With my wife getting her pilot license, there is a sudden increase in aviation friendly funding! This could work out well, as I've always fantasized about a plane large enough to allow me to pee in a jar...

Anywhoo, while looking at big engine 170's, I see a popular mod is to put 180 landing gear on them. Why is that a good thing? Are there any other really good or really bad things I should be watching for in a 180hp 170?

My mission is a plane that will carry two people and camping gear in and out of (almost) any of the established backcountry strips in the Western US. No riverbar landings for now, though I'd like to keep the option somewhat open for the future.

Lots of people have told me to buy a Cessna 180, and the additional speed going from California to Idaho is attractive, but It's just a little too much airplane...I could buy it right, or maintain it right, but I don't want to do both. The big-engine 170 seems like a much more reasonable plane for two people.

Any thoughts?

I've seen 2 170s with the IO 360 conversions, one was all metel and the other a rag wing. Not sure about the all metel one, but the rag wing had standard 170 gear.

Not sure about gear length, but I think the 180 gear is a heavier guage material.

Anyway both of of the IO 360s are real fire breathers.

See ya, Bub

How much useful load is left with that big engine and gear and maybe big tires? I don't know, but I think that may be it's weak point.

Ravi I am probably a rare person in that I went from a C-180 to a C-170/180hp/csp and preferred it over the 180 because it was such a light flying plane. I felt as though I could thread a needle with it. If I remember right, I think the conversion adds about 80#'s. Legally it wont carry as much as 180 but if you can get it in, it will carry it, for the most part. Be sure if you get one to get the constant speed prop. Personally I wouldn't want the heavier gear, particularly if flying light, and that is where this plane would work best. I prefer softer gear and let it absorb the energy. I have a 180 now, but only because a good 170 will cost as much as a middle of the road 180 and to most people the 180 is more valueable. Just my thoughts/opinion. Gary

Or, you could look at a 180hp Maule fixed pitch or constant speed for same or less money. Somebody say so if this is inapropriate.
Jeremy

Ive owned a 170A and a 180 and currently own a 170B. A big engined 170B would be an almost ideal airplane. The 180 gear mod would be unnecessary in my opinion.

My Opinion... as a 1000 hr plus 170 driver is this. If it has the old style legs, (up to 54?) they are prone to breaking when used hard like on skiis. In '54 or 55 they went to a thicker spring but not as wide. These are great. I would seriously consider replacing the early types if you are planning hard use. Strip to strip they are fine.

Side point: I'm not aware of any STC for the O-360 or IO-360 conversion that come with a gross weight increase for any of the 170's. One of the conversions comes with an upgross for the 172, but they chose not to extend it to the 170, unless something has changed in the last 6 weeks. So the engine conversion comes with the resulting loss of useful load, and fuel endurance, though range will be about the same due to faster cruise speeds. Someone with the conversion can talk more about it.

As to the original question, many 170's have early C180 gear legs on through field approvals. They will add a couple inches of height, and though the steel isn't thicker they are wider with less spring to them.

My rag 170 has 180 legs, installed by a previous owner. Extra height is nice for prop clearance, esp taxiing on rough ground. I have a little time in an A model with stock legs and it was softer sprung, a bit less inclined to bounce if you touch down "firmly" esp wheel landing. I have seen some 170's with the early legs that have quite a bit of sag to them. Didn't look too good, but maybe no big deal function-wise. I think they can be re-arched. The longer 180 legs might be a good mod for a big-engined 170 if you're gonna run a prop longer than the stock 76". I think otherwise I'd probably prefer the late model 170 "lady legs".

Eric

Thanks everyone for the input. Jeremy, I have been endlessly debating the Maule/170 question, and I go back and forth on a daily basis. There seem to be pros and cons to each.

I like the Maule because it's probably going to preform better, has that great back door, and you can buy new parts for them. What I don't like is the insurance...exactly two times the cost of insuring a big engine 170 for the same hull value. I know some people don't carry hull insurance, but I simply can't afford the hit if I total the plane. Also, due to its more recent vintage, a Maule is probably going to loose value faster than a 170?

