Brian-StevesAircraft wrote:

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

Brian,

I know a few folks that have done that, I assume via field approval. The issue with those tanks in a 175 is nine gallons unusable fuel. Is that also the case when installed in a 170, or did you add another tank outlet?

MTV

As much as I salivate over an "engine upgrade" my sweet little 0-300 hasn't let me down yet on wheels, wheel-skis or floats

mtv wrote:

Brian-StevesAircraft wrote:

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

Brian,

I know a few folks that have done that, I assume via field approval. The issue with those tanks in a 175 is nine gallons unusable fuel. Is that also the case when installed in a 170, or did you add another tank outlet?

MTV

Field approval.. Still center outlet, so the unusable fuel is still a factor.. Also no mechanical gauge like original 170.. We put in an Aerospace Logic gauge that shows fuel level for both tanks.. had to have a minimum of 6 gallons in the wing with the tail up level before the gauge would start to read during calibration..


Brian


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brian-StevesAircraft wrote:. only drawback is a little light of fuel with the stock tanks..

Brian


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that can be remedied.
JH

Brian-StevesAircraft wrote:

mtv wrote:

Brian-StevesAircraft wrote:

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

Brian,

I know a few folks that have done that, I assume via field approval. The issue with those tanks in a 175 is nine gallons unusable fuel. Is that also the case when installed in a 170, or did you add another tank outlet?

MTV

Field approval.. Still center outlet, so the unusable fuel is still a factor.. Also no mechanical gauge like original 170.. We put in an Aerospace Logic gauge that shows fuel level for both tanks.. had to have a minimum of 6 gallons in the wing with the tail up level before the gauge would start to read during calibration..


Brian


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fellow who bought the floats from my 170 when I left Alaska did this to his 170 also with a field approval. That seems like a lot of thrashing around for only five gallons more fuel, unless you really need wings too....

Too bad a person couldn't modify the tanks to a two outlet setup, and then you'd have lots of fuel. I suppose that would require a DER and mucho $$.

Thanks for the response....pretty 170!

MTV

Thanks for your replies, please keep them coming, I guess best way to find out is to go fly the plane and see it, so the plan is to go with Jughead and do a flight.

AOPA did a pretty thorough write-up on the 175 TD that Kyle Bushman from the Ragwood Refractory built. So many changes were made it wound up in the Experimental Exhibition category, but it's quite a plane. I saw it at the High Sierra fly-in in October of 2019. It had a pretty big crowd of gawkers around it each day.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/june/pilot/beauty-or-the-beast

Flyhound wrote:AOPA did a pretty thorough write-up on the 175 TD that Kyle Bushman from the Ragwood Refractory built. So many changes were made it wound up in the Experimental Exhibition category, but it's quite a plane. I saw it at the High Sierra fly-in in October of 2019. It had a pretty big crowd of gawkers around it each day.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/june/pilot/beauty-or-the-beast

Larry,

Jeff keeps his airplane (C175 O-470) near Salem. PM me. I have his contact information. He has a nice grass strip outside of Albany.


Josh

motoadve wrote:Thanks for your replies, please keep them coming, I guess best way to find out is to go fly the plane and see it, so the plan is to go with Jughead and do a flight.

Yes definitely go fly it, and Jughead would be a great choice!

Larry, I had a stock 175 and liked it. It was the most powerful people airplane I ever owned. It and Tri-Pacer were as close as one could get to the superior performance of the 182 in the mountains on a budget.

You already have the best. If you want something different, get something different.

Flyhound wrote:AOPA did a pretty thorough write-up on the 175 TD that Kyle Bushman from the Ragwood Refractory built. So many changes were made it wound up in the Experimental Exhibition category, but it's quite a plane. I saw it at the High Sierra fly-in in October of 2019. It had a pretty big crowd of gawkers around it each day.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/june/pilot/beauty-or-the-beast

I read that article, and found it a bit misleading. The only mod he’s done to that plane (that was noted in the article) are the wing slats. There are STCs for all the other mods noted there. Slats could be fun, but that design of slats will REALLY slow the plane down in cruise.

I flew an O-470 powered 175 years ago, and it was a beast for STOL, with the stock wing. That one was really stripped out, though.

Frankly, if I got something like this done, I would not want it advertised in national magazines. Right now, the FAA is pretty “easy going” with this category of “Experimental” designation. But read the rules for “Experimental Airshow and Exhibition” category. If the FAA decided to actually enforce all restrictions in that category, it would be less fun to own.

MTV

mtv wrote:

Flyhound wrote:AOPA did a pretty thorough write-up on the 175 TD that Kyle Bushman from the Ragwood Refractory built. ....

I read that article, and found it a bit misleading. The only mod he’s done to that plane (that was noted in the article) are the wing slats. There are STCs for all the other mods noted there. Slats could be fun, but that design of slats will REALLY slow the plane down in cruise....
But read the rules for “Experimental Airshow and Exhibition” category. If the FAA decided to actually enforce all restrictions in that category, it would be less fun to own.

