As my teenage son would say, "my bad"......here's the correct link but some serious coin involved

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

Mapleflt wrote:As my teenage son would say, "my bad"......here's the correct link but some serious coin involved

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

Whoa, he or she IS proud of that thing! I wonder how they get 2500 gross out of a straight tail 175?
It’d have to be gold plated for that price, though he might have that in it.

MTV

My 175 was $10,000. That was the most I had ever paid for an airplane in the late 70s.

mtv wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:As my teenage son would say, "my bad"......here's the correct link but some serious coin involved

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

Whoa, he or she IS proud of that thing! I wonder how they get 2500 gross out of a straight tail 175?
It’d have to be gold plated for that price, though he might have that in it.

MTV

It is a nice one

I’m really curious how he’s claiming a gross weight of 2500 pounds. The 172 D which is on the 175 TC has a 2500 GW. But the highest GW for a 175 is on the C, which is 2450, but that airplane has a swept tail.

Any ideas?

MTV

mtv wrote:I’m really curious how he’s claiming a gross weight of 2500 pounds. The 172 D which is on the 175 TC has a 2500 GW. But the highest GW for a 175 is on the C, which is 2450, but that airplane has a swept tail.

Any ideas?

MTV

I know that the 0-470 conversion upped the GW by 100 pounds.. That one in the add might have some type of approval for a GW increase with the 0-360 engine conversion..

Brian


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brian-StevesAircraft wrote:

mtv wrote:I’m really curious how he’s claiming a gross weight of 2500 pounds. The 172 D which is on the 175 TC has a 2500 GW. But the highest GW for a 175 is on the C, which is 2450, but that airplane has a swept tail.

Any ideas?

MTV

I know that the 0-470 conversion upped the GW by 100 pounds.. That one in the add might have some type of approval for a GW increase with the 0-360 engine conversion..

Brian


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That would be an interesting approval. The ones with the 470 need a ton of weight aft to keep from falling on their nose.... .

No doubt in my mind the airframe can handle it. Would be nice if legal. I may call them.

MTV

My brother has a stock 170B with a climb prop and my 160 pacer kicks the crap out of it in take off and climb. He has me by a few MPH in cruise but thats it. He is on 26 goodyears an I am on 31 BW. When I was on 26 I could slowly pull away from him in cruise.

That being said, the 170B is a ton of fun to fly and as others have stated is really light on the controls compared to a 182/180 etc.

On my thrice monthly trip from Gallup to Santa Fe, C-175 with GO-300 slightly beat 150 hp Tri-Pacer, and Tri-Pacer beat C172 with O-300 same as what Akavidflyer said. Bungie control connect make Tri-Pacer seem heavier than 172 and heavier 175 seems as heavy control as Tri-Pacer but not as heavy control as 180 or 182.

Went to see the plane, we did not even fly it, had some issues with tail wheel main gear ,lots of play in the Yoke (like I have never seen before) among other things.
So will keep looking for a 170B

Ah thats why I missed you! They didn't even bother to clean it up either. The belly was black!

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

How bout a PA12?
Or change the mission requirement to 2 peeps & go with a Cub or similar.

Deputydog wrote:Ah thats why I missed you! They didn't even bother to clean it up either. The belly was black!

After flying with Jughead in his 170 for about 5 hrs yesterday (and not your typical cruise flight BTW) I am sold on the 170, the visibility and feel its just amazing, and his is just stock!

Wife and daughter want to come along sometimes, so has to be 3 people.

Wise choice if you ask me but I'm a bias, unashamed 170B owner.

However just in case your still "reviewing" options here another one pulled off Barnstormer this AM

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... 0hp!!.html

What is your budget..??

Friend of mine has a few 170's and I know of at least one with 0-360 he has for sale in the 70K range.

Brian

Brian-StevesAircraft wrote:What is your budget..??

Friend of mine has a few 170's and I know of at least one with 0-360 he has for sale in the 70K range.

Brian

70K is in my budget please send me a PM with his contact info.
Why does the 182s have such a big panel? I fly mine with the seat all the way up, flying the 170 is like removing a blind fold.

IFR and fancy panels were the selling point in the 60s. The lest you could see outside the cooler the airplane they thought. Because I patrolled out the front windscreen I hated Cardinal and 182. N model 172 was bad enough. The panel that follows the curved cowl in the 170 and 0-300 172 is wonderful for low altitude work.

Mapleflt wrote:Wise choice if you ask me but I'm a bias, unashamed 170B owner.

However just in case your still "reviewing" options here another one pulled off Barnstormer this AM

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... 0hp!!.html

I've seen this one floating around for a bit. I'm only a neophyte to GA but have read that the Bolen TW conversion can lead to some cracking in the tail doubler. In a brief e-mail exchange with the seller back in October, they mentioned that there is some cracking that exists on both sides in this aircraft but that "eventually will need to be repaired but legal now according the IA."

Also, as of 2020-10-08, it didn't have ADSB but that's not mentioned in the barnstormers ad.

Outside of those two things, this looks like a sweet option!

allPrimes wrote:Also, as of 2020-10-08, it didn't have ADSB but that's not mentioned in the barnstormers ad.

I see that as a positive

allPrimes wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:Wise choice if you ask me but I'm a bias, unashamed 170B owner.

However just in case your still "reviewing" options here another one pulled off Barnstormer this AM

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... 0hp!!.html

I've seen this one floating around for a bit. I'm only a neophyte to GA but have read that the Bolen TW conversion can lead to some cracking in the tail doubler. In a brief e-mail exchange with the seller back in October, they mentioned that there is some cracking that exists on both sides in this aircraft but that "eventually will need to be repaired but legal now according the IA."

Also, as of 2020-10-08, it didn't have ADSB but that's not mentioned in the barnstormers ad.

Outside of those two things, this looks like a sweet option!

I’ve only flown one Cessna with a swept tail that’d been converted to tailwheel. I was not impressed, and I would NOT go there. Rudder authority was definitely lacking. I’ve also heard this from others as well, pilots who I trust.

MTV