It's been said a lot in here but I will say it again a different way.

I have a 49 170A. Many pf my buddies have owned 170s and moved to 180s. Several have stayed in the 170s for the reasons I am putting below.

It depends on your mission. If it is just you or maybe 1 passenger most of the time, the 170 is your frame. The A model is cheaper than the B model. In my opinion the $10k you are saving is worth the difference. You need to decide if you need those flaps for the $10k difference. If you have a family (meaning more than 1 adult passenger and more 1 or 2 little kids) that flies with you regularly, you need the 180. This is why my friends upgrade. One friend has 4 kids and one has 2 older kids. The 170 will not do that.

Here is a good comparison if you know a lot about cars, like me.

The 170 is like a Jeep Wrangler. It doesn't really do any particular job really really great but it does a lot of jobs pretty good. A fourwheeler goes off road better, a bigger SUV hauls people better, a hybrid gets better fuel economy, a truck hauls gear better, etc.

The 180 is like a Diesel Crew Cab Long Bed F350. It hauls a maximum amount of people, plus their gear, and you can pack it full and it won't even let you know you are at gross weight. But.... it does cost more to maintain and operate.

Hope that helps!

I can't compare a 170 to a 180, because I haven't owned either, but I have owned a pair of 182s and now have a 180hp CS P172D, and I have flown a slough of both. I think the issues are the same as between a 180hp CS 170 and a 180 and the 172 and the 182. It really boils down to mission needs, but here are some specifics (well, "specifics" is a loose word, more like "approximations"):
172: 180hp 4 cylinder Lycoming (not as smooth as a 6, but not uncomfortable)
182: 230hp 6 cylinder Continental (lopes at idle, but otherwise very smooth)
172: 3 person max with full fuel
182: 4 person easily with full fuel
172: <10 gph at cruise
182: >13 gph at cruise
172: breaks ground in +/- 1000' with a full load below 5000' DA, slightly longer (1200' to 1500') above 5000' DA to about 10,000' DA, 2000' to 2500' above 10,000' DA
182: breaks ground in +/- 1000' with a full load below 7000' DA, slightly longer (1200' to 1500') above 7000' DA to about 11,000' DA, 2000' to 2500' above 11,000' DA
172: climbs well below 5000' DA, requires patience from there to roughly 12,000' DA
182: climbs well below 10,000' DA, requires patience from there to roughly 16,000' DA
172: cruises at 115 knots/130 mph
182: cruises at 130 knots/150 mph
172: normal maintenance through more than 1500 hours with nothing major likely to a 2000 hour TBO
182: normal maintenance through about 1100 hours, with a top OH likely before a 1500 hour TBO
172: replacement engine, roughly $25,000 installed
182: replacement engine, roughly $30,000 (not including higher horsepower mods, which can climb to the $40-$50,000 range) installed

I'm very satisfied with my P172D. But it fits my mission 95% of the time. That mission is either solo with <70 lb. dog or another person with dog, or solo, dog, and camping gear. Once in a blue moon, I'll carry backseat passengers, and then I do it with only half tanks at most and very little baggage. Training is instructor and me (we're both just under 200 lbs.), full tanks, and some baggage.

I was also very satisfied with both 182s, which fit my mission at the time. That mission was traveling long distances with wife and 2 grade school kids, <70 lb. dog, and baggage part of the time, or wife and another couple much of the rest of the time--basically at gross. Training was instructor and me (both just under 200 lbs.), often a single backseat passenger, full tanks, and some baggage.

So as always, figure out your real mission, i.e., what you want to carry, where you'll be flying, how fast you want to get there, and what you can afford.

Cary

I haven't owned either one so I really don't have a good opinion. However your going to hear it anyway.
The bigger one has a bigger engine

I posted earlier and the guys I hoped would chime in have... again, unique to have such a population as to have owned both. Great advice.

The only thing I have to add, having flown both and owned multiple 180's/185's.....is mountains. A lot has been said about two people vs 4 and 170 being limited at high DA. All true. I see you are in Oregon....if you have ambitions to go south to the sierras or East to the Rockies and play around loaded, then out of the two the 180 is your practical conclusion. That said....180 had its limitations as well.

If you do some googling on this site and others you'll see that bigger engines are one of the most popular mods. It's for a reason. A truly gross weight 180 in the mountains is no slam dunk and it's one of the reasons there is a 185. I was told several years ago that when talking gross weight operations, "180 for the coasts and 185 for the mountains." Having owned both I can't fault that.

Not knowing any more about the mission though, it's tough to say. Being that you are west of the Mississippi, on backcountry pilot.org, and asking about two divinitive tail wheel airplanes..... I'd venture a guess that a stock 180 on 8.50's with extended baggage would be a 99% solution.

180s are better for families. I have plenty of time in a 170B with the O300 and it is definitely more fun if you were adventuring light and low, or just poking holes in the sky.

907Pilot wrote:
Here is a good comparison if you know a lot about cars, like me.

The 170 is like a Jeep Wrangler. It doesn't really do any particular job really really great but it does a lot of jobs pretty good. A fourwheeler goes off road better, a bigger SUV hauls people better, a hybrid gets better fuel economy, a truck hauls gear better, etc.

The 180 is like a Diesel Crew Cab Long Bed F350. It hauls a maximum amount of people, plus their gear, and you can pack it full and it won't even let you know you are at gross weight. But.... it does cost more to maintain and operate.

Hope that helps!

I like the analogy but I'd have to modify it -

A 180 is a Extended-cab F-150 4x4. Gets the job done, hauls a lot, relatively light duty tho. Cessna 185 is f250 4x4, does the same job, just stronger and with more snort. Dehaviland Beaver is Diesel Crew Cab Long Bed f350!

Coming from a commercial perspective, I'd say 180 is lightest-duty working plane. 170 doesn't rank, tho that used to not be the case. 180 is large, heavy-duty personal plane. It fits that middle ground well!

907Pilot wrote:
The 180 is like a Diesel Crew Cab Long Bed F350.

With much respect.... I would say this is a bit of a foolish analogy.

I consider my 180 to be more of a "big cub" with one difference. I can fly to the cub factory, load the entire kit (incl engine) in the back and fly it home.

Hammer wrote:...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?...
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.....
A 180 would be a MUCH better platform for our flying. .....
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.
......

Hammer, you actually seem to make a better case for the 180, not the 170.
I thought about a 180hp 170B, but when I was looking I found that you could actually get a decent 180 for the same money or less than a comparable 170B-180hp. Ditto for converting a decent stock 145hp 170B.
Just checked Barnstormers, there's two Lyc 340 (170hp) powered 170B's for sale, one at $40K, the other for $67K. A 220 Frank powered 170B for $84K. No 360-powered B's right now, but when I've seen them they're into the 60's. I paid $62K for my 180 a year & a half ago, and there's several in that range on BS right now.

My thoughts comparing the two-- the 170/180hp burns less per hour, but is slower, so approx. the same MPG. Both have c/s prop to maintain. Trimmable stabilizer on the 180 sometimes needs $ attention. Otherwise about the same maintenance costs. The main difference would be at overhaul time, a Continental 470 is gonna be more than a 360 Lycoming, but maybe not that much more -- esp amortized out over a couple thousand hours.

I guess using my analogy, I would have said the 185 was more akin to an F450 and a Beaver would have been more like a Topkick or maybe a Kenworth.

Relative to me and my 170, the 180 is a totally different class for hauling things. The 185 is something I could possibly afford way down the road but the Beaver is something I could never afford (like a Kenworth)

907Pilot wrote:I guess using my analogy, I would have said the 185 was more akin to an F450 and a Beaver would have been more like a Topkick or maybe a Kenworth.

Or maybe the Beaver would be a unimog or Oshkosh truck. [emoji2]

hotrod180 wrote:Hammer, you actually seem to make a better case for the 180, not the 170.
I thought about a 180hp 170B, but when I was looking I found that you could actually get a decent 180 for the same money or less than a comparable 170B-180hp. Ditto for converting a decent stock 145hp 170B.
Just checked Barnstormers, there's two Lyc 340 (170hp) powered 170B's for sale, one at $40K, the other for $67K. A 220 Frank powered 170B for $84K. No 360-powered B's right now, but when I've seen them they're into the 60's. I paid $62K for my 180 a year & a half ago, and there's several in that range on BS right now.

