c-170 op/ed?

[houstondan]

in my ongoing process of falling in love with various aircraft which i
cannot afford (yet!) i come to the cessna 170.

looks like 35-40k$ for a fair example. i think i prefer the no
nosewheel configuration and i'm endorsed to drag so that's ok. i'm
curious about the 6 cylinder 145hp motor. seems like it would be
smooth. does the ac feel underpowered? it looks to me like a utility
172 analog with a little less power for maybe 20-grand less.

opinions/editorials?


dan

[Don Tuite]

On 13 Apr 2005 19:52:52 -0700, "houstondan"
> wrote:

>in my ongoing process of falling in love with various aircraft which i
>cannot afford (yet!) i come to the cessna 170.
>
>looks like 35-40k$ for a fair example. i think i prefer the no
>nosewheel configuration and i'm endorsed to drag so that's ok. i'm
>curious about the 6 cylinder 145hp motor. seems like it would be
>smooth. does the ac feel underpowered? it looks to me like a utility
>172 analog with a little less power for maybe 20-grand less.
>
>opinions/editorials?

'61 172 in California: $30K

http://www.satoriassociates.com/cessna.htm

email me: dtuiteATpenton.com if you're curious.

Don

[xyzzy]

houstondan wrote:

> in my ongoing process of falling in love with various aircraft which i
> cannot afford (yet!) i come to the cessna 170.
>
> looks like 35-40k$ for a fair example. i think i prefer the no
> nosewheel configuration and i'm endorsed to drag so that's ok. i'm
> curious about the 6 cylinder 145hp motor. seems like it would be
> smooth.

It is smooth. I flew one in a C-172 this weekend and I was really
impressed with how smooth it was.

> does the ac feel underpowered?

The one I flew didn't feel like it. We took off right at gross twice,
three guys and full tanks, once at a 200' airport and once at a 2000'
airport. Climb was good out of the 200' field, but it was a bit
leisurely out of the 2000' airport, and the last 500 feet of our climb
to 7500 seemed to take forever. On a hot day, I think that would have
been a no-go, we would not have been able to top the tanks before
leaving or maybe only two of us could have gone. However in fairness
since it was not my plane I may not have been on the exactly correct Vy
speed (I climbed at 80mph, and the owner flew the leg out of the 200'
airport, when the climb seemed fine).

The plane had a fuel totalizer and we burned 7.5 gph in cruise and about
11 in climb.

> it looks to me like a utility
> 172 analog with a little less power for maybe 20-grand less.
>
> opinions/editorials?

Even though it was a C-172 and not a 170, I was very impressed with the
one I flew in.

My only concern about owning one would be that I assume a six cylinder
would be more expensive to overhaul and maintain than a four, but I
don't know how much more.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On 13 Apr 2005 19:52:52 -0700, "houstondan"
> wrote:

I own a '54 B model. I use it as a two place airplane (hint: response
to your "is it underpowered" question). I occaisionally will load 3
or 4 people into it if the conditions are right (cool weather + 1/2
tanks or less).

The last 200 lbs towards gross really changes the aircraft's
performance capabilities.

The C-145 is smooth and trouble-free (for me). You must aggressively
lean (on the ground and under low power) and/or use TCP to keep from
fouling the plugs.

If you operate a 170 conservatively (keep the weight down), it's a
fanastic airplane. Dirt cheap to operate, easy to maintain, parts
are no big deal. It's also nice to look at (gotta love that big round
tail).

But the airplane does need more power (what airplane doesn't?).
If I won the lottery, I'd put an 210hp IO-360 in it or perhaps a 220
Franklin.

Bela P. Havasreti

>in my ongoing process of falling in love with various aircraft which i
>cannot afford (yet!) i come to the cessna 170.
>
>looks like 35-40k$ for a fair example. i think i prefer the no
>nosewheel configuration and i'm endorsed to drag so that's ok. i'm
>curious about the 6 cylinder 145hp motor. seems like it would be
>smooth. does the ac feel underpowered? it looks to me like a utility
>172 analog with a little less power for maybe 20-grand less.
>
>opinions/editorials?
>
>
>dan

[Montblack]

("Don Tuite" wrote)
> '61 172 in California: $30K
>
> http://www.satoriassociates.com/cessna.htm

Thank you for including the price - makes all the difference. Really.
Thanks.


Wonder if three people in the flying club could have gotten a (no broker)
"insiders discount" ($3,000) + the normal horse trading deductions ($3,000)?

Now they'd be looking at $24K. Let's say $27K if the Club plays hardball
<g>.

