So I'm working on my license, I've had to take the summer almost off of flying to work at the farm but I'm close to soloing and hope to finish my license in the next few months. I'm training on a Citabria and my objectives are trips with the kids into the backcountry of British Columbia and sheep hunting up North.
My question is will the 170B or 172 on floats with the 180 hp conversion be up to the task if properly equipped. With say half fuel and 2 guys averaging 170 lbs and two backpacks at 60 lbs each and one dead and deboned sheep how much lake would you need to takeoff at say 4000 ft elev?
I realize there are perhaps more suitable planes for the job but I'd like to start with something a little less costly.
Thanks in advance.

I have not flown a C172 180HP float plane but, the raw numbers would tell me 4000 DA at gross ( or slightly over) is pushing it. Try before you buy.

They will work but they are marginal at higher elevations. They probably won't safely lift the loads you're talking about at altitude. You can fly anything if it's light though.

I looked at buying a 170 with the 180 Hp engine in it. Believe it or not the numbers are much better on an early 180. Both purchase price and fuel vs. distance/time are a better deal...and you would have a real float plane. I know it sounds weird but it's true. You get more than twice the airplane for 1/3rd (or less) more money! I have used a 180J on 2960's for hunting at elevations up to about 4500ft and to be honest...I would not really want anything less. A smaller plane will work but you will be shuttling into and out of camp...one load with guys...another with gear...another with fuel...another with food...another with game meat...etc. etc. All that shuttling adds up quick and in the long run, you burn way more fuel!

Go visit Rick at Langley Aero Structures and he can show ya the numbers. He made a believer out of me...and he's a big lover of the 170 so I think it was hard for him to believe his own numbers ...he loves 170's but he flies a 180.

There is a 180 hp and a 160 hp skyhawk both on EDO 2130's here. Both of these guys have camps in northern Quebec. The camps are 400 miles north of here and these guys will go for a week or more. In the skyhawk with one passenger and with the back seat removed there is plenty of room for gear. But the skyhawk is no 180/185, I have 150 hp hawk and personally i wouldn't want the 180 hp with my standard range tanks. But then I am operating closer to sea level than you and 150 hp works for me. At gross weight on a recent salmon fishing trip I was off the water in under 1500' (DA was under 1000)

Perhaps the more powerful 172 with the 210hp engine might be a better fit?

The key factor that nobody's mentioned yet is the floats. Whatever flavor of airplane you wind up with, the model of float will have a significant effect on takeoff performance.

So, carefully consider the type float you're getting as well as the airplane.

I owned and flew a Cessna 170 on PeeKay B2300 floats for fourteen or so years. Those are great floats, and REALLY hard to find. EDO 2000 floats are the most common on a 170. But, they are under floated. The other float approved is the Wip 2100 but bring $$$.

My 170 could carry full stock fuel (not enough for distances with the 180 engine) and three adults at max gross. I was easily airborne in less than 1800 feet at sea level. The altitude you note is going to be pushing it.

I agree that the 180 is a more realistic load carrier for the load you describe. But, no 180 I ever met will match the takeoff of a good strong 170 with a O 360 and good floats. And I also owned a 66 H model 180 on EDO 2870s, which in my experience are some of the best floats on a light 180 (unless you go up gross, which I wouldn't).

At one point several of us were playing with a 180 on 2960 floats and a 172 with an O 320 on EDO 2130 floats. Near sea level. We did side by side takeoffs, with four of us switching off flying. Two guys in each plane and half fuel. The 172 beat the 180 out of the water on every takeoff, with four different pilots.

The 180 has better range (assuming a later model) and better speed, as well as greater load carrying capability, but I'll put money on a 172 or 170 with a 180 hp engine for takeoff.

By the way, during the time I owned that 180, I was flying a 1985 185 on PeeKay 3500 straight floats. My 180 had a six pound less useful load than that 185. But, the 185 would kick its ass in takeoff performance.

Go figure.

For your mission, I'd consider a big engine 170 or 172 and plan to shuttle.

MTV

mtv wrote:The key factor that nobody's mentioned yet is the floats. Whatever flavor of airplane you wind up with, the model of float will have a significant effect on takeoff performance.

So, carefully consider the type float you're getting as well as the airplane.

