Been looking at both these planes and I'd like to hear some peoples opinions here that have owned both.


If this was compared in another thread, sorry. I couldn't find it.

Well, a 180 will keep you from worrying about what other toys you'd like to buy.

Can't comment on the two from an ownership perspective, but some on this board have. Hopefully they'll chime in. Experience never ceases to amaze me here.

I can answer any questions on flying both...neither are a mystery. Almost exactly analogous to the 182 vs 172 exercise.

Bill

Summer afternoons in the mountains one lulls you into believing you can climb just about anytime you want. The other helps orient you to the fact that natural energy is greater than either and that you can climb in good air but must fly down hill in bad air.

A stock 180 will out perform a STOL kit, stripped down, light weight 170 every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

I currently have a 1949 170A with the O300, a 1954 170B with the Lycoming O360 and 80 inch Hartzell, and a 1969 180H project. Previously I have had two different 1955 170B'w with the O300, a 1971 180H and a 1973 A185F. I have heard and have said that the 0300 powered 170 is under powered, but can't recall every hearing or saying that about the O470 powered 180's. The take off performance of the 180 horsepower 170B is comparable to a 180 but will cost more to buy than a same year and condition 180 and cruise 30 miles per hour slower. I bought my first 170B 37 years ago when I had 12 hours total. It was great fun and every one I have owned since was/is great fun. A 170 has always been my go to airplane when I need something to fly without spending a fortune to buy or operate while working on getting my next 180. If you have the self control a 180 flown at 170 speeds will have 170 fuel burns. Both airplanes are great fun shooting landings on a grass strip. I will say that I bought the 180 horsepower 170B to fly out of my back yard which I would not try with passengers in the O300 powered airplane.

The real advantage of the 180 is performance. LEGAL useful load of both airplanes of the same vintage are about the same, maybe less for the 180 if you carry full fuel in both, though the 180 will have more range.

170's have the best over the nose viability on the ground and in flight of any tail wheel airplane out there. Best view in the air.

I'm based at 1300' msl in northern Michigan so a stock 170 will do close to 100 percent of what I want to do BUT I want to own a 180. A 170 will never be a 180. Buy what makes you happy.

Tim

Take a stock 170B and ad all the steroids to get the 180 performance and then you're looking at minimum range due to fuel capacities. Then you start adding flint tanks and such and performance starters to degrade.
If it's just you or another then the 170 works well, it's light and performs well. but if you want range and capacity hard to beat the 180/185s. Guess it really is dependent on the end users use and common missions.

I simply could not afford a 180, and after buying a 170... I will never look back I'm entirely happy with my stock 170.. Do I wish it had more power, sometimes. But overall it's a non issue for me. If I'm heavy on cross country I'm going to have long paved runways. Light and local it preforms well enough to get in and out of all the most challenging strips I've come across.

The Skywagon is a fantastic machine for sure, but from the outside, it does seem like there is a lot of bias around the 180.

Fact is, that the 170B is pretty well near a damn perfect light duty back country machine. Its light and nimble, easy to physically move around, has pleasant control response, is blessed with the manual 40 flap, is comfy to fly, and can get in shorter than a 180/185. Kept light, and add some key mods like 8.5x6s, 180 gear, dbl pucks, and most importantly an 8042 prop, the 170B will make anyone a happy owner.

Probably the single most attractive attribute is the price. With a $30k-$50k entry point, one can truly enjoy the side country in style.

That said, its important for a prospective buyer to be honest with what they are buying. I initially bought a 170B thinking I could get a cheap 180 by throwing tons of mods at the airframe.... Doesn't work this way.

Not that one is better, but the 170 will never be a 180. If you understand this, you will be pleased and it will be a nice relationship.

One downside to consider which has been evidenced by the experience of many of the members here... If what you truly after is a heavy touring class bush machine like the 180/185, a "compromise" purchase will pretty much guarantee that you find yourself 1-3 years later with a 4sale sign in the window of the 170.

The big downside of the 170 is the limited performance. In my 170, myself and full fuel left only 300lbs of useful. 50lbs of tools/normal gear/survival stuff, the pup and 100 lbs of camp gear meant NO room for a 2nd person. Can be a bit lonely...

In contrast, the 180 will allow myself and full tanks (80gal) a pleasant 800lbs more potential. That means the dog, a buddy, beer, genny, whatever....

NET NET, if you take $$$ out of the equation, my advice would be to search for a 180. This advice still holds when you are comparing a 180hp C170 to an early 180. If your pocket book likes a 170 a bit better, you wont regret it!

They are both fantastic machines.

SB:

You don't say much about the mission you are wanting to use the plane for and your budget. That will dictate a lot.

I don't disagree with anything that was said previously and maybe could best demonstrate with a one example, because the 170 and 180 are two different animals entirely. One is a miniature Doberman that won't buy you much protection but provides great companionship. The other is a full sized mean ass intimidation machine.

When I owned a 170 (straight 170 with fabric wings, so it was light and 145hp engine), I traveled with my wife and one kiddo (now have 4). Thinking that I had the situation all figured out, I informed my wife that she would be limited to one suitcase only, thinking that would also by extension, limit weight. The morning arrived and after trying unsuccessfully to pickup the suitcase, it dawned on me that I still had a weight problem. We are at 5,000 feet here and I operate off a 4,000 foot strip. A quarter mile off the end of the strip are a line of trees approximately 30 feet high. Barely cleared the trees (a little exaggeration) and had to work thermals and burn off fuel all morning long to get enough altitude to work my way across the Rockies to my destination. I truly wasn't sure I could get enough altitude to feel safe about clearing the highest point in our flight plan.

Fast forward 15 years to four kids and a 59 180. Was taking two of my four kids to Oshkosh, and since we were camping, there wasn't an ounce of available space left in the plane. Two full ice chests, camping gear, by then my oldest was a hulking 6 foot 2 monster, I had added a few pounds, etc. I was afraid to do a weight and balance calculation if you get my drift. Full tanks, the hottest time of the year and the 180 jumped off the runway in about 1,000 feet and then climbed straight over the 11,000 mountains to our west.

As was said above, both are great planes. But pretty different capabilities. Good Luck!! L

Lots of good advice from people with many more miles than me. It really comes down to mission and budget. My 170 does everything that I need, and I can barely afford it. Sure I would love a 180 but I really do not need it for what I do, and I can do more hours in my 170 for the same $$$ I mean who out of us here is flying too much?

And I am a very big fan of the round tail.

daedaluscan wrote:And I am a very big fan of the round tail.

There's always the 195

I owned a 170B with a Sportsman STOL for 9 years and logged over a thousand hours in it. I absolutely loved the plane and took it on some great adventures all over North America.

Now I have a 1967 C180 and have about 600 hours in it. The performance and capabilities of the 180 are awesome. I miss the light feel and incredible forward visibility of the 170, but for my current mission the utility of the 180 trumps these characteristics.

I feel like the 170 is a little more fun while the 180 is a little more serious. The extra utility of the 180 is obviously not free. Acquisition is about 50% more for a 180. Insurance is about 50% more for a 180. Fuel is typically about 50% more for a 180. Maintenance can be a little higher, but that totally depends on the aircraft that you buy. Fortunately, the hangar cost is the same for either plane. The 180 is definitely more difficult to push around by yourself.

Are these additional costs worth it for the type of flying you will be doing is the question you need do consider? You should take a realistic look at your mission to decide which is better for you.

I fly in the mountains often and like to take friends, dogs and gear for adventure. I also make long cross country flights in not such great weather occasionally. The 180 is a significantly better plane for both of those situations, as it doesn't mind a load, is about 30% faster and maintains a respectable climb rate up to 18000 ft.

I flew the 170 two up and gear most often. It worked well most of the time, but the real problem with the 170 is operating in high density altitude situations. There are times when it will get in short, then break ground short on the takeoff, but simply will not effectively climb out of ground effect with a load. This scenario SUCKS, and I hope to never again encounter it. That said, I flew it in and out of Idaho's most challenging strips when the plane was flying light and the temps were cool. If you plan to frequent high and short fields with obstacles to clear, there is really no comparison.

The 170 is not a four place airplane, while the 180 is.

The 180 feels quite a bit heavier both during flight and on the ground.

The O-300 runs incredibly smooth and is very dependable.

The O-470 is a super strong, confidence inspiring American Calssic that roars on takeoff and rumbles along nicely over a broad range of cruise power settings, actually delivering 170 speeds at 8 gph fuel flows.

Both engines have weaker cylinders than the Lycoming engines, but the bottom ends are very robust.

The 180 has a MUCH stronger tailwheel installation than the 170. I broke a 170 TW spring in the bush and had to go through an ordeal to get it back to airworthy condition.

