mtv wrote:denali,

I've never heard of anyone getting a gross weight increase on a 170. Has this been done?...
MTV

Well, I can't say I know of any- like I said, I thought I'd heard of it, but seems I was mistaken. If you really want to know, I dare you to go ask George

mtv wrote: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.

Check out: http://www.wingxstol.com/products.html
Some of you may be aware of the wing extensions on 185's and 206's, they make them for 170's too now. Up to 400#gross increase.
Coincidentally, the creator/inventor of the Wing-X-Stol is Mr. Bill Caban, lives near here, on the shore of the Ottawa River in Hawkesbury.

JD

wingxstol was not stc'd in the US for the C 170, at least as recently as last fall when I talked to them. At that time, he also wasn't optimistic that he'd even be able to get a substantial GW increase in the US, though I don't recall why he said that.

Is it now approved in the US? This is a great mod, but very expensive.

On floats, I'd say it's probably a good deal, IF you get a GW increase.

If on wheels, that's a lot of money...

MTV

The only issue I had with my 170 was the lack of rudder authority while taxiing. Especially a slow 180 on a 100' wide strip. Plan ahead for your turn! If you have hyd. skis you can retract them a bit to make the turn. Not legal though... so I never did it

So what did you do with the KA Champ? If you sold it I'm revoking your airman's certificate!!!

Steve

Well Jon B.
N419A's comments are very good.
Here's my input. Prop clearance is not as much of an issue for you as the straight ski boys. The aircraft on AWB's will stand a little higher than with the skis retracted....however in deep soft snow you could still have an issue. The AWB's are also wider and longer than straight skis and will tend to not sink in as much. The downside is that the AWB's weigh more so there is a trade off.
My C170 has the old Avcon 180HP Lycoming O-360 A1A conversion with a CS prop so I can't offer you much on your engine/prop questions.
Steering in my aircraft has been poor, however I'm assured the aircraft should steer beautifully by my other ski buddies. I am in the process of rebuilding my Scott 3200 tailwheel, and found that most of the internal parts were worn and badly deteriorated. I had to order a dozen parts from Spruce to replace the bad stuff, so I'm sure steering will improve drastically after the rebuild. I'd be happy to share the results with everyone when I get things back together (hopefully this week). It is the only issue I've had with the C170 on skis. Other than that, It is a great ski machine.
Great pics Denali. I just figured the picture thing out a few minutes ago so I'll post a few soon.

Odie.

Here is a picture of my old 1953 170B on Federal 2500 skis. It did pretty good on skis with the Avcon conversion, but I would be cautious about using a 170B on skis on a short strip with a stock engine. Best way to turn it in a tight situation was to have my wife throw a rope over one wing and hang on.

Nizina

I refuse to post anything on the Cessna 170 site anymore. I go there to look and see, if I am looking for specific information, but thats it. I agree with mtv, I also think it is a waste of a good website. GH was real prick to a lot of people, including me. I can handle your typical AH, I am one myself. But the AH's I pal around with can not only dish it out but they they can take it when someone gives it back.

Nizina wrote: Best way to turn it in a tight situation was to have my wife throw a rope over one wing and hang on.

Nizina

I'm picturing you flying up a tight canyon with rising terrain: OK Hon, I need you out there in the slipstream...

Seriously- nice looking 170

-DP

denalipilot wrote:

Nizina wrote: Best way to turn it in a tight situation was to have my wife throw a rope over one wing and hang on.

Nizina

I'm picturing you flying up a tight canyon with rising terrain: OK Hon, I need you out there in the slipstream...

Seriously- nice looking 170

-DP

Inarticulate writing!! Good mental image.

Nizina

denalipilot wrote:

1SeventyZ wrote:I started a stub on Ski Configuration on the C170 guide:

http://www.cessna170guide.org/wiki/Ski_Configuration

Thanks for the photo, DP.

I wouldn't mind contributing to the page information, but I haven't put in the time yet to learn how.

I'm going to do a screencast here soon. Basically, it will be a tutorial video on how to do certain functions, where you see my screen and hear my voice blabbing. Many people learn better that way. Gonna do a few for BCP too.

Odie,

Interesting comments on the size of the AWB's vs straight skis. I presume you're comparing them to 1500 straight skis or ?? Compared to 3000 straight skis the AWB's have a LOT less bottom area, which is what counts, not width or length. Most of the length of the AWBs is in the very narrow part of the ski. Federal 2500's with plastic are also very large skis with a lot of bottom area. The Aero 3000 straight skis are great skis on an airplane this size as well.

But, the point is, these things--and especially performance, is all relative, so we have to note the details when comparing.

