hotrod180 wrote:

kygreen229 wrote: Two panel pieces installed. with my T style yoke cut down approx 4" this has allowed the 6 pack. ....

Yes, but he does have a t column. Not sure if it's the same p/n and/or dimensions as the early 180 uses, but....

It has a compass also, but that doesn't mean its a boat. Just sayin...

Yes, but I'm guessing that it's probably a lot more like a 180 than a boat.
Here's a pic of my panel, the DG mounted right over the yoke stem isn't the greatest. The bolt on the stem's universal joint just almost touches the forward end of the DG. If the panel had been laid out with the instruments offset from the stems, this wouldn't be a (potential) problem. Yes, the control column can be shortened to solve the problem, but along with the iffy-ness (is that a word?) of modifying a factory part like that, you're also effecting the forces required to move the elevator. The 170 flies nice and light, I wouldn't want to heavy up the elevator forces and get them out of harmony with the aileron forces.
FWIW substituting a shorter instrument like the T&B for the DG would also solve the clearance issue.
I'm planning / hoping to pull the DG & horizon and install an electronic EFIS device in the not-so-distant future.

hotrod180 wrote:Yes, the control column can be shortened to solve the problem,

Really??? I'd love to be in the room when the PMI gives approval for that.

I too would be interested as to who approved modification of a control column. That's a biggie. Not saying it hasn't been done or can't be done, but.....an approval of some sort is certainly required.

MTV

I've seen the T converted to a Y as in later Cessnas, but never heard of them being cut down. Seems like the leverage ratio would suffer.

229

Seems I read that you contacted AVION but his "kit" cost was too high.

Did you ask what all comes in the kit and if you could buy enough pieces to get the STC.??
Biggest item for him to get approval on was a replacement column that "Tees" off to both sides and up again low enough to clear the panel and keep the chain drive stuff at the original location.

I believe MTV made some mention of the cost to get parts FAA approved.
My apologies to MTV if I am in error here. Wouldn't be the first time.

Wannabe of some help

You guys are all thinking the same thing basically which is correct. Shortening the T column is a "biggie." After my research and such contacting Del-Air and Avion I knew basically what I needed to do before hand and had the ability to do it. I am BRAND new at this just to make that clear. I have worked around airplanes now for a little over a year and had the opportunity to rebuild and put together this 170. In the mean time I decided to do the panel which has consumed basically all my time in this rebuild.

I have learned a lot so far but a lot of experience and questions about how to get things done are unanswered. We have submitted paperwork for shortening this T column and such. Local FSDO was on board but needed to go up to Seattle engineering they said. Waiting to hear back. I kind of had to make it all happen to see if it was going to work out how I envisioned and so far it is for the most part.

From an earlier post, the T column in an early 180 and associated panel is different. The panel must be taller as it accommodates a standard 6 pack without modifying the T yoke. We have a 63 180 that I have looked at quite a bit with this very style panel and yoke. (its for sale as a project by the way) anyhow...

The control throw I have questioned also with shortening this, BUT I have seen other 170's modified but with a U style yoke. Still means the yoke and control throw is shorter overall regardless of T or U style. I would have preferred a modified style panel with U yoke and have STC paperwork so I can move on without a hitch.


JUST WANT TO BE VERY, VERY CLEAR, THIS AIRPLANE IS NOT TAKING TO THE SKIES WITHOUT A FIELD APPROVAL ON THIS OR GOING WITH AN STC'D KIT OR GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PANEL.

Just call Chris at Del-Air and be done with it. One quick signature on that 337 and it will be a done deal. Whatever you do, the effort will be priceless. Nothing better than that first test flight after major surgery.

bigrenna wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:Yes, the control column can be shortened to solve the problem,

Really??? I'd love to be in the room when the PMI gives approval for that.

Not my idea, ky mentioned this like it was a done deal a few posts back.

kygreen229 wrote:... with my T style yoke cut down approx 4" this has allowed the 6 pack.. ...

I think it'd be an uphill battle getting this approved.

BTW I don't think the Seattle FSDO has an engineering dept any more than the Boise FSDO does, I think anything like this would have to go back to Oklahoma City for approval.

hotrod180 wrote:BTW I don't think the Seattle FSDO has an engineering dept any more than the Boise FSDO does, I think anything like this would have to go back to Oklahoma City for approval.

He's not talking about the Seattle FSDO. There is a Regional Office in Seattle, which has an Engineering Office. When things get over the heads of the FSDO Inspectors, they refer stuff to their Regional Engineering Office as a first step. The Regional Engineering Offices answer direct to their bosses in Washington, not OKC, as I understand the structure, but this kind of stuff is almost always handled at the Region.

