I know, the 180 is faster and can carry more, the mission for this plane is about having fun, fly it off airport lightweight, carrying 2 adults and a kid sometimes, or 2 people and 2 MT bikes, the 170 is just a lot of fun to fly, maybe not as fun as a Super cub, but cannot put 3 people on a Cub.

Do you have a picture of your 170 with 2 people and 2 bikes loaded?

No , I had to get an approval to remove the battery farther back so I can install an extended baggage compartment.
Just got the approval and have the Selkirk kit , so soon I will be able to take the bikes.

I chose a 170 over a 180 and a cub, because two planes wasn't really in the current equation.

-DP

Don't have a picture but two folding mountain bikes, camping gear and food for four days fit fine in my 170 with the O-300 and no extended baggage. Johnson Creek, Alvord and fun.

Two full size e-bikes and camping gear fit great my 180. Only have to take the front tires off. Should fit nice in a 170 too as long as you have the flat floor extended baggage.

In my 182 I can fit my bike fully assembled, bike #2 we usually remove the front wheel.
In the 170 I think we will need to remove the front wheel of both bikes.

There are some amazing places to fly and ride in WA state.

Do you have to take a door off to get it in fully assembled?

No, it will go thru the door fully assembled.

Where other than Ranger Creek?

BTW, it’s complete shame (and failure) that Ranger Creek is closed outside of June 1 to Oct 1. We lose so many opportunities to go there because of this closure when conditions are still great.

Love that picture of you looking waaaayyy down to the airstrip

slow18 wrote:Where other than Ranger Creek?

BTW, it’s complete shame (and failure) that Ranger Creek is closed outside of June 1 to Oct 1. We lose so many opportunities to go there because of this closure when conditions are still great.

Tieton, Anacortes, Orcas island, one time flew to a private strip near the trails at Bremerton.
But Ranger Creek is the best, no idea why is closed for so many months, it is paved, what is the reasoning?

Thanks for the other locations to fly and ride.

With regard to Ranger Creek, I’m not sure on the reasoning, but WA is a legit nanny state. Would be nice to see the RAF weigh in on it. It is paved and often without snow in winter. I fly over it regularly. After all, Copalis is open year round and it’s under water twice a day.

slow18 wrote:With regard to Ranger Creek, I’m not sure on the reasoning, but WA is a legit nanny state. Would be nice to see the RAF weigh in on it. It is paved and often without snow in winter. I fly over it regularly. After all, Copalis is open year round and it’s under water twice a day.

Might be worth asking. Sullivan Lake was open(legal) an extra month this year because we happened to be there and ask when the WSDOT surveyor showed up at Ione. At least I think us asking had something to do with it.
As to the 170/180/SC debate, makes sense as the next plane when you've got the modded 182 and the CJ6 but still want to carry bikes in the small plane.
Real question - if you were starting from scratch now that you've flown a bit of everything, would you join the club and go for 180/SC combo?

DreadPirateWill wrote:

slow18 wrote:With regard to Ranger Creek, I’m not sure on the reasoning, but WA is a legit nanny state. Would be nice to see the RAF weigh in on it. It is paved and often without snow in winter. I fly over it regularly. After all, Copalis is open year round and it’s under water twice a day.

Might be worth asking. Sullivan Lake was open(legal) an extra month this year because we happened to be there and ask when the WSDOT surveyor showed up at Ione. At least I think us asking had something to do with it.
As to the 170/180/SC debate, makes sense as the next plane when you've got the modded 182 and the CJ6 but still want to carry bikes in the small plane.
Real question - if you were starting from scratch now that you've flown a bit of everything, would you join the club and go for 180/SC combo?

Initially when I was looking for a plane and I lived in Costa Rica, I wanted a 180, but there were none available, there was a nice 182 , and I bought that one.

If I could only have one plane , I think a 180 might be the one I will have, might not be as fun as the 170, but it can do off airport, and be better to travel from Seattle to Costa Rica and all around Central America since it is faster.

I agree that a 170 seems like a better choice than a 180 for a lightweight bar-hopper & fun flyer,
but IMHO if you start loading it up you'll just turn it into an under-powered 180.

This is an interesting topic to think about. 170s are super awesome and fun to fly, as are 180s. If a little bit of cargo space is required, I wonder what’s really the better tool for a 700’ gravel bar?

1) a heavily loaded 170 or,
2) a lightly loaded 180?

motoadve wrote:Initially when I was looking for a plane and I lived in Costa Rica, I wanted a 180, but there were none available, there was a nice 182 , and I bought that one.

If I could only have one plane , I think a 180 might be the one I will have, might not be as fun as the 170, but it can do off airport, and be better to travel from Seattle to Costa Rica and all around Central America since it is faster.

Agreed.
I'd be curious how different your super 170 flies than my 54 180(pretty much stock with a sportsman kit). Probably a bit easier to push out of the hangar, but I'd bet they fly relatively close. Next time you're through Spokane let me know and we can fly back to back if you'd like.

DreadPirateWill wrote:

motoadve wrote:Initially when I was looking for a plane and I lived in Costa Rica, I wanted a 180, but there were none available, there was a nice 182 , and I bought that one.

If I could only have one plane , I think a 180 might be the one I will have, might not be as fun as the 170, but it can do off airport, and be better to travel from Seattle to Costa Rica and all around Central America since it is faster.

Agreed.
I'd be curious how different your super 170 flies than my 54 180(pretty much stock with a sportsman kit). Probably a bit easier to push out of the hangar, but I'd bet they fly relatively close. Next time you're through Spokane let me know and we can fly back to back if you'd like.

I will be happy to do that.
Something I really like about the 170 is the light feel on the controls and also how slow you can approach, I never look at the GPS or ASI to look at the speed, but downloaded the GPS from the GoPro and as you can see , it approaches slow, (calm winds on this approach).

motoadve wrote:....Something I really like about the 170 is the light feel on the controls and also how slow you can approach....

The 170B & 180 have the same wing,
they should perform about the same-- given the same aircraft weight
and the same mods (Sportsman, VGs, whatever).
The lower the weight, the slower it will fly and the lighter it will feel.
Dunno what your hotrodded 170 weighs, but I would guess between 1350 & 1400.
An early 180 can easily come in at 1650, or less if the owner works at it.
So a little heavier feeling, and a little higher stall speed...
but with 30 to 45 more horsepower.
For all-around use, I know which one I'd choose.
(see my punchline below)