I like the 170 because it's a classic, will probably fly similar to my 140, and I can put a sign up every time I open my hangar door and I won't have to pay property tax because I'm "displaying an antique". Granted that only saves me a few hundred dollars each year, but it all adds up, and somehow paying taxes and insurance hurts more than paying for parts and avegas. Also, everyone talks about the great Maule values out there, but from what I've seen I can get a nicer, albeit older, 180hp 170 for the money. On the down side, parts cost a fortune and you're relying a lot on the workmanship of Citizen X who did the conversion. Maybe it's bombproof, and maybe it's not...

I'd imagine both planes would serve me well if I could find the right one. Does anyone out there with a big engine 170 know what their useful load and range is off hand? I was guessing somewhere around five hours at 130 mph? No idea on useful load.

I wold guess that a 360 Lyc is gonna burn 9-10 gph at cruise, and indicate about 120-125. Stock fuel tanks on an A or B 170 hold 42 gallons total, usable is like 37. Looks to me like 4 hours (max) to flame-out, so figure 3 hours plus reserve. Range or at least endurance would increase with lower power settings.
My rag 170 (full paint, no gyro's, vfr panel) weighs 1310 with the rear seat removed (camping mode),1342 with it. Everyone sez their 170 weighs 1250 -- I have seen one that physically weighed in at 1250 and it was stripped: no ext paint,VFR no-gyro panel, minimal (I mean minimal!) interior. I would guess that an average 180-horse conversion is gonna come in at around 1400. Gross is 2200, leaving 800 useful.

Eric

Ravi, I have a '53 C170 with a narrow deck 0-360 and Hartzell 80" C/S prop. It has the original "53 "lady legs" landing gear. This gear has PLENTY of clearance for the 80" prop. I do have it on 850 tires. I have a Javelin aux tank, which takes up very little space and weighs 24#. The gear is plenty strong for the aircraft. I think the 180 gear is really not needed, but that is just my opinion. You can plan on about 4 hours with the regular tanks. I wouldn't go past that. I can go past 5 hours with my aux tank, but don't like to. (Tired Butt Syndrome). I have flown 180s and as nice as they are, they fly like a truck compared to my 170. I had an A model 170 before the B model I have now, and actually liked the way it flew better, but it didn't have the big flaps. Keep your airframe with a 170 light, and you can haul alot. Mine is HEAVY, and still takes 2 grown men, full fuel, and camping gear for a week, with no problems. Mike V. probably has alot more time in his, than I do mine, and maybe he will give you a better Idea of comparisons. You can build a 170 with a big engine and have it just like you want it for about what it costs for a warmed over 180. I just prefer the way the 170 flies, but still would love an early 180. The cruise on the 180 is alot better. I just feel it is not necesarry to have a 180 if your idea is a 2 passenger aircraft for camping pleasure. I can't compare with a Maule because I have never flown one. I have several friends that have them and swear by them, but no personal experience myself. I have owned Super Cruisers, Citabrias, a 7AC, J3, Super Cub,Tri-Pacer,Comanche,flown 180s, and have come back to the 170s. Hope that helps a little. Jon P.S. empty weight 1448 lbs.

There are lots of M4- and M5-210's around also,seems like probably more 210's than 220's out there. Kurt (aka Yellowmaule) has one & seems real happy with it. MW, have you flown an M4-210 and how does that Continental stack up against your 220 Franklin?

Eric

Zane...you might want to split this thread into something like "find ravi a plane so he will quit whining"...what I've learned about 180 legs is if the plane comes with them, fine, otherwise don't worry about it.

I really don't have anything concrete to base this on, but I've wanted to stick to a four cylinder Lycoming because I think it will be less expensive to maintain, operate, and eventually overhaul. Perhaps I've just been imprinted by seeing one every time I check my oil.

Such engines are rather rare in the used Maule market, at least with the constant speed prop. I've heard the argument that you just throttle back a bit with a larger engine and you will get the same fuel burn as with a smaller engine, but I have personally never found this to pan out in reality...not with motorcycles, cars, or the one plane I've ever gotten to know.

Fully clothed and soaking wet my wife and I only come to 320 pounds. We both have irregular schedules which all but preclude normal social encounters...I can think of about three times in the past year it would have been nice to carry a third or forth person. We want a four place plane for the cargo area more than the seats.

