Best Mods for 170 STOL performance

[bigrenna]

delete

[GAHorn]

i knew what you meant not sure why it got over analylized. just wanted to know ASIDE FROM PILOT SKILL what mods have been the most effective for your planes and performance...

Not to belabor the point, but...
Good pilot skills will obviate the need for almost ALL gadgets,
and NO gadget will replace good piloting skills.

Axiom no.2: Big engines are always good...until you find you've
managed to overload even that due to poor planning, and still must pony
up for the cost. A good minimalist receives great satisfaction from frugality.

The170 was intended to be an economy 4-place. So it is barely horsepowered
for it's purpose on ordinary fields.
Theres a reason 180/182/185 aircraft were created....they are more capable
for the extraordinary job. That's why they cost more. They are purpose built.
The 206 does even more difficult jobs well.
Trying to make a 170 into a 180/182/185/206 using gadgets is a poor way to accomplish what the factory did very well, will be excessively expensive,
and will still fall short.




for the ordinary

[blueldr]

Spending a lot of money trying to make a C-170 into a bigger airplane is a losing proposition.
Making one into a HIGH PERFORMANCE C-170 is a relatively enjoyable way to dispose of most of your eating money, but hamburger is cheap.

[robw56]

Dang I wish I would have known this before, I should have just bought a $150,000 185 instead of spending a few grand to make my 170 perform a little better

[blueldr]

Live and learn!

[Green Bean]

Trying to make a 170 into a 180/182/185/206 using gadgets is a poor way to accomplish what the factory did very well, will be excessively expensive,and will still fall short.
Spending a lot of money trying to make a C-170 into a bigger airplane is a losing proposition.

It would be nice to stay on the subject, instead of injecting personnel dislikes or irrelevant thoughts, too not making changes.

The subject for the section is: BEST MODS FOR 170 STOL PERFORMANCE.

A stock 170, 170A, & 170B, will not, nor doesn't have STOL performance, above the package that was designed 65 years ago. But since that time a number of items have come along the greatly improves the performance, and makes a great airplane even better. Our plane is 61 years and 13 days since it flew from Wichita, and I've owned it for 38 years. We've made most of the above improvements over the years, 80/42 prop, stol kit, big tires, VG's and the 0-360 Lycoming, (over twenty years ago's). In all that time I never had the desire to change to a 180 or 185 or go back to the standard package.

The reason people have the 170's is because they LIKE the plane. Be it the flat lander or off airport individual. It allows those folks, a tool, mode of transportation, a plane that they can use or enjoy to take them to destinations, safely, at a reasonable cost, be that to the "ordinary" airport or some mountain top off airport area. Making those changes, allows the performance to be improved, not a bigger plane, but a BETTER plane.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Bean, I agree with you and most of the commenters here have modified their aircraft in one way or another. What many who have been there are pointing out is that no matter what you do you won't make it a 180. And if a 180 is what you really want best to get one specially went you consider the engine upgrade may cost twice what the airplane is worth today.

[bigrenna]

delete

[blueldr]

When I started modifying my '52 C-170B, I was not looking for more airplane. What I was striving for was a high performance C-170. it was the airplane I loved. I must have invested, or rather "spent", over $25,000 what with engine, wings, landing gear, propeller, et all. It all turned out to be just what I wanted and I don't regret a penny of what I spent. It was my favorite toy and I loved it. I just wish I had started it all a lot earlier in life. The years ran out too soon.

[hilltop170]

Back in the late 1970s or early 1980s, Doc Barnes did some fairly extensive take-off performance testing out on the beach beside his house up in Kenai, Alaska. The beach was hard, flat, and tracks left by the tires were a good BS eliminator for the actual take-off distances. He tested a Cub, C-180, and a Staggerwing at several different gross weights on each plane and after all was said and done, he came to the calculation that each pound of added weight above empty weight increases take-off distance 6 inches, or one foot for every two pounds increase, no matter which plane it is.

[bagarre]

In that case, the doctor told me I needd to get rid of 5 feet of takeoff distance

[GAHorn]

The thread is stating to drift a bit... but here is my experience.

To Rob's point... They are actually pretty close RE: STOL.

My C170 had 8042, stock motor, stripped interior, stock wing and weighed around 1475 lbs w/ the big bush tires. My Skywagon (was) stock w/ an Owl Cuff and (before I gutted it) weighed 1800 lbs.

