Title pretty much explains it. I'm in the market for my first plane, and like everyone in my situation, I want a 180 but can't afford to buy or fly one, and the 170B's seem overall perfect for my budget and intended use of the plane.

I'm based out of KBDU with field elevation of 5300' and DA is often 7500'. Will an O300 have enough power margin to be safe based out of this altitude? I'm searching for the perfect and cheap 170B with an O360, but so is everyone else in the world.

I currently rent/fly 172's with o320's, so only a few horsepower more. I'd prefer they have more power obviously, but I will admit that they do in fact get the job done. The only thing is that I'm not 'allowed' to fly over the mountains per my rental agreement, so I haven't seen their performance at the altitudes I'd need to cross the Rockies, which I'd like to be able to do if I bought a plane.

All this boils down to a few questions, hopefully someone has some experience with this engine/plane combo in a similar location:

1. Is the O300 decent enough to pull a 170B around when based at 5300' on-airport?
2. Would it take me over the rockies? Service ceiling is officially 15,500', but I'm sure sure if that means anything.
3. Would an underpowered engine like the o300 prohibit me from exploring dirt strips in the mountains? ie - is there enough power margin there to be safe?
4. Is a 172/o320 similar in performance (takeoff/landing/climb) as a 170B/o300?

I suppose my next course of action is to get the rental 172 as high as it'll go (or what is necessary to cross the mountains) and see how painful that is, and assume the 170 will be similar.

Just FYI, I will be using the plane for the following things in the beginning:
- Time building for IFR rating and commercial certificate
- Buzzing around the sky looking at pretty things
- Exploring grass/dirt/other strips in the area, preferably the mountains
- Me + 1 passenger + camping gear would be great.

If I lived at sea level, I would've already purchased one. There are a lot of nice 170's with nice interior and upgrades and stuff, but they all seem to have the o300.

I really appreciate any info. I apologize if i missed a thread similar to this. If so, let me know and I'll delete this.

Thanks!
-Asa

The 170 makes a GREAT two place airplane. With the flat pitch (climb) prop, I don't think you will have any issues with two people.

Depending on how much camping gear you plan to carry, you might cut things close tho.

As long as you dont mind 100mph cruise numbers, the 80/42 seaplane prop REALLY gives takeoff and climb a kick in the pants.
But, when you get out on the highway, you're stuck in first gear.

Pulling the back seat can get you an extra 20 pounds of capacity too.

If you're really worried about it, weight it before buying it as the paperwork is rarely accurate after 60 years. Most of these old birds haven't been on a scale since they left Kansas.

A friend of mine just picked up another plane - 0-300 172 (can't remember year, 66 i think). We live at 6500ft in CO as well. I asked him about performance and he said it's not worth a damn up here. Even with just him it's dangerous he said. This one also has a cruise prop however, so I'm sure it would be noticeably better with a climb prop. Two people and mountain flying could be done, but I'm guessing it will be a very real challenge. The altitudes required to clear passes safely, density altitudes etc. faced here in CO are no joke.

Please wait and read what others with experience with that actual bird have to say. This is mostly info coming from my friend - though he is experienced with them... it's not the exact same plane you are talking about... I just decided to chime in because I just saw the plane yesterday and had this conversation.

I don't know your total time or if you will have a hanger or even budget, but if you can handle the looks go check out a maule. You can get a 180hp with cs prop for around what a nice 170 without a 360 will cost. If you're low time and don't have hangar space available the insurance and fabric care may not be worth the price of admission though.

Thanks for the input, guys. I'm excited to see what others have to say.

I definitely don't WANT the O300 because I know it'll be underwhelming at best, I'm just trying to balance my needs in an aircraft. It seems that the ones with smaller engines seem to have better mods elsewhere such as interior, avionics, etc. There are a few that I would call "perfect" for my needs with the exception of power.

Maybe I should just buy the tailwheel 180HP 172 or the 220HP franklin 170b that're up for sale right now haha. But they've both got their downsides.

We're in Longmont and just bought a 180 a year ago. We considered the 170 with the O-360 conversion but they were the same price as a 180.

There was a 170 fly-in in Longmont about 2 years ago during the Summer. They all stopped flying at 11am.....

That said I flew my 65hp L-3 all over the Rockies including Leadville but had to pick my day and had to work lift. With the 180, we just go.

Depends if you are just flying around for fun and are willing to abort trips/change plans or if you want to plan a vacation to Telluride on a certain weekend and you don't want it to change.

Dan

RussellGrande wrote:I don't know your total time or if you will have a hanger or even budget, but if you can handle the looks go check out a maule. You can get a 180hp with cs prop for around what a nice 170 without a 360 will cost. If you're low time and don't have hangar space available the insurance and fabric care may not be worth the price of admission though.

