VFRsim wrote:...There's another U.S.STC that I have in mind, besides the Wing-X. Something that I hear, through the grapevine, might be pretty close to getting approved. - Joseph

"What if" -ing isn't much use. It either is legal, or not.
What's the other STC for, and does it increase gross weight?
Or is it one of those "I can tell you, but then Ill have to kill you" things?

Hammer wrote:

I disagree. Frankly, wing structure is not always what limits gross weight.....more often, landing gear, climb performance, and even engine cooling in the climb are the limiting factors.

In my opinion, those performance criteria are certainly not arbitrary. In fact, due to the significant over-engineering most planes have, it's performance that's most of concern to the pilot, or it should be.

Wing X , by increasing wing area, significantly increases takeoff performance, climb performance, and permits the plane to fly at a lower AOA in level flight, all because of that additional wing area.....more lift works. And that additional performance really helps when you're heavy.

And, in fact, in some cases, yes, you can take off heavier in the same distance with more wing area.

MTV

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.

I'm just curious why the WingX gets a gross weight upgrade, and if there is a safety of flight issue not related to the performance of the additional lift created by the extra wing.

If it's just as structurally safe for me to fly my 170 200 lbs over gross, as a private operator, I'd not be inclined to spend the money for a gross weight increase unless there was a serious performance improvement that came along with it. And maybe there is...I've never looked into it and have no idea.

Obviously from a performance stand point the 180hp upgrade is an improvement. I don't have any hard numbers, but I'd GUESS that a 180hp, CS prop 170 can fly the same profile as a stock 170 while carrying 200 additional pounds, so that makes me wonder what it is about the WingX that provides the GW increase, and if any or all or part of it is structural.

You suggested that more wing area won't provide better performance.

I disagree, in fact it will, and that's been proven in several aircraft types.

The Wing X gets a G/W increase because more lift provides more performance. Flint tanks on a 206 and 185 (different mods, but...) extend thei wing span, Wing X on the 185 gets a G/W increase, etc. these are all because more wing area provides more lift, which provides better performance. Assuming there is no other limiting factor, such as landing gear or structures, more wing often offers better performance and a bump in G/W.

Unfortunately, the Wing X is not approved on the 170 in the U.S. With a gross weight increase. Not sure why and the company wouldn't tell me the issue, but I doubt they are trying very hard to get it done. They've done STCs in the U.S. on other planes, so they know how it's done.

MTV

mtv wrote:Unfortunately, the Wing X is not approved on the 170 in the U.S. With a gross weight increase. Not sure why and the company wouldn't tell me the issue, but I doubt they are trying very hard to get it done. They've done STCs in the U.S. on other planes, so they know how it's done.

MTV

It might be a lack of market demand vs cost for approval. How many wing extensions would they sell to in the 170 community vs in the 180 community? I'd guess there are a lot more 180 folk willing to pay for something like that.

A gross weight increase would be nice tho.

With the flatter AOA, do they claim a higher airspeed in cruise?

Probably great for a floatplane, but the WingX might create hangaring issues with the wider wingspan. My 180 would fit in my hangar with 3 feet more wingspan, I think, but it would be a tight squeak and really increase the possibility of hangar-rashing the tips.

hotrod180 wrote:Probably great for a floatplane, but the WingX might create hangaring issues with the wider wingspan. My 180 would fit in my hangar with 3 feet more wingspan, I think, but it would be a tight squeak and really increase the possibility of hangar-rashing the tips.

Definitely something to consider prior to pulling the trigger on wing extensions. I flew a 206 for a while with Flint tanks, which extend the wings, and parked it in a very tight T-Hangar......putting it in and taking it out of the hangar was a nerve wracking three man operation.....

But, the wing extensions work great, especially on floats, but also do wonders on wheels.

MTV

https://anchorage.craigslist.org/fod/5195688370.html
All ready to go.

Bagarre wrote:

mtv wrote:Unfortunately, the Wing X is not approved on the 170 in the U.S. With a gross weight increase. Not sure why and the company wouldn't tell me the issue, but I doubt they are trying very hard to get it done. They've done STCs in the U.S. on other planes, so they know how it's done.

MTV

It might be a lack of market demand vs cost for approval. How many wing extensions would they sell to in the 170 community vs in the 180 community? I'd guess there are a lot more 180 folk willing to pay for something like that.

A gross weight increase would be nice tho.

With the flatter AOA, do they claim a higher airspeed in cruise?

I believe the extra speed would come from your aspect ratio changing slightly.
GW increase would be nice. Even if it wasn't used often, it's just nice when you need it.

PAMR MX wrote:https://anchorage.craigslist.org/fod/5195688370.html
All ready to go.

A 4 place with only one pound more useful load than my 2 place Avid... Good looking bird though.

PAMR MX wrote:https://anchorage.craigslist.org/fod/5195688370.html
All ready to go.

Empty Weight 1573 .. uhhggg

If You ever did fill the Javelin aux. tank, and the wings.. And sit in the pilots seat, you'd be maxed out...

- Joseph

VFRsim wrote:

PAMR MX wrote:https://anchorage.craigslist.org/fod/5195688370.html
All ready to go.

Empty Weight 1573 .. uhhggg

If You ever did fill the Javelin aux. tank, and the wings.. And sit in the pilots seat, you'd be maxed out...

- Joseph

Well, I'd have to see that airplane to understand where all that weight is coming from. I'd bet you could remove a lot of it, though it'd cost you some $$$. Engine accessories are a good place to start.

I have never liked the Javelin tanks.....Too much weight too far aft, and fuel in the cockpit has never been my favorite. Those things just instantly move your C/G waaaay aft when full.

For that price, though, and a relatively low time engine, you'd still be far better off buying this thing and "making it yours" than to try to convert the one you own.

I'd still hold out for a B, though.

MTV

VFRsim wrote:

PAMR MX wrote:https://anchorage.craigslist.org/fod/5195688370.html
All ready to go.

Empty Weight 1573
.. uhhggg If You ever did fill the Javelin aux. tank, and the wings.. And sit in the pilots seat, you'd be maxed out... - Joseph

That is way heavy. Mid-14's wouldn't surprise me though. I wonder if that 1573 is with the wheel ski's installed? Maybe also with the Gar 850x10's? Or might be a typo, or mistake on the W&B sheet. When I bought it, the W&B sheet for my rag 170 said 1450, but it turned out to actually be around 1320-- they musta weighed it with some fuel and forgot to deduct.

There's a couple other things I question on the craigslist ad:
"Scott 3450 tailwheel". Not-- photo in ad shows the standard C170 leaf tail spring, 3450 t/w mounts on a tubular spring.
"Cessna steering extension"-- ??

Price does look pretty good though, for a 180hp B model with low engine & prop times.

That's a '52 not a '54

But it's a good price none the less even at that weight (unless all the weight is Bondo hiding hail damage)

Bagarre wrote: That's a '52 not a '54 ...

Yup, good catch.
By the tail number, the s/n should be 25302.
Looks like they added an extra "1" to the end.
The weight being a typo is looking more likely.

hotrod180 wrote:

VFRsim wrote:...There's another U.S.STC that I have in mind, besides the Wing-X. Something that I hear, through the grapevine, might be pretty close to getting approved. - Joseph

"What if" -ing isn't much use. It either is legal, or not.
What's the other STC for, and does it increase gross weight?
Or is it one of those "I can tell you, but then Ill have to kill you" things?

Seconded. Inquiring minds want to know.

I know I've joined this discussion late, but what are the differences between a 170B wing and an early model 180 wing? If there are none, I'd be inclined to believe that the 170 MGW is because of the airplane's ability to perform on the stock engine (and the other factors that MTV mentioned...I had not considered landing gear design, however).

Great thread! Very informative.

I appreciate all the input and advise!
I ordered the engine kit today - O360 A1A - going to build one up from scratch with much help from my mechanic - using all new internals, overhauled case.
Thinking about an MT 3 blade prop - I hear they are the best....

fishdoc wrote:I appreciate all the input and advise!
I ordered the engine kit today - O360 A1A - going to build one up from scratch with much help from my mechanic - using all new internals, overhauled case.
Thinking about an MT 3 blade prop - I hear they are the best....

Good for you. Everyone likes a converted 170, but no one wants to convert a 170 it seems. On the MT, John Nielsen at flight resource has great things to say about his 3-blade MT'd 170B. I was converting my 170B at the same time that he was developing the 3-blade STC using his own converted 170B. He quite generously offered to sell me a 2-blade to get flying, and then take it back at full value toward a 3-blade once that STC was finalized. I thought hard about it, but in the end I kept the 2-blade MT. I am very happy with it. As for the 3-blade being "the best", I'd say it depends. Best for weight on the nose? Best in cruise or best in climb? Best in cost? Best ground clearance? I had the option, and I'm sticking with my 2-blade, but another reasonable person looking at the same situation could easily conclude the 3-blade is the way to go. Either way, I believe you won't go wrong with MT, or with Flight Resource. Give John a call if you haven't done so.
Enjoy the new bird,
-DP

denalipilot wrote:

fishdoc wrote:I appreciate all the input and advise!
I ordered the engine kit today - O360 A1A - going to build one up from scratch with much help from my mechanic - using all new internals, overhauled case.
Thinking about an MT 3 blade prop - I hear they are the best....

Good for you. Everyone likes a converted 170, but no one wants to convert a 170 it seems. On the MT, John Nielsen at flight resource has great things to say about his 3-blade MT'd 170B. I was converting my 170B at the same time that he was developing the 3-blade STC using his own converted 170B. He quite generously offered to sell me a 2-blade to get flying, and then take it back at full value toward a 3-blade once that STC was finalized. I thought hard about it, but in the end I kept the 2-blade MT. I am very happy with it. As for the 3-blade being "the best", I'd say it depends. Best for weight on the nose? Best in cruise or best in climb? Best in cost? Best ground clearance? I had the option, and I'm sticking with my 2-blade, but another reasonable person looking at the same situation could easily conclude the 3-blade is the way to go. Either way, I believe you won't go wrong with MT, or with Flight Resource. Give John a call if you haven't done so.
Enjoy the new bird,
-DP

Thanks - I'm stoked to do this upgrade in power and reliability. My O300 is getting tired...
I have been in contact with John and he recommended the 3 blade for best take off and climb. Ground clearance isn't much of an issue with the 31's and 180 gear legs but more is always better. I'd probably be quite happy with their 2 blade prop as well - I think the performance between the 2 models is fairly close.

I was quoted a price of close to $13K on a 2 blade for my C180. What's the price for a 3-blade?

I think there's a another less-spoken-of difference between 2 and 3 blade props that can make a subtle, more qualitative difference: the sound. My impression is that 3 blades have a slightly higher audio pitch at rpm, where the 2 blade is lower. While the 3 blade is probably smoother, the 2 blade is more soothing. Tell me if I'm nuts. This probably has more to do with blade length and linear velocity of the tips, and all these years I've thought it was number of blades.

Edit: this is purely from a cockpit standpoint, not a noise abatement issue.

A guy at my airport has a 3-blade MT on his amphib Husky, and it makes a very distinctive sound when climbing out-- sounds like the prop blades are beating the air to death. Never heard another airplane sound like that before. I prefer the howl of a 3-bladed Ponked C180, however it is a lot less punishing to the neighbors.