Considering a 170, looking for information

[nameless]

Hi all,

So as the topic says, I am considering a C-170 and this seems to be the place to ask for information. My short term aims are to build time get an instrument, commercial and CFI ratings with a fairly restricted budget. In the long term, I just want something nice to fly that can handle clouds and generally 'nice' IMC. Unfortunately, I'm finding myself get stuck up in the budging area. I was hoping to get some guidance here.

My biggest concerns are about maintenance. Both the locally available aircraft are about 500 hours from a major engine overall. How hard to the 170A/Bs generally hit the wallet for maintenance needs?

I'm guessing the IFR checks are going to be fairly involved for an older aircraft that has been VFR its entire life. I was figuring that I would have to add a alternate static port and an approach approved GPS. Did I miss anything here?

I was also figuring that they burn about 8 gph like a 172. Is that realistic? Also, if anyone has experience with the Serra Nevada, how well does a 170 handle them?

And as always, what do I not know that I should?

Thanks!

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

You realize most 170s will be more expensive to buy than a later 172 or Piper Cherokee and 170s are less likely to have as much IFR equipment for the price as a 172 or Cherokee.

If you are familiar with the performance of the earlier 172s you will be familiar with a 170. There is no rocket science. A 172 is for the most part a 170 with a nose wheel.

So what is it exactly that attracts you to 65+ year old 170?

[nameless]

Hmm, that is interesting. Poking around, a lot of the 170s seemed at least comparable 172s and the Cherokees. I wouldn't want to spend $15,000 I had to add $20,000 to overall the engine right away. Plus, it seems most have been abused as training airplanes.

Well, I guess I really like the 170 over the 172 because the tail wheel is on the correct end of the aircraft. Also, the lower end price range of the 170s out there seems to undercut just about everything except a 150. It could be tempered by the fact that most of them have higher engine times. Also, you can't deny it is a much better looking aircraft!

[nameless]

The back seat becomes decorative in an O-300/C-145 powered 170 when operating in the high elevation airports in the Sierras. Where are you located "nameless"?

I'm located at AUN. I kind of figured that would be the case, but it seemed like a good question to ask. As someone once said, it is what you don't know that kills you.

[Ryan Smith]

The back seat becomes decorative in an O-300/C-145 powered 170 when operating in the high elevation airports in the Sierras. Where are you located "nameless"?

I'm located at AUN. I kind of figured that would be the case, but it seemed like a good question to ask. As someone once said, it is what you don't know that kills you.

I assume Auburn, CA and not Unalakleet, AK?

[nameless]

Yes. I didn't realize the identifier was duplicated in the US.

[Ryan Smith]

Yes. I didn't realize the identifier was duplicated in the US.

No worries. Even though you were talking about the Sierra Nevada range, lots of 170s live in Alaska, so I was just curious. I just happened to remember that Unalakleet was PAUN from watching "Flying Wild Alaska", although I typed KAUN into Google to see if there was an airport in the lower 48 with the same identifier. Obviously Auburn popped up.

[jrenwick]

It's always better to buy an airplane already equipped for the intended mission. 170s, unless they've been extensively upgraded (and we're talking the cost of one or more minivans here are VFR aircraft that can penetrate a thin stratus layer on good days. If you want to fly IFR, go buy an IFR airplane. It'll be much cheaper in the long run. Get your ratings, and then if you still want a sweet VFR taildragger to tool around in, look for a 170, because it's hard to do any better for that mission.

[blueldr]

You can generally find an early C-172 equipped for what training you're interested in for a good deal less than a C-170. They will both have the same performance if they are stock engined. It is also easier to find instructors that are qualified in the C-172. Insurance will also be less expensive in a C-172. If economy is a factor in your case, I think a C-172 would be a much better choice.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Well, I guess I really like the 170 over the 172 because the tail wheel is on the correct end of the aircraft. Also, the lower end price range of the 170s out there seems to undercut just about everything except a 150. It could be tempered by the fact that most of them have higher engine times. Also, you can't deny it is a much better looking aircraft!

