akgreg wrote:170's RULE - skywagons drool.

akgreg wrote:170's RULE - skywagons drool.

Yeah yeah yeah.....

robw56 wrote:

mtv wrote: NOTHING else you'll do to that 170 will increase the angle of attack for takeoff.

Bushwheels will.

I was assuming he'd be using larger tires in any case if he's serious about off airport.

MTV

But whatever you do, if your airplane doesn't have shoulder harnesses, get those installed first. The difference in survivability between a mere seat belt and should harnesses is dramatic. I like the BAS harnesses, because of the inertia reels which allow the pilot to lean forward as necessary, such as to pull the flap lever. http://basinc-aeromod.com/cessna.php There are other good harnesses, but they prevent the pilot from leaning forward if properly adjusted.

Cary

I agree .... the 180 gear with the PPonk Kit really helps expand the 170's capabilities.
But realize it never ends - the addiction just keeps squeezing every last penny out of you. I just received my ABW Baby Bushwheel today. I think I may have inadvertently forgot to tell my wife!

8WhiskeyZulu wrote:...the PPonk Kit really helps expand the 170's capabilities.

Just an FYI... The Ponk kit wont expand the capabilities at all. It is just meant to back-up the "Jesus" bolt, but its need/avoidance has been a source of debate here for a long time. I put one in my 170 and then the 180, but there are lots of reputable folks have good arguments against. Lots of reading to do on the 170 site also to make up your own mind.

8WhiskeyZulu wrote:expand the 170's capabilities.

Despite my endorsement for the 180 gear legs, I still think 8042, the Sportsman, and bushwheels are the holy trinity for the stock engine 170.

Even with a big motor, stiff legs, bushwheels, etc, few will take their 170s the places RobW56 has. Most of the secret sauce is between the headset.

bigrenna wrote:...The Ponk kit...need/avoidance has been a source of debate here for a long time. I put one in my 170 and then the 180, but there are lots of reputable folks have good arguments against. Lots of reading to do on the 170 site also to make up your own mind.

Agreed, lots of due diligence needed to arrive at your own decision, and lots of resources to help you get there. The OP did mention ski-flying, and those particular torsional forces on the gear add some additional considerations IMO.

I owned a rag 170 with 180 gear for 10 or 12 years, and while I've seen some really saggy early 170 gear legs I'm not convinced the 180 legs have much advantage over the stock legs for a 170 other than length unless your airplane is really heavy.

Keep in mind, there's early (wheels aft) and late (wheels forward) 180 gear-- there's about a 3" difference in the location of the MLG wheels. Unless your 170 has a really heavy tail, iI'd suggest the early 180 legs p/n 0741001-1 & -2. My 170 had the later wheels-forward legs which made the tail esp heavy, and just that much more prone to ground-looping. "Tailwheel Tom" Anderson, formerly of XP Modifications, is THE authority on Cessna gear legs, and as the owner of The Landing Gear Works in Renton WA he has a good supply of gear legs on hand. You should give him a call.

If you're gonna run ski's, the axle choice may be more critical than the gear legs. You do NOT want the hollow aluminum axles, they have a track record of failing with ski use-- get the solid alum axles or better yet the steel axles.

bigrenna wrote:

8WhiskeyZulu wrote:...the PPonk Kit really helps expand the 170's capabilities.

Just an FYI... The Ponk kit wont expand the capabilities at all. It is just meant to back-up the "Jesus" bolt, but its need/avoidance has been a source of debate here for a long time. I put one in my 170 and then the 180, but there are lots of reputable folks have good arguments against. Lots of reading to do on the 170 site also to make up your own mind.

Exactly. The question you need to ask yourself before installing the Ponk gear beef up is : How bad am I going to trash this thing in an accident?

The Ponk beef up will help to keep the gear under the airplane in some situations that would rip the gear legs out of a stock gearbox.

BUT, apply just a wee bit more force to that Ponk modified gear, and it too will depart the plane.

The difference is that if you do this with a Ponk equipped gearbox, you'll take out the whole gearbox assembly, whereas a stock gearbox that's had the gear forcibly removed is often fairly easily repaired. I've seen planes that were field repaired and flown home. You won't do that with a Ponk equipped plane that's had the gear ripped out.

So, how bad are you going to crash?

MTV

mtv wrote:

bigrenna wrote:

8WhiskeyZulu wrote:...the PPonk Kit really helps expand the 170's capabilities.

Just an FYI... The Ponk kit wont expand the capabilities at all. It is just meant to back-up the "Jesus" bolt, but its need/avoidance has been a source of debate here for a long time. I put one in my 170 and then the 180, but there are lots of reputable folks have good arguments against. Lots of reading to do on the 170 site also to make up your own mind.

Exactly. The question you need to ask yourself before installing the Ponk gear beef up is : How bad am I going to trash this thing in an accident?

The Ponk beef up will help to keep the gear under the airplane in some situations that would rip the gear legs out of a stock gearbox.

BUT, apply just a wee bit more force to that Ponk modified gear, and it too will depart the plane.

The difference is that if you do this with a Ponk equipped gearbox, you'll take out the whole gearbox assembly, whereas a stock gearbox that's had the gear forcibly removed is often fairly easily repaired. I've seen planes that were field repaired and flown home. You won't do that with a Ponk equipped plane that's had the gear ripped out.

So, how bad are you going to crash?

MTV

Agreed. The P.Ponk gear box beef up kit is intended to keep the gear attached when things go sideways. There are so many variables during a groundloop that you may be better off with it or may be better off without it... Impossible to quantify the likelihood of the beef up kit resulting in a more favorable outcome once control is lost. Two things are certain about this installation 1) they are not free and 2) they are not weightless. I've been flying Cessna TDs off airport for quite a few years without this mod and have never wished for it.

If I were replacing the inboard and outboard landing gear brackets, I would seriously consider P.Ponks parts as replacements.

Mostly only ever wished for more thrust in the 170.

Thank you for all the replies and things to think about.

My current prop started as a 7652 which was re-pitched to it's current state as 7647 last year by the previous owner for seaplane operations. It seems to get the plane off the ground fairly quickly, but I don't have experience with it to know how much improvement an 8042 would be. Anyone on here make a change from 7647 to 8042 and care to share the change stats?

Not to make this a PPonk thread... and again, I have installed it in both with the rational that If Im crashing hard enough to pull the gearbox out, than thats the least of my worries.

To Mike's point:



This was a gorgeous 180. Side load wiped out the gear after a bad loop. Totaled the airplane.

AK Flyster wrote:Thank you for all the replies and things to think about.

My current prop started as a 7652 which was re-pitched to it's current state as 7647 last year by the previous owner for seaplane operations. It seems to get the plane off the ground fairly quickly, but I don't have experience with it to know how much improvement an 8042 would be. Anyone on here make a change from 7647 to 8042 and care to share the change stats?

Diameter is king for fixed pitch short takeoff and climb performance.

AK Flyster wrote:....My current prop started as a 7652 which was re-pitched to it's current state as 7647 last year by the previous owner for seaplane operations. It seems to get the plane off the ground fairly quickly,but ...........

My old 170 had a 76-51 Mac, which was the standard climb" prop. I always lusted after an 80-42 but never managed to get my hands on one. I did borrow a 76-48 which was down close to minimum length (74-1/2"?) and while it seemed to get me off the ground quicker there just wasn't enough diameter to take advantage of the flatter pitch. It just seemed to whip the air without really digging in. I'm sure an 80-42 would be a big improvement over your 76-47, but be advised they're pretty spendy new & just about impossible to find used.