Hello! New to the forum, this is my first post.

Buying a 170B with an o-360 A1A that the seller had purchased with the intention of upgrading but now wants a 6 seater for his kids. Flies with an o-300 now. So going to order an STC and a propeller asap because I really want the super!

So I got a quote for a Hartzell two blades aluminum prop. 80 inches total diameter. 67 pounds. Any reason I should consider a different propeller? $13,555 is the price.

Let me be the first to welcome into the Holy Order & Knight's of the Round Tail, you will really enjoy the 170.

I'm in the process of installing a Lycoming 0-360 in my 170B as well but the rules north of the 49th parallel are a bit different so my prop choice will not help you at all.

EB wrote:Hello! New to the forum, this is my first post.

Buying a 170B with an o-360 A1A that the seller had purchased with the intention of upgrading but now wants a 6 seater for his kids. Flies with an o-300 now. So going to order an STC and a propeller asap because I really want the super!

So I got a quote for a Hartzell two blades aluminum prop. 80 inches total diameter. 67 pounds. Any reason I should consider a different propeller? $13,555 is the price.

I’ve owned two airplanes with that Hartzell 80 inch prop, and replaced both of those props with MT composite props. And I’d do it again, in fact got the same done on a work airplane.

Do a search for Flight Resource, LLC. They are a great outfit, and they support this forum. John is on here and will likely chime in shortly.

But there’s no way I’d pay good money for that HEAVY Hartzell prop. My MT Ultra, sold to me by John of Flight Resource weighed 28 pounds less than that Hartzell brick.

Go MT.

MTV

I vote for an MT propeller also, lightweight, smooth, quick acceleration, and slows you way down on final when at full pitch and low power, its a great performer.
John at Flight Resource/McFarlane is great to work with.

I wouldn't consider anything except an MT for that set up. MT Ultra on the 180hp 170 would be fantastic on a 180hp 170, MT Ultra would be my first choice. I have owned an MT 3 blade, original 2 blade and Ultra for my Husky. I love my MT props!

Kurt

Thanks for the feedback! Looks like I need to look into this MT composite prop. I read about these. I assumed they were very expensive.

Any experience with the durability?

EB wrote:Thanks for the feedback! Looks like I need to look into this MT composite prop. I read about these. I assumed they were very expensive.

Any experience with the durability?

I have had mine for more than 2,000hrs in my 182, and recently in my 170, lots of gravel, mud, water, they are durable, and in top of that the owner can repair it if needed.

Durability is excellent, nickel leading edges are tough! Cost is competing with other props, cheaper than the composite Hartzell Trailblazer.

Kurt

Durability I'd good as long as it hits the right spot. If it doesn't then it can be bad. But same with any prop.

I also highly recommend the MT. We have a Husky with an O-360 and a MT prop. Incredible combination! It’s hard to believe how hard it yanks the plane on takeoff and climb. It goes 115 knots on less than 6 gph. I’ll bet the 170 would be faster.

I have to agree with the rest of the MT crowd.
I have the 3 blade on my O-360 A1A 170B and it is super smooth and responsive.
Worth the money.
And John at Flight Resource is great to work with.

I'm convinced on the MT prop. Then I got on trade-a-plane and found a 1996 Husky with o-360, super clean, ready to fly.

I'm about to go test fly this Husky today. It's thirty thousand more than the 170b, but with the time and process and expense of upgrading to o-360, seems it will be about the same in cost without the wait time for STC and prop kit etc. I like the 170B, but I'm also partial to Husky's.

If anyone has an opinion on 1954 170B which within 3 months would be upgraded to 170 super (everything goes well, that is), or a 1996 Husky A1A that is ready to fly with o-360 now, and very clean looking, I'm listening.

It will cost you more than 30k to install an 0-360 if you figure MT prop, STC, labour and incidentals. And it will take longer than you think.

That said they are different airplanes so what is your mission?

EB wrote:I'm convinced on the MT prop. Then I got on trade-a-plane and found a 1996 Husky with o-360, super clean, ready to fly.

I'm about to go test fly this Husky today. It's thirty thousand more than the 170b, but with the time and process and expense of upgrading to o-360, seems it will be about the same in cost without the wait time for STC and prop kit etc. I like the 170B, but I'm also partial to Husky's.

If anyone has an opinion on 1954 170B which within 3 months would be upgraded to 170 super (everything goes well, that is), or a 1996 Husky A1A that is ready to fly with o-360 now, and very clean looking, I'm listening.

