Looking for a tailwheel plane (needs to carry 3 people)
Want lightweight, light controls, with good slow flying characteristics.

So for this I have been looking at 170s ,and 175s, not 180s because want something light and wont be carrying much, I have the 182 for this.

On the 170 or 175 I would want 180HP.

Has anyone flown the tailwheel converted 175? how good/bad are they? how does it compares to the 170? looks like its a bit heavier? Mainly will be for flying to gravel bars and playing around doing backcountry stuff.

If it exists and you could locate a 175TW for sale with the same engine as your 182 that would, could be a big bonus.

Motodave, a 175/tw/180 hp for sale on BS recently. My experience: 170b, me, spouse unit, 1.5 dogs, and gas. 65 degrees/4000’. Spouse unit was not impressed. I now have a 75-TX skyways O-520 182 p. Dang it!

Larry,
If you want to try one out, one of the flight schools based at Couer d alene, Idaho has a 180hp 175. Has larger tires on it too, if I remember right. It came in once when we were camping at Magee. May be worth checking into and arranging a flight. Can’t remember the name of the school but it can’t be too hard to track them down

Larry,

I owned a 180 hp Lycoming powered Cessna 170 B for about 20 years, I currently own a C-175 with tailwheel conversion and 180 hp Lycoming power. I have also flown a C-175 with the O-470 (though not a tailwheel conversion) a fair amount.

If I had a choice, I'd definitely choose a 170 B with a big engine (O-360, or one of Stoot's conversions) over the 175. A couple of reasons:

1. With these airplanes, it's all about empty weight. My old 170 B weighed around 1356 as I recall. While gross weight is limited to 2200, that still offered over 800 useful. Understand that airplane was really light for a 170..... It was a very good 2 person airplane, and three with stock fuel load and not much cargo.

By comparison, this 175 weighs right around 1500 empty. I cannot figure out where all the weight is, since this isn't a massively equipped airplane....there is 15 lbs of lead in the tail, but tough to get at, I'm going to try to remove it.


2. Stock fuel is a bit limited with a big engine, but if you're not doing long unrefueled legs, shouldn't be an issue. I had Flint tip tanks installed on it, so max fuel was 60 useable if I topped off. Sixty gallons of fuel weighs 360 pounds, so even with tanks and aux full, it was a good two place plane.

The 175s came with 52-53 gallons of fuel, depending on model year. That would be nice, but nine gallons of that is unuseable, unfortunately, because each tank only has one pickup. So, mine has 43 useable, but that unuseable 9 gallons adds 54 pounds to the empty weight. Ouch! Now, I'm pretty sure that the engine will run just fine well into that 9 gallons of unuseable fuel, not that I've ever done so....but that'd be straight and level only.

3. A friend of mine who was a very experienced Cessna pilot bought a 170, and his comment to me about it was that the airplane was almost "Toy Like" with regard to the controls. In other words, the controls are VERY light, and the airplane's stability isn't great. No big deal there, but you have to fly the airplane ALL the time. No worse than a lot of other old airplanes, though.

When I bought this 175, I expected pretty much the same control "feel". Wrongo! This 175 has a control feel very close to that of an early 180. Obviously, the tail is larger than a 170 tail, which may be a lot of this.

I was looking for a good 170 B with a 180 engine when I bought this 175. Good 170s with a 180 are scarce on the used market, and most are sold by word of mouth.

I like the 175 in many ways....just wish I could lighten it up more, and I'm doing some of that.

The 175 with an O-470 has buckets of power, but it's really nose heavy when empty. The one I flew had been stripped out to carry as much stuff as possible. I could see the control bell cranks from the pilot seat....seriously stripped. I wouldn't go there, myself, even if I got a deal.

MTV

mtv wrote:Larry,

3. A friend of mine who was a very experienced Cessna pilot bought a 170, and his comment to me about it was that the airplane was almost "Toy Like" with regard to the controls. In other words, the controls are VERY light, and the airplane's stability isn't great. No big deal there, but you have to fly the airplane ALL the time. No worse than a lot of other old airplanes, though.

I was considering a 180 and I flew one. Hated it as it was so heavy on the controls. Felt like a bus after the 170.

YMMV:)

1. With these airplanes, it's all about empty weight. My old 170 B weighed around 1356 as I recall. While gross weight is limited to 2200, that still offered over 800 useful. Understand that airplane was really light for a 170..... It was a very good 2 person airplane, and three with stock fuel load and not much cargo.

