I have a 170B (145 Hp) that I like very well, but can't help myself from looking at 180s and 185's. Plenty of ways I could personally justify the switch- that's not a problem. One thing I suspect I would miss is the ability to manhandle the 170 around by myself on the ground when I have to. Rough or sloping ground, or in snow or mud- I can usually manage the 170 by the struts or the BAS handles, but I'm not sure I could manage a larger plane. My situation doesn't lend itself to pull-through taxiing.

I also like that I can reach the wings to get the wing covers on. Even on Goodyears or skis, and with 180 gear legs. Pretty sure that would change with a 180.

denalipilot wrote: I can usually manage the 170 by the struts or the BAS handles, but I'm not sure I could manage a larger plane. My situation doesn't lend itself to pull-through taxiing.

I hear that!!! Maybe a 180 with a reversible pitch prop

Chris

On the issue of fuel burn, they will probably be fairly similar.
I never really considered the -145 hp 170 as it just can't do what I want it to do.
But the -170 with the bigger engine, the Lycoming 180 hp, or even the Franklin 220hp, the fuel burn seems to be the same as the Cessna 180 with a stock O-470.
The empty weights of the big engined 170s being in the 1400 to 1500+ range, what's the empty weight of the early 180?

AKclimber wrote:The empty weights of the big engined 170s being in the 1400 to 1500+ range

That sounds really heavy. My C-145 170 was 1319 empty (no rear seat installed.) Jr.Cubbuilder told me his O-360 was lighter than his C-145. Accounting for a little extra weight from the C/S prop, I can't imagine getting over 1400 empty.

Zane wrote:

AKclimber wrote:The empty weights of the big engined 170s being in the 1400 to 1500+ range

That sounds really heavy. My C-145 170 was 1319 empty (no rear seat installed.) Jr.Cubbuilder told me his O-360 was lighter than his C-145. Accounting for a little extra weight from the C/S prop, I can't imagine getting over 1400 empty.

Zane,
Good to know. The ones I looked at well all at a minimum close to 1,400 and maximum 1,550!

my 55 170B is 1362lbs with a 0-360 and an 83in MT prop. With the battery on the firewall the CofG is rite at the front of the envelope empty.

My 52, with a O-360 and MT prop is 1326 empty on 8.50 tires.

A friend once described the "feel" of the C-170 compared to a C-180 as "toylike" and that is an apt description, in my opinion. The 180 is a delight to fly, very maneuverable and a great feeling airplane all around.

But, the guy already decided three pages back that he REALLY NEEDS a 180....why are we still beating the deceased horse???

MTV

MTV did you actually weigh yours? Mine came out to 1329 mathimaticly but the scales told a different story .Just curious I heard that 52s were lighter.
mine was on 8.00s with the ski axles and pump installed

mtv wrote:But, the guy already decided three pages back that he REALLY NEEDS a 180....why are we still beating the deceased horse???

MTV

Who cares about the OP- I think this is one of those timeless questions, that deserves a good, dedicated thread. IMHO.

-DP

I've heard this "truck-like" thing before... Maybe if you're used to the Bucker Jungmeister...

I love how my '59 model handles. I fly it with Fingerspitzengefuhl.

My 54 180 feels like a truck--when I compare it to my RV-8

I like it way better than the late model 182's I have flown, but I don't have much else to compare it to. They are heavy on the ground, however.

Big engined 170B (Franklin 6A-350 - 220 hp)

But, the guy already decided three pages back that he REALLY NEEDS a 180....why are we still beating the deceased horse???

If we hit it hard enough, it appears to move??

lc

BRD wrote:Big engined 170B (Franklin 6A-350 - 220 hp)

My Dentist flies that combination. It won its class in short takeoff in Valdez, more than once.

What fuel burn and speed does he get with the 220 Franklin?

Yeah, what AKclimber said, what sort of burn does he get with the Franklin. I have to say that the business side of me says a 170 is a bad idea. Once you make it what you want, you'll have too much $ in it. But, the idea of having a plane that weighs 400# less for all those times I'm flying alone (90%) then it makes sense. Especially with that 220 Franklin. Denalipilot, what class was your friend entered in Valdez? Is there vid of him?

Pundy wrote:Denalipilot, what class was your friend entered in Valdez? Is there vid of him?

Check out N401F, 2008 Light Touring Class:
http://199.238.132.174/events/flyIn/doc ... ts2008.pdf

Not sure about a vid.

-DP

BRD wrote:Big engined 170B (Franklin 6A-350 - 220 hp)

I couldn't help but notice he puts his flaps down at the start of the takeoff run.

porterjet,
It is pretty common to use a notch of flaps for takeoff and then give it another notch when you are up to speed, to pop off the water.

BRD,
What lake was video done on? Steve

Steve is right, 2 notches seems to be a happy combination on floats with this airplane on old USAF EDO 2440's and the 220 Franklin.

Fuel burn is around 11 gph. High compression 100LL only engine. It sure sounds pretty wound up! He has two Franklin 220 powered 170B's.

Lucky Rose on floats


and BD on wheels.


or skis...


or sometimes found pulling a glider...


Takeoff in that video is a backwater of the Mississippi river (Rice Lake) and the touch and go was on North Long Lake.