175 TD vs 180 (on we go...)

[Pundy]

Yes, the 180 is an incredible plane, and I think it's the one for me. But, as I've been looking for appropriate candidate planes I've found a couple very nice 175 taildragger conversions with O-360 conversions. If I'm honest about my "needs" then this plane makes more sense for me due to lower fuel and insurance costs. If you take away the resale cost issues, then what are the drawbacks of getting into a nicely setup 175? Thoughts.

[lowflybye]

A 175 TW is a conversion and not a factory option. Underwriters do not typically like the conversions so I would be a bit surprised if the premium is cheaper than a comparably valued 180.

[qmdv]

A 175 TW is a conversion and not a factory option. Underwriters do not typically like the conversions so I would be a bit surprised if the premium is cheaper than a comparably valued 180.

Pretty sure the 175 premium is less. Get a quote and let us all know. Also I think it is a bit nose heavy. I met a guy that has the 175 coverted to TW with an O360 and he did not like the heavy nose so he moved the engine back 4 inches. He said that it made it much better. Hard to get the paper work done for that I imagine.

Tim

[lancef53]

What would the insurance savings be?

How about payload or gross weight?

Go with the 180--then you can be like me, and want a 185. The cycle never ends

Do the straight tail 175's have a trimable stab? Or a trim tab?

Any way to compare fuel flow at cruise speeds? My 54 180 cruises at a strong 130 knots, at 12-13 gph. I wish I could tell you what the flow is if you throttle back, but I lack patience, I like the top of the green!!

[shortfielder]

The fella that moved the engine back went experimental. Also made the horizontal 4"s wider. Otherwise you should adda bunch of weight to the back. I'd be surprised if there is much difference in fuel burn at the same speed w/0-360. In fact, I bet I can go faster on 10gph than he can in the 175, an I got an 0-520 in my 180. Won't have the load carrying ability, or range .
Generally, if you want supercub performance, best choice is a Supercub. If you want 180 abilities, buy a 180. Think is was suggested that you look at Rob's. That's still a good suggestion, based on what you say you want to do. Everything else seems to be full of compromises.
The mind has a funny way of justifying whatever choice you make, for awhile.

I'd rather have a 170 w/0-360. Great plane, and probably lots more mods available than the 175.If ya get the 175 and want to start moding things, you may be pretty limited. I have a buddy w/175TW/220 Franklin. Great plane/performer, but best when light.
Gary

[flynbeekeeper]

Gary,
Don't forget Monte put an 0-470 up front, hence the W&B issues. I would think an O-360 should be no different than an O-360 in a 170.

[obxbushpilot]

If you are going to buy a 175 and have a low TBO engine and a contant speed prop, go for the 180 and skip the dumb shit. If the 175 has a Lycoming o360 with a fixed pitch prop and this combo suits your flying needs then maybe it's worth considering. The resale value is the real catch though. If you get into a financial canundrum and can't afford the plane, you will wish you opted for the 180.

I set out to buy a 180. I came to my senses and got a more practical plane for my needs which turned out to be a C 172K TW conversion with a STOL kit. 95% of my flying does not require any more so why should I spend big bucks on the 5%? I would love to have the horsies to pull me around, but gas is expensive enough. I can fly all day on 7.5 gal/hr and still get by in the lower altitude backcountry. Lets not forget the lower TBO of the 0470 and that it has two more jugs to replace. Constant speed props are more fun, but AD's and maintenance are costly. Annuals on a 180 would be more expensive too. My plane had a factory O/H with 300hrs on it too and that made sense cause every 180 in my budget range was dangerously close to TBO.

I insure with Avemco and I disclosed that my plane was converted to TW. They did charge me more ($200/y more).

[shortfielder]

Monte's has the 0-360. His friend from up around Montrose had the 0-470

[bush master]

My 175 TW has the 0-360 fixed pitch and as stated the engine moved back 3 inches, empty weight CG same as from the factory. Plane has no weight in the tail And 3 points great. I did a lot to the plane to meet my personal needs. I looked at every 175 TW I could and addressed all the issues they had. Everyone is different from great to not worth a damn. The resale value seems to be good, I turned down a serious 75k offer at Johnson Creek last summer. I think Gary is probably right on the fuel burn. I've flown the 180 and think they are great planes anyone would enjoy the performance. Fly the 180 and the 175 and compare the differences then evaluate the quality of the planes. There are more mods available than you need. Give Karl Storjohann a call, converted 2 and has over 4000 hrs flying off field.

Monte

[ccurrie]

The 175 0-360 has one major advantage over a 170 0-360 more fuel! the nose heavy feel is because of less negetive angle on the tail (they have a tab not a trimjack) that is also the reason they're slightly faster than a 170.
as for advantages over a 180 , less fuel (per hour not nesisarily per mile),higher tbo, and a more matinence free engine. other than that a 180 beats them at almost everything see 170b vs 180 thread.
Im not saying buy the 180 if like me 90% of your flying could be acomplished in J3 and you just want more room/power/load somtimes then the 175 would work well for you.But if you have a load to haul and a distance to go dont kid yourself buy the 180!

[wannabe]

CCurrie stated:

"The 175 0-360 has one major advantage over a 170 0-360 more fuel!"

My 53-170-B carries 67 gallons total in the wings.
I believe that is about 15 gallons more than a 175.

Cheers

Chris C

[shortfielder]

UR cheatin That's more than my 180 to

[ccurrie]

Wanabe I was refering to a stock 170. Is yours the del-air STC Ive been eyeballing that one.

[born2flyak]

My cousin/business partner and I went to Anchorage back in November 2009 to do some airplane shopping, and we were looking for a 172 with 180hp. We didn't get very far down the shores of Lake Hood before we found a 180 with everything we ever wanted an an airplane. 29x10" bushwheels, 10" tailwheel, Wing X 3' extended wings (brings GW to 2950), Sportsman STOL, Vg's, Tanis heater, extended baggage, low time engine...the whole 9 yards. Sitting right next to it there on the Floats Alaska ramp was a 175TD with all the bells and whistles as well. With both on the ramp for a comparison, we went with the 180. Today we look back and laugh about the thought of wanting to buy a 172 (or 175) and despite the added cost, firmly believe we made the right decision. The 180 with its mods outperforms and has now replaced the PA-12 we had, and in 2010 it was doing 85% of the flights we normally would do with the 206 (hauling 1-3 pax), which saved us around $30K in fuel. Most of those flights the 172 or 175TD wouldn't have done the job. Granted, we are running it part 135, but when you get too much airplane, for professional or personal flying, its easier to downgrade than upgrade. I'm looking for a 206 to replace my (personal) 182, it's looking like slim pickin's...sure are lots of 172's cheap!

[Terry]

My 182 tailwheel conversion is over 25% less for insurance than my 165 Stinson was. With considerably more on the hull.

[wannabe]

CCurrie

Yes it is the Harry Delicker, or Delair LONG range STC.

I would recommend for most that the EXTENDED range STC is the better option for the 170.
That make it equivalent to the 175 tanks.

That one extra rib for the LONG range version virtually doubles the difficulty.

I went with the LONG range version because a friendly CFII I know convinced me that it would be worth it when I sell it. Maybe so.

Mostly I put them in because I wanted to never have to land in Carson City again on my way to and from McCall Idaho. The three Carson City socks were all pointing in different directions and each one was straight out rigid. Closest I ever came to losing a plane both on landing and takeoff.

I had made several trips in my friends 180 and learned to like having the option of more time in the air. Like two times as much cruise for the 170, especially when you do not need to descend and climb again. Used to fly it direct from San Jose to McCall non stop. Wanted to be able to "retreat" after having to use my friends Instrument ticket to do a couple of IFR "pop-ups" out near the Rome VOR.

If you decide to do it give a call.

Cheers

Chris C

[Pundy]

Thanks for the comments guys. Ive checked into the insurance and the immediate savings are just under 1k per year. I'd like to think I'll get the chance to haul larger loads (ie wife and son for a weekend of camping) but that will be very infrequent, so it seems like a 0-360 makes more sense. Decisions, decisions...

[lancef53]

Just wondering, what are your quotes for insurance? My 180 at 80k hull is just under $2000 for Dad and I, and went up to $2200 when I added a low time instructor for some instrument training.

Hard to believe the 175 is half.

[Zzz]

Thanks for the comments guys. Ive checked into the insurance and the immediate savings are just under 1k per year. I'd like to think I'll get the chance to haul larger loads (ie wife and son for a weekend of camping) but that will be very infrequent, so it seems like a 0-360 makes more sense. Decisions, decisions...

Are you sure you made it clear that it is a conversion to conventional gear? My 170 was about $1290 the last year I owned it for 500/100/40k hull, and nearly all my hours are in tailwheel aircraft.

[mtv]

Pundy,

So, what's next: a Maule vs 180 thread?

That'll get em going....

MTV