This is the main thing, empty weight.
The plane I am looking at is this one.

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... atid=17392

What I like is the low time engine, Mogas and MT prop.
The gear seems wide and its positioned a bit forward.
Seen the log books.
Empty weight 1550 pounds, plus 54 pounds of unusable fuel.180HP

So this might be at least 100 150 pounds heavier than a 170, it has a different elevator and tail than the 170, does this makes a difference? More rudder and elevator authority?

motoadve wrote:1. With these airplanes, it's all about empty weight. My old 170 B weighed around 1356 as I recall. While gross weight is limited to 2200, that still offered over 800 useful. Understand that airplane was really light for a 170..... It was a very good 2 person airplane, and three with stock fuel load and not much cargo.

This is the main thing, empty weight.
The plane I am looking at is this one.

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... atid=17392

What I like is the low time engine, Mogas and MT prop.
The gear seems wide and its positioned a bit forward.
Seen the log books.
Empty weight 1550 pounds, plus 54 pounds of unusable fuel.180HP

So this might be at least 100 150 pounds heavier than a 170, it has a different elevator and tail than the 170, does this makes a difference? More rudder and elevator authority?

That seems heavy, but that back seat is heavy. Whose extended baggage is that, and is it legal? Never seen a metal baggage. Not much panel, which may be okay, depending on your mission. Your description of weights is a bit confusing. “Empty weight includes unusable fuel, it’s not additive. I’m not a big fan of the older cuffs, Sportsman is the best by far.

MTV

mtv wrote:

motoadve wrote:1. With these airplanes, it's all about empty weight. My old 170 B weighed around 1356 as I recall. While gross weight is limited to 2200, that still offered over 800 useful. Understand that airplane was really light for a 170..... It was a very good 2 person airplane, and three with stock fuel load and not much cargo.

This is the main thing, empty weight.
The plane I am looking at is this one.

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... atid=17392

What I like is the low time engine, Mogas and MT prop.
The gear seems wide and its positioned a bit forward.
Seen the log books.
Empty weight 1550 pounds, plus 54 pounds of unusable fuel.180HP

So this might be at least 100 150 pounds heavier than a 170, it has a different elevator and tail than the 170, does this makes a difference? More rudder and elevator authority?

That seems heavy, but that back seat is heavy. Whose extended baggage is that, and is it legal? Never seen a metal baggage. Not much panel, which may be okay, depending on your mission. Your description of weights is a bit confusing. “Empty weight includes unusable fuel, it’s not additive. I’m not a big fan of the older cuffs, Sportsman is the best by far.

MTV

You are right empty weight includes unusable fuel.

Agreed ,first thing will be doing to any Cessna I buy is removing the Horton or whatever STOL kit it has and adding a Sportsman, I did this with my 182 and it made a big difference.
Good question about the extended baggage compartment, I will ask.

I would probably gravitate towards a 170B over a 175. I feel that the 170 exhibits the nicest flying characteristics of all of the Cessna high wing singles. They sport dynamite looks, light airframe weights and the forward visibility is as good as it gets. I may be biased, because I ran one for ten years, trading in for a 180. A 170B with a O-360 and MT prop is one of those machines that can't really be upgraded from.

In my experience, the MT 83" two blade mated to the Lycoming O-360 is a really nice combination. An MT would highly motivate me towards one specific airplane over another with all else being equal.

We are running an MT on our Husky, and it is hard to believe how fast and efficient it is. At 2300 rpm and 21 in MP (Low Cruise @ 115 KTAS in the Husky) we don't burn more than 6 gph. I attribute much of this efficiency to the prop.

175s have some advantages, but they aren't quite as nice as 170s in my opinion. A 170 would complement your 182 nicely.

motoadve wrote:1. With these airplanes, it's all about empty weight. My old 170 B weighed around 1356 as I recall. While gross weight is limited to 2200, that still offered over 800 useful. Understand that airplane was really light for a 170..... It was a very good 2 person airplane, and three with stock fuel load and not much cargo.

This is the main thing, empty weight.
The plane I am looking at is this one.

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... atid=17392

What I like is the low time engine, Mogas and MT prop.
The gear seems wide and its positioned a bit forward.
Seen the log books.
Empty weight 1550 pounds, plus 54 pounds of unusable fuel.180HP

So this might be at least 100 150 pounds heavier than a 170, it has a different elevator and tail than the 170, does this makes a difference? More rudder and elevator authority?