For example, my AWB 2500's are really lousy performing skis in any kind of deep snow. The reason, however, is probably related to the fact that I run them with 8.50 x 6.00 tires, and the tires actually protrude below the ski bottom, creating a lot of drag. I'm too cheap to buy a second set of tires, and frankly, I don't do much demanding ski flying with this airplane anyway, so it really doesn't matter much.

Nizina,

Did you buy that 170 from a doctor in Fairbanks?? That paint scheme looks very familiar. If it's the one I'm thinking of, it was a beauty. I heard that it was damaged later, so maybe it's not the same.

MTV

mtv wrote: Compared to 3000 straight skis the AWB's have a LOT less bottom area, which is what counts, not width or length...The Aero 3000 straight skis are great skis on an airplane this size as well.

I mainly have PIC experience with Aero 3000s- although I've got a fair bit of right-seat experience experience on AWB 2500s ranging from 185s to Supercubs.

I agree that floatation comes down to surface area, but I think ground handling does have to do with length and width. The Aeros are shorter and wider than, say, Landis, and I think that can be a help when trying to turn. They also have more up-turned sides and tail, which also should make turning easier. Mine do have skegs, by the way.

-DP

I came into the deep crusty stuff on the ski strip at Brainerd recently and really struggled with the Husky on the Wip 2500's. Lots of power and keep on sliding sideways into worse stuff yet (7-8 mph crosswind). FIGHT FIGHT - WHEW, finally got out of it! But then right behind me comes a Citabria on the mechanical retract Aero Skis and it handled the same stuff with ZERO issues. I was impressed!

Brad

Denali,

You are absolutely correct on ground handling related to SHAPE of the ski. I was discussing floatation, as opposed to handling. I like short wide skis in deep snow, but on rough stuff it helps to have a longer ski.

BRD,

The Wip skis are C-2200s, and they are, like many other skis, a real compromise in many ways. Better than straight wheels, but....did the Citabria have the wheels up or down?

There's no such thing as a perfect ski. They all have different characteristics, some are better at one thing, others are better at something else. The C-2200's are bullet proof skis, and in that regard, if you're working on really rough snow, you'll break teh plane before the skis.

MTV

the wingX stol gives you a 200lb gross weight increase on a 180hp 170b in Canada its STCed so im sure it is in the states too. the Delair conversion also gives the same increase on a later 172 without the wingX but as of yet it is not aproved on the 170B or the early 172, Hairy at Delair has aplyed for the up gross on them but has not got it as of yet.

Nope, I just checked on the WingX STOL. It's not yet stc'd in the US. Last I talked to them, they were skeptical that they'd get the full GW increase they hoped for as well.

That's an EXPENSIVE mod as well. With a Del Aire 180 conversion AND the WingX, you're going to have as much money into one of these airplanes as you would in a 185 .

MTV

Wow thats the first thing Ive seen that we can get in Canada that isnt availible in the US. Usually its quite the opposite.
I dont have the WingX yet but I have the delair conversion and an MT prop and Im still well below the price of a 185. I did use a used engine and did most of the work my self, it is expensive but at least I can aford the fuel for the thing when Im done.

So, I've seen a used pair of Aero 2000 skis for sale, which are also approved for the 170. How do they compare to the 3000?

Aero in Brooten apparently doesn't have a web presence, or my Google-fu isn't up to finding it

Areo Skis in Brooten MN does not have a web site. Their phone is 320-346-2285. Call and talk to Troy Reese, he knows everything about aero skis.

I bought the M2000s with 3/16" poly bottoms this winter and have them on a stock 170B.

The 2000s are 12" wide, 67" long and 20lbs each. The total weight of the installation was 62lbs with all the rigging and poly bottoms.

The 3000s are 16" wide, 72" long and 29lbs each, no poly.

When I bought the 2000s, there was a pair of used 3000s for sale on Barnstormers. I talked to a couple of experienced skis pilots that recommended the 2000s are a better match for a stock 170 in the snow conditions here in central ND.

I believe a stock 170 with 3000s in deep powder would struggle to move. And in the air the 3000s would be noticebly more drag.

If you need to know more call Troy. He is very helpful.

Bill

Nope, I'd say wrong on both those counts. Maybe in ND crusted, wind blown nasty snow the 2000s might be better, but only cause they're cheaper

I've run 3000 Aeros on Cubs, Huskys, Scouts, and a C-180. The bigger 3000 ski doesn't add any noticeable drag in the air, but it will make a HUGE difference getting airborne out of deep snow.

I wouldn't even consider putting the 2000 skis on a C-170, or any other airplane with a gross weight over 1700 pounds, myself.

The 3000's are great skis, light, float well, and are relatively inexpensive. First time you get bad stuck, you'll be wishing you had even bigger bottoms on those skis, trust me...

MTV