As I inch closer to aircraft ownership, I find myself taking a long hard look at the 180hp C-170 setup. Would those of you who have first hand experience be so kind as to tell me the figures of your airplane? Wiki and other sources give all kinds of info on stock birds but solid numbers on 180hp birds are somewhat hard to come by.

My mission will be:

1) Fly the piss out of whatever plane I own in order to become intimately familiar with it, so fuel economy is a consideration since I'll be more inclined to fly a lot the less painful it is on the wallet per hour.

2) Carry the Mrs. and I capably in to and out of the remote stuff, with the capability of carrying 3 adult pax from big pavement to big pavement on occasion.

3) Ultimately use the plane in a theoretical bush type air service that I hope to some day start to supplement my military retirement check or at least pay for my flying habit.

The numbers I'm looking for are:
empty weight
climb performance i.e. x ft/min at x weight
cruise at fuel burn i.e. x knots at x gph and x weight
takeoff & landing distances
oh yeah and O-360 overhaul cost

I'd really appreciate if you could give any of these numbers as well as if you have any mods that might affect them like STOL mods, big tires, gap seals and the like.

Thanks in advance for your input,
SD

Sounds like you want a 180 and not a 170...

SD,
I'll attempt to do the short answer.
Our 170 is a heavy one at 1450lbs. empty wt. The conversion added 40lbs. to the airplane. Most of that 40lbs. is in the CS prop. I've since replaced the starter with a light weight sky tec, so I got about 9lbs. back. Our family has owned it for 43yrs. this month, and it has nearly 12,000 hrs. on the airframe with no damage history.

As per Avcon, the 180 hp, CS prop conversion adds about 20 MPH to top/cruise speeds. We have found this to be true. Before the conversion, our 170 (1955 B-model, with a middle of the road prop "California cut") trued out at 127 MPH every day. Now it is common to see 145 MPH, but not every day. Kind of weird, but some days your happy to see 140 MPH, and there was one particular trip where we trued out at 155 MPH. Don't ask me to prove it, we've never seen it since. Go figure.

Where the money pays off is getting off the ground. Where the stocker would let you get into places too short to get out of, you can with the conversion use the rule of thumb that your take off roll will just about match your landing roll. That being said, I would leave a little extra margin for error on high temp. high alt. strips.

We have a local RC modelers strip near home here that is 350' at 500msl. With half gas, and two people, I don't have much runway to spare. Going solo the RC strip is a breeze, and a lot of fun too.

Climb rate when solo and full gas (I'm about 190lbs. by the way) is always 1,250+fpm from our 500'msl. Fully loaded would be more like 700 fpm, and I'm usually cruise climbing or Vy when fully loaded. (Remember, it's a 180hp 170, not a Cessna 180. I can follow 180/185's anywhere they can go "until were both fully loaded", that's where the 180/185's shine). It is a sporty little backcountry plane when it's light, but from my experience, a converted 170 at gross wt. performs about the same as a stocker with near empty gas tanks and solo.

I flight plan my fuel burn at 10gph. When traveling, I'm always firewalled. After takeoff when I begin my cruise climb I bring the prop back to 2500rpm and lean accordingly until level off, then cruise at 2300 rpm. At 9,500' the burn rate is about 8.5gph.
The 170 will get the EXACT MPG with either the 145hp Cont. or the 180hp Lyc. I have flown from up here in Oregon down to So. Cal. probable fifty times in stockers and converted 170's. Both use the exact same amount of gas when the trip is done. I've even flown formation all the way from here to there with one stocker and one powered back converted 170. At each fuel stop they both take the exact amount of gas to the gallon.

As far as other mods, the wing is straight (no stol kit). It does have a flap gap seal, but that is a waste of $$ and destroyed the effectiveness of the flaps. I believe the best stol kit you could put on a 170 is horsepower. This year I replaced the 6:00 tires and wheel pants with 8:00's. I lost at best, 3 MPH.

With overhaul costs you might get a better idea from an engine head on the site here, but I do know if your buying new cylinder assemblies when you overhaul, your already $2,000 ahead of the game with a 4 cylinder over a 6. When I overhauled the engine in 2007, it was a first run 0-360 A1A. We put 3,500 hrs. on it before we opened the bottom end. I don't believe that would have been possible with an 0-300.

Well, I knew I couldn't do the short answer, but I hope this helps.
Good luck with your hunt.
Tom

Bigrenna- truer words have not been spoken, I do want a 180 but I feel it may be a little ambitious for my first plane, not to mention the fact that I haven't been able to fool myself into thinking I can afford a 180 like I have with a 170 and still be able to eat on a semi-regular basis I'm hoping that for less dough all around I can get started and figure out whether my plan is viable and then upgrade as necessary.
By the way, bravo on the work you did on your 170. That airplane looks awesome.

Tom- thank you very much for your info, that's exactly the type of stuff that I'm looking for. From the sounds of it, the plane was in the family when the flap gap seal went on. I have no intention of doing that mod since I've seen what you said about wrecking the effectiveness of the flaps repeated many times, but did you see any gain in cruise when that went on?

Thanks again
SD

I have been watching prices on these planes. I think a good 170/180hp is gonna be in the $55-65K range, Don't usually see them much over $70K no matter how nice they are. I'll assume because of backcountry desires and cost you'll compare to an early 180. I think you can find a good early 180 in the same range. I know the price of 180's only go up from there. I think the maintanence on a 180 may avg. out a little higher. 180 will caqrry a bigger load better as you say, but a light 170/180hp is a great flying plane. I think if you ever need to sell the 180 would be easier sell. The 180 has the trimmable horizontal which is a great feature. Ig money is much of a factor you might consider an early 182 and big tires. Probly get a nice one of those around $50K and do most of what you want, atleast for a few years.
Gary

Or just buy a maul

I have a 180hp/CS converted 1963 P172D, using the Avcon conversion. While that's not a 170, some of my comments would also apply to a 170, I think.

I flight plan for 115 knots and 9.8 gph, which is always very, very close, running 21" and 2400 rpm. Experimenting with higher MP and lower rpm hasn't changed things much, other than to burn a little more fuel and run a little hotter, but not so much as to make a huge difference. 21" (or less if running at higher altitudes, of course) and 2400 rpm seems to be the "sweet spot", where my engine has the least vibration.

I had flap gap seals installed, which in my experience, do not interfere with the flaps in any way. They increased the TAS, which was 110 before they were installed. My airplane also has the very droopy Madras wingtips, which add quite a bit of low speed aileron control but which also add a lot of drag--good guess that the gap seals just return the TAS to what it would have been without the droopy tips. No other STOL mods, except for the bigger engine.

I did have the airplane re-rigged a couple of years ago, during its annual. That increased the TAS by about 2 knots.

Almost all of my flying is at elevations of 5000' MSL or above, with DA above 6000' typically, so my figures won't be as impressive as Tom's. Light (just me and dog, half tanks), I expect to be off the ground in about 700' or maybe less, without much effort. Running at gross (2350#), roughly twice that. At much higher density altitudes (coming off of Laramie at around 9000' DA) and gross weight, the roll has been around 2500'. That's with 4 adults and half tanks, or 3 adults and full tanks. I carry 52 gallons full. My few take-offs at lower elevations (annual trip to OSH, primarily), running nearly gross, the take-off runs have been well less than 1000'.

My engine threw a rod soon after I bought the airplane 8 1/2 years ago, and I landed in a field. The current engine is therefore almost all "new", built by Aircraft Cylinders & Engines in Greeley (it now has just under 500 hours on it). The only things salvageable were the exhaust and carb/intake, and the oil cooler which was rebuilt. Total cost was right at $23,000. At the same time, while the airplane was down, I had a lot of improvements made, including modernizing the electrical system. Empty weight has climbed over the years with all the additions and changes I've had done, although that went down recently when I had the old glideslope receiver pulled when I upgraded the panel.

For my purposes, my airplane has been nearly perfect. The only time I wish it would go faster is on the annual OSH trip. I sometimes wish it had more room, because loaded with camping gear and dog, it's pretty full although less than gross weight. I rarely carry 4 adults, so that hasn't been an issue, since I don't often have full tanks except right after refueling to get ready for a trip. For just flying around and enjoying being in the air, it's been great.

Cary

I too nearly got talked into a 180 by my self and others, I'm soooo glad I didn't!
Here is the plane and simple answer, if you have a load to haul and distance to cover by all means buy a 180 or 185, they are better for that, in the same way a otter is better than a beaver. This does not mean beaver owners are wannabe otter owners.

I fly a 55 170b with a 0-360 and an 83 in mt As well as a sportsman and VGs i don't have hard data but the performance is really good, not very often I can't see well over 1000fpm on climb.

I love hardly ever adding oil never cleaning oil off everything behind and below the engine and tooling around at 70mph with a notch of flaps on looking at the countryside. Then when I need to go somewhere I load almost anything I want in it and go 130 mph ish depending what tires I got on.

I fly super cubs lots as well as a really done up 206 and they all fly like a truck compared to my 170, don't get me wrong I love cubs but its like comparing a escalade to a jeep.

You won't be disappointed in a engined up 170 I have never wished I had a 180 once, I have wished I had a taylorcraft a few times, usualy at the fuel pump!

If you want the downside they could use more fuel and cowel flaps.

Anyone have experience with a C-170 with the Lyc 0-340 & a constant speed prop?

