c-170 op/ed?

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

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

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

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