Besides MTV, do any of you have real ski experience with a 170? The one we're hoping to soon own comes with a set of Federal 2500s.

With a C-145 and 76x55 prop, I suspect that the get up & go portion of the flying may be a bit weak, especially in big snow. It should be fine on lakes and such, I reckon. It really ought to have an 80 x 42 prop for winter flying.

Who here flies a 145hp 170 on straight skis? How well does it work? If we're lucky in Minnesota this year, I'll be able to gain some first-hand experience.

And yes, I do carry a snow shovel, snowshoes and really warm clothes when ski flying!

Jon B.

Well, I've been lurking around and figured I throw in my 2 cents. I've flown my 145hp 170B for the last three years on Landis/Airglas 2500's. The first year was with a 76x53 prop it didn't do to bad, now I fly a 80x42 (it definitely makes a big difference in take off/climb performance). Here is a few thing I learned or herd about the 145/170 on skis.

170's don't turn worth a $#!+ to the right, anticipate your turns and stopping, I taxi without seat belt and clear all wires (head set) in case you need to jump out and use the old fashion heel brakes.

Start with the long take off and landing spots figure out what you airplane will do under all snow conditions, packed, loose, dry, wet, crystal, fluff at all density alts.

When landing on virgin snow, drag your spot, then lay down numerous sets of track (get a feel for the snow) when setting you tracks off set them so you have nice wide tracks to land on.

Once landed remember you may have to turn around off your packed tracks if deep or sticky snow it may require a little extra momentum and power.

In addition to the standard winter survival gear, I carry snow shoes, small scoop shovel, rope-a-long or come-a-long, 4-ice screws, ax, rope.

I'm sure others will provide more hint, that all I could think of right now, be safe and have fun.

Paul

I would love to fly my 170 on skis. Would be fun to spend some time somewhere that had a lot of snow and a lot of open fields or lakes, but for us peeps south of the 48th parallel or so it doesn't really happen.

Paul, welcome!
Great picture too. Post more of them.
Wish we had the snow. Lots of ice here (20"+ so far but little of the white stuff). We're going to do a little bird hunting this weekend. You guys are getting your share of the cold too I see. Tonight, -5 here.
Kurt

Thanks, Paul!

Nice photo, too. Was all that 'stuff' inside the 170? I presume the back seats are removed...

I asked about others besides Mike V. because he has a Lycoming 180hp and constant-speed prop. His experience will vary a great deal from those with a C-145 and coarse propeller.

I think the 80x42 prop is a must-have on skis. The thing to decide then is whether to keep the cruise prop for summer flying, or sell it to help pay for the big one. Compromises, you know. The McCauley spinner looks nice on the 170, too! I see Univair has 'em for around $500; are they available elsewhere for less? Jim Fix, in Nebraska has the prop for around $3100. He'll check the track, pitch and balance, too, all of which is included in that price.

Thanks for the input, guys. The temp here in central Minnesota this morning was 2 above F. We're making ice! We had an inch of snow in October but none since. That's OK, as the Champ skis are gone and I don't yet own the 170. I'd better put the winter restrictor plates on the Champ for the new owner, though. His pilot will want some cabin and oil heat for the flight home.

Jon B.

Great post & pics too, Paul, keep 'em coming. Someday I want to try ski flying with our 170B as well. Just another "someday" item - right along with seaplane and glider ratings!...

Jon, a repitch to about a 51" pitch might do more than you think, & is pretty damn cheap- esp compared to buying a new 80" seaplane prop. Another thing to consider, ski's in place of wheels appear to put the prop a lot closer to the ground, esp if you run big tires. In between that, the big prop, and stock gear legs instead of the longer 180 legs, and it might not be too hard to buzz the prop into deep snow. hat would cause more damage that you'd imagine. So be careful.

Eric

Ya, Jon all that stuff was in there and more some times. Theres a picture in my album of a full load returning from a sheep hunt. No back seat and I just bought a Selkirk extended baggage so I can stuff the light stuff back there. I'm also saving up for a 180hp conversion. I agree with Eric on the repitch or even keep your eyes out for a used prop to repitch then keep your cruise prop. I do worry about the long prop on skis, and have been looking for early 180 gear at least another 1 1/2" of hight. I was out ice fishing with some buddies a few winters ago and a buddy landed in his pa-12 he was idling along and broke through the crust nicked his prop in the snow, and bent tip, a little wrenching, extra trip back to town to get another prop then back out replace it. A long day and a bit of money to get this repaired.

I like seeing the pictures off flying in the desert. Here's a self portrait with a full load.

Niner-Alpha:

Those photos are great. You're the real deal, and the beard caps it off nicely. Wish my lady would let me grown one.

Oh, I'm just taking advantage of the Alaskan way of life. The beard went a way last month, but it will return!!