After reading that article, I commented online (either here or on the C180 FB group) that it seemed to me that the "beast" didn't bring much to the party that a good light early C180 didn't also, other than the slats. I still think that.
I guess you'd save some money not needing STC's & approved parts,
but for me the operating restrictions (if enforced) would outweigh that.

What about a Early 172 TW? should be lighter then a 175 as they beefed the airframe on the 175 a bit, most notably the stepped firewall and the big tanks that don't really add that much more.

62150B wrote:What about a Early 172 TW? should be lighter then a 175 as they beefed the airframe on the 175 a bit, most notably the stepped firewall and the big tanks that don't really add that much more.

The real issue with all these airplanes is that there aren't a lot of them out there that have had big engines installed. So, look at the market, and you'll find VERY few early 172, 170 175s for sale with larger engines. And, the O-470, while it wouldn't be my idea of a good thing, is only approved on the 175.

But, you just have to be patient and wait for something CLOSE to the one you'd prefer in this market.

Or....buy a stock one, and do the mods yourself.....bring LOTS of cash for that. In which case, you're better off buying a good 180.

MTV

I removed the rear bench in my 170; installed a single seat, along with the extended baggage. There is most definitely enough room for both skis and a few firearms of the long barrel variety. I would even speculate that with the shorter parabolic skis you may not even require the extended baggage provision in a three seat configuration but I'd have to go measure to confirm that "guess"

mtv wrote:

Flyhound wrote:AOPA did a pretty thorough write-up on the 175 TD that Kyle Bushman from the Ragwood Refractory built. So many changes were made it wound up in the Experimental Exhibition category, but it's quite a plane. I saw it at the High Sierra fly-in in October of 2019. It had a pretty big crowd of gawkers around it each day.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/june/pilot/beauty-or-the-beast

I read that article, and found it a bit misleading. The only mod he’s done to that plane (that was noted in the article) are the wing slats. There are STCs for all the other mods noted there. Slats could be fun, but that design of slats will REALLY slow the plane down in cruise.

I flew an O-470 powered 175 years ago, and it was a beast for STOL, with the stock wing. That one was really stripped out, though.

Frankly, if I got something like this done, I would not want it advertised in national magazines. Right now, the FAA is pretty “easy going” with this category of “Experimental” designation. But read the rules for “Experimental Airshow and Exhibition” category. If the FAA decided to actually enforce all restrictions in that category, it would be less fun to own.

MTV

Jeff seemed really happy with the performance. I asked him how the slats effected his cruise speed - he said it was negligible and that the slow speed performance and STOL characteristics of his airplane were significant. I can't remember the numbers he quoted for short field performance. The airplane is stripped down and very light other having 31 inch tires. Also of note - is the relatively inexpensive cost of a used O-470 engine. With so many folks upgrading to O-520s the cost for the 470 is something for Larry to consider.


Josh

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.

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.

A couple of thoughts:

1. You said, "wont be carrying much" and "needs to carry 3 people". That's not really a thing. 3 people is carrying much in a 170.

2. The 170 with the stock engine and climb prop is a decent 2 place airplane at sea level on cool days, Jughead and Whit do gravel bars in them, but I've not seen any px. So, what they are doing is solo, at sea level, on cool days. In other words, the 145hp 170 is a good 2-place airplane, and a great 1 place airplane, but that goes away quickly on hot days or when you add weight.

3. 180HP 170's are pretty tough to find. Everyone I know that has one treats it like their forever airplane. In other words, they don't care that it costs what a 180 does, it's what they want and they are willing to pay for it. Because of this, if a 180HP 170 is really what someone wants, the easiest way to get that is to find a nice 170B and pay the money to have it converted.

4. It doesn't make sense to me why you would want a 180HP 170 AND a 182. Why not just sell the 182 and buy a early/light 180? It will do what the 170 does light, as well as what the 182 does with more prop clearance. Sure, you won't have the sportyness of the 170, but is that worth maintaining a whole other aircraft for? If it is, why not a 180 and something really small and fun like a t-crate.

5. What about the experimental market? What about a 4-place cub? Seems you could build one of those cheaper than you can find a 180HP 170B.

Here's a 175 for you,

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... agger.html

akschu wrote:

motoadve wrote:
4. It doesn't make sense to me why you would want a 180HP 170 AND a 182. Why not just sell the 182 and buy a early/light 180? It will do what the 170 does light, as well as what the 182 does with more prop clearance. Sure, you won't have the sportyness of the 170, but is that worth maintaining a whole other aircraft for? If it is, why not a 180 and something really small and fun like a t-crate.

This surprised me also, the 182 that you have looks really capable. I would want a Cub, or an experimental for a toy.

That 172 looks very nice, but it will always be a slightly different plane.

I bought a 170 as my first plane and I am doing a 180hp conversion to it. I think it will be my only plane. Not a rational decision, but what I want to do:)

Mapleflt wrote:Here's a 175 for you,

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... agger.html

a) That's not a 175, it's a 172.
b) It's got an O-320, not a 360 or 470.
c) Its a slant tail. In my experience, those don't do as well as the straight tail airplanes as far as directional stability and control
d) It has the "Low" Bolen gear. Look at the prop clearance. Bolen used two gear types, and this one is less desirable if you going off airport or back country.

MTV