Got a field approval and the battery was moved one station backwards, (great idea MTV or whoever gave it to me here) installed Selkrik extended baggage compartment, Atlee Dodge seats, and an AV30, (want a second one) a T3, new baby bushwheel tyre.

Did the weight and balance, my plane is heavy for a 170B, 1,5111 lbs has 182 articulating seats, (very heavy, but comfortable) extended fuel tanks (DelAir) 180Lyc, and constant speed, 31inch Alaskan heavy duty tires, it was nose heavy, so I was flying with 70 pounds of ballast in the cargo area. CG was at 38.5 even with the ballast, now is at 41.9, in the sweet spot and removed 70 pounds of ballast.
Definitely can tell the difference, I am floating a bit on landings, and when I add that bit of power to arrest sink before touch down, it does not touch down, but flies again, so I am re learning the plane a bit. need to add less power and slow it down a bit.

Slow flight level flight, ASI way below 40, GS 39mph, did a 180 flew the opposite track groundspeed 42mph.
It is heavy but performs great.

How much weight does the vacuum system adds to the plane? A second AV 30 and I can get rid of it.

Beautiful plane. You’ll probably lose 5-7 lbs switching from a vacuum DG to AV30. That’s 2-3 lbs for instrument, 3 for pump, another pound for filters, gauges, lines etc.

It's amazing how heavy these early birds get. My 180 has been on a weight loss plan for the last 3 years. I have shed about 150 lbs by going with glass instruments, removing the old battery, ripping out the headliner, redoing my heavy 1970s interior seats, removing the door panels, and as you know my airplane is about to get a set of Titanium gear legs. Getting rid of the Vacuum will save you some more weight. You could also consider a lightweight Alternator. The sort of cool thing - I have lost about 20 lbs going from 200 down to my fighting weight of 180 lbs during the same time period.



Josh

Dog is my Copilot wrote:It's amazing how heavy these early birds get. My 180 has been on a weight loss plan for the last 3 years. I have shed about 150 lbs by going with glass instruments, removing the old battery, ripping out the headliner, redoing my heavy 1970s interior seats, removing the door panels, and as you know my airplane is about to get a set of Titanium gear legs. Getting rid of the Vacuum will save you some more weight. You could also consider a lightweight Alternator. The sort of cool thing - I have lost about 20 lbs going from 200 down to my fighting weight of 180 lbs during the same time period.



Josh

Mine already has the lightweight alternator, lightweight starter and MT two blade, been thinking about the interior, its a challenge to do it nicely, and I know I do not have the skill.
How much weight can we loose by redoing the interior.
Your plane is fast, Tom was cruising at 165mph yesterday.

Indeed a pretty plane. Love the paint job...

that said, over 1500 lbs is indeed on the heavy side, but it is really hard to get them light when you start adding all the mods. Sportsman, 15 lbs, LR tanks 10, 31 heavy tread 80, late model articulating seats 18, and on and on...

For comparison, the 170B project I have (project stalled) was 1411 at the pre-project baseline weight. This was with the plush stock interior, legacy panel/gauges, wheel pants, back seat etc... When I started the gut, I had pulled 120lbs out in garbage bags, and expect it will be just under 1400 when finished, and thats with the sportsman, T3, 180HP, MT, wizbang panel etc... But I wont know till its on the scales. My motto has always been as light as possible, as heavy as necessary.

Curious as to why you went with the stock battery? The stock battery along with all that heavy cable is super heavy. At the very least I'd try the Odyssey in that box. It really is a great solution and a huge weight savings over the stock. We also hang them on the firewall to save all that cable weight, but if your super worried about CG...

RE: the vac system... folks seem to think this is a huge savings, but I've taken a bunch out now and its something, but not 7 lbs. More like 4-5 NET when considering adding stuff back in.

RE: Interior removal: Headliner is usually about 11lbs, carpet set 10, side panels are between 5-6 lbs each. I usually figure about a 45-50 lbs savings (give or take) with a gutted utility interior.

I know you probably don't want to think about it, but I'd try the bird on the Dessers and ditch the heavy tread 31s as you'll prob save 65 lbs right there. If you keep that bird super light, the 8.5x6 dessers (at 22" tall) will do pretty much everything you are doing. Moreover, no one is really considering what all that weight is doing wiggling all about way down the gear leg. The 170 gearbox is not as robust as a 180 box and that jumpy energy has to get diffused somewhere... The difference between 20 lbs down there vs/ 45 is considerable.

RE: the extended baggage, FWIW, and for those thinking about this mod, consider the the Airglas over the Selkirk. The Airglas is a MUCH better choice. The Selkirk is so flimsy, one misplaced knee and it will crack... the Airglas is also much lighter.

Anyway, thanks for sharing... Sure is purdy!

I removed the vaccum pump, DG, horizon, & associated stuff from my C180.
Lost 12 pounds & moved the CG aft about 0.2".
Installing a single G5 added about a pound back.

Bigrenna wrote:Indeed a pretty plane. Love the paint job...

that said, over 1500 lbs is indeed on the heavy side, but it is really hard to get them light when you start adding all the mods. Sportsman, 15 lbs, LR tanks 10, 31 heavy tread 80, late model articulating seats 18, and on and on...

For comparison, the 170B project I have (project stalled) was 1411 at the pre-project baseline weight. This was with the plush stock interior, legacy panel/gauges, wheel pants, back seat etc... When I started the gut, I had pulled 120lbs out in garbage bags, and expect it will be just under 1400 when finished, and thats with the sportsman, T3, 180HP, MT, wizbang panel etc... But I wont know till its on the scales. My motto has always been as light as possible, as heavy as necessary.

Curious as to why you went with the stock battery? The stock battery along with all that heavy cable is super heavy. At the very least I'd try the Odyssey in that box. It really is a great solution and a huge weight savings over the stock. We also hang them on the firewall to save all that cable weight, but if your super worried about CG...

RE: the vac system... folks seem to think this is a huge savings, but I've taken a bunch out now and its something, but not 7 lbs. More like 4-5 NET when considering adding stuff back in.

RE: Interior removal: Headliner is usually about 11lbs, carpet set 10, side panels are between 5-6 lbs each. I usually figure about a 45-50 lbs savings (give or take) with a gutted utility interior.

I know you probably don't want to think about it, but I'd try the bird on the Dessers and ditch the heavy tread 31s as you'll prob save 65 lbs right there. If you keep that bird super light, the 8.5x6 dessers (at 22" tall) will do pretty much everything you are doing. Moreover, no one is really considering what all that weight is doing wiggling all about way down the gear leg. The 170 gearbox is not as robust as a 180 box and that jumpy energy has to get diffused somewhere... The difference between 20 lbs down there vs/ 45 is considerable.

RE: the extended baggage, FWIW, and for those thinking about this mod, consider the the Airglas over the Selkirk. The Airglas is a MUCH better choice. The Selkirk is so flimsy, one misplaced knee and it will crack... the Airglas is also much lighter.

Anyway, thanks for sharing... Sure is purdy!

I really thought about the smaller battery, did all the calculations, but for having the CG where I wanted it, I needed the big battery, a plane with the CG in the sweet spot flies real nice.
Love the 31s , with low tire pressure can land on big rocks.
.
I think next is vacuum system and tempted for a lightweight interior.

Do they sell a foam pre cut kit to do the interior for the 170? That would make things a lot easier.

My plane has the same 182 seats. You're thinking they're an 18 pound increase over the stock seats? I'd be curious to see what the weight difference is between the 182 seats and a set of lightened stock 170 seats, as well as if One were to put the 182 seats on a similar diet.

motoadve wrote:...installed Selkrik extended baggage compartment, Atlee Dodge seats, and an AV30, (want a second one) a T3, new baby bushwheel tyre.

Is the T3 approval on again? Thanks.

Stefenopolis wrote:My plane has the same 182 seats. You're thinking they're an 18 pound increase over the stock seats? I'd be curious to see what the weight difference is between the 182 seats and a set of lightened stock 170 seats, as well as if One were to put the 182 seats on a similar diet.

I don’t have any numbers, but the articulating Cessna seats are heavy, and much of that is hardware.

Comfortable, though.

MTV

Stefenopolis wrote:My plane has the same 182 seats. You're thinking they're an 18 pound increase over the stock seats? I'd be curious to see what the weight difference is between the 182 seats and a set of lightened stock 170 seats, as well as if One were to put the 182 seats on a similar diet.

On a 172 articulating seats add 8 lbs each over the standard seats.

When I redid my old 180 seats - not articulating - I was able to shed 15 lbs. Prior to redoing them they weighed 20 lbs each. The new seats weigh in at 12.4 lbs. I also got my back bench down from 32 lbs to 18 lbs. I have light weight cushions in the back seat that account for the weight loss. I think the articulating seats are over-rated. This is also coming from someone with a bad back. I find my old 180 seats to be quite comfy and worth the weight savings.



Josh

I did the same with my back seat. I'm looking at swapping out my heavier 182 seats for some roundbacks. Beyond the weight savings, I like the aesthetics of them, too.

Beautiful 170B. Removal of the vacuum system isn't going to net a huge weight savings, unfortunately.

motoadve wrote:Got a field approval and the battery was moved one station backwards, (great idea MTV or whoever gave it to me here) installed Selkrik extended baggage compartment, Atlee Dodge seats, and an AV30, (want a second one) a T3, new baby bushwheel tyre.

Did the weight and balance, my plane is heavy for a 170B, 1,5111 lbs has 182 articulating seats, (very heavy, but comfortable) extended fuel tanks (DelAir) 180Lyc, and constant speed, 31inch Alaskan heavy duty tires, it was nose heavy, so I was flying with 70 pounds of ballast in the cargo area. CG was at 38.5 even with the ballast, now is at 41.9, in the sweet spot and removed 70 pounds of ballast.
Definitely can tell the difference, I am floating a bit on landings, and when I add that bit of power to arrest sink before touch down, it does not touch down, but flies again, so I am re learning the plane a bit. need to add less power and slow it down a bit.

Slow flight level flight, ASI way below 40, GS 39mph, did a 180 flew the opposite track groundspeed 42mph.
It is heavy but performs great.

How much weight does the vacuum system adds to the plane? A second AV 30 and I can get rid of it.

Nice, that’s a huge improvement, getting the CG Dialed in. Removing the vacuum system will be nice, even if it only takes a few more pounds off, every bit helps. I’m debating the seats and interior in mine, but it already has a simple set of round back seats as is…

This conversation illustrates our different missions, and how those missions affect the choices we make in modifications.

The OP is obviously most interested in operation at very light, nearly empty cabin, weights. Based on his videos, he spends a lot of time flying solo, landing off airport sites. That’s a very specific mission profile, and thus empty CG plays a big role in achieving nervana. Bushwheels are essential in that environment.

My primary use of the airplane is to fly somewhere with camp gear and land. I no longer do much true off airport stuff. So, Bushwheels are a waste of $$and weight for my mission. Also, I’m almost always carrying a substantial amount of “stuff”. The extended baggage offers the opportunity to keep the CG aft in that situation. Even when I’m just taking a lap around the valley for grins, I’m carrying a fair bit of survival gear in that extended baggage, and frankly, in those ops, CG isn’t all that critical. My Odyssey battery is on the firewall, and I wouldn’t have it any other place.

So, we can offer advice, but as many have said, it’s all about the mission.

Bigrenna is right, the Airglas extended baggage is better than the Selkirk. In my case, the Airglas baggage isn’t approved on 175s.

MTV

I don't know how cg affects your AOA indicator, Larry, but the apparent rate of closure should not change. Concentrating on not allowing the apparent rate to speed up too much at the bottom could help you prevent the float.

It does not affect the AoA, I used to have 70 pounds of weight in the cargo area, moving the battery 3 ft to the rear allowed me to remove all that ballast, so what I have is a lighter airplane with the CG moved beck a bit.

Selkirk may have precut foam for the 170, if not it is easy to do yourself. Just make templates with construction paper/tape and cut the 1/2 inch foam to fit. We did it in our 180 and it worked fine. I used 1/4 foam for the headliner but it stretches and is a pain to work with so I would go with 1/2 for full interior. I agree with the extended baggage. Stick a lightweight battery in the back and put survival gear in the extended baggage you should be about right. As you know floating means too much speed on short final. You do excellent tail wheel low landings, consider a bit harder flair which will put the tailwheel below the mains by about 6-12 inches this will arrest the sink and slow you down. Release yoke a few inches right before you think you are going to land and the tailwheel will cub back above the mains and prevent a tailwheel first landing. Of course all of this sounds great until that wind gust or sinker comes into play DENNY

And that is what the dynamic throttle is for when we are slow enough with full flaps to get the sink that brings the throttle into play all the way to touchdown. So if we are actively controlling glide angle with throttle, our hand is already there to mitigate drop or balloon.