Paul

I flew my 55 170b on federal awb 2500 wheelskis with the o300a and a 76/50 prop. lots of people told me i was crazy to put those heavy skis on but it works quite well even with a pasinger in the back seat. That being said i am in the middle of a o-360 swap but that is more for floats and relyability reasons than ski flying im sure it wont hert though.

jr,

There's only one. Avcon is out of business, I'm told. I was also told that their STC was rescinded. Anybody have other info on that?

MTV

mtv wrote: Avcon is out of business, I'm told. I was also told that their STC was rescinded.

Which came first? Is an STC rescinded when the supporting company dissolves, or does a company dissolve because their STC was rescinded? Either way, it seems lame. What happens to the X number of aircraft out there with Avcon STD'd Lycoming upgrades? Is the STC still valid, or simply not being issued for new installations anymore? I suppose a company has to be in business to buy their STC in the first place.

While thinking about this and trying to confirm, I was searching thru the FAA's STC list for A-799. There is a lot of cool stuff in there. Avcon even had an external baggage STC for the 170. ANyone ever seen one?

Zane,

There's a lot of history associated with the downfall of Avcon. They did themselves in, basically, for reasons I'm not aware of. At one point, they were still selling kits to do the engine conversion, but not delivering all the required parts. This got so bad that a group of purchasers got together and went to the FAA, who got on Avcon, to no avail.

At some later point, Avcon was bankrupt, and the FAA rescinded the stc.

All existing stc's are valid, and legal. You just can't buy a new one. The FAA didn't put these folks out of business, though.

If you are interested in an extended baggage, go no further than Selkirk. They have good stuff, all stc'd and legal. Takes a little trimming, but is skookum and looks good. I have one of their extended baggage kits.

MTV

I looked for avcon conversion but had no luck. I am going with the dellair stc acording to harry it comes with everything but the oil i will let you know when i a done though. he comes highly recomendid by everyone on the 170 web site and seems verry knowlegable about cessnas.

Hey John B.
One of my favorite airplane ever was a 170B and I did fly it on Federal 2500's with Teflon bottoms and a penetrating tail ski. O-300 on the nose, Madras wing tips and here is what I found:
As was said, in deep snow, run several race track patterns; break up the snow for when you need to take off. I had 180 gear and P-Ponk gear beef-up kit (highly recommended). Better steering can be accomplished by installing a 12" bar across the steering arm from which you attach the steering springs to the Scott tail wheel. (search C170 association for pics).
I just loved that airplane.
But eventually got rid of it because O-300 is not enough for ski flying. The minute it warms up a bit or the slightest slush and you aren't going anywhere. The tail on the 170 is extremely heavy and you should have a rope tied to the tail to swing the tail if a cross wind taxi prevents you from steering where you want to go.
Yes, snow shoes, the real ones, not the oval aluminum jobs, not worth much in powder, get a good pair; if you ever "have to" use them to track a runway, it will make the job easier.

I now fly a PA-12 and it is much better on skis.

Eric from Port Townsend, did you fly a straight 170 and on the C170A board for a while?

Happy flying,
JD

Triple7 wrote:..........
Eric from Port Townsend, did you fly a straight 170 and on the C170A board for a while? ..................

Yes to both counts, I flew the 170 for over 11 years- in fact, just got her sold 2 weeks ago after about 8 months on the market. I participated on the 170 Assn forums for several years, but after too many run-ins with King George over there I "departed the pattern".
I fly a C-150/150 taildragger now-- fun airplane.

Eric

Who here flies a 145hp 170 on straight skis? How well does it work?

Here's one. 1953 C-170B, O-300A, with an 8042 climb prop and C-180 gear legs. Aero 3000's with an extra wide UHMW base. Aero penetration tail ski, but I'd look at Burl's if I was starting over. Gets me everywhere I like to play, except the high glaciers. Luckily there's TKA-based 185s for that.

-DP

p.s.- don't forget the steel axles

ccurrie wrote:I looked for avcon conversion but had no luck. I am going with the dellair stc acording to harry it comes with everything but the oil i will let you know when i a done though. he comes highly recomendid by everyone on the 170 web site and seems verry knowlegable about cessnas.

From what I hear around the campfire, it's a far sight easier to obtain the gross weight increase with the Del-Air conversion. No personal experience, though.

denali,

I've never heard of anyone getting a gross weight increase on a 170. Has this been done? A friend was getting GW increases on earlier 172s, with the bigger engine, based on later model 172 GW.

There's no doubt in my mind the 170 could handle the structural loads, but the tail is pretty marginal as is to provide yaw stability at a much higher weight. Structures of the very early 180, 170 and 172 were virtually identical from the door post aft, including wings.

Wow, I'm not the only one who got wore down by GH over at the 170 site? I'd been a member for years, and pulled the pin after being flamed every time I posted something there. I don't miss it

MTV