I have a chance to trade my RV6 for this 170B?
Has just about everything but extra fuel!
Mid time engine, climb prop, Arctic or second heater, Horton Stall ,P-Ponk gear boxes, Heavy 170 (latest) gear legs,Cleveland double pucks, new interior, good paint, Full set covers, comes with 3200 and Gar Aero tailwheel, Ski fittings are on it, pristine logs, small Garmin hard wired.
I have a set of 180 gear legs? How much more angle of attack would that give me or without more HP would that do me any good, besides looks????
Is there any reason I should not get this to use this this summer in AK?
Looking at a nice less than a 1000 hour M4 with I0-360 in it also, Love Maules but would need to have 100 low lead all the time?
Would look nice setting in the Hangar by the 195!
Thanks All GT

http://www.backcountrypilot.org/gallery/albums/userpics/12167/thumb_DSC09470.JPG
I could not post the image as it said could not determine size so this is as good as I could do!

http://www.backcountrypilot.org/gallery/albums/userpics/12167/normal_DSC09470.JPG
Full Size.

180 gear legs are about 1.5 inches longer. I'll take them off your hands if you don't use them.

Nice looking plane, and specs not too different from mine. I've got 180 legs. With a 8042 operating on gravel I'd swap em personally.

Looks like a heated pitot tube- I don't think that was ever original, or at least not consistent with the rounded rear windows. May indicate newer wings, or DH, or done during the Horton install??

O-300A, or -D, or...?

Somewhere on here is a thread about nice features to have in a 170B. I'll link it if I can find it.

-DP

Here's that 170 mod thread

DP

I had a 170 for 10 yrs loved it, but they are seriously underpowered, but you can run mogas in them. I don't know much about the M-4 but if you can live feeding it 100LL I'd opt for more power, but you're looking at lower temps up in Alaska, my oil always ran hot 190-210 there's no stock coolers on that O-300. When I transitioned to the 180 I'd asked myself why didn't you do this from the start?

Ditto what Denali said. You should install the 180 gear legs and offer the 170 gear legs to someone with a 170 tailored to a lower-48 cross country mission. I have pPonk 180 gear legs, Gar-Aero wheels, and 8042 prop on my '52 170B. It handles off airport well if kept light but is no speed demon. It rewards good judgement as it will land shorter than it can take off. I also run mogas as Glidergeek mentioned. Operating cost is about half the cost of a 180.

How do you save half on operating? I used to burn 7.5 GPH running 2450 rpm and seeing 110mph tas (C170) that's 14.66 mpg. even now with a pponk I'm seeing 160 mph tas and burning 12 gph @ 2200 rpm 19' mp that's 13.33 gph I'm burning 2:1 mo:av blend. My annuals cost the same as I do owner assist and radios cost the same as do the tires, brakes & wheel bearing grease. Insurance costs $400 more per year. Hangar costs the same. My initial investment is about double though. My anxiety level is much less climbing at 750-1000' pm at gross compared to 300-500 on a hot day.

I think he meant on an hourly basis. Not based on MPG. I know guys that say they burn 14gph in their 180. That's' just about twice as much as me. If I just wanted to fly around the local area for fun that is a lot less flying I could afford. Although I would love the power and speed of a 180. Depending on what I'm doing I burn between 7 and never over 8gph in my 170. My best was 6.9gph on a 4 hour flight from Caldwell to Rio Vista and that was at 2550RPM.

that is a really nice 170! I bought it once about six years ago but the deal fell through. I ended up with a 55 with a float kit but have often thought about what a nice plane that would be with my engine and prop on it.

Yup, my half rate comment was on an hourly rate basis. I typically cruise 2,450 to 2,500 and see 6.3 to 6.5 gph at 95 to 100 IAS. I used to be partners in a '56 C180 and loved it so I am not knocking the 180 at all. I am usually not in a big hurry and typically fly with one passenger and survival gear, so the 170 fits my mission. I also enjoy the sweet feel on the controls and the much better view over the nose compared to my 180.

BeeMan wrote:Yup, my half rate comment was on an hourly rate basis. I typically cruise 2,450 to 2,500 and see 6.3 to 6.5 gph at 95 to 100 IAS. I used to be partners in a '56 C180 and loved it so I am not knocking the 180 at all. I am usually not in a big hurry and typically fly with one passenger and survival gear, so the 170 fits my mission. I also enjoy the sweet feel on the controls and the much better view over the nose compared to my 180.

Ya I don't mean to put a bad name on the 170 either just my observations. I really liked my 170 seems to have more leg room than my 180 too. It just needs more ponies. Was looking into the Xpmods IO-360 convert, it didn't work out. I was really tempted to put C-85 pistons into ECI polished and flow matched cylinders, but didn't have the guts to and it would have involved doing a complete overhaul and wouldn't be certed. I was told the C-85 pistons and the flow balanced cyls would increase the hp about 30+ and that the engine could tale it.

It depends on the mission. Many of us fly just to be in the air, or go for that $100 hamburger. Others fly because they're hauling a load, or passengers, or need to get somewhere fast.

The 170/172, when flown as a 2 place airplane with a generous baggage compartment, is a fairly capable airplane. Never was, is not now, and will never be a 180 of course. But just as there are millions of happy owners driving around in their 6 cylinder light duty pickup trucks instead of F-350's, a 170 occupies a very useful niche in the market.

Call me a smart ass (yeah I know) but I can't help but notice that a few of BCP's high-time 180 and 185 commercial Alaska pilots, who apparently have lots of experience using all that power and capability of the Skywagon... own and fly O-300 powered 17X series airplanes now that they're paying for their own fuel when they fly

EZFlap wrote:Call me a smart ass (yeah I know) but I can't help but notice that a few of BCP's high-time 180 and 185 commercial Alaska pilots, who apparently have lots of experience using all that power and capability of the Skywagon... own and fly O-300 powered 17X series airplanes now that they're paying for their own fuel when they fly

Well smart ass

It's more a matter of how much $$$ us old AK guys have to spend on airplanes, than our desire for more horsepower and a better tail !!!!! My O-300 powered (laugh) C172TD is in the hangar because it's all I can afford right now, not because I love it.

And... It beats NOT flying.

I win the lotto, and a Super Cub and kerosene burner go on order the next day.

Gump