Haha. In April of 2015 I received the response that an FAA STC for the 170 was close and 12 months or less was the estimated completion time. I know these things can and do take time, but I stopped holding my breath 5 years ago.

Helio295 wrote:Haha. In April of 2015 I received the response that an FAA STC for the 170 was close and 12 months or less was the estimated completion time. I know these things can and do take time, but I stopped holding my breath 5 years ago.

I talked to them back in around 2012, and they said then that they'd pretty much given up on getting the GW increase in the US. So, they may be re-visiting this, but that's how long this has been a "thing".

MTV

When I bought my 170 it came with a set of Bruce’s covers for engine and canopy.
Since the bird lives in its own hangar in Massachusetts I don’t see any reason to put them on (as dust covers e.g.).

The only time I might use them would be during my beloved cross country adventures.
Those don’t happen in frosty temperatures or unexpected snow (let’s forget for a moment my dream about flying in Alaska…) so I’m not sure I need them at all.

Twice I pulled them out of the extended baggage and put them on, just to see how they fit.

What would they protect against? Blowing sand or dust, perhaps? Or envious looks at the instrument panel?

Well they might protect against the big wind storm you might run into on a cross country adventure. I'ms sure you are diligent and lock the doors from the inside on every night the plane is outside. Those covers will help prevent the winds from opening and unsecured door due to high winds. See Fly Ryan's posts about his 182. They are better than not having them on but the best bet is to ensure you lock the doors from the inside each night. To me they covers are a reminder to do that as the last thing I do when the plane is outside.

MW

Seems like wingX would still be a worthwhile mod even without the GW increase.

Verticaltransit wrote:Seems like wingX would still be a worthwhile mod even without the GW increase.

Becomes a very tight fit in a T-Hangar, but performance on floats would benefit for sure. But, the 170 with a bigger engine would really benefit from an increase in gross weight.

MTV

140eagles wrote:When I bought my 170 it came with a set of Bruce’s covers for engine and canopy.
Since the bird lives in its own hangar in Massachusetts I don’t see any reason to put them on (as dust covers e.g.).

The only time I might use them would be during my beloved cross country adventures.
Those don’t happen in frosty temperatures or unexpected snow (let’s forget for a moment my dream about flying in Alaska…) so I’m not sure I need them at all.

Twice I pulled them out of the extended baggage and put them on, just to see how they fit.

What would they protect against? Blowing sand or dust, perhaps? Or envious looks at the instrument panel?

I always removed windshield covers in winds, for fear some grit might get in there and scratch the plexi. Don’t know if it would, frankly, but if it’s windy, you typically don’t need protection from ice or frost. That’s the only reason I have ever used covers….frost.

Engine covers can come in handy in relatively cool weather as well as really cold.

MTV

mtv wrote:

Verticaltransit wrote:Seems like wingX would still be a worthwhile mod even without the GW increase.

Becomes a very tight fit in a T-Hangar, but performance on floats would benefit for sure. But, the 170 with a bigger engine would really benefit from an increase in gross weight.

MTV

We thankfully do benefit from a GW increase north of the 49th parallel, I've done the engine upgrade. WingX extensions are on the list for this Fall once I'm back on wheels before next summer on floats.

Yep, with the GW increase, the wing extensions would pay for themselves. Frankly, even knowing how hard it is to deal with the FAA, I’m surprised they haven’t kept going on the wing x in US. I’ll bet they’d sell a bunch………but recover expenses? Maybe.

MTV

140eagles wrote:When I bought my 170 it came with a set of Bruce’s covers for engine and canopy.
Since the bird lives in its own hangar in Massachusetts I don’t see any reason to put them on (as dust covers e.g.).

The only time I might use them would be during my beloved cross country adventures.
Those don’t happen in frosty temperatures or unexpected snow (let’s forget for a moment my dream about flying in Alaska…) so I’m not sure I need them at all.

Twice I pulled them out of the extended baggage and put them on, just to see how they fit.

What would they protect against? Blowing sand or dust, perhaps? Or envious looks at the instrument panel?

That's a nice looking 170!

I don't see much use for the windshield cover, but I did make sunshades out of reflective bubble insulation to keep the sun out of my 180 when it sits outside. Similar concept without the threat of windshield abrasion.

Engine cover, however, is definitely worthwhile. It'll really help preheat on a cold morning in Massachusetts, plus it's good for keeping birds out of the cowling if you're tied down outside for any length of time. Cowl plugs may be better for bird avoidance, but an engine cover works too.

I tied down outside for a few days one spring. A bird built a nest on top of my #2 cylinder and laid three eggs. I felt bad for the momma bird but there wasn't much I could do, and picking all the straw out was a pain in the butt. Now I use cowl plugs and close the cowl flaps, but an engine cover would work too.

mtv wrote:My 170 came with a similar device to capture the rudder. The elevator was locked with the standard Cessna gust lock, which consists of a long piece of bent steel, the end of which goes through a hole in the panel gusset which the control column goes through. Once you line up the control column so that the holes match, you insert the control lock. If it's a Cessna original, it'll then block the throttle with a "RBF" flag on the opposite end.

It's pretty easy to fabricate something like that if you don't have what came with the plane. They are for sale around as well.

This is also what I use on the 175. It locks both the elevators and the ailerons. The rudder lock you show works pretty well on the rudder, or if you don't have something similar, move the tailwheel around till it engages with the rudder. That'll keep the rudder from banging in MOST winds.

Some folks don't like the internal control locks, arguing that the wind then puts stresses on the control cables and circuit. That's true, but first, you SHOULD be parked facing into the wind, in which case, the control lock holds the controls neutral, so no harm no foul. If the winds from behind (sometimes shit happens), then yes, this lock does put some stresses on the control circuits.

