Ok. Can anyone personally compare the difference in climb rate between a 180 horse C-170 with constant speed prop compared to a 1956-1959 C-182 (stock).

So lets pretend the load is 2-220 lb guys and 50 lbs of baggage with half fuel. I would probably have the back seat pulled from whichever bird it would be.

I like the lower fuel burn & tail dragger concept but look at old 182s & think they are a better deal
Then I say. Screw it I will just buy a 195 & be the definition of cool!

byeBill

195's are great!! But you don't want to fly them into any of the rough stuff that a 170 or a 182 will go into!! They will go there, just not to many times, then you have to pull the wings to rebuild the door post!
Gear is OK, but the fuselage is the week link!
There is only 1 door in the back also!
Round trail on the 170 is great!!
Bet the 182 will do it just as fast or slow!! with the same fuel burn!
Just a guess.
GT

You can calculate performance comparisons pretty easy (guesstimating aircraft weights).
Empty weight + fuel + payload= loaded weight / horsepower = power loading
170: 1400# + (20 gal) 120# + 490 = 2010 / 180hp = 11.16 lbs per horsepower
182: 1650# + (30 gal) 180# + 490 = 2320 / 230hp = 10.08
loaded weight /wing area = wing loading
170: 2010# / 175 sq ft = 11.48 lbs per sq ft
182: 2320 / 175 sq ft = 13.25
composite power/wing loading
170: 11.16 + 11.48 = 22.64
182: 10.08 + 13.25 = 23.33
These calc's show that the 182 has the advantage in power loading, the 170 has the advantage in wing loading, and the 170 has the advantage in the combined power/wing loading. Like many theoretical calculations, though, real life performance may or may not agree.

The thing I like about my old 182A is VX. It will climb at a really steep angle. I have vortex generators, so the air sticks pretty good. The rate might not be something to brag about... but the angle lets me clear stuff and get high enough fast to make that dreaded turnaround if the engine packs it in.
A 170 will probably climb flatter....
OK guys... flame on !!

Ok Ok.

The C-195 statement was a joke. I'm sure if they were good for the bush a lot more of them would be wrapped around trees.

While I have never been behind the wheel of a 182, I do know that my 180hp C170 is one hell of a performer when light and empty. Start filling it up with hunting and fishing gear then add 3 dogs and all your wifes crap to keep her happy and they are not such good performers after that.......

cessnaford wrote:Ok Ok.

The C-195 statement was a joke. I'm sure if they were good for the bush a lot more of them would be wrapped around trees.

Sometimes you never know around this place!!
Hell I tried 1, no 2!
GT

roamak

I hear you on keeping the wife happy. You need 5 pairs of shoes to go visit your parents town for two days, right?

She always asks me what I'm going to wear and I slowly point to the pair of pants & shoes I have on & the 1 extra shirt & undies with my hygiene bag.

I then have the gall to ask her how many outfits she is going to wear in a single day.

Oh the better half. Hail carharts.

byeBill

& P.S. C-195 s have always been like Staggerwings for me. Just a great looking classic owned by very old guys.

[quote & P.S. C-195 s have always been like Staggerwings for me. Just a great looking classic owned by very old guys.[/quote]

59 aint old IS IT?
GT

hotrod150 wrote:You can calculate performance comparisons pretty easy (guesstimating aircraft weights).
Empty weight + fuel + payload= loaded weight / horsepower = power loading
170: 1400# + (20 gal) 120# + 490 = 2010 / 180hp = 11.16 lbs per horsepower
182: 1650# + (30 gal) 180# + 490 = 2320 / 230hp = 10.08
loaded weight /wing area = wing loading
170: 2010# / 175 sq ft = 11.48 lbs per sq ft
182: 2320 / 175 sq ft = 13.25
composite power/wing loading
170: 11.16 + 11.48 = 22.64
182: 10.08 + 13.25 = 23.33
These calc's show that the 182 has the advantage in power loading, the 170 has the advantage in wing loading, and the 170 has the advantage in the combined power/wing loading. Like many theoretical calculations, though, real life performance may or may not agree.

Good theorization, Hotrod. I've always thought that was the reason the Franklin 220 in the 170 was the ticket. 200+ horsepower with a lighter airframe would best that power loading.

Keep in mind, this is not a total performance comparison, just climb rate. At higher speeds, the airframe design improvements of the 180/182 series improve cruise efficiency.

M6RV6

59 ain't old if you aren't parking your walker near the front door of the FBO. Old to me is in the guys in their 80s. I have only seen a Staggerwing which never moves.

Besides. 59 means your established with hopefully a little disposable income for $10 a gallon avgas.

byeBill

Can't compare a 180hp 170 to a 182, but I can compare my 180hp CS-equipped 172 to a 182, as I have about 450 hours or more in my airplane, another 800 or so in standard 172s, 700 or so in 182s, and a couple hundred in Mooneys and other airplanes. I've been told that the in-flight handling of a 172 is similar to a 170's, so this might be helpful.

As a load carrier, a 182 beats my airplane totally. Any 182 will handle 4 adults and reasonable baggage, and the older ones with smaller tanks can be filled to the brim. Newer ones might have to carry less than full tanks, because their empty weight is higher and their tank capacity is about 25 gallons greater. My airplane can handle 3 adults and full (52 gallons) tanks, and a little baggage.

Loaded the same, any 182 will outclimb my airplane at all altitudes, whether at Vx or Vy--roughly 2:3 (for instance, if mine is climbing at 400 fpm, the 182 is at 600 fpm). Especially at higher elevation airports, the climb rate of any 182 is noticeably better than my airplane's. Additionally, any 182 can carry a larger load to a higher altitude. With only 2 aboard and 3/4 tanks, I've had my airplane to 14,500' on a summer day; I've had a fully loaded 182 to 16,500' on a summer day.

My airplane burns 9.8 gph, or a little less, at cruise (21", 2400 rpm) at 8000', 115 knots. A 182 running the same MP/rpm at 8000' will be slightly over 130 knots, burning about 13.5+ gph. For flight plan purposes, those figures work out remarkably close. If you slow down the 182 to 115 knots, its fuel burn will be slightly over 10.5 gph. Of course, I've only known one pilot ever who did that routinely, because most of us take advantage of whatever speed we can get out of our machines.

A 182 is a lot more truck-like to handle than a 172. Older ones have lighter feeling controls than newer ones. I regularly flew a 1958 model for awhile, but most of my experience is in models built in the 1970s--the difference is very noticeable.

Cary

I've got 195 hp in my 170. Continental IO-360.

Flies great, handles like a 170, climbs like a 180, flies faster than most 170/172s. I get 1200-1500/min with me and full fuel at sea level. Great on the shortfield takeoffs, climbs well at altitude. Looks better on the ramp than a 180/185 and a heck of a lot better than a 182.

But the gross weight limit is still 2200, and the kids keep growing. When I bought he 170 I had no kids. When I did the engine change I had 12 pounds of kid. Now 13 years later I have 210 pounds of kids (2 kids) and they aren't done growing and they aren't close to moving out.

Mission creep. More often lately I wish I had a 180/185/182. Or a 1/4 share in one.

Pete