170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Technical and practical discussion about specific aircraft types such as Cessna 180, Maule M7, et al. Please read and search carefully before posting, as many popular topics have already been discussed.

170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby Pundy » Thu Jan 27, 2011 8:37 pm

So, we've determined I bought the wrong plane. Thus, I'm looking for a taildragger that's both ready for floats as well as skis. Primarily I'm looking for 180's but then I started seeing 170's that I like. Realistically, if I were to buy a 180, I'd be getting into some mission creep. As much as I want a 180, the 170 would meet my needs 90% of the time.

Please set forth convincing arguments that there's a real reason I "need" the 180. In lieu of that, there are some very nice 170's out there that I think would fit the bill, and when I'm only one person in the plane, would save me $15-$20 an hour just in fuel.

There's an experimental 170 that's for sale that's really caught my eye. The specs are as follows.

Continental TSIO-360-A
Manual Wastegate Controller
R172K wings with 40 degrees of flap(electric).
Scott tailwheel
1954 170B Gear legs
Factory Float Kit
BAS Tail Pull Handles
Shoulder harnesses
Javelin Fuselage Tank (60.3 usable)
172 Style Panel
Shadin Fuel Computer
Gami Injectors
Flap Gap seals and Bushmaster STOL kit
4 Place Intercom
24V with Ground Start Plug
Baggage Door
Door Steward Lights
Audio Checklist
Fresh Bendix Magneto Overhaul
New 172 Interior and Seat Rail AD completed
Tanis Engine Heater
2550lb Gross weight
Full IFR panel

Would I be nuts to consider an experimental 170 such as this?

Please let flow your wealth of opinions!
Pundy
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:50 am
Location: Carrabassett Valley, ME
 
Pundy's Photo gallery

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby nofate » Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:14 pm

That doesn't sound like the 170B that I used to fly. Wow, lots of mods. It must be turbocharged if it has a wastegate controller. Electric flaps...yuck. Whats the price of this plane compared to a well equipped 180 that will give you more speed and useful load? It would perform well compared to a stock 170 and still save you 5 gal/hr over the 180. The resale value of the 180 would probably be better though.

Decissions, decissions. :lol:
Flying with Rick video
http://www.vimeo.com/395418
User avatar
nofate
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:03 am
Location: Chapleau. Ontario
 
nofate's Photo gallery

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby 670x » Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:08 pm

Man I love the 180, the 170 looks better though. But you can always fly the 180 slower to save on fuel (yeah right).
If it's me I'm getting the 180, I had a turbo in a work plane, turbo's are expensive to maintain, plus it caused me a dead stick landing when it separated into two pieces.
I love simplicity...it's the 180.
Then you will never ask ...I wonder if???????
670x
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:59 am
Location: Wyoming

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby M6RV6 » Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:38 pm

Check the engine?1200 TBO?
So if you don't get the 170 what are they asking, if it experimental you don't have to worry about the TBO
Turbo's are great, but you do have to operate the throttle with a whole different attitude. If you have to do the fixing and paying you learn real quick how to move the throttle slowly and that you have to think about landing way before you get there!!
GT
Have as much Fun as is Possible and don't get Caught!
Keep SMILIN!

GT
Brousard
Wilga
C210
User avatar
M6RV6
Posts: 1177
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:52 pm
Location: Rice Wa.
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... sWKXuhKlg2
 
M6RV6's Photo gallery

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby wannabe » Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:51 pm

Pundy

#1 Are the flap gap seals riveted on or put on with screws?
If riveted then I would pass.
See (SEARCH) other posts regarding flap seals in the backcountry.
Especially if you need to do a steep approach to a short no go around strip.

#2 I believe the Javelin tank goes under the back seat - INSIDE the damned plane!
I would pass on that also. Seen too many backcountry planes on their backs.

#3 I am interested in just how the gross weight increase is DOCUMENTED.
Harry Delicker of Delair has tried for years to get a gross weight increase
for 170s and 172s with the FLAT firewall. FAA still says NO.
He was able to get one for the 172s with a "shelf" on the top of the firewall only.

#4 Sounds like you will not have much of a useful weight left over.

#5 A couple of friends have 180s and we actually do fly then around 110mph for mileage.
What the hell, we all need the TIME to log anyway. Also keeps the speed option avail.

#6 Still 170 gear legs with all those mods?
With the 2550 load you just might sit with the prop real close to the ground.
especially with a hard landing.

#7 You did not mention the prop.

Chris C
53 C-170-B+

It is better to be late in this world, than early in the next.
User avatar
wannabe
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Palo Alto, Calif.