That's still $10K each, for a decent basic plane ...with a $3k (or $6K)
starting balance in your new partnership. Haven't checked out the ad, I'm
thinking it's a many mods, low-time gem :-)

Do people do this - buy their flying club's planes? Going from big clubs, to
smaller partnerships.


Montblack

[Don Tuite]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:13:40 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Don Tuite" wrote)
>> '61 172 in California: $30K
>>
>> http://www.satoriassociates.com/cessna.htm
>
>Thank you for including the price - makes all the difference. Really.
>Thanks.
>
>
>Wonder if three people in the flying club could have gotten a (no broker)
>"insiders discount" ($3,000) + the normal horse trading deductions ($3,000)?
>
>Now they'd be looking at $24K. Let's say $27K if the Club plays hardball
><g>.
>
>That's still $10K each, for a decent basic plane ...with a $3k (or $6K)
>starting balance in your new partnership. Haven't checked out the ad, I'm
>thinking it's a many mods, low-time gem :-)
>
>Do people do this - buy their flying club's planes? Going from big clubs, to
>smaller partnerships.

Probably not in this case. The 11 of us voted ourselves a hefty
assessment so that after the Cessna sells we can buy a 74 Tiger or
Challenger* (Tiger preferred). The club's other plane is a '67
Cherokee 235, and it flys 200 hours/year to the Cessna's 100, even
though the hourly rates are around $100 and $66 (Wet/Tach). The
notion is that speed will even out the disparity in annual hours
flown, But that's our demographics. The club's youngest members are
in their 40s, and the older members are retired. Three newly-minted
pilots interested in building time fairly cheaply would be a good
scenario for the Cessna.

(If you're curious about club finances, Monthly dues are $150. We
have a hangar and a tiedown. Engine reserves are fully funded.
Memberships do not come up often, but have been going in the $6K-7K
range. With the Tiger or Challenger, that would probably go up a
couple of grand, but in any event, how much a membership sells for
depends on how much somebody is willing to pay for it.)

Don
*Cherokee 180 in the year between the 180D and the Arrow.

[xyzzy]

Don Tuite wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:13:40 -0500, "Montblack"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>("Don Tuite" wrote)
>>
>>>'61 172 in California: $30K
>>>
>>>http://www.satoriassociates.com/cessna.htm
>>
>>Thank you for including the price - makes all the difference. Really.
>>Thanks.
>>
>>
>>Wonder if three people in the flying club could have gotten a (no broker)
>>"insiders discount" ($3,000) + the normal horse trading deductions ($3,000)?
>>
>>Now they'd be looking at $24K. Let's say $27K if the Club plays hardball
>><g>.
>>
>>That's still $10K each, for a decent basic plane ...with a $3k (or $6K)
>>starting balance in your new partnership. Haven't checked out the ad, I'm
>>thinking it's a many mods, low-time gem :-)
>>
>>Do people do this - buy their flying club's planes? Going from big clubs, to
>>smaller partnerships.
>
>
> Probably not in this case. The 11 of us voted ourselves a hefty
> assessment so that after the Cessna sells we can buy a 74 Tiger or
> Challenger* (Tiger preferred).

Just curious and unrelated to this thread, but do votes for big
assessments have to be unanimous, or a supermajority? Espeically given
that your members seem to have a lot of equity in the club so they can't
just quit if they don't want to pay, I'm curious how you handle that.

[xyzzy]

Montblack wrote:

> ("Don Tuite" wrote)
>
>> '61 172 in California: $30K
>>
>> http://www.satoriassociates.com/cessna.htm
>
>
> Thank you for including the price - makes all the difference. Really.
> Thanks.
>
>
> Wonder if three people in the flying club could have gotten a (no
> broker) "insiders discount" ($3,000) + the normal horse trading
> deductions ($3,000)?
>
> Now they'd be looking at $24K. Let's say $27K if the Club plays hardball
> <g>.
>
> That's still $10K each, for a decent basic plane ...with a $3k (or $6K)
> starting balance in your new partnership. Haven't checked out the ad,
> I'm thinking it's a many mods, low-time gem :-)

I'm thinking they'd need a bigger balance than that. It is a nice
plane, but with an out of production six-cylinder engine only 450 hours
from TBO, they'll be needing a lot of money soon. If the crankshaft
can't be reused in the overhaul, a new engine may be needed, and it
probably wouldn't be an O-300 (that's what my friend who owns a 172C
with the same engine tells me anyway, and that would a bummer, as the
smooth 6cyl is IMO one of the best things about these models). At 24K
it would probably be worth a plunge, but each partner should put in $13K
(which isn't much more than 10K in aviation money :) so they start with
15K in the bank which is a lot closer to a new engine.