Well then because they appeal to you is a great reason to look at them. I didn't really pick up on that in your first post.

Poking around, a lot of the 170s seemed at least comparable 172s and the Cherokees. I wouldn't want to spend $15,000 I had to add $20,000 to overall the engine right away. Plus, it seems most have been abused as training airplanes.

There are few truly airworthy 170s for sale for $15K. Yes you will spend every bit ot $20K on an engine overhaul and that could be low. You will likely spend the same no matter if you buy a 172 or a Cherokee.

Of course 170s have been used as trainers. But not so much since cheaper 172s are on the market. Yes most 170s have damage history. They are 65+ years old and being a conventional gear aircraft have a higher rate of landing accidents.

So here is the short of it. 170s cost more than 172s or Cherokees to purchase because there are fewer of them. If you find one cheaper there is probably a good reason. Engine overhauls can cost more because there are a few engine parts in the 170 getting scarce and again there are more 172 and Cherokee so their engine parts are better supported and in some cases cheaper.

Most 172s and Cherokees will be better equipped for the instrument work you mentioned several times. Lots of 170s don't have more than a single com radio. Most 172s and Cherokees will at least have dual coms and likely navs and maybe a marker beacon and glide slope. You do realize that IFR GPS installation you spoke of will likely cost you between $10 and $15K and more $$$ to keep it current and useable.

Another very important thing BL brought up. Instructors. Instructors qualified to fly a 170 are few and far in between. Unless you have a special circumstance that you have a captive qualified instructor, you may just have a difficult time finding an instructor to check you out in the 170. And that will cost you even more money and time.

But of course if you like a 170 and that is what you want, your no different than everyone else here. And you can do all the things you talk about with a 170 except for one. You can't buy one for $15k. You will need to spend more like $45K. And you will likely need more money for training than a 172 or a Cherokee because of instructor availability.

[KS170A]

When we bought our 170, I also had hopes of using it for IFR training. Then I realized how much extra equipment I'd have to add to it to meet the minimum IFR equipment in FAR 91.205(d), plus the IFR-certified GPS, plus the annual database subscription, plus the biannual pitot-static test. Decided against it and found other rentals to acquire my training in.

It can be done, but as others have said you'll be money ahead by buying an airplane already equipped for the mission.

[DaveF]

You don't need a GPS to fly IFR. My airplane is IFR equipped with a venturi-driven horizon and DG, and a VOR/LOC/GS. That's good enough for training, unless there's no ILS near you to practice on.

[bagarre]

I also thought about making my 170 IFR.
Without GPS, it's under $10k parts/labor. (Horizon, DG, vaccum, VOR/GS...ect)
If you want WAAS, you can count $10k for the radio alone.

I gave up on the idea because I wanted to learn IFR but didn't want to fly IFR. At least not without more than the minimum gear. A system that i'd be comfortable taking me and my wife into IMC would easily cost twice that.

[KS170A]

You don't need a GPS to fly IFR. My airplane is IFR equipped with a venturi-driven horizon and DG, and a VOR/LOC/GS. That's good enough for training, unless there's no ILS near you to practice on.

While technically correct, and "good enough" for training, I don't know any IFR pilot that flies IFR without GPS. I'm also extremely uncomfortable with flying IFR with venturis. There again...training under the hood in VFR with an instructor/safety pilot just fine, but the instrument ticket is actually more dangerous for a non-proficient instrument pilot than not having it so why go through the expense of learning if you know you're never going to really use it?

[lowNslow]

While technically correct, and "good enough" for training, I don't know any IFR pilot that flies IFR without GPS. I'm also extremely uncomfortable with flying IFR with venturis. There again...training under the hood in VFR with an instructor/safety pilot just fine, but the instrument ticket is actually more dangerous for a non-proficient instrument pilot than not having it so why go through the expense of learning if you know you're never going to really use it?

I fly IFR with venturis and the only GPS I have is in my iPad with Foreflight. Works great and I trust my venturis more then any vacuum pump. True the venturis MAY ice up but what would you be doing flying IFR in icing conditions in anyway with or without a vacuum pump?