Still trying to find some real world experience of 170's on floats, curious what guys are running for HP and what sorta performance they are getting off the water. pros' and con's of a 170 on floats would be a great start.

I had a 170B, but it wasn't on floats. I would expect the 170 to perform about the same as the 172 I took my float rating on. On a warm, calm day it struggles to get off the water with two people and a good fuel load. With the 180 hp and constant speed prop it would be good performer.

I fly a '52 170B and often fly with a friend that has a '55 170B. Both are equipped with O-300s, Borer props and Gar-Aero 8.50x10s and performance is nearly identical with shorter takeoff roll and better climb than cruise prop setup. Friend's plane also had a factory float kit and he installed EDO-2000s a few years ago. Gross weight for the float equipped 170 goes down from 2200 to 2000 lbs, which is appropriate because it doesn't climb well on floats. Cruise dropped from 100mph to 85-90mph. In some instances he has not been able to take off with partial fuel and 2 passengers. He says it is very sensitive to balance on the water; he cannot get it on step to accelerate with much weight aft.

Unless you have more horsepower than an O-300, the C170 on floats is a pretty marginal performer and functionally becomes a 2-place airplane, IMHO.

Take a look at my avatar. Cessna 170B on PeeKay B 2300 straight floats. This airplane has a Lycoming O-360 engine, so a little more poop than a stock 170.

Stock 170s are limited to the EDO 2000 floats, and those floats work GREAT, except you really need to stay within the restricted gross weight of the airplane. The stock airplane is not a spectacular performer on floats.

The 170 with a 180 horse engine is a good performer. Mine can legally carry standard fuel and three FAA persons (180 lb each) and a toothbrush for each. I've worked it out of 2200 foot ponds with no sweat at all. A little shorter one would be fine if you kept it light.

They aren't fast...about 110 kts max.

Floats: The aforementioned EDO 2000 (GW limited to 2100 pounds, I think) PeeKay 2300 (bad float in my opinion), PeeKay B2300 (MUCH better float), Wipline 2100, and I understand the Aerocet 2200 is now approved or close to it.

Of course, there are also amphibious floats like the Wip 2100s approved. Don't plan on carrying much.

There's a GW increase with wing extensions IN CANADA, but not yet approved in the US (and may never be).

With a big engine, you'll want more fuel than 37 gallons. Flint tanks or Del Aire fuel tank mods or a baggage compartment tank (not my favorite).

Other questions?

MTV

Ditto's res Mike's 180hp 170B

I fly a 170B with the Franklin 220hp conversion once or twice a Summer. It's on EDO 2440 floats. Love it!

image below taken about 20 minutes before I dropped the camera in the lake...

so if i understand you guys right, a 170 on floats isnt' that great of a performer unless you put something of at least 180hp in it?
so if an upgrade in motor capacity costs you about 50 g's (?based off a thread on the C170 forum) and the plane is 30gs...would you be better off just climbing into a 180-185 on floats in the first place?

are you guys running your 170's with any of the stol kits added on? or just stock wings?

Unless you're just aching to throw lots of money at a project, converting a 170 to bigger power these days is a very bad idea. And, yes, you would probably be money ahead to look at a 180 or 182 instead of doing the conversion. You'd never get your money back out of the conversion.

Then again, there are sometimes some 180 hp 170s for sale, so look at them. Then you're going to stick a bunch of money into it for floats, but it IS an airplane after all.

I have a stock wing and VG's. I hate the VGs and would never do that again to one of THESE airplanes. I have flown 170s with Sportsman STOL, and that's the way I'd go, or leave the wing stock. Sportsman is a VERY nice mod, though.

MTV

MTV, I'm curious about your perspective on the VG's. What characteristics don't you like about them? Just curious as I don't have a strong opinion on them one way or the other. They did improve slow speed handling on the Bearhawk, about he last 10 feet of vertical above the runway, but that was the only change I noticed. Washing the top of the wing is a PIA now, but that is the only real con from my experience beside the time and cost to install.

i've heard rave reviews on the sportsmans stol and very little good about vg's as well. i've heard they get spendy with airplane covers up here in alaska.
buying a 170 with the converision to more ponies sure sounds like the way to go initially. i don't want a 180 or 185, something about the 170 that is just suckin' me in.

blackrock wrote:MTV, I'm curious about your perspective on the VG's. What characteristics don't you like about them? Just curious as I don't have a strong opinion on them one way or the other. They did improve slow speed handling on the Bearhawk, about he last 10 feet of vertical above the runway, but that was the only change I noticed. Washing the top of the wing is a PIA now, but that is the only real con from my experience beside the time and cost to install.

I've posted on this forum before on this topic. Note that my comments here apply ONLY to the Cessna 170. I've flown VGs on a number of aircraft where they do indeed make a very positive improvement.

On the 170, the primary difference I saw before and after (with substantial time in the aircraft before and after, and no other changes to the a/c, so a fair comparison) was a "softening" of the stall buffet, to the point where the stall buffet pretty much goes away. Now, understand that the stall of the original wing was not the least bit "brisk" in any case, but it had a very distinct pre-stall buffet, easily recognizable.

Before the addition of the VGs, I could work the airplane into a tail low wheel landing approach, and literally work the stall buffet in the flare to a nice slow and smooth touchdown. After the VG installation, the stall buffet is gone, and as a consequence if I try to finesse the airplane down into the aforementioned configuration, it falls out from under me UNLESS I carry a few knots extra airspeed. So, the net result of the addition of the VGs was that I actually have to land FASTER than I did before VGs.

The VGs MAY have lowered the stall speed a knot or so, but not much at all. So, to me the net result was a negative....all the VGs did was soften up the stall on a very honest stalling airplane, and turned a very predictable landing airplane into one requiring more speed to be safe.

Again, I am talking about Cessna 170 here, NOT other airplanes.

VGs can be a little bit of a pain with wing covers, but not so much as many would think. I worked airplanes in Alaska, parked outdoors for a number of years, and some of those planes had VGs.

I'm not a huge fan of VGs in any airplane, but they definitely make more of a difference in some types than others.

FWIW,

MTV

Installation makes a big difference. Different wings (shape) requires different locations. Jerry Burr is the wing Guru. For high AOA ops your VGs need to be right close to the LE. Diffent VGs might make a diff, but I'm not so sure, they all "do" the same thing.

In my case (PA 18A) they didn't help at all. I lost a couple MPH too. Before installation I had no buffet, she'd just mush a bit & keep flying. (Before I inboarded the flaps, she'd buffet a bit) The -18's are not noted for snap rolls, so I didn't notice any difference in aileron authority, which is what I'd hoped for. My wings have always treated me well in slow flight so I didn't notice any difference so took 'em off. Gonna do one more test... aileron control @ MCA before/after. Then I might just leave them on in front of the ails.

Lucky Rose & BD (the Franklin 6A-350 converted 170B's I get to fly here) both have Horton STOL kits. They seem to work fine.

mtv wrote:Again, I am talking about Cessna 170 here, NOT other airplanes.

VGs can be a little bit of a pain with wing covers, but not so much as many would think. I worked airplanes in Alaska, parked outdoors for a number of years, and some of those planes had VGs.

I'm not a huge fan of VGs in any airplane, but they definitely make more of a difference in some types than others.

FWIW,

MTV

Thanks for the great feedback...

Blackrock

BRD,

Try to get a set of those EDO 2440s approved on a 170 today. Actually, just try to find a set for sale

Great floats, though.

Unfortunately, we have fewer float choices today, all at higher cost.

MTV

mtv wrote:....I have a stock wing and VG's. I hate the VGs and would never do that again to one of THESE airplanes. I have flown 170s with Sportsman STOL, and that's the way I'd go, or leave the wing stock. .....

You're only a penknife and 60 minutes away from having a VG-free airplane-- why keep 'em?
The Sportsman cuff is indeed probably the way to go, but the mere $700 cost of the VG kit was hard to resist vs paying two grand for a cuff kit plus a much more involved installation -- I installed a set of Micro VG's on my C150/150TD a year or so ago, and while I don't hate them, I wouldn't do it again on a stock Cessna wing.

The price difference for VGs vs Sportsman on a 170 isn't as much as it is on the 150. I believe the kit for the 170A/B is $1495. I've never flown a 170 with VGs, but based on what I've heard I'm glad I spent $500 more to get the Sportsman. Installation is going to be much more on the Sportsman though, I got a deal though and only paid 1K. If I ever own another Cessna the Sportsman STOL kit will be the first thing I put on it. I'm still curious what VGs will do on top of the Sportsman cuff though.

hotrod150 wrote:

mtv wrote:....I have a stock wing and VG's. I hate the VGs and would never do that again to one of THESE airplanes. I have flown 170s with Sportsman STOL, and that's the way I'd go, or leave the wing stock. .....

You're only a penknife and 60 minutes away from having a VG-free airplane-- why keep 'em?
The Sportsman cuff is indeed probably the way to go, but the mere $700 cost of the VG kit was hard to resist vs paying two grand for a cuff kit plus a much more involved installation -- I installed a set of Micro VG's on my C150/150TD a year or so ago, and while I don't hate them, I wouldn't do it again on a stock Cessna wing.

Well, when the VGs were installed, we doubled the amount of adhesive they called for.....they are stuck. I've had one come off (fuel nozzle) and it took the paint with it..

Your logic re: cost differential was exactly what drove me to go the VG route. Bad choice on my part. If I do decide to remove the VGs in future, I may install a Sportsman. I LOVE the Sportsman on a Cessna wing.

MTV

If they adversely affect the way the airplane flies, I'd have them off in a heartbeat-- paint or no paint. That can be touched up. Nobody's gonna see the touch-up except when fueling the airplane. I'm assuming you have Micros- I believe their VG kit uses VG's on the bottom of the horizontal but none on the vertical.

But Mike! Andy here sold one of his extra sets of 2440's last month to a guy in Wisconsin who said he had an approval for his 170B.

(Andy has one more extra set that needs new bottoms. Both his airplanes have approval for this float so he may or may not keep them together. So now you're right about trying to find them...

ohh 95C is a pretty bird there on the water....compared to the silver work horse there on lake hood!!