I have low total time as well as low tailwheel time - the extent of my TW flying was getting my endorsement and doing some aerobatics in a Citabria. When I buy, I will be in a hanger, seems like a low price to pay to maintain value and quality of the airplane.

Maules aren't out of the question, went and looked at an 210hp M4 for sale just the other day. I'm simply trying to figure out what my options are in the 170B's engine-wise.


As for 180's - operational cost is a factor too, which is why I strayed from them. But even then, after about 6 months of monitoring the internet, I'm seeing desirable 180's for $100-150k and desirable (180HP+) 170B's for 60-70k.

Thanks!
-Asa

There are a few things you can do to make the O-300 a little more "healthy", and a few things you can do to the airframe to make it work better. Some of these changes are legal, some of them just work.

But it will still be a two-place airplane and there will still be days you cannot or should not fly.

And the O-300 powered airplane will probably not be a STOL airplane at those DA's like it is at low altitude.

The Sportsman STOL kit will probably get you out of a lot of trouble and risk, after you have done something you should have thought twice about.

Per the discussion in another thread, the 100HP Taylorcraft F-19 will possibly be safer and more capable at those altitudes, for less money than a nice 170, at the cost of half the cabin volume.

asa,

There is a lot of information on a lot of airplanes on here. Good instructors in your area as well. I instructed out of Gallup, NM during the school year in a C-150 and C-172 with O-300 and out of Monte Vista, CO in C-140 summers a number of years. Technique is more important than mods in low power mountain work. It is critical in low powered airplanes and smart in high powered to always know which way is down hill and how you might get there in ground effect. Assuming the airplane will climb is very dangerous. Finding the tremendous difference in performance made by simply using natural energy like ground effect, gravity, thermal lift and orographic lift is exhilarating. If you are interested in this kind of flying, read my book (click below.) We come to Denver every fall to visit son, grandson, and her mother. If you read the book and aren't scared off, I will fly with you.

Jim

I have a 170B with the C-145. I used to be based out of Cheyenne, Wy with a field elevation of over 6,000' MSL. You'll be fine with what you want to do as long as your smart about when you fly and what you take with you. My plane now has a 80/42 prop and Sportsman STOL, it makes a pretty good (cheaper) mountain plane. I'm now out in California and routinely fly over the Sierras without a problem. I've had it up to 15k once taking off at gross weight out of Bridgeport, CA 6472' MSL and heading east to Utah. I took it up that high to get a good tailwind, yeah it took forever to get there but it did it. Take a look at all the backcountry strips in Idaho and Utah, I've been to at least 90% of them, including the "cub only" strips. Learn how to fly it and add a climb prop and a STOL kit and you'll be surprised with what the 170 can do.

I've owned two O300 172s, both B models (note, a 172, not a 170). I learned to fly in one at Leadville almost 40 years ago. My wife has a few hours in a 170 with the O300 also out of LXV, and it seemed to work fine as well. As has been mentioned, as long as you don't overload them (my partner in the first one is dead because he overloaded it and tried to take off at LXV) and are careful, it will do fine. Indeed, they are best as two-place airplanes, maybe on a good day with a light kid in the back seat, but sounds like that would work for your mission now. I had mine to at least 16.5 over the San Juans a couple times (solo), so they will get to altitude and over the rockpile, just not particularly quickly. The O360 conversions are better, but obviously more pricey.

My two cents.

Greg

Awesome information here guys, I appreciate it, especially those who have high DA experience with the o300.

FYI, I'm 6'4" and 225lbs. so I'm definitely removing the rear seat if I find myself in an o300 170 hahaha.


This is the kind of plane that puts me in a dilemma of wishing it had an O360:
http://cessna170forsale.mon-do.com/modi ... quipments/
Climb prop, Stol kit (although not sportsman), VG's, i like the panel, nice random small upgrades, etc. But from you all are saying, it might not be *quite* as big of an issue as I originally thought. With that particular plane however, its been up for sale for years so I think I'm missing something that other possible buyers saw.

-Asa

EZFlap wrote:There are a few things you can do to make the O-300 a little more "healthy", ...

Like using C-85 pistons?

robw56 wrote:I have a 170B with the C-145. I used to be based out of Cheyenne, Wy with a field elevation of over 6,000' MSL. You'll be fine with what you want to do as long as your smart about when you fly and what you take with you. My plane now has a 80/42 prop and Sportsman STOL, it makes a pretty good (cheaper) mountain plane. I'm now out in California and routinely fly over the Sierras without a problem. I've had it up to 15k once taking off at gross weight out of Bridgeport, CA 6472' MSL and heading east to Utah. I took it up that high to get a good tailwind, yeah it took forever to get there but it did it. Take a look at all the backcountry strips in Idaho and Utah, I've been to at least 90% of them, including the "cub only" strips. Learn how to fly it and add a climb prop and a STOL kit and you'll be surprised with what the 170 can do.

