I know about Delair, I have Harry's LONG Range set in mine. 67g.
It seems to me that part of the 170B for sale was listed as having Atlee Dodge tanks, maybe I just read it wrong.

I suggest if anyone whishes to do Harry's tanks that the only do the EXTENDED range verstion. It is 15 gal more total. and a LOT easier to install the the LONG range tanks I did.

I looked into the flints but did not want to have them electrically operated.
Did not want all that weight on the ends of the wings.
The Delair tanks are a "stock" process format, Just bigger.

It is hard to find this plane on barnstormers. Under quick search, enter cessna 170B.

Tim

Tried to cut/paste the web page but it comes up with just the generic search page.

Gump, when you headed this way next.

Tim

qmdv wrote:Gump, when you headed this way next.

Tim

Hopefully in the next three weeks. Just depends on what the weather decides to do. I'll PM ahead of time.

Gump

170B for 70K or this then spend the difference on whatever.

http://www.controller.com/listings/airc ... 1864548720

Tim

Dang it, qmdv---Don't tempt me......

Looks like a really nice airplane. Unless there's some uglys like corrosion there someplace. If not--it'd be a good one.

MTV

A mentor friend of mine, who has flown all manner of small planes in the backcountry and everything from a King Air to a Grumman Goose professionally for over 40 years, and operated a delivery service working the small uranium mines in the southwest for a while, recently settled on a 50's era 182 as his perfect personal backcountry plane. I'm thinking as MTV that if I no longer have a real reason for a tailwheel plane (skis) and want something with more IFR performance, that might be the way to go.

I never really considered a 182 cuz I don't really like how they look but after seeing this pic...maybe I could live with a tri-gear.

That is the same vintage as mine but that is way more pretty. That half polished aluminum and half paint is really neat looking.

How did this original post of mine morf to a 182 thread. Probably my fault.

Tim

qmdv wrote:
How did this original post of mine morf to a 182 thread. Probably my fault.

Tim

Well, that it did might be a graphic demonstration of what your decision should be

On the other hand, considering the last few posts, maybe you and I should simply trade airplanes

Tim, I think you made a really smart move by not buying that 170B. Slower speeds, less payload, more money, expensive insurance, damn sales tax...the list goes on and on.

But perhaps the most important consideration to me is that when you didn't buy it, I did !

I think my mechanic summed it up when, after looking it over, he said, "You mean to tell me that someone who own's this plane is actually going to sell it?"

Thanks for the heads up!

Hammer wrote:But perhaps the most important consideration to me is that when you didn't buy it, I did !

Congrats!!!!! That is a beautiful airplane.

Gump

So as the proud owners of a practically brand new and absolutely beautiful 170B (in which I have yet to fly...it has rained and snowed since the day after we returned from Yreka 10 days ago and she is torn down right now awaiting her annual.) I was wondering if I could get some input or your thoughts on the transition and learning curve from flying a "big engine" 140 to the 170.

I have 100 plus hours, all tailwheel, all 140 time (except a few hours in a 172 with a 180 hp engine and tailwheel conversion.) Being a smaller specimen of the fairer sex I have loved the size of the 140. I can pull and push her in and out of the hangar no problem. She is just such a docile and manageable beast.

I was a strong proponent of waiting until we found the right 170 rather than looking closely at 180s, or Maules even, just because of the size. I wanted a smaller step up, something I could transition into without too much angst or difficulty.

So any tips on what to expect; what to do, what not to do; things to watch out for and things I should know about ahead of time.

thanks.

snoopydoc wrote:I was wondering if I could get some input or your thoughts on the transition and learning curve from flying a "big engine" 140 to the 170.

You men from a "big engine" 140 to a "big engine" 170. Dan had a 140 befor he got the 170. Give him a call.

Glad the plane is in my circle of friends.

Tim

I'm thinking the 170 will be easier to fly (or rather, easier to land) than
the 140 by virtue of the heavier wing loading on the 170. I have a little
over 700 hours in the 170B (stock engine), and found that my 180 is
easier to fly/land than the 170 was for that very reason (the 170 was
very docile / forgiving, but in gusty / turbulent conditions, the 180 is just
easier to land....).

Really the only thing wrong with a 170B is the original powerplant (not
enough power...). With the stock engine, it's an "unbalanced" airplane
(can get into places way shorter than it can get out of). With a 180
horsepower (or higher) engine bolted on up front, there's nothing left
to worry about.... Just hop in and go fly!

I went from a 120 to a 170b no problem the flaps and nose down attitude on final are the things youl notice. I tended to flair to high as a result but easily overcame that with a few circutes. buy some gass and go flying.

Ditto the tailwheel steering, can you say "differential braking"?

I push and pull my 170 around myself, using the BAS handles (a requirement for anyone IMHO) even outside in the snow but then again I am a 6'3". 195 lb specimen of perfect manhood

Other than that, if you can fly a 140, you sure as heck can fly a 170. You'll probably find it easier (flew a 140 once, a squirrely beast!)

I agree, had a 140 as a kid (40 years ago) and flew a 170 a lot about 10 years ago, the 170 is easier to land because of the great over the nose view, and it just is slower to react. You will have no trouble. I hauled a lot of weight in the 170 with very little problems... fairly slow climbout and a tendecy to get a little hot, but one of my favorite airplanes of all time... For backcountry, the over the nose view on landing is priceless to me.