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby Glidergeek » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:07 am

I'd be surprised if this plane really exists what's the N#. If this plane cruses 125mph and burns 9 gph that equals 13.89 miles per gallon. Before I Pponked my 180 I saw 149mph at 10.5 gph equals 14.19 mph so how's that save you money?
Glidergeek
Posts: 1504
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Riverside Ca
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... KCOWLoDNdJ
 
Glidergeek's Photo gallery

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby 7853H » Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:42 am

The 180 is more plane than any converted 170. The tail and rudder have more authority on the 180 and the 180 also has an adjustable horizontal not just a trim tab on the 170. For cross country flights speed is nice and MPG will be better in the 180. Dollar for dollar the 180 is a much better choice. Oh I forgot to mention you could just buy a maule :P
Old and still keepin it up --
7853H
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:23 pm
Location: Texas

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby mtv » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:55 am

First thing I'd determine is if that "experimental" airplane is really legal as an "Amateur Built Experimental" or if it's in some other category of Experimental. I'd bet it's in one of the other categories, and thus would be virtually useless for "normal" flying.

MTV
User avatar
mtv
Posts: 3846
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:47 am
Location: crookston, minnesota
 
mtv's Photo gallery

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby steve » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:49 am

My choice would be the 180. More airplane, holds its value better. In the scheme of things, what does the extra cost of gas for a 180 amount to in a year, compared to the benefits? With that said, I am not sure what your thoughts are on skis and floats, but have you checked in to the cost of paying to change from floats to wheels-skis, unless you do it yourself. It is pricey. I still think that unless you are real serious about skis, a 180 would not be a benefit over the nice plane you have now, that is a known commodity. What would it cost to trade for a similarly equipped 180 or to get one up to the speed of what you have now? If you want floats, convert it. I currently have a 185 that does not see wheels any longer, but also had a 182 for years, a great airplane and after you cut through all the bravado about tail wheels, it is better suited to landing on pavement than the Skywagon. If you do look at Skywagons, notice the large % that have been repaired due to ground loops (probably mostly on pavement). What is your mission, what kind of surface will you be operating on, how much do you want to spend? All things to consider.
User avatar
steve
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 am
Location: NW Ontario
 
steve's Photo gallery

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby Pundy » Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:44 am

Ok, a few responses to some of the questions/comments.

The 170 experimental does exist. And, the owner says that it cruises at 135kts which is exactly what my 182 does, but at that speed it's burning 2-3gph less. So, the fuel question is interesting. I completely agree that it will not hold it's value as compared to a 180 or even a 182, but if I buy it right then it should make little difference.

The owner states it's legal as an amateur built exp. He says the only time I have to worry about it is if I am flying into an airshow, in which case I have to notify the Feds 24 hours prior. Does that make sense?

I do truly want the ability to put both floats and skis on my plane, bot just one or the other. It will cost me $15k to put a float kit on my existing plane. There are all sorts of 180's out there that I can buy with good engines, and histories, that have float kits, and I'd spend no more than what I have into my 182. I have checked into the cost of the change. I have 3 guys at my strip (a place that only has 6 planes) that do the change every year. It's less than $1k/year to switch both ways. I know that I will someday groundloop my plane if I get a taildragger. I'm prepared to have that be a consequence in exchange for getting to do the ski flying.

It has a constant speed prop. I'll likely have to change the gear. The flap gaps are removable. He says that all the mods are legal by the Feds and that includes the up-gross.

Thoughts?
Pundy
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:50 am
Location: Carrabassett Valley, ME
 
Pundy's Photo gallery

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby Rhyppa » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:06 am

180! You can soup up, modify, polish, and primp a 170 and it will never be a 180. With 180 prices being not much different than modified 170's, why bother?
Rhyppa
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:50 pm
Location: Cook, Minnesota

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby mtv » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:17 am

Pundy wrote:Ok, a few responses to some of the questions/comments.

The owner states it's legal as an amateur built exp. He says the only time I have to worry about it is if I am flying into an airshow, in which case I have to notify the Feds 24 hours prior. Does that make sense?

It has a constant speed prop. I'll likely have to change the gear. The flap gaps are removable. He says that all the mods are legal by the Feds and that includes the up-gross.

Thoughts?


The requirement of 24 hours prior notice to fly in to an airshow should light up ALL kinds of alarm bells. That would SUGGEST that the airplane is NOT in the Experimental, Amateur Built category, but rather in one of the other (Airshow and Exhibition) categories of Exp. To be LEGAL, those airplanes cannot be flown just anywhere--like to the back country.

Get the registration number of the plane, and do a search on the FAA database. Specifically look for the certification category.

Finally, if the airplane is legal according to the owner in the Exp/Amateur Built category, how can all the mods and the GW be FAA approved???

That engine is not likely to go to TBO, and as someone pointed out earlier, the TBO is LOOWWWW on those engines. Spell maintenance hog.

I would RUN, not walk, away from that one, unless I got some really heavy assurances from the FAA that this thing is in fact what he purports it to be. And, with that engine, I'd still walk away from it, even if it was what he says it is.