I had a 1954 170b for 10 years. It was a fantastic plane. Light on the controls, great visibility, fuel efficient and super easy to land. I flew it often and learned a lot in that plane.

It had the stock power plant. I fly at high density altitude, and operate from short fields and off airport often, so it didn’t satisfy my mission any longer.

I researched installing an O-360, and it never penciled out. I could not figure out how to do it for less than 35k, and this was ten years ago. I would bet closer to 50 these days. And then... when do you stop improving a 60 something year old airplane? Engine monitors, avionics, paint, interior, STOL mods, etc.... it never ends...

I ended up in a 180, which is very capable, but not quite as fun as the 170. I’m on the fools errand of dumping buckets of cash in to it

Projects ALWAYS take more time and money than expected. Usually by no small amount.

Last year, a few friends and I partnered up in a 1997 Husky A-1A. It is a real hoot to fly! It sips the fuel, and has relatively large tanks for adventuring far and wide. It’s much faster than a Cub in cruise, but won’t land as short. Flying low and slow with the doors opened up is dreamy.

The Husky is a well designed and very low maintenance airframe. I would budget for a set of 31s, and definitely look for one with an MT over the Hartzell, but otherwise a nice Husky should be ready to rally without extensive modifications.

If you don’t need the cabin volume of a four place spam can, and are more interested in a plane to fly rather than a project, I would probably go for the Husky.

daedaluscan wrote:It will cost you more than 30k to install an 0-360 if you figure MT prop, STC, labour and incidentals. And it will take longer than you think.

That said they are different airplanes so what is your mission?

Exactly what he said. I've owned a C-170B with an O-360 (owned it for nearly 20 years), and I flew Huskys for work....so I'm very familiar with both.

BUT, as the man said: What's your mission? The 170 is a legal four seat airplane. A fairly light one can be a load hauler, at least for bulky stuff. The Husky, depending on model (you didn't specify what model you're looking at) can also be a load hauler, but space is limited, unless you go with a pod, and even then really bulky stuff, like coolers, may be difficult.

I love both these airplanes, but they are very different airplanes. Some folks like to sit on the centerline, others prefer to have their spouse/significant other/passenger sit beside them. If any of those are even vaguely inclined to air sickness, the back seat of a tandem airplane can be a very bad seat, whereas the right seat of a Cessna may be fine.

Put an extended baggage in the 170 and you'll have oodles of space for "stuff".

The Husky comes with 50 gallons of fuel. A stock wing 170 B has 37 useable. So, if you plan long trips, consider fuel stops. That said, an early Husky with full tanks isn't going to have much useful payload left after the pilot is aboard.

So, do your due diligence. I'd be happy to talk to you about either or both planes.

MTV

My A1-C Husky has almost 400 pounds useful load AFTER you fill the tanks and I get in it. Thats full fuel, me and almost 400 pounds! Pretty darn good if you ask me. Cheap to fly, fun, great range, great short field performance, whats not to like.

Kurt

G44 wrote:My A1-C Husky has almost 400 pounds useful load AFTER you fill the tanks and I get in it. Thats full fuel, me and almost 400 pounds! Pretty darn good if you ask me. Cheap to fly, fun, great range, great short field performance, whats not to like.

Kurt

Kurt,

I agree, but I’m betting he’s talking about an older Husky, which may not have quite as generous a useful load. Take a look at the numbers for an A-1 some time: 1300 empty (maybe), 1800 GW. Do the math there.

MTV

Tru dat Mike!

Kurt

mtv wrote:

G44 wrote:My A1-C Husky has almost 400 pounds useful load AFTER you fill the tanks and I get in it. Thats full fuel, me and almost 400 pounds! Pretty darn good if you ask me. Cheap to fly, fun, great range, great short field performance, whats not to like.

Kurt

Kurt,

I agree, but I’m betting he’s talking about an older Husky, which may not have quite as generous a useful load. Take a look at the numbers for an A-1 some time: 1300 empty (maybe), 1800 GW. Do the math there.

MTV

Our A-1A is definitely limited on legal payload with full tanks. We seldom top the tanks, and with 25-30 gallons on board, it will carry a reasonably heavy load for a two seat aircraft.

50 gallons of usable fuel gives us over eight hours of endurance at 65% cruise. Most of our missions are less than 3 hours, so this plane works well for us with a partial fuel load. It really performs when flown light.

I just heard about the Hartzell TB and wondered if anyone here had any first hand knowledge on it, and in particular on the 180hp 170B.
Thanks Gary