delete

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

bigrenna
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:23 pm

delete

Post by bigrenna »

delete
Last edited by bigrenna on Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Poncho73
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: C170 vs/ C180... (So sad to see the 170 go)

Post by Poncho73 »

Great story and your 170 looks great, good luck with the sale. My dad had a 1950 170 when I was very young and sold it in 1967 for a 1955 180. We loved that 180 they are great in every way the 170 is great. Can you post some pics of your new 180?
User avatar
blueldr
Posts: 4442
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 3:16 am

Re: C170 vs/ C180... (So sad to see the 170 go)

Post by blueldr »

You mentioned your fuel burn on the new airplane as 14 to 14.5 GPH. That sounds kind of high, to me, for a normal cruise burn. How does that pencil out on a naut. miles/pound of fuel ? Considering that the specific fuel consumption should be almost the same as the O-300 engine, I would have expected a more economical figure.
BL
bigrenna
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:23 pm

delete

Post by bigrenna »

delete
Last edited by bigrenna on Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bigrenna
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:23 pm

delete

Post by bigrenna »

delete
Last edited by bigrenna on Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bigrenna
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:23 pm

delete

Post by bigrenna »

delete
Last edited by bigrenna on Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
bigrenna
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:23 pm

delete

Post by bigrenna »

delete
Last edited by bigrenna on Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
hilltop170
Posts: 3481
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 6:05 pm

Re: C170 vs/ C180... (So sad to see the 170 go)

Post by hilltop170 »

If you have the stock O-470, at 23" and 2300 rpm you should be seeing 12gph.

You can lean the 180 just like the 170.
Richard Pulley
2014-2016 TIC170A Past President
1951 170A, N1715D, s/n 20158, O-300D
Owned from 1973 to 1984.
Bought again in 2006 after 22 years.
It's not for sale!
futr_alaskaflyer
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:27 am

Re: C170 vs/ C180... (So sad to see the 170 go)

Post by futr_alaskaflyer »

bigrenna wrote:Some photos from the first leg of the trip...
IMG_4653.JPG
IMG_4654.JPG
IMG_4655.JPG
IMG_4651.JPG

Don't know where the first photo is, but are the rest Comb Ridge, Valley of the Gods, and the Goosenecks of the San Juan?
Richard
N3477C
'55 B model (Franklin 6A-165-B3 powered, any others out there?)
marathonrunner
Posts: 449
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:49 am

Re: C170 vs/ C180... (So sad to see the 170 go)

Post by marathonrunner »

Yeah that sounds high to me too and i have flown a lot of 180's...which is why I have a 170. Anyway a general rule of thumb for fuel flow is to take the horsepower and drop the zero and divide by two. Should be in the 12 to 12.5 range from the ones I have flown. Your flows sound like you have a 520 Continental in there:)
It's not done till it's overdone
bigrenna
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:23 pm

delete

Post by bigrenna »

delete
Last edited by bigrenna on Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Slowlowflyer
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:19 am

Re: C170 vs/ C180... (So sad to see the 170 go)

Post by Slowlowflyer »

mine burns 12.0 @ 2350 and 22.5 mp at 6000 range . at 11000 and 2350 rpm fuel burn is in the 11.0 range
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: C170 vs/ C180... (So sad to see the 170 go)

Post by GAHorn »

The 180, 182, 185, and 206's are all FINE airplanes. I love them each. They are good, fairly low-cost real X-country airplanes that can do the job.

But they do not operate nearly as inexpensively* as a 170, and that is why I decided on a 170 as my final choice for the rest of my ownership days.

* per-mile they are all virtually identical with the 170 as far as gas-costs go, and due to their speed differences they will save a little time, of course. But for pure, per-hour cost-of-operations, and cost of MX-reserves per flying-hour.... the 170 is significantly more economical.

If I were WORKING my airplane....I'd go for a 180/185 or 206 (normally aspirated.) But for general "family car of the air"....it's the 170 for me. :wink:
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
bigrenna
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:23 pm

delete

Post by bigrenna »

delete
Last edited by bigrenna on Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
c170b53
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 8:01 pm

Re: C170 vs/ C180... (So sad to see the 170 go)

Post by c170b53 »

I've been thinking of a 180 as well for float Ops, I would have to sell the 170 and the XP but I have also received advice from far more knowledgeable individuals than me which somewhat mirrors George's comments. Ah...to win the lotto...
Jim McIntosh..
1953 C170B S/N 25656
02 K1200RS
Post Reply