You've got yourself convinced that you NEED a 180. Sell the 182 and buy a 180. All you're doing now is wasting bandwidth :D :D :lol:

MTV

MTV
User avatar
mtv
Posts: 3846
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:47 am
Location: crookston, minnesota
 
mtv's Photo gallery

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby GumpAir » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:48 am

mtv wrote:I would RUN, not walk, away from that one


Run is right!!!! That category is pretty much restricted to airshows only. You won't be taking that airplane anywhere. Legally.

A C170 and C180 are complete apples and oranges different airplanes. No matter what you do to it, a C170 still flys like a C120, C140, or C172 with a tailwheel conversion. It's an older airplane than a C180, and it flys like it.

The C180 on the other hand... One of the nicest flying airplanes ever made, and once you figure it out, you'll judge every other airplane you fly against it. Same as a Super Cub. Others may come close, but it's not the same.

Gump
Admit you're afraid of the dark. Soak the warmth from scabrock,cheek to lichen. The wind isn't talking to you. Listen anyway. Let the cries of coyotes light a fire in your heart. Remember the terrible song of stars—you knew it once, before you were born.
User avatar
GumpAir
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:14 am
Location: Lost somewhere in Nevada
 
GumpAir's Photo gallery

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby Glidergeek » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:53 am

135 kts? what's the Vne on a 170 (140)? Amateur built that means owner built 51% or more? I'll bet not. Every experimental C of A has a little pink piece of paper with the limitations for operation, what are they? I'd also bet the limitations are more than you'd want to be limited to.

W.C. Fields once said "there's a sucker born every day".
Glidergeek
Posts: 1504
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Riverside Ca
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... KCOWLoDNdJ
 
Glidergeek's Photo gallery

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby aktahoe1 » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:24 am

You should just buy Bushwagons 180 and move on...simple....Its a good plane, you know where it came from and a good price. Quit pondering on a lemon.

The market has a lot of good 180's out there now with the mods your looking for. Just be thorough on your pre buy. Go with someone who knows and dont trust what the owner tells you. He wants your dough.

Lowrider wishing he had skis....
Image
If it looks smooth, it might be. If it looks rough, it is...www.bigtirepilot.com ...www.alaskaheliski.com
User avatar
aktahoe1
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Alaska and Lake Tahoe = aktahoe
 
aktahoe1's Photo gallery

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby Rhyppa » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:43 am

If I remember correctly Bushwagons 180 does not have a float kit.
Rhyppa
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:50 pm
Location: Cook, Minnesota

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby aktahoe1 » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:55 am

I dont think he has the float kit, however for the price you get a good 180, know where it came from and you can add the float kit and your still under $75 or so. Hard to pass up if your seriously looking. Not to mention, if it truns into a lemon you can hassle him here... :lol:
If it looks smooth, it might be. If it looks rough, it is...www.bigtirepilot.com ...www.alaskaheliski.com
User avatar
aktahoe1
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Alaska and Lake Tahoe = aktahoe
 
aktahoe1's Photo gallery

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby Zzz » Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:43 am

A standard 170 is always going to be cheaper to own and operate simply because they normally have a fixed pitch prop and smaller displacement engine, MPG notwithstanding. This thing though sounds like Frankenplane.

170 owners generally prefer them because of their looks. A 180 is a superior aircraft is most all ways, but it doesn't have a round tail.

In my opinion, the appeal of certified aircraft is that you get a machine that has been maintained according to a set of standards set forth by the original manufacturer. Taking a 60 year old certified aircraft into the Experimental category undermines that standard for maintenance/airthworthiness/etc and the resale value drops. I'm not saying Experimental is bad (been reading me lately?) just that the stamp of approval that says the machine is still what it was when it rolled out of the factory is no longer there. Might be better, but resale can suffer. This turbo 170 has been on the market for a while, what does that tell you about its value vs price?

The 180 is golden god on the resale market though. A good one will always move.
User avatar
Zzz
Amateur
Posts: 1730
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Portland, OR
 
Zzz's Photo gallery

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby mtv » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:19 pm

Before you even THINK about adding a float kit to a Cessna 180, talk to a maintenance facility that's done it and get a solid quote. It'll make your eyes water, UNLESS you're dealing with one of the very early 180s like 53.

MTV
User avatar
mtv
Posts: 3846
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:47 am
Location: crookston, minnesota
 
mtv's Photo gallery

Re: 170 vs. 180 (an extension of my previous question)

Postby Rhyppa » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:32 pm

I think Bushwagons is a 53. I think another member here - Brian from Adventure Seaplanes, has a 180 FS already floated. Look in the for sale items here.
Rhyppa
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:50 pm
Location: Cook, Minnesota

Next

Return to Aircraft Types

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest