Been trying to find a 170B with 180hp, but also seen a few 175 tail draggers with 180hp.
Anyone have experience in both? Do they fly the same? Perform the same?

Looking for a 2 adult plus one kid AK toy and my son wants to learn to fly.

Thanks for the info

* grabs the popcorn

Ha ha ha. I’m sure at some point someone will say...how about a 180hp sedan? Or Why not just get a 180?
Lol

They are basically the same thing, the 175 has a few airframe improvements like the stepped firewall and bigger fuel tanks.

Newbizor wrote:They are basically the same thing, the 175 has a few airframe improvements like the stepped firewall and bigger fuel tanks.

So you are saying that they would have the same rudder and elevator authority. And they would both have the same weight and balance characteristics. Would the stall speeds be about the same as well as slow flight characteristics.

Aesthetics aside...they have to be to even consider a 175 TD, is there any issue putting things like bushwheels or STOL cuffs on a 175 converted to a tailwheel?

Hammer wrote:Aesthetics aside...they have to be to even consider a 175 TD, is there any issue putting things like bushwheels or STOL cuffs on a 175 converted to a tailwheel?

Pretty sure the STOL cuff does not care if is tailwheel or not. No matter what you do to a 175 it will always be a 175. Anything STC'd for a 175 can be put on a 175. I doubt that there is a baby bush wheel that is STC'd for a 175.

Many years ago I ran into a rancher from Nebraska that had a 175 listed as experimental. The guy installed a 180 HP engine but he moved it aft about 4 inches to get a better CG. He also converted it to tail wheel. Also he rebuilt the horizontal stabilizer to make it wider and I think a bit deeper. That came with a larger elevator. After it was all done the FSDO said we will never do that again. This guy had lots of C180 time and he did say that this 175 configuration was the closest he has seen to what a 180 will do as far as STOL performance. Just a bit week on the short field take off that is.

If you want a tailwheel airplane then buy one. Probably cheaper in the long run.

Skywagons has a 175TD for sale right now with an O-470 in it....so it’s pretty much a 180....

Edit: link added....

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?ca ... e=aircraft

qmdv wrote:I doubt that there is a baby bush wheel that is STC'd for a 175.

Doubt no longer.
I was flying with a 175 TD with a BBW and AKBWs installed on Saturday. I think it probably was done by STC, I cannot say for sure, but I can easily ask the owner.

Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another that there is a sweet 175 TD with a IO-360 -210hp on Alaskaslist right here in Soldotna with a Sportsman’s cuff and Bushwheels and a Baby Bushwheel and if you had that plane you do some messin’ around.




No I haven’t been drinking or smoking.

Interesting "discussion" on this topic. Not much actual information, but.....

In the sake of full disclosure: I owned a Cessna 170B equipped with an O-360 engine for ~ 20 years. A thousand hours, give or take.

I now own a Cessna 175 with Bolen tailwheel conversion, O-360 engine and Sportsman STOL (yes, it's approved via STC).

First, do the airplanes fly the same? Simple answer: Not even close.

A friend with lots of flying experience and who owned a 170 once described to me the 170's flight controls and character as "Toy Like". I can't say I agree with that, but the 170 is VERY light on the controls.....almost twitchy. So, a VERY light touch on the controls is needed, and the airplane will wear you out on a long cross country in any kind of turbulence.

The 175 on the other hand is pretty solid in cruise. Point it and leave it and it'll pretty much stay where you put it. Of course, that implies that the airplane is indeed a bit heavier on the controls. Not a bad thing, just what it is. It's not sluggish on the controls, by any means.

Fuel: The stock 170 has 37 gallons useable. The 175 has 43, even though the 175 actually carries 54 gallons of gas. This is because the 175 has a single fuel pickup in each tank (Full disclosure: When I first bought my 170, I installed Flint tip tanks, which increased the available fuel to 60 gallons. I was in Alaska, and gas stations are a ways apart, and the O-360 is a thirstier engine than the O-300.). The bottom line is that a fair bit of that unuseable fuel in the 175 is useable, but if you try that, you're on your own.

Takeoff and landing performance: In my experience, the 170 outperformed the 175, but that's complicated by several factors. First, my 170 was pretty light, probably ~ 100 pounds lighter than this 175. And, frankly, I'm not sure I believe the W/B on this 175.

I ran three different props on the 170 over the years, including the 80 inch Hartzell that this 175 is equipped with......which is NOT my favorite propeller, by the way. But, this prop does pull hard. I put an MT propeller on the 170 after Hartzell condemned the second prop hub on it's Hartzell prop......I swore I'd never buy another Hartzell prop......

Nevertheless, takeoff performance is pretty close, near as I can tell.

Landings: The 175 lands VERY different than the 170, and frankly, I'm not there yet, when it comes to landing proficiency with this airplane. I'm convinced the C/G is significantly forward on this plane, though the W/B doesn't reflect that. Anyway, I'm still figuring out the landings on this airplane, which is on me, not on the plane. The 170 was an incredibly capable STOL airplane in my experience. I don't think the 175 is ever going to get all the way there, but again, the biggest factor there is probably weight, how much and where it's located. Oh, and the 170 did not have a Sportsman cuff.....the 175 does. Both have VGs, which I would never do again on a 170.

Modifications: Many modifications that are available for the 170 are also available for the 175 under STC. Avcon, Stoots, Del Aire engine conversions all approved for both. Sportsman, Micro VGs, etc. I decided to go to double puck brakes and in the process to six bolt wheels. Atlee Dodge has an STC for six bolt wheels and double pucks on the 175 and Airframes Alaska provided that STC with the kit. Bushwheels: Approved on the 175, tailwheel or not. I'm not sure about ski approvals on the 175, and float approvals are going to be minimal as well, if you ever were to go that route, but there are float approvals.

There's no doubt that the 170 has more approvals available than the 175, but.....how crazy do you want to get?

Instrument panels: My 170 was a 52. Those airplanes have relatively tiny instrument panels....not much space for anything. That's not all bad....easier to keep it simple and LIGHT. The 175 has a MUCH bigger panel, so lots of space. Mine is pretty cluttered at the moment, mostly with engine instruments scattered all over the panel....which is about to be fixed. Nonetheless, if you want basic IFR, an early 170 B panel will offer a challenge.

Landing gear: My 170 had early 180 main gear, a MASSIVE improvement over stock gear, even Lady Legs. The early 180 gear is what that airplane really needs. Also, the stock tail spring set on the 170s is a POS. I replaced the stock main leaf with one from the L-19, which was MUCH better. Had to leave out the smallest leaf to get the thicker L-19 leaf to fit, but.... Also, stock 170 steering SUCKS, big time. I like to have steering. I fixed that with a combination of mods. All it takes is money.

This 175 main gear is unidentified, near as I can tell. It LOOKS like early 180 gear, and feels like early 180 gear. That said, these tailwheel conversions have all sorts of different main gears, in my experience, including some that just turn the stock tricycle gear legs around and move them forward.....which I DO NOT think is a good way to go, though I've only flown one of those.

While I'm not sure the Bolen tailwheel mod is the best tailwheel setup, it works and steers fine. One potential issue I see is that it uses a 1 1/2 inch tail spring stack.....and I have no idea where you'd get one of those.....I suspect someone had them made. And, the tailspring attach point on the fuselage isn't going to be easy to substitute something else. Not a problem now, but in future???

The B model 170 has REALLY big cowl doors, which I really liked, for great access to the engine compartment. Mine had modified latches which were very positive, which has been a problem with those big doors on some aircraft.. Nonetheless, easy to fix.

The 175, with these long legs and small oil access door on top of cowl, I can't check the oil without a small step stool/ladder. So, I carry around a small folding step ladder....not a big deal. If I had Bushwheels, I might need a bigger ladder. But, I'm 5' 8".

All in all, for cross country flying (I've been to OSH from Montana twice now with it) I much prefer the 175. If I were actually doing a LOT of off airport stuff again, I'd probably prefer the 170. But I'm not, and again, I'm still figuring this 175 out.

Both airplanes really like the O-360 Lycoming engine, though there are other engines available (check out Stoots' engine conversions for the 170/175), including the Continental IO 360, the Franklin 220, and the Continental O-470.

A note on the O-470 conversion: I have flown a 175 with the O-470 on floats and wheels. The power is pretty amazing, but if you've never flown an airplane that is waaaaay forward in CG, you're in for a treat. I wouldn't care to own one of these airplanes with that engine, but to each his own. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea when it was done.

All in all, the 175 flies more like a 180, but without the jackscrew tail, the 175 will never cruise at anywhere near the speeds of any 180. Takeoff and landing performance, though, when kept light, the 175 will beat the 180 pretty much any day.

FWIW,

MTV

.

glacier wrote:Thats interesting; I'd gotten the impression that bolen conversions only used the repurposed tricycle gear legs, which don't seem like a good idea at all. Good to know they can use 180 gear. What are the gear boxes like? The stoots conversion appears to pretty much build up 180 gear boxes with Cessna parts.
Years ago I watched a stoots conversion land on the river at Takotna during the Iditarod. He taxied out of the way, to be polite I guess, into some pretty deep snow, sugary stuff with no base. I thought, that's pretty stuck. Four people then unloaded and went and had pie. I was really impressed. No problem getting going later on either. Set up with the right O-360 and prop it seems really capable. Good pilot in that one too.

The Bolen converted 172 just down the taxiway from me here has what appear to be the original tricycle main gear legs, repurposed. Waaaaay less prop clearance than mine has. Pretty close in age of airplanes as well.

The gear box seems pretty much like a Cessna gear box. I don't think they tried to reinvent the wheel.

I sure won't complain about performance. The other day I took off in ~ 9,000 DA, and the plane didn't complain at all. Not a big load, but plenty of takeoff and climb performance.

MTV

MTV for the win. Great post, very informative comparison. Thanks Mike.

However...

mtv wrote:It's not sluggish on the controls, by any means.

ALL Cessnas are sluggish on the controls. All Super Cub et al are too. That's why everyone feels like such heroes flying them.

So your about to "suggest" a Pacer for the win !!!

Mapleflt wrote:So your about to "suggest" a Pacer for the win !!!

No way, I was thinking Extra 300 or MX2

Zane....I’m the only thing sluggish in that airplane.....

MTV

There's no way I'm built for the roll rate one of those beasts can generate, yikes

Thanks for posting that very informative reply MTV! I was hoping you would respond. A guy here in MN has done a couple of 175's and will say, they have intrigued me.

mtv wrote:…... And, frankly, I'm not sure I believe the W/B on this 175.
….... I'm convinced the C/G is significantly forward on this plane, though the W/B doesn't reflect that.....

Why don't you re-weigh that airplane, then you'll know.