I owned and flew a Cessna 170 on PeeKay B2300 floats for fourteen or so years. Those are great floats, and REALLY hard to find. EDO 2000 floats are the most common on a 170. But, they are under floated. The other float approved is the Wip 2100 but bring $$$.

My 170 could carry full stock fuel (not enough for distances with the 180 engine) and three adults at max gross. I was easily airborne in less than 1800 feet at sea level. The altitude you note is going to be pushing it.

I agree that the 180 is a more realistic load carrier for the load you describe. But, no 180 I ever met will match the takeoff of a good strong 170 with a O 360 and good floats. And I also owned a 66 H model 180 on EDO 2870s, which in my experience are some of the best floats on a light 180 (unless you go up gross, which I wouldn't).

At one point several of us were playing with a 180 on 2960 floats and a 172 with an O 320 on EDO 2130 floats. Near sea level. We did side by side takeoffs, with four of us switching off flying. Two guys in each plane and half fuel. The 172 beat the 180 out of the water on every takeoff, with four different pilots.

The 180 has better range (assuming a later model) and better speed, as well as greater load carrying capability, but I'll put money on a 172 or 170 with a 180 hp engine for takeoff.

By the way, during the time I owned that 180, I was flying a 1985 185 on PeeKay 3500 straight floats. My 180 had a six pound less useful load than that 185. But, the 185 would kick its ass in takeoff performance.

Go figure.

For your mission, I'd consider a big engine 170 or 172 and plan to shuttle.

MTV

Thanks for the info and sharing your experiences. I'd heard that the EDO 2000 were not quite enough float for either the 170 or the 172 and the right floats would be a priority for sure. So you're saying that when you had the 180 and the 172 equally loaded near sea level the 172 could get off the water faster and that's been what you've generally observed in other cases as well. So with my example of two guys, two packs, one dead sheep in each plane at 4000 ft, the 180 hp 170 or 172 could take off in less water than the 180? I'd never have guessed. What if you P-Ponk the engine on the 180?

Battson wrote:Perhaps the more powerful 172 with the 210hp engine might be a better fit?

It probably would be but those are scarce. I asked this because I'd obseved a few 170's and 172's with the 180 hp conversion for sale at reasonableish prices but even with the more common 180 hp conversion finding one with the engine done and the long range tanks and the float kit isn't that easy I'm finding.

Levi wrote:There is a 180 hp and a 160 hp skyhawk both on EDO 2130's here. Both of these guys have camps in northern Quebec. The camps are 400 miles north of here and these guys will go for a week or more. In the skyhawk with one passenger and with the back seat removed there is plenty of room for gear. But the skyhawk is no 180/185, I have 150 hp hawk and personally i wouldn't want the 180 hp with my standard range tanks. But then I am operating closer to sea level than you and 150 hp works for me. At gross weight on a recent salmon fishing trip I was off the water in under 1500' (DA was under 1000)

This is very interesting too. I also live at sea level and at home here I'm sure it would all work great. The sheep and elk don't live at sea level though.

northernguy wrote:They will work but they are marginal at higher elevations. They probably won't safely lift the loads you're talking about at altitude. You can fly anything if it's light though.

I looked at buying a 170 with the 180 Hp engine in it. Believe it or not the numbers are much better on an early 180. Both purchase price and fuel vs. distance/time are a better deal...and you would have a real float plane. I know it sounds weird but it's true. You get more than twice the airplane for 1/3rd (or less) more money! I have used a 180J on 2960's for hunting at elevations up to about 4500ft and to be honest...I would not really want anything less. A smaller plane will work but you will be shuttling into and out of camp...one load with guys...another with gear...another with fuel...another with food...another with game meat...etc. etc. All that shuttling adds up quick and in the long run, you burn way more fuel!

Go visit Rick at Langley Aero Structures and he can show ya the numbers. He made a believer out of me...and he's a big lover of the 170 so I think it was hard for him to believe his own numbers ...he loves 170's but he flies a 180.

Thanks for the ideas northernguy, Is that Rick Church? I know him. I'll have to ask him about this. If you come across any awesome deals on a 180 here in Canada keep me in mind please.

Yep, you bet...Rick Church. He has a very nice 180 that he rebuilt. The thing was a yard sale until he got his hands on it. He knows lots about 180s!