With single pilot and full fuel, the net net is the C170 landed about 30% shorter and got off in about 10% shorter than my stock 180 does. With full fuel, the useful in the C170 was 503 lbs. Cruise was 95mph at 5.5 gph. Climb out at 65 saw 1200 ft/min. In the 180, w/ full fuel (84 gal,) the C180 had a useful of 497 lbs. Cruise at 145 mph at 12.5 gph.

The big difference is the Skywagon will handle the load much better. The performance wont drop off as much as you get heavier. Yes the C180 climbs out a bit faster, can carry a bit more, and cruises faster, but with respect to STOL, you make the call.

Find a solid 170B for $35k. Add a Sportsman for $2k. Climb prop for $3700. Wing X (STC should be ready [US] this/next month [US will get +150 GW increase]) for $5k. Tear out all the unneeded crap to lighten her up and you have a nice short fielder for about half the price of the C180.

Of course after you do the same to the Skywagon and all bets are off...

Well, ....just to be conversational ...From "The Standard Catalog of Cessna Single Engine Aircraft"
At gross weights:
The STOCK 170-B (52-56)had a landing ROLL of 458 ft. It had a T.O. ROLL of 618 ft.
The STOCK 180-G (1964) had a Landing ROLL of 480 ft. It had a T.O. ROLL of 625.

I believe you've likely made an error in calculating your 170 fuel burn at 5.5 gph. I suspect it's more like 7.5 gph. I also suspect you meant the 180 speed is 145 KTs...instead of mph.
The O-470 engine burns about 12 gph in my experience. Travelling at 160 mph burning 12 gph equals 13 mpg.
The O-300 engine burns about 7.5 gph in my experience. Travelling at 115 mph burning 7.5 gph equals 15 mpg.
The 180 useful load varies between 950 and 1050 lbs. From that you must subtract full fuel (500) leaving approx. 550 payload. (Even the small-tanks version only has approx 650 lb. payload.)
The 170 useful load varies between 850 and 950 lbs. From that you must subtract full fuel (220) leaving approx. 680 payload.

The 180 excels over the 170 in field performance only when typical operating wts are very light. With similar loads (i.e. 2 persons and full fuel) the 170-B will use less ground roll according to the data.
The 180 clearly has has a demonstrative better climb rate. For example, the 170-B requires 1600' to clear a 50' obstacle, while the 180 does it in 1200'. The landing over a 50' obstacle belongs still to the 170-B (1145) VS the 180's 1365. I don't consider the 170 to have particular advantage however, unless sans-obstacles, one can't get either back out of the places they will get into.
Since I'm never in a hurry in any single engine Cessna, and typically operate out of 2000' or more... The reasons above, and much-reduced mx expenses, are why I prefer a 170 for personal use.


(The methods derived varied by technique for the 180 depending upon exact model. The C-180 data in this book contained what I believe are typographical errors in the earliest years. The data presented here was derived from that of published data from 1964 and later, which were consistent with other sources.)

[bat443]

George,I have to agree with most of what you say with one exception. I think to compare the useful load of a 170 vs a 180 you have to look at the distance you want to move the payload, ie full fuel in a 180, even with the 60 useable gal small tanks will take you farther than the 36 useable gal in a 170. So it is my belief that if you want to take 2 guys and 120 pounds of gear 200 miles the 180 will get of the ground in a shorter ground run and a much shorter total takeoff distance. A high full fuel capacity gives you options for range vs. payload vs. performance, just because it could hold that many gallons doesn't mean you should carry it on every flight, I'm sure you don't in the Hawker, and in 18 years of flying the DC8 which has a full fuel capacity of 162,500 pounds the most I ever saw (once) was 128,000pounds. I don't even know anyone who ever flew a DC8 with full fuel. As for the fuel burn, if you fly the 170 and 180 at the same TAS the fuel burn of the 180 will be within 2 or 3 tenths of a gal of that of the 170. To take full seats out of the 2200 ft strip, with trees at both ends, at my house in the summer, or on skis in the winter, my choice is the 180. Just my 2 cents worth, both are fun airplanes. I've had 2 1955 170B, a 1971 180H, a 1973 A185F and I am currently flying a 1949 !70A while working on a 1969 180H project I bought, all of them have been great fun shooting landings on a grass strip.

Tim
ps: back on topic, none of them with the exception of the 1971 180H which had a Horton STOL kit and a 88 inch seaplane prop, had any STOL mods. Guess I wasn't a good enough pilot to tell an difference, in the 170 me and full fuel about the same as me and full fuel in the 185 for the ground run, no comparison in climb.

[hilltop170]

Comparing 170s to 180s is kinda like comparing J-3s to Super Cubs. All good airplanes, just not made with the same capabilities.

[bigrenna]

delete