My thoughts comparing the two-- the 170/180hp burns less per hour, but is slower, so approx. the same MPG. Both have c/s prop to maintain. Trimmable stabilizer on the 180 sometimes needs $ attention. Otherwise about the same maintenance costs. The main difference would be at overhaul time, a Continental 470 is gonna be more than a 360 Lycoming, but maybe not that much more -- esp amortized out over a couple thousand hours.

You're correct hotrod, a 180 is a much better plane for my mission. Markets fluctuate somewhat, but when I was looking 180's were another $25~$35k beyond 180hp 170's in the same condition. And at the time we were doing a lot more non-expedition flying...getting instrument and commercial ratings and the like, so the fuel burn and engine wear was a much bigger issue.

An O-470 has a significantly higher maintenance cost than a O-360 over the life of the engine. I don't know too many people who make TBO without a top end overhaul on the O-470, while reaching TBO without a top is pretty common on the O-360. I'm a 25 hour oil changer, so even the extra four quarts of oil and camguard adds up.

At this point I've put so much work into my 170 getting it just how I want it that I'm loath to start over with a new plane. Every airplane comes with a gigantic risk of unforeseen expenses and I'm just to the point of having addressed most of what needs addressing on my plane, and that feels good. Also, flying is a smaller part of my life than it was nine years ago, so I'm uninterested in spending more money and time to upgrade. If I loose the 170 I'll probably look a lot harder at 180's, but otherwise the juice just isn't worth the squeeze.

Matt 7GCBC wrote:
.

And that just what goes BEHIND the back seat!

i owned a 52 170B for about 17 years and my current 56 180 for about 15 years now. Both great airplanes. The 170 is best at low altitude airports and has much lighter control forces. My opinion is the 170 flies much nicer but if you want to pull more weight off the ground or do it at a high altitude airport, the 180 beats it hands down. The 180 is also a faster airplane for cross country flights but, of course, burns quite a bit more gas doing it per hour. Less hours so the net fuel use isn't that different. The 180 after 56 handles much nicer on the ground. The 170 (and early 180)has essentially non functioning tw steering while the 56 and later 180s have good tw steering. Internal volume is the same. You taxi with brakes in the 170. I switched after taking off at Show Low with my family of four (7000ft) and my two boys were only 1 and 4 at the time. The 170 is perfect for solitary flying or even for a couple of people of smaller size especially to lower altitudes. If you are bigger or want to haul 4 people more often, you might consider a 180. So like always, depends on your mission.

Wayne

I've read this post with interest and some amusement. I may be wrong about this but I'd be willing to bet that for the majority of us, certainly for me, our "mission profile" is that we don't have a "mission". When I was in the military I had a variety of missions, most were serious business, not so much now. Other than the very few of you (can't include myself) who fly light aircraft comercially or fly for the military, I think the large majority of us on this site fly for fun. We may pack heavy with camping gear for comfort or take a few friends along, but I see that more as a hobby (passion) than a mission per se. That cooler is not life or death.

If you have the income to spend a bunch of it on your hobby, have fun. If you absolutely need a big motor to fly safely, buy one. For those of us that don't (or realistically can't) we'll have to struggle along the best we can and have fun spending less. That's why I fly the nose wheel of quivalent of the 170. After reading many stories about the early days in Alaska, Idaho, Lindberg, and many others, it looks like I'm in good company. I'm probably the odd man out here, but it's the earliest days of flying that truly fascinate me, not the glass panels - though they certainly have their place. I'd much rather get a ride in a Jenny than a Cirrus. But that's me and that doesn't mean I'm right.

I was re-reading this thread the other day: https://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/ ... 6?start=40

Page three especially has some honest input about big motors for hobby flying from those that own them. If you have the disposable income and want to spend it on your hobby, whether boats, planes, or golf, do so and have fun. I'll just have to pack light when I fly mine to Idaho this summer but, barring any unforeseen events, I'll be going. I'm pretty sure I won't be landing at Mile High but there will be more open to me than closed. I'm looking forward to it but it won't be a mission. It's no where near that serious and I don't want it to be. I think I'll be doing quite a bit of it at 22-2300, some slower, just drinking it all in.

See you out there.

Frank

fshaw wrote: ...That cooler is not life or death.
Frank

The hell you say!