First, I went back and looked at my notes on my 170 on PeeKay 2300s. The takeoff performance I quoted in my earlier post (1800 feet) were at gross alright, but with a "student" flying the plane...ie: someone working toward a SES rating, with very little float experience. That airplane at gross with someone experienced flying it got airborne in 1000 to 1200 feet.

Would a 180 with the PPonk conversion get airborne sooner? Oh, yes....no doubt. That is indeed a great conversion, and fuel flows CAN be as stock if you learn to keep the throttle back in cruise.

Things to consider in any of these airplanes:

Float kit: VERY few 172 came with a float kit. Not that many 170s came with a float kit. A larger proportion of 180s came with a float kit, but still less than half, I'd guess.

Adding a float kit: It is possible and maybe even practical to add a float kit to a 172 or 170. It is NOT practical to add a float kit to a 180, in fact not even close. For starters, the belly skins have to be doubled under the cockpit area. Now, as a caveat, I believe that the 53 model 180 can be converted similarly to the 170 (the fuselages were similar if not virtually identical). BUT, an important consideration in this kind of decision is that a key component of factory float kits on 170/172/180 airplanes is factory corrosion proofing. And in those days, when Cessna corrosion proofed an airframe, they did a really good job. An old friend who worked for Cessna in those days told me they zinc chromated the skins before assy, then shot rivets "wet" with chromate......a messy proposition. The non float equipped airframes had no or little internal corrosion proofing.

Fuel tank capacity: As you describe your mission, it's very much like many of the missions I flew in my working days: A fair distance from home, with weather always a potential, meaning frequent diversions.....eating more fuel than planned. There are a couple ways to deal with his, and I've done them all at one time or another: Tanker fuel in long range tanks, leaving home or the nearest fuel stop to your hunting area with full fuel, giving you the range to get to the hunt, then get home. That works, maybe, but now you REALLY need the takeoff performance (and the useful load, of course) to make it work out of that mountain lake. OR, with some prior planning (perhaps during a scouting trip of your hunting area, cache some gas in cans on a larger/lower elevation lake. In addition, you may wish to use that larger lake as a staging point to shuttle your partner/gear/dead animals out of that high lake. For a lot of years, I used shuttles to move big loads out of small lakes in northern Alaska, and I had gas caches behind many bushes on those lakes. I would point out that this is a LOT cheaper than bigger, more powerful planes/engines. Consider that bears can be pesky, but in twenty years of caching gas cans in dense bear areas, I never lost a can to bears. Some mysteriously disappeared, mind you....

There is no doubt the 180 is faster and more fuel efficient than either the 170 or 172. And, it will probably carry more.....depending on model year. Beware the up-gross kits, or at least the use of those higher weights, for you're going to impact performance......but you could use that feature to tanker fuel from home....

The early 180s are the lightest, but are excluded from many of the attractive mods, and they have small fuel tanks. Look at all your possibilities before dropping cash.

I question the prices noted earlier, comparing 180s to 172 and 170s. The big engine 172/170 do indeed bring a premium price, but so do "decent condition" 180s. Look at the airplane sales outfits, and you'll indeed find relatively "cheap" 180s, but take a close look at those, and I'd bet that 99 out of 100 you'll run not walk away from.

Best of luck, but for my money, I'd look for a good solid plane on good floats, and plan to shuttle. At that altitude, seaplane performance is really impaired, whatever you're flying.

MTV

Another vote for Rick Church, he is a very knowledgeable guy and speaks a lot of sense. Unfortunately I dont have a 180 budget:)

Flying my little 8GCBC with 180HP/MT PROP, I am really careful about DA when on 2100As. Any terrain, turbulence, inversion, and/or engine issues could possibly turn into a major disaster. Float planes are wonderful, but people tend to morf them into something they are not. Insurance is high because of the over confidence among many pilots. Floats are dangerously beautiful!

For me in the Oregon mountains, 4000' DA at lift off would be a concern, and would require a lot of variables to be considered. My ceiling at gross (2100A) is about 11,000 DA. Which is with the stall horn on. Holding on to a tiny "thread."

Shuttle when in doubt. Wait for lower temps. Always have plan "B".