MTV

I don't know as much as some here, but shortening the T column by 4" seems like a very bad idea. And as Zane said, I'm sure the leverage ratio would suffer and make the elevator have a heavier feeling. I don't even see how it could work properly going through the stock hole in the sub panel where the yoke passes through. The angle just wouldn't be right unless that hole was lowered as well, which would put the yoke into your lap. I would try to get a U shaped yoke if you really want a center stack, like many others have already done. Are you going to be flying this plane IFR? Thats the only real reason to have a six pack and center stack in a 170 I would think. If it's just going to be a VFR only plane then that's just a bunch of unnecessary weight in my opinion. That's why I left all of that stuff out when I redid the panel on my 170.

I have a few extra 170 parts around in the business that I am in. We buy and sell salvage aircraft. I was able to cut down a T yoke I had to try out what I was planning to do because I have two more at my disposal currently if I had to go back to the original setup. Besides all my time that has went in, it can go back to original if not approved. This was in the plan.

It is a VFR airplane that I want to fly mainly in the backcountry here in Idaho. I dont need the center stack for a bunch of big fancy radios, was mainly just trying to clean up the mess of a panel that was cut up over the years and go more modern while doing it with the 6 pack style. The T yoke was going to be used to simply keep it somewhat standard and hope for an easier approval that way by using the part that was already part of the airplane originally. The center panel was just to mount a radio and transponder up high and an Ipad mount down low that didnt require much clearance, therefore a U style was not necessarily needed.

A lot of other 170 panels that have a U yoke have for the most part been cut down using the bottom part of the original to keep the same pivot point. This allows the center stack radios and a 6 pack layout. Avion and Del-air both do a bit different but there are some out there that are shorter than standard 170 height allowing the 6 pack design. I met someone through the 170 forum that did a similar design with a 6 pack layout similar to mine but with a U yoke and got a field approval. Wasn't recently done and may have been easier when he did it, I'm not sure.

I appreciate all the feedback and advice so far. From here forward I am going to mostly focus this thread on the rest of the build as it happens to keep it moving forward. I will deal with the panel fiasco as I go.

My 1948 170 and 1964 C150TD didn't have 6-pack panel arrangements, my 53 180 does and I do have to say that I like it. There's a reason why it's desirable, it's a logical layout that makes for an easy scan. But it's easy to get used to something different to where your scan becomes second nature. I took a look at the panel of a 1966 PA18 yesterday that belongs to a guy on my airport. The instruments were scattered willy-nilly all over the panel, the DG wasn't anywhere near the horizon, etc etc. The layout looked to me to be illogical and hard to scan efficiently, but apparently the owner (a high-time Cub driver, and airline pilot) doesn't find it to be a problem, or else he'd change it.

One advantage to a 6-pack is if it matches other airplanes you fly. Same scan going on no matter which one you're in would be a big plus.

Good on you for figuring stuff out for yourself! I always like it when people figure out a new way of doing things.

But if you get tired of reinventing the wheel, I can tell you that a non-standard panel layout works just fine, even for IFR. You get used to where the instruments are and adjust your scan accordingly.

A 6-pack and center radios are a good set up for instrument flying but don't do a thing for VFR pilots. Multiple radios are a waste of money and weight in a backcountry bird. Ya they make controlled airspace easier, but you can get by with one radio easily enough, even IFR or class B.

If someone offered me a center-stack panel in my 170 I wouldn't take it. The non-standard panel is part of the 170's charm...part of what makes it different from the tens of thousands of other Cessna's out there.

To each their own of course, but it sure looks like a lot of squeezing for a little juice.

Keep us posted!

Hammer wrote:....but it sure looks like a lot of squeezing for a little juice....

That's a good way to put it!

kygreen229 wrote:I have a few extra 170 parts around in the business that I am in. We buy and sell salvage aircraft. I was able to cut down a T yoke I had to try out what I was planning to do because I have two more at my disposal currently if I had to go back to the original setup. Besides all my time that has went in, it can go back to original if not approved. This was in the plan.

It is a VFR airplane that I want to fly mainly in the backcountry here in Idaho. I dont need the center stack for a bunch of big fancy radios, was mainly just trying to clean up the mess of a panel that was cut up over the years and go more modern while doing it with the 6 pack style. The T yoke was going to be used to simply keep it somewhat standard and hope for an easier approval that way by using the part that was already part of the airplane originally. The center panel was just to mount a radio and transponder up high and an Ipad mount down low that didnt require much clearance, therefore a U style was not necessarily needed.

A lot of other 170 panels that have a U yoke have for the most part been cut down using the bottom part of the original to keep the same pivot point. This allows the center stack radios and a 6 pack layout. Avion and Del-air both do a bit different but there are some out there that are shorter than standard 170 height allowing the 6 pack design. I met someone through the 170 forum that did a similar design with a 6 pack layout similar to mine but with a U yoke and got a field approval. Wasn't recently done and may have been easier when he did it, I'm not sure.

I appreciate all the feedback and advice so far. From here forward I am going to mostly focus this thread on the rest of the build as it happens to keep it moving forward. I will deal with the panel fiasco as I go.

Hey, you are obviously approaching this very professionally, and taking the route that you choose. Good for you! If you want a six pack, and you're willing to figure out how to get it done, more power to you. As to changing the "feel" of the airplane, a friend of mine who was also a 170 owner once commented to me that the control feel of the 170 was "Toy like", which I always thought was actually a pretty good description. Never bothered me, but a little heavier elevator force wouldn't have bothered me at all. In fact, I've flown planes that were really heavy on the controls and ones, like the 170, that are really light on the controls, and within a very short time I got used to each to the point where I simply didn't notice.

So, build it the way you want it, as long as it's done smart and legal. And it sounds like you're absolutely going down that road. Good on you! And, keep us posted on progress.....what a project!!

MTV

mtv wrote:

kygreen229 wrote:I have a few extra 170 parts around in the business that I am in. We buy and sell salvage aircraft. I was able to cut down a T yoke I had to try out what I was planning to do because I have two more at my disposal currently if I had to go back to the original setup. Besides all my time that has went in, it can go back to original if not approved. This was in the plan.

It is a VFR airplane that I want to fly mainly in the backcountry here in Idaho. I dont need the center stack for a bunch of big fancy radios, was mainly just trying to clean up the mess of a panel that was cut up over the years and go more modern while doing it with the 6 pack style. The T yoke was going to be used to simply keep it somewhat standard and hope for an easier approval that way by using the part that was already part of the airplane originally. The center panel was just to mount a radio and transponder up high and an Ipad mount down low that didnt require much clearance, therefore a U style was not necessarily needed.

A lot of other 170 panels that have a U yoke have for the most part been cut down using the bottom part of the original to keep the same pivot point. This allows the center stack radios and a 6 pack layout. Avion and Del-air both do a bit different but there are some out there that are shorter than standard 170 height allowing the 6 pack design. I met someone through the 170 forum that did a similar design with a 6 pack layout similar to mine but with a U yoke and got a field approval. Wasn't recently done and may have been easier when he did it, I'm not sure.

I appreciate all the feedback and advice so far. From here forward I am going to mostly focus this thread on the rest of the build as it happens to keep it moving forward. I will deal with the panel fiasco as I go.

Hey, you are obviously approaching this very professionally, and taking the route that you choose. Good for you! If you want a six pack, and you're willing to figure out how to get it done, more power to you. As to changing the "feel" of the airplane, a friend of mine who was also a 170 owner once commented to me that the control feel of the 170 was "Toy like", which I always thought was actually a pretty good description. Never bothered me, but a little heavier elevator force wouldn't have bothered me at all. In fact, I've flown planes that were really heavy on the controls and ones, like the 170, that are really light on the controls, and within a very short time I got used to each to the point where I simply didn't notice.

So, build it the way you want it, as long as it's done smart and legal. And it sounds like you're absolutely going down that road. Good on you! And, keep us posted on progress.....what a project!!

MTV

MTV,

Appreciate that! I will keep em coming as I can. Another thing I am facing in the near future it paint...I really want to avoid polishing it for the reasons of the upkeep. Thinking white, with some simple decals to keep it cheaper. I really like a white base with black maybe too.

Also, wanting to find a 172A (1959) style nose bowl. If anyone has one or know where to find one in someones barn deep down under some stuff they dont need please let me know!

lady legs back on after getting checked out

I have to say that the light control feel of the 170 is one of its virtues. It'll be interesting to hear the pirep after you fly it for the first time. Do you have access to another 170B for comparison?

As for paint, there was a picture of a Murphy Rebel that I found a few years back, where the finish looked almost like anodization. I've always wondered if there was a process similar to Alodine that would provide good corrosion and finish protection without the weight of paint.

Paint = lbs Polish = pleasure
DENNY