 am

blueldr wrote:A stock engined C-170 will do a pretty good job on short fields with a 46" to 50" pitched prop.

My suggestion for your first airplane would be a stock C-170B with minimum weight and VFR instrumentation. Get rid of the back seat and the gyros and all superflous items that are not essential to flight. Get the prop tweaked to about a 48" pitch.

Don't get sucked in to leading edge cuffs, vortex generators ,etc. The airplane is really quite capable just the way Cessna built it.

All good advice, especially about removing the excess weight. Lightening the plane is the cheapest most cost effective mod. If you can find one, get an 80/40 prop.

My experience with the VGs has been very positive. I flew my plane for 5 years before putting them on and my impressions are that my low end handling has been considerably improved. I am much more comfortable about slow approaches on short final.

AR Dave · Post by **AR Dave** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:16 am

How much money you are willing to spend is directly related to your answer. If you are going to spend as much as a 180 cost, for a modified 170, for goodness sakes get a 180. I absolutely love my 1955 170B, 8043 prop, 8.50 tires, etc., but it ain't and never will be a 180, even if I was to put a 180 hp engine in it.

spiro · Post by **spiro** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 12:47 pm

what Dave said. If you want a souped up 170 the best bang for your buck is a 230hp 180. For serious off airport you need a PA-18, -12, Husky... The 170's a great airplane but it's not a Cub nor a 180. But for Â½ the price, a stock 170 w/ big prop, flown very light and well, will get you to a lot of good places.

mvivion · Post by **mvivion** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 6:54 pm

Well, now.......actually I agree with you regarding the comments on a 180. But that said, I'd take my 180 hp 170 happily into a LOT of places I'd never think of taking a 180, even yours.

Not a Cub? That's true, but just how tight are you willing to work your Cub? I've seen big engine 170's in places I'd have to think a lot about if I were in a Cub.

The 170 with big engine is still a very LIGHT airplane, and that is what counts in off airport stuff. My 170 is certified at 2200 pounds max, the Cub can now go to 2000. Not much difference, but try that with a 2800 pound 180, or worse yet, a 3100 pound one.

If you can't safely land there, takeoff performance is moot.

I'd still get a 180, but the difference in dollars is stunning, folks. Look at the REAL prices these things are selling for, and you'll find that 180's are selling for monstrous prices.

And, as noted, a good light stock 170 with the right prop AND the right driver, will do very well. Again, off airport performance is largely a weight issue, and carefully prepped, a 170 can be a pretty light airplane.

Mike Vivion

buchanan · Post by **buchanan** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:26 pm

I agree Mike,

I have both a Cub and a 170B. My Cub has 160hp a Borer prop and weighs 1200lbs (heavy for a Cub). My 170 has 180hp a CS prop and weighs 1325 (fairly light for a 170) it also has a Sportsman STOL. I can land my 170 within 100 feet of my Cub. Maybe I'm a better driver with the 170 than the Cub. The catch is that I can get the Cub out of about anywhere I land it. Not so the 170. As hard as I try, it takes me at least 100 ft more to take-off than to land. I'm putting an 80" prop on the 170 and that should help the take-off aspect. The Sportsman STOL kit is, in my opinion, certainly worth the weight sacrafice. It does take about 40 hours to install though.

The nice thing about the 170 compared to the Cub, as Mike has said, is the useful load and the COMFORT compared to the Cub and the 30 knots difference in cruise compared to the Cub. I shouldn't be talking like this, my Cub is for sale and it is a nice one.

HAPPY, HEALTY 2005...................Buck