I see them for sale & I am not familiar with this engine. I have heard the rumor an 0-360 could be put on the same engine mount (even though common sense says "I think not")

Just stealing the thread for my own curiosity.

byeBill

cessnaford wrote:Anyone have experience with a C-170 with the Lyc 0-340 & a constant speed prop?

I see them for sale & I am not familiar with this engine. I have heard the rumor an 0-360 could be put on the same engine mount (even though common sense says "I think not")

Just stealing the thread for my own curiosity.

byeBill

Very much an orphan engine. You must be seeing an ad that's been around for awhile. Rumor has it that the airplane has a very spotty paper trail.

As ccurrie states the 180 hp C-170 could use a little more fuel range.
Well, that is easily solved. I installed Harry Delickers (Delair) Long range tanks for a total of 67 gallons. He also has an extended range STC which converts the 170 wings to the same as the c-175 wing which adds 15 gallons. The nnice thing is that they are just extensions on the end of the existing tank so there is no difference in plumbing, and no wiring. Just have to recalibrate the fuel gauge. They also minimize the kinetic energy inherent in putting extra fuel out on the wing tips. A friend of mine had his brand new Maule get away from with full wing tip tanks, and that was on a take off!?!

I put in the long range tanks because I was flying from San Jose Ca. (KRHV) direct to McCall Idaho and did not want to get out in the middle of the desert without enough fuel to divert or return.

I have since found that it is more "comfortable" to stop by Windyschmucka on the way out and back.

Hope that helps

Chris

PS: I just might sell mine for the right price. More than $140,000 invested and still a "utility" interior.
PPS: One benefit of the 170 over a 180 is that with 20* flaps at 60mph indicated it climbs almost flat so the visibilty over the nose is impressive, like a front row seat in an old movie theater balcony. I have flown both the C-180 and my C-170 with about ALL the STCs available. I can stil remember my first departure from Krassel in Idaho with a fully loaded 180 and not being able to see the wall in front of me.

I agree with most of what's been posted.

Stay away from the O-340 engines. My understanding is they are next to impossible to get parts for. Also there are very limited propellers approved on that engine, and the props on them, I am told are no longer supported. You don't want to pay a premium price for an airplane and then wind up trying to find a "cheap" O-360.

My airplane isn't quite as fast as the others' who've posted here, probably due to rigging. It weighs 1356. MT prop helps with that.

I agree that you'll want more fuel. I agonized between the Flint tanks and the Del Aire tank conversion. At the time, the costs were pretty much the same, when you considered installation. I chose the Flint tanks. They work fine and if you can't keep a taildragger straight with fuel in the tips, you probably aren't going to be real good at it without fuel in the tips. I don't like to LAND with fuel in the tips, but not due to control-ability, rather I don't want to stress the wings with that weight out there. I chose the Flints because they give you more fuel (I have 60 gallons useable). I use the tip tanks on nearly all cross countries. If nothing else, they give you options for choosing fuel stops.

The airplane is light on the controls, much more so than a 180. If I were considering ANY instrument flight, I'd go with a 180, period. Not that a 170 can't be operated IFR, but.....

The Lycoming engines are bomb proof, as is the Cessna 180 engine...the O-470. More cylinders equals potentially more costs when time to overhaul. TBO on the O-360 Lyc is 2000 hours and they almost all will go to at LEAST 2500 easily.

Extended baggage is nice, as is folding or easily removable rear seats. That big stock back seat (in most of the 100 series cessnas) is a pain in the butt to pull out of there if you need to haul the barbeque and the camping gear and the cooler, etc, etc. I have a sling seat in the back. Comes out, rolls up and stowed in aft baggage in a minute or less.

Very few of these have a seaplane kit. If you ever consider going to floats, try to find one with a factory seaplane kit. You can add one, but the parts prices will bring tears to your eyes.

Finally, check the paperwork. Lots of these out there with MANY undocumented modifications. Many of those are literally impossible to field approve nowadays, and all you need to do is bump into a sharp mechanic, who'll want the airplane "legal" prior to signing off an annual.....

Good luck.

MTV

I'll throw my numbers out there to. As for mission #1 and #2 170 with 180hp will work fine, as for mission #3 could happen with with limits.

I fly a 53 B with a Lycoming IO-360M1B (Stoots conversion), 80" Hartzell, Sportsman STOL, 31" bus wheels, not much for interior, this puts me at 1360 lbs empty. Add my self 225 and full fuel another 225, that leaves about 400 lbs of people or cargo. I does make a great 2 person and gear plane. Here in AK where we don't have much density alt issues, I'm comfortable going in and out of 500' at gross with the 180hp, I used 800' when I had the 145hp engine (this is all based on the situation of course).

As for mileage I burn under 8.5 gph at 22 square 115mph, I don't think you can go wrong with a 170 with 180hp its a fun plane.

Paul

Sounds like a nice 170, thats what I want to do with mine.