I've operated Cessnas for a long time, and worked them in some pretty windy country, and never had any concerns about using the internal control lock.

Just remember to remove prior to flight.....

MTV

I have had bent aileron pushrods and a damaged rudder parked tail into wind in a storm using the internal control lock (which has no rudder lock). C180. Couldn’t fly it out. External gust-locks for me now.

JamieG wrote:

mtv wrote:My 170 came with a similar device to capture the rudder. The elevator was locked with the standard Cessna gust lock, which consists of a long piece of bent steel, the end of which goes through a hole in the panel gusset which the control column goes through. Once you line up the control column so that the holes match, you insert the control lock. If it's a Cessna original, it'll then block the throttle with a "RBF" flag on the opposite end.

It's pretty easy to fabricate something like that if you don't have what came with the plane. They are for sale around as well.

This is also what I use on the 175. It locks both the elevators and the ailerons. The rudder lock you show works pretty well on the rudder, or if you don't have something similar, move the tailwheel around till it engages with the rudder. That'll keep the rudder from banging in MOST winds.
I
Some folks don't like the internal control locks, arguing that the wind then puts stresses on the control cables and circuit. That's true, but first, you SHOULD be parked facing into the wind, in which case, the control lock holds the controls neutral, so no harm no foul. If the winds from behind (sometimes shit happens), then yes, this lock does put some stresses on the control circuits.

I've operated Cessnas for a long time, and worked them in some pretty windy country, and never had any concerns about using the internal control lock.

Just remember to remove prior to flight.....

MTV

I have had bent aileron pushrods and a damaged rudder parked tail into wind in a storm using the internal control lock (which has no rudder lock). C180. Couldn’t fly it out. External gust-locks for me now.

I’ve parked Cessnas outside using the internal lock many many nights. My airplanes lived outdoors, but you’re right….it can happen.

That said, I’ve also seen many external gust locks laying on the ground after they wiggled loose in wind. So, if you use them, figure out how to secure them in place….solidly, as in can’t come off.

Best program is, of course, to park into the wind. Wouldn’t it be nice if that were possible always?

MTV

In the southern hemisphere, where I am right now, it’s a week after winter solstice and the days are short, grey and dark. No wonder that during an evening of armchair flying the topic of lights popped up, landing and taxi lights, that is.
My 170 came with the standard lights already replaced by Whelen Parmetheus LEDs, which are apparently a big improvement over the original bulbs.




Digging a little deeper here at bcp I realized that AeroLED is a sponsor - and they sure do have intriguing products. Do I see another rabbit hole opening up?
When I began comparing different models I realized that the rabbit hole is right there: finding meaningful data for the most relevant parameter, the light output.
It turns out that the brightness, measured in candela, of those LEDs drops (in some cases significantly) during the first 15 min after turning them on.
See here, for example (click on "output data")
https://flywat.com/collections/led-airc ... 2%84%A2-g3

So without being sure that the published candela value was measured after the light output stabilized one does not have a useful criterium to select the brightest light for illuminating the landing/taxi area ahead (apart from the few models in the link above).

Now seeing better/more is only one aspect of a possible upgrade. To be seen is at least as important and for that the ultimate brightness is perhaps less relevant.
A pulse/wig wag feature trumps brightness, in my book, anyway.

Since I have strobes I decided - for the time being - to save my money and perhaps dedicate an evening to adjust the lights and make sure they throw their photons in the direction where they’re most useful.

I heard it just got approved.

Let the fun begin…
Actually, it began already some time ago.
Just when the O300 was about to be taken off and sent out for an OH chance teased me with an unexpected alternative: upgrade to an O360!
It took a few days to persuade myself to spend all my money on a childhood dream, but in the end I went for it.



No more O300, just a bunch of old “connections”.

140eagles wrote:Let the fun begin…
Actually, it began already some time ago.
Just when the O300 was about to be taken off and sent out for an OH chance teased me with an unexpected alternative: upgrade to an O360!
It took a few days to persuade myself to spend all my money on a childhood dream, but in the end I went for it.



No more O300, just a bunch of old “connections”.

Whooooo-Hoooo! You’re going to love it. That engine will put a smile on your face that’ll be hard to lose.

MTV

140eagles wrote:Let the fun begin…
Actually, it began already some time ago.
Just when the O300 was about to be taken off and sent out for an OH chance teased me with an unexpected alternative: upgrade to an O360!
It took a few days to persuade myself to spend all my money on a childhood dream, but in the end I went for it.



No more O300, just a bunch of old “connections”.

Heck yes! A 170B with an O-360 is a nearly perfect airplane. If I didn't fly with my family and heaps of stuff, I'd seriously consider trading my 180 in for a 180hp 170B.

+1. Best decision I ever made. It was a fun install also.

Awesome!!! You're Gonna love it for sure.

mtv wrote:My 170 never had a baggage door. It was suggested a couple times, but never a high priority. That plane did have an extended baggage.

My 175 has ext. baggage, and no baggage door as well.

Mostly, what I use the ext. baggage for is survival gear….out of sight, out of mind, but always there. So I rarely need to access stuff there.

Finally, I’ve spent thousands of hours working 185s which were equipped with baggage doors. I can’t think of a time those doors were really particularly useful. Handy, maybe, but……

I’m not the least interested in spending the $$ it would take to install a baggage door.

MTV

I’d sure miss my baggage door.

When I’ve got 2 or 3 people and a ton of weight in the float compartments, I often have to put some of the heaviest stuff in the aft baggage to balance the load.