Right now I have a plane that is almost perfect for one person, but just not quite enough plane for two people. Even with its limitations, we've had a blast! Gravelly Valley, Ocean Ridge, Shelter Cove, Ruth, Moab, Truckee, Blue Canyon, Quincy, Sierraville, Cederville, Bishop, Alpine County, Salt Lake, Pocatello, Stovepipe Wells, the Chicken Strip and around a hundred other airports... The little plane has gotten us there and back.

A big part of our enjoyment has simply been that the cost of operation didn't dissuade us from using it. While I'm ready to pay for more performance, I'm not ready to buy so much performance that I have to triple think whether I can afford to fly this week.

I have rather convinced myself that the Lycoming 180hp engine is going to be substantially less expensive than any of the slightly larger six cylinder engines. Am I way off on this?

You can change the subject title of the thread by editing the first post if you like...to something along the lines of "Another thread about the utility of a 170...." or "What plane is right for ME?"

I don't think it's diverged far enough to split....yet.

These threads always follow the same formula, it's just different people asking.

Original post: "I fly but I don't have enough money to justify spending $100/hr on gas, plus I want to land on kinda rough strips. Oh, I don't want a Maule or a Stinson, I'd like to stick to Cessnas"

The next 10 posts: "My Maule does all that great."
The last 3 posts: "My Stinson does all that great."

Ravi, I have a Maule M5 180C. I just flew it from NE PA to Oshkosh and back. I saw airspeed of 120 to 125 mph and a 7.9 gph fuel burn. Besides myself, I had another fair size guy and a couple hundreds pounds of gear in the back (Big cooler, lots of diet coke and ice). The seat removes easily. Still got easily to 9,500 ft on the way back and 8,500 ft on the way out, even with very hot weather.

The whole time in Oshkosh I kept having people coming up to me saying they could not believe the space for storage and the ease of access in the plane.

I wrestled with getting a bigger engine when I was looking a couple years back. The 180 hp and C/S prop was just a plain good combination for the kind of flying I do. I would make the same choice again.

There were a lot of really neat aircraft at Oshkosh (no surprise!) but in the end the only other one I would trade mine for was a new Maule.

It is hard to beat this class of aircraft (not just the Maule) for utility and economy.

The other thing to think about is parts cost. We just had a REALLY bad thunderstorm come through and it slightly damaged my aileron and several other aircraft's ailerons. The cost for the Maule aileron was $750. My mechanic said that was about one-third the cost for the 170's and other planes he had to repair. Just a thought.

My contribution to this thread, besides my smartassed one above ^^^:

I've only flown the stock 170 gear that came on the pre-1954 models. From '54-'56 they had improved "lady legs" that have a slight curve at the bottom. From what I've heard, they're just right. The earlier ones like mine are supposedly softer and springier, which could bounce you a little. They sure feel nice though if you hammer it on a little too hard.

I'm new here so I'll keep it short. I have a converted C-182/180 that I very much like but as mentioned before isn't exactly economical to fly. I do like the cruise and hauling capabilities. As happy as I am with it, a friend of mine has a C-170B with a lyc 180 c/s that I like very much. It's quicker off the ground than my 182/180 and is a lot lighter on the controls when just be-booping around punching holes in the sky. At times I wish I had looked harder for a 170B with a 180 c/s, but I have what I have. Human nature seems to have us always wanting something someone else has.

Almost forgot to mention what the original thread was about...he also has the 180 legs on his 170 and seems to me it's a few inches taller and a bit stiffer.

Roger

Welcome Roger, my Rogue Valley neighbor.

The cost for the Maule aileron was $750. My mechanic said that was about one-third the cost for the 170's and other planes he had to repair. Just a thought.

You know, if I had to point to one thing that separates pilots from the rest of the world, it would be that all across the country airplanes are left unprotected and essentially unmolested, despite the phenomenal value of their parts. That any group of people will fork out several thousand dollars for a piece of aluminum they could "salvage" in ten minutes from any of a thousand small airports is a testament that goes way beyond the sentimental crap usually attributed to pilots.