All IMO of course.

[Nathan Young]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:54:46 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>
>Probably not in this case. The 11 of us voted ourselves a hefty
>assessment so that after the Cessna sells we can buy a 74 Tiger or
>Challenger* (Tiger preferred). The club's other plane is a '67
>Cherokee 235, and it flys 200 hours/year to the Cessna's 100, even
<snip>
>Don
>*Cherokee 180 in the year between the 180D and the Arrow.

Actually the Challenger is only the 1973 model year.

I fly a '71 Cherokee 180F, and it still has the short fuselage as the
60s models. The '72 180G is the same.

The big deltas in the Cherokee line are as follows:

1963? :Introduction of Cherokee 180
1968: Cherokee 180: Added 3rd side windows and standard T+2 panel
layout
1973: Challenger: ~5" Fuselage extension between front/rear seats
1974: Archer I: ?
1976: Archer II: New longer tapered wing
Late 90's: Archer III: New cowling and redesigned instrument panel


-Nathan

[Don Tuite]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:22:30 -0400, xyzzy > wrote:

>
>Just curious and unrelated to this thread, but do votes for big
>assessments have to be unanimous, or a supermajority? Espeically given
>that your members seem to have a lot of equity in the club so they can't
>just quit if they don't want to pay, I'm curious how you handle that.

Simple majority, with proxies for members who can't make a meeting,
but the motion gets a lot of discussion before the meeting and people
are sensitive to others' feelings.

So far, so good. The club was founded in 1946. Until a year of so
ago, we actually had one member who was the son of a founder.
(Although he'd bought in on his own a number of years after his dad
passed on -- or sold up,I don't know which.) The son left for the
usual reason: moved out of the area.

Don

[houstondan]

hum........does being out of production mean there are not replacements
out there?

in this case?

dan

[Jim Burns]

I'd lean towards an all metal B model. Do a google for the model/equipment
changes, you can compare prices better then.
Jim

"houstondan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> in my ongoing process of falling in love with various aircraft which i
> cannot afford (yet!) i come to the cessna 170.
>
> looks like 35-40k$ for a fair example. i think i prefer the no
> nosewheel configuration and i'm endorsed to drag so that's ok. i'm
> curious about the 6 cylinder 145hp motor. seems like it would be
> smooth. does the ac feel underpowered? it looks to me like a utility
> 172 analog with a little less power for maybe 20-grand less.
>
> opinions/editorials?
>
>
> dan
>

[Dave Stadt]

The 170 A model was also all metal. The 170 had rag wings and if hungered
there is nothing wrong with them.

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> I'd lean towards an all metal B model. Do a google for the
model/equipment
> changes, you can compare prices better then.
> Jim
>
> "houstondan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > in my ongoing process of falling in love with various aircraft which i
> > cannot afford (yet!) i come to the cessna 170.
> >
> > looks like 35-40k$ for a fair example. i think i prefer the no
> > nosewheel configuration and i'm endorsed to drag so that's ok. i'm
> > curious about the 6 cylinder 145hp motor. seems like it would be
> > smooth. does the ac feel underpowered? it looks to me like a utility
> > 172 analog with a little less power for maybe 20-grand less.
> >
> > opinions/editorials?
> >
> >
> > dan
> >
>
>

[Jim Burns]

Yep, you're right, I'd lean towards the B as it was the last production
model of the 170. More of them around, more for sale, more choices, and
more parts.
http://www.cessna170.org

Jim

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
> The 170 A model was also all metal. The 170 had rag wings and if hungered
> there is nothing wrong with them.
>
> "Jim Burns" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'd lean towards an all metal B model. Do a google for the
> model/equipment
> > changes, you can compare prices better then.
> > Jim
> >
> > "houstondan" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > in my ongoing process of falling in love with various aircraft which i
> > > cannot afford (yet!) i come to the cessna 170.
> > >
> > > looks like 35-40k$ for a fair example. i think i prefer the no
> > > nosewheel configuration and i'm endorsed to drag so that's ok. i'm
> > > curious about the 6 cylinder 145hp motor. seems like it would be
> > > smooth. does the ac feel underpowered? it looks to me like a utility
> > > 172 analog with a little less power for maybe 20-grand less.
> > >
> > > opinions/editorials?
> > >
> > >
> > > dan
> > >
> >
> >
>
>