While in AK this week I was talking w/a 170 guy and he said he thought someone had recently acquired an stc.to put the 175 wings on a 170. Anyone here know anything about this/can verify it. I searched the internet and didn't see it, but would like to
Thanks Gary

Found STC SA01833SE for a 170B.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/WebSearchDefault?SearchView&Query=175%20wing&SearchOrder=1&SearchMax=0&SearchWV=TRUE&SearchFuzzy=FALSE&Start=1&Count=100#

Weird placarded useable fuel though of 18.5gal with a 26gal tank?

Reading closer, that STC is only for serial number 25239. Why would they bother with the STC I wonder?

One time STC, probably. I know a fellow in AK who got it field approved. If you want, I can get in touch with him and see if you can get a copy of field approval......may or may not help.

MTV

I talked to a guy in Caldwell, ID that had done this but don't know if it was a STC field approval. Sorry, can't remember his name.

What's the purpose or advantage to the 175 wing on a 170?

58Skylane wrote:What's the purpose or advantage to the 175 wing on a 170?

Larger fuel tanks.

4700 from Flint.

Tim

Zzz wrote:

58Skylane wrote:What's the purpose or advantage to the 175 wing on a 170?

Larger fuel tanks.

Gotcha..... Thanks

I would like the larger tanks. I'm not interested in the Flint tanks, thanks Tim. I would also like to get stock wings to put the Sportsman kit on(or ones that also have the sportsman kit on them). My wings have the Horton kit, and it is OK, but I would prefer the Sportsman, but not enough to swap out what I have.
Any leads on a good of 175 wings, or a mummified 175 w/good clean wings would also be appreciated.
Gary

Does anyone know if the 175 wings can be put on a 170A?

Yes, but you'll need all the flap actuating mechanisms to come along with the wings to be retrofitted as well.

shortfielder wrote:I would like the larger tanks. I'm not interested in the Flint tanks, thanks Tim. I would also like to get stock wings to put the Sportsman kit on(or ones that also have the sportsman kit on them). My wings have the Horton kit, and it is OK, but I would prefer the Sportsman, but not enough to swap out what I have.
Any leads on a good of 175 wings, or a mummified 175 w/good clean wings would also be appreciated.
Gary

And understand that those tanks will legally require a ~9 gallons unusable fuel. So, 43 useable. Is it worth it to get six gallons more useable?

Get in touch with the Del Air folks, if they’re still in business. They have an STC To modify your tanks to 172 long range tanks....much better deal.

MTV

Some pipeline patrol operators use those 172 long range wing tanks. I drank a lot of coffee an had a two hour bladder then, so I didn't benefit. Other operators used the aux tank behind the front seats. Smelled of gas all the time. I had to use that one because Uncle Rick was too cheap to buy gas anywhere except cut rate.

I talked to Chris at Del Air last week and they are definitely around. They have a nice package that converts the Cessna standard tank to extra long range tanks. They go 1 bay past the Cessna long range tanks. There are some good youtube videos of doing the conversion.

Cool Magnum, are you planning to do this to your wings?

175 magnum wrote:I talked to Chris at Del Air last week and they are definitely around. They have a nice package that converts the Cessna standard tank to extra long range tanks. They go 1 bay past the Cessna long range tanks. There are some good youtube videos of doing the conversion.

Good to hear. I really think that makes way more sense than putting up with the 175 unusable fuel. Unless you could seriously modify that fuel system. Frankly, I have no idea what Cessna was thinking when they designed that....

MTV

"Cool Magnum, are you planning to do this to your wings?" I am not sure exactly which way I am going to go yet. I have looked at the two Monarch and one Flint system and their ok but? I like the Delair system but they do not take 175 tanks and extend them only the standard range tanks. At this point I am thinking about using the Delair concept but making my own tanks. That would give me the fuel I want and have all the fittings I need but still have one tank per wing.

175 magnum wrote:"Cool Magnum, are you planning to do this to your wings?" I am not sure exactly which way I am going to go yet. I have looked at the two Monarch and one Flint system and their ok but? I like the Delair system but they do not take 175 tanks and extend them only the standard range tanks. At this point I am thinking about using the Delair concept but making my own tanks. That would give me the fuel I want and have all the fittings I need but still have one tank per wing.

I have wondered why you couldn’t convert the stock 175 tanks to 172 or 170 style dual pickups, and reclaim a lot of that 9 gallon unusable fuel.

Other than the FAA, of course.....

I’d imagine you should be able to get 50 gallons useable......and with a lot less work/modification than expanding tanks. And, if you expand those 175 tanks with the existing fuel system, wouldn’t you also increase the unusable fuel even more?

I believe the reason for the 9 gallon unuseable is because of only one pickup in each wing tank. Am I wrong there?

With the Flint tanks, youre installing pumps, and those tanks are almost all useable.

I’d really like to reduce the amount of unuseable gas I’m hauling around.

MTV

"
I have wondered why you couldn’t convert the stock 175 tanks to 172 or 170 style dual pickups, and reclaim a lot of that 9 gallon unusable fuel."
My 172 has the long range tanks the same as the 175 and in level flight you can suck them bone dry but I guess the testing was done at different attitudes to establish unusable fuel. The stock long range tanks have tapered bottoms to them and there is a lot of unused space under them. My intention is to make flat bottom tanks with front and rear pickups. monarch makes a tank like this for the 180/185 but it would take a lot of work to put them in my project. We made a set of flat bottom dual pickup tanks for our Bearhawk and they worked very well so I think I will follow that concept.