Some comments, from an old hand at high DA and a very inexperienced float flyer:

If all of your flying has been done at low altitudes and low DAs, you'd be shocked at the loss of performance at high DAs. It turns sprightly 4 place airplanes into 2 place airplanes with an empty back seat. It triples or quadruples take off distances. It reduces climb from 800-900 fpm to 200 fpm. And all of this, while being flown correctly. Fly incorrectly, and high DA creates accidents. There is no adequate way of hypothetically creating a high DA situation at a low DA location. Instructors will try it by having the student take off with a reduced throttle, but that doesn't account for the reduced lift of high DA. The only way to know what it is like to fly at high DAs is to fly at high DAs.

When I trained for my SES 2 months ago in Seattle, the airplane was almost a clone of my own but with floats. Mine is a 1963 P172D with an Avcon 180hp Lycoming conversion and a C/S prop and droopy tips. The floatplane trainer is a 1964 172E with the same conversion but with standard tips, on Aqua floats.

My airplane at a 7000' DA is off the runway in less than 1000' with a light to medium load (me, one full size adult, full tanks). The trainer took at least 1500' of water run at a DA of about 1300' with the same load. Conclusion: floats really impair take off performance. The "book" says the run is at least 80% longer in the otherwise same conditions.

The answer is not to ask an airplane to do more than it can.

Cary

MTV,

Not to derail, but what's your opinion of Aerocet floats? Those are the only ones I have any (limited) experience on. Just curious how they stack up.

8GCBC wrote:Flying my little 8GCBC with 180HP/MT PROP, I am really careful about DA when on 2100As. Any terrain, turbulence, inversion, and/or engine issues could possibly turn into a major disaster. Float planes are wonderful, but people tend to morf them into something they are not. Insurance is high because of the over confidence among many pilots. Floats are dangerously beautiful!

For me in the Oregon mountains, 4000' DA at lift off would be a concern, and would require a lot of variables to be considered. My ceiling at gross (2100A) is about 11,000 DA. Which is with the stall horn on. Holding on to a tiny "thread."

Shuttle when in doubt. Wait for lower temps. Always have plan "B".

I asked a floatplane owner friend of mine about his insurance. He said it was so high because nearly every floatplane accident is a total loss. I think he was joking ... a little. But it would make sense, too.

CamTom12 wrote:MTV,

Not to derail, but what's your opinion of Aerocet floats? Those are the only ones I have any (limited) experience on. Just curious how they stack up.

8GCBC wrote:Flying my little 8GCBC with 180HP/MT PROP, I am really careful about DA when on 2100As. Any terrain, turbulence, inversion, and/or engine issues could possibly turn into a major disaster. Float planes are wonderful, but people tend to morf them into something they are not. Insurance is high because of the over confidence among many pilots. Floats are dangerously beautiful!

For me in the Oregon mountains, 4000' DA at lift off would be a concern, and would require a lot of variables to be considered. My ceiling at gross (2100A) is about 11,000 DA. Which is with the stall horn on. Holding on to a tiny "thread."

Shuttle when in doubt. Wait for lower temps. Always have plan "B".

I asked a floatplane owner friend of mine about his insurance. He said it was so high because nearly every floatplane accident is a total loss. I think he was joking ... a little. But it would make sense, too.

Aerocets are GREAT floats, every model of them.

MTV

mtv wrote:

CamTom12 wrote:MTV,

Not to derail, but what's your opinion of Aerocet floats? Those are the only ones I have any (limited) experience on. Just curious how they stack up.

Aerocets are GREAT floats, every model of them.

MTV

+1 on thumbs up for Aerocets!! We have Aerocet 3400 amphibs on our Bush Hawk and we love them. After a couple hours of splashing in and out of different lakes, our friends pump more water out of their aluminum floats in a day than we do in a year! If you are looking at amphibs, the biggest problem seems to be operators not greasing the main wheel bearings adequately, resulting in premature corrosion and pitting. A cheap grease gun is a lot less expensive than buying new bearings every annual!

I signed a 100HR inspection in July. I stay away from saltwater which helps with wheel bearing life. Some water stains but mostly in good shape for (5) years on the coast etc..

There is a Cessna 175 with and o-470 and aqua 2400 floats for sale on barnstormers for 50k. Might be just what your looking for.