My 170 is pretty consistent with what others have posted for the 180hp numbers. A great 2 person and gear plane. Could use better fuel reserves but there are options. Not a speed demon but I smile every time I pass a cub while hauling out meat. It will slow down and land in a short distance and as long as your light you can get back out of (usually). There is not a huge number of AD's for that configuration but be careful with the prop of choice. To the best of my knowledge there is only a few options of constant speed props with Hartzell more than likely being the most popular due to how the conversion was approved.
If you can find one with the MTV prop you will be better off in the long run. Hartzell loves their AD's and has no problem you spending a ton of cash every year or so. [end Hartzell rant]....
All in all its a great plane to fly as long as you are very aware that its not a C180 and its not a Super Cub, so dont try to haul a heavy load out of a short strip and dont try to land on some crazy short cub strip you wont be able to get out of...
my $.02 cents.

Greg

Hey y'all trying to figure out some numbers on a 170b w/ Lycoming 360 upgrade and a CS prop. We are first time plane buyers and seeing the useful load is about 699lbs. Anyone else get the decrease in load due to the prop and any ideas on increasing it?

Gorepedo wrote:Hey y'all trying to figure out some numbers on a 170b w/ Lycoming 360 upgrade and a CS prop. We are first time plane buyers and seeing the useful load is about 699lbs. Anyone else get the decrease in load due to the prop and any ideas on increasing it?

Could you try putting that question into English? “Decrease in load due to prop”??

If you’re asking how to reduce weight in a CS prop, buy a composite prop, MT Ultra is a great prop, or Hartzell Trailblazer.

But constant speed props will beat fixed pitch hands down in performance.

There are lots of ways to increase useful load. At 1500 pounds, that plane is a real porker, and the prop is the least of that.

MTV

Pretty sure that was english last time I checked just trying to figure out how explain it since I'm not super knowledgeable in this arena. The plane we are trying to buy is a 1953 C170B with the Lycoming 180HP upgrade and a Hartzel Constant Speed prop. Other than that pretty stock and has a ski tube installed. The useful load is 699lbs but wondering how it dropped so much from other 170B's that seem to have a useful load around 800lbs if that makes sense? Any input would be helpful on achieving a better useful load.

Gorepedo wrote:Pretty sure that was english last time I checked just trying to figure out how explain it since I'm not super knowledgeable in this arena. The plane we are trying to buy is a 1953 C170B with the Lycoming 180HP upgrade and a Hartzel Constant Speed prop. Other than that pretty stock and has a ski tube installed. The useful load is 699lbs but wondering how it dropped so much from other 170B's that seem to have a useful load around 800lbs if that makes sense? Any input would be helpful on achieving a better useful load.

As I noted there are lots of ways to increase useful load. Bring money, though.

As I said, composite prop will save 20 plus pounds, there are lots of engine accessories that can reduce weight.....lightweight starters, alternators, batteries, etc. Get rid of that big back seat, and install one folding seat.....these are best as two or three seat planes and gear. Strip the old, Luxor’s interior out, etc.

But all this is going to cost money, so factor that in.

MTV

Gorepedo wrote:Hey y'all trying to figure out some numbers on a 170b w/ Lycoming 360 upgrade and a CS prop. We are first time plane buyers and seeing the useful load is about 699lbs. Anyone else get the decrease in load due to the prop and any ideas on increasing it?

I fly a 180Hp 170B, as did MTV. You say this one is mostly stock in the airframe, but could it have some mods that aren't very conspicuous, e.g. early 180 gear, P-ponk beef-up kit, double-puck brakes, solid aluminum or hollow steel axles, long-range wing tanks or later-model adjustable seats? All come at a weight penalty. What tires is it on? Some 8.00 McCrearys or some 8.50 Aeroclassic smoothies might be a lighter, viable option depending on where you plan to operate. If you gut the interior and re-upholster the front seats you should be able to realize about 25-30 lbs savings. That rear bench seat weighs in at 23 lbs. The factory cabin speaker above the headliner could double as a boat anchor. As MTV says, you can save 15-20 lbs or more on the nose by changing from the Hartzell metal prop to a composite MT or composite Hartzell, and more by going to lightweight starter and alternator, etc. Changing out an old Gil or Concord battery for an Odyssey should get you about a dozen pounds. These also have the advantage on a 180Hp conversion of getting the empty CG aft of the extreme forward envelope. You can install a G5 and a CGR 30P in the panel and get rid of an armful of heavy legacy instruments. Lastly, stripping a paint job could gain you up to 20 lbs. Having done many of these things myself, I bulked the plane right back up with a Sportsman, BAS handles and seatbelts, V-brace, 29" Bushwheels and a Baby Bushwheel, extended baggage, ADSB in/out, fire extinguisher, emergency equipment, etc. So it's still about a 750 lb useful load plane, but better equipped now for my needs.
Good luck in your search,
-Denalipilot