I was pleased with the 170, but I am STOKED on the 180.

I felt that the future resale of a 180 would be much easier than a 170. Not that I plan on selling mine anytime in the near future.

There is a nice 170 out at U42 South Valley Regional, Utah.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=218&ad=38471056 ... =&ad_cid=8

It's been for sale at least two years that I can think of. Nice bird, it just doesn't seem to be in a hot market around here.

It could be the altitude we operate at, field is at 4,600' and canyons with terrain rising to 11,000'+ within a 20 NM radius.

Rich

I owned a ragwing 170 for about 11 years and 1700 hours, and have owned my 180 now for about a year & a half and 150 hours. I can't add too much to what's already been said. But if you're like me, you'll buy the 170 because "I can't afford a 180". Then you'll spend a lot of time wishing it had more steam, and looking longingly at 180's. Eventually you'll sell the 170 & buy a 180, and wonder why you didn't do it sooner.

Some guys buy a 180, then spend a lot of time wishing it was cheaper to operate. But I don't see too many of them selling their 180's to buy a 170. Some guys buy a 170, then try to make it perform like a 180. It can be done, sort of, but will cost you more than just buying a 180. You can buy a 170 already magnumized, but generally you'll spend just as much or more on it as you would on a comparable 180. My suggestion, to coin a BCP phrase, is "just buy a Skywagon".

I just sold a J3 to upgrade to a 180. I did not seriously consider a 170, because for a 2-place plane I'd rather be in a cub.

hotrod180 wrote:But if you're like me, you'll buy the 170 because "I can't afford a 180". Then you'll spend a lot of time wishing it had more steam, and looking longingly at 180's. Eventually you'll sell the 170 & buy a 180, and wonder why you didn't do it sooner.

Very similar to my experience. I didn't think that I could afford to own and fly a 180, until I started doing it, and then realized that I could.

bigrenna wrote:NET NET, if you take $$$ out of the equation, my advice would be to search for a 180.

A good post for sure, but if you take price out of the equation than you’d be crazy not to just get a Pilatus PC-6...

A bit of an oversimplification, but price isn’t A consideration between the two platforms…it’s THE consideration. How much money do you have, and how much of that do you want to dedicate to an airplane?

A 180 has the load capacity and speed. A 170 costs a lot less to own and operate and has much better forward visibility and a lighter feel. Stock 170s are pretty marginal in the mountains with anything but a single pilot, no baggage, and 1/3 fuel.

We have a 180hp 170b which is great for two people and camping gear in the mountains. More HP is always nice, but 180 is enough if you’re careful with the load. I disagree that you need anything other than stock tanks in the continental US. I’ve been flying back and forth across the Great Basin for ten years on stock tanks and never had an issue, and fuel stops there are as few and far between as they come in the country.

A 180 would be a MUCH better platform for our flying. 99.99% of our flight hours are multi-hour cross country trips that start out with a 10~14 thousand foot climb to clear the Sierra's, hauling camping gear and food for a week, headed for short strips at high DA destinations.

It’d be nice not to have to really count ounces and strategize on which airstrips we can use first and second and third based on fuel/food (beer) weight. We bought our 170 as a transition plane from our 140 to the eventual 180, but I don’t think that’s going to happen anymore.

While a 180 would be a better airplane for us, I’m just not interested in spending any more money on aviation than we already do. Price per mile based on fuel burn would be about the same, but that's a small part of the whole financial picture. We’ve spent years making the 170 better and better…lots of little things that we’d never get our money back out of…and we started out with an extremely nice plane to begin with.

For us the economy of the 170 more than makes up for the compromises.

Scolopax wrote:The 180 has a MUCH stronger tailwheel installation than the 170. I broke a 170 TW spring in the bush and had to go through an ordeal to get it back to airworthy condition.

I replace my tail springs (and hardware) every 500 hours regardless of what they look like. Cheap insurance against that most unfortunate scenario.

I owned both a 180 hp 170b and a 66 H model 180.

Simple response to the original question:

The 180 is a lot faster, and it is a true four place airplane.

The 170 is at best a two seat plane with ANY gear aboard, but a light one, particularly with a 180 hp engine, will outperform most 180s in takeoff and landing.

Bear in mind that there are three different models of the 170. There are several models of the 180. So generalizations can be risky.

Both great airplane's.

MTV