OP, I would append this to say: Take it with a grain of salt, because I think Robw56 is a probably an above-average stick. He's taken his 170 into places that made Skywagon and Super Cub pilots balk. But you only get that way by being forced to learn how to fly the wing of an underpowered aircraft. The 145hp Cessna 170 will make you an honest pilot.

I have a lot of friends whose first airplane was a 170. What does that tell you? They're fun, honest flyers that are relatively cheap to own. But it will leave you wanting, especially at that altitude, even on a cool day.

I sold mine because I needed the money for some other things, and I had a pipe dream to build my ultimate hauler bush plane, which I am doing. But some days I regret selling because there's so much those old birds are capable of, and I could have done a LOT of flying in it by now and never needed extra power. Memories are more valuable than dreams.

I have an M4-210 that I picked up a couple months ago. Insurance and all that isn't as big of a deal as some make it out to be if you know where to look. I'd bet that you have more time than me too if you are working on IFR. RWM on here has owned many Maules as well as an O-360 powered 170B and I'm sure he'd be glad to answer any questions on the comparison.

My only complaint about my sub $50k Maule is that it isn't a $200k M7!

Bagarre wrote:

EZFlap wrote:There are a few things you can do to make the O-300 a little more "healthy", ...

Like using C-85 pistons?

Oh, Heavens to Murgatroyd that would be less than fully legal.

There's also a couple of other things in the ignition department, a really good balance allowing the engine to turn a bit faster without damage, a few things in the friction department, and two other things I don't want to mention.

I own a 53 B with the c145, i haven't had it to that kinda of da, but the bird is from Colorado they had an aux tank in it I'm guessing for climb. It's also configured with a cruise prop, which I will be purchasing the 80/42 soon and will make a huge difference on climb. Never the less every time I'm at a short strip and meet a 180 hauling 4 people and they are getting out quicker and easier that me by myself leaves me a little jealous. But with proper technique I've been able to manage everything I want to do with it around here, 1200msl. With no obstacles to worry about I can get it off in 3-400 ft and land in 2-250ft stock configuration, with cruise prop. Do I long for a 180, sure but for what I can comfortably afford for now, I'm entirely happy with my bird and will never sell it. If I get to a place when I can afford a 180, I'll have both and maybe a Pitts as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

asadarnell wrote:...As for 180's - operational cost is a factor too, which is why I strayed from them. But even then, after about 6 months of monitoring the internet, I'm seeing desirable 180's for $100-150k and desirable (180HP+) 170B's for 60-70k.

I don't know what you consider a "desirable 180," but I bought mine about 2 years ago for $62K & I think it's pretty nice. Shortfielder from this site has not one but two airplanes from the "Skywagon Reserve Fleet" advertised on Barnstormers right now-- both very nice and well-equipped, both priced under $90K. Plenty of other 180's for less listed on there too.

hotrod180 wrote:

asadarnell wrote:...As for 180's - operational cost is a factor too, which is why I strayed from them. But even then, after about 6 months of monitoring the internet, I'm seeing desirable 180's for $100-150k and desirable (180HP+) 170B's for 60-70k.

I don't know what you consider a "desirable 180," but I bought mine about 2 years ago for $62K & I think it's pretty nice. Shortfielder from this site has not one but two airplanes from the "Skywagon Reserve Fleet" advertised on Barnstormers right now-- both very nice and well-equipped, both priced under $90K. Plenty of other 180's for less listed on there too.

Hmmm... I guess I use desirable to say that major money wouldn't need to be put into it right out of the gate (low SMOH, etc). I'll admit though, that after calculating operating costs of 180's, my search has been more heavily weighted towards 170's, so I've probably missed some good 180 deals. Even if the upfront cost wasn't an issue, I'm not sure I can afford to fly a 180 as much as I'd like. But they are the dream for sure. I'll check out shortfielder's planes.

Thanks,
-Asa

I owned a C170 for 11 years, flew the hell out of it and enjoyed it...but most of that 11 years I was wishing it was a 180. When I decided to sell it in 2008, I looked at C180's but ended up buying a C150/150TD- a fun airplane with better performance than a stock 170, but kinda cramped inside with limited useful load. After about 6 years of flying that, a friend told me he had decided to sell his 180. I knew the airplane was a good one, and figured it was now or never so I bought it. After almost 2 years of ownership I wish I'd bought one years ago. Yeah, more money to operate but not that much more-- buy a good one, restrain yourself when it comes to upgrades, and it's not that bad. I live & do most of my flying at sea level, but if I lived in high hot country I'd consider buying a 180 instead of a 170 good insurance against getting my ass in a density altitude jam. Yeah, you can still fuck up, but with the 180 you have to work at it a little harder.