Considering a 170, looking for information

[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?

[blueldr]

If you're flying IFR in a condition where your venturis are icing up, believe me, you have bigger problems than iced up venturis.

[KS170A]

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?

But you still have a GPS on board!

[lowNslow]

But you still have a GPS on board!

That's true
In fact counting my iPhone and my Bad Elf I have three! But none of them or IFR certified.

[nameless]

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.

Oh, I know I don't need it. The catch is my home airport only has GPS approaches.

[GAHorn]

A 170 and an early ('67 or earlier) 172 operate for the same money. (They have essentially the same engine so there's little/no difference in engine costs, in fact our Assoc'n has the STC to use all the C145/O300 engines in the 170 series.)

The 170 has the same ability for IFR as the 172. But the likelihood of finding a 170 as fully equipped as a 172 is not as high... but the price of a lesser equipped 170 is also reflected in that.

Your comment about $15K is confusing. If that is your aircraft purchasing budget... you can forget about any 170 or 172 for purposes of IFR flying. You'll be lucky (or un-lucky depending upon how you view it) to find any airworthy model of either type.
If you DO find a flying example at that price, you will be owning an airplane with so much deferred maintenance issues you'll be nickel-and-dimed into disgust over it and your airplane-owning experience will be a lousy one.
You will need at least $30K and more to find a decent 170 or 172, and even those will likely have old radios, not much engine time left, and unfortunate cosmetics.

You can train to fly IFR with nothing more than a comm, a VOR/ILS, and a transponder.

Even if your home airport (KAUN) only has a GPS appch, you can get into an alternate nearby (Lincoln) which has exactly the same IFR minimums of 600 and 1 mile as your home field. (and 1 mile and clear of clouds is all you need to get home anyway, if you become that proficient). THE POINT IS that a single engine airplane is not a low-IFR airplane anyway! If you don't have basic VFR weather so you can suffer an engine failure and descend to VFR wx then you might oughta reconsider flying at all single engine. (I personally use my venturi-equipped 170 to get above or descend below a cloud layer but I rarely...very, very rarely... actually shoot any IFR appchs in it, and even then only down to what would be considered "high" minimums (nearly VFR or better) and I am an instrument instructor as my full time profession. (Yes, I also believe venturi's are all that is necessary in a single engine airplane for IFR work. I prefer them to vacuum pumps, and the accident reports after vacuum pump failures support that choice, in my opinion and experience. Scare stories of iceing and venturis are B.S. These airplanes have no business in icing conditions regardless of their vacuum source.)

So.... if you like Cessna 170's.... you've come to the right place! If you want to fly light IFR... it's a great light-IFR airplane, and will operate for about $80/hr direct costs. (That's $40 for fuel and $40 for mx reserves, etc. It does not cover your hangar or insurance or the annual inspection surprises or unexpected catastrophe.) Your insurance will run about $600 for liability and another $600 or so for hull/comprehensive/etc.) The latest Trade A Plane I have shows more than a dozen early 172's for less than $35K, and about a half-dozen 170s are on the market in about the same condition and price. None of them come with a full set of IFR equipment...but as previously mentioned...all you really need are gyros and one good nav/com and a txdr.

But...keep this in mind... if you get into an airplane and the maximum your budget will allow is $30K.... you'll likely find yourself with a deferred-maintenance airplane.... and your cash out-lay will be on-going. A truly sweet, well equipped and well-cared for 170 OR early 172 is going to cost you $45K or more... plus $80 per hour direct operating costs.
If that stresses your wallet.... you're better off renting.

[nameless]

Thanks for the information.

Yea, I know $15 K is too low, my comment about that was meant to be in relation to the Cherokees offered at that price, and that they all looked like something to stay away from. I'm honestly not too sure of where my budget is going to end up.