That is a flight school bird at Latitude Aviation in Coeur d' Alene. I personally did most of my primary training in it, but its been wrecked at least 3 or 4 times that I know of. Groundloops, prop strikes, hard landings etc. However, its been properly repaired each time. Just do your research.

I own a 170B with a stock 0-300 and it serves my needs well, light controls carries my normal load of two up, fuel and weekend camping gear well on wheels, floats and wheel skis. To date with minimal effort I've shaved off about 70 lbs. with another 5-10 still possible. I've added a leading edge cuff, VG's, pull handles and an extended baggage area. I would like to added wing extension extensions, the increased gross weight would be nice to have under the Canadian STC. However the next round of money to be spent will be under the hood, I salivate on the idea of a Conti or equivalent Lycoming the jury is still out on which one it will be however I will be staying with a FP seaplane prop.

The 170 hits an operational sweet spot for me, ground handling, loading, flying characteristics, operating expenses, annual maintenance expenses. As one of the local guys likes to say the 170 does a good job just slowly but its all about "low & slow" when I'm recreational flying.

Scolopax wrote:I would probably gravitate towards a 170B over a 175. I feel that the 170 exhibits the nicest flying characteristics of all of the Cessna high wing singles. They sport dynamite looks, light airframe weights and the forward visibility is as good as it gets. I may be biased, because I ran one for ten years, trading in for a 180. A 170B with a O-360 and MT prop is one of those machines that can't really be upgraded from.

In my experience, the MT 83" two blade mated to the Lycoming O-360 is a really nice combination. An MT would highly motivate me towards one specific airplane over another with all else being equal.

We are running an MT on our Husky, and it is hard to believe how fast and efficient it is. At 2300 rpm and 21 in MP (Low Cruise @ 115 KTAS in the Husky) we don't burn more than 6 gph. I attribute much of this efficiency to the prop.

175s have some advantages, but they aren't quite as nice as 170s in my opinion. A 170 would complement your 182 nicely.

I had an 83 inch MT prop on my 170, and loved it. That said, I put an MT Ultra 80 inch prop on this 175, and am amazed at the performance. Flight Resource told me I’d really like the Ultra, and I do, hands down!

MTV

Others have made good points regarding the 170: Over the nose visibility is better than ANY plane I’ve flown off airport, and way better than 175 t/w.

As I noted earlier, the 170 “feels like” a sports car, compared to a 175....which in my case is fine. But if you’re buying primarily for off airport stuff, might be a bigger deal. To each his own.

Weight is king in many ways. Either plane you’ll be able to lighten up some, but you’ll never make a 175 lighter than a light 170. Two gear boxes, bigger surfaces, more fuel, etc.

BUT, here’s the issue I ran into....twice: Try to find a good 180 hp 170 B for sale.

MTV

How about a 170B with 175 wings

C180_guy wrote:How about a 170B with 175 wings

I have a customer with one... 0-360 Lycoming, MT prop, 175 wings with Spotsman and VG's, extended baggage, just put in a set of Atlee rear folding seats and it has a baggage door... Still in the middle of the build and have not weighed it yet. Going to be the ultimate back country 170 I'm sure..

Brian

motoadve wrote:Looking for a tailwheel plane (needs to carry 3 people)
Want lightweight, light controls, with good slow flying characteristics.
So for this I have been looking at 170s ,and 175s, not 180s because want something light and wont be carrying much, I have the 182 for this.
.... Mainly will be for flying to gravel bars and playing around doing backcountry stuff.

How bout just a stock-engined 170B?
Jughead does very well with his on the gravel bars.
Talk Whit into buying the 180 he wants & buy his.

If you're not dead set on one of those two models, don't overlook a Stinson 108. Very capable, comfortable, and a lot less purchase money that could be put to fuel instead. Of course you won't be in the "in" crowd.
John

hardtailjohn wrote:If you're not dead set on one of those two models, don't overlook a Stinson 108. Very capable, comfortable, and a lot less purchase money that could be put to fuel instead. Of course you won't be in the "in" crowd.
John

I would have to second this... I have a interest in an 0-470 powered 108-2 and that airplane is a rocket.. may take a few more feet to get off the ground but man does it climb and goes like stink flat and level.. only drawback is a little light of fuel with the stock tanks..

Brian


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk