Introduction to #1000

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

User avatar
wabuchanan
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 2:51 am

Introduction to #1000

Post by wabuchanan »

I am finally getting around to introducing myself on here. Jughead wrote up our recent trip from PHX/CHD to S43 ( Harvey Field ) which has spurred me to get the introductions done :) I was learning so much it was like drinking water from a firehose, so he could write up a much more interesting narrative of the trip than I could!

I have been a member for close to a year now, and this forum/group has been invaluable in my education and helping me know what to look for in my buying process.

I flew from 1995 until 2000, obtaining my PPL ASEL/AMEL with High Horsepower and Complex endorsements in my first 150 hours. I had started a tailwheel endorsement back then, but the AMEL opportunity dropped in my lap and after finishing that, I never finished the Tailwheel. I stopped flying for the usual reasons IE: Got married, had a child, bought a house etc. I have missed flying considerably however.

I had thought I would build an aircraft and went through a series of thoughts on the subject. Originally had looked at and have plans for a Steen Skybolt, then fell in love with the RV-4's. As I got older decided that I wanted to spend less time building and more time flying so researched and joined the CH-750 groups. Finally, at 60 years old said to heck with it, I want to fly and not build, and I want a tailwheel plane to go back country/ camping etc.

Fell in love with a C-120 at the Arlington, WA airshow, but that one did not work out as I ultimately decided I needed more room and HP for my mission. Thus my joining here and researching for the last year.The 170 is simply a beautiful airplane, with more Horsepower and room.

The one overriding consistency I have seen here, in reading threads all the way back to 2002, were the recommendations to find an airframe that is good, and that a RED one was much preferred over Green………I managed to succeed on both counts!

I had wanted a 170B and almost bought one locally, but that fell through to no fault of the individual. Jughead has already outlined the various airframes/planes I ran by him as well. Finally found this plane in Chandler, AZ from an owner who did not want to sell, but wanted to buy a 3rd airplane and his wife was limiting him to "just" two. The buying process was very good, dealing with incredibly friendly and helpful people while down there.

Airframe time is the mid 4400 hours range, engine has 700+ SMOH, prop new in 2003, although the whole engine was dismantled and 4 new cylinders and new camshaft were installed at that time, so a near major overhaul just 317 hours ago. Wings have had some "wind damage" in the past so repaired. Last 3 owners were located in AZ so airframe is shiny and clean throughout. Thus, I have ended up with an "A" model and am very happy with my purchase!

Last owner upgraded avionics considerably, so making the 2020 mandate will be very easy since I fly under the Seattle Class B airspace.

On the forum History page, it states that the first Model 170A had serial number 18730.
N5776C is serial number 19730, so it looks to be the 1000th 170A built!
Attachments
IMG_0634.JPG
1950 170A N5776C SN:19730
User avatar
wabuchanan
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 2:51 am

Re: Introduction to #1000

Post by wabuchanan »

More pictures………

Currently running a 7653 prop and wheel pants.

At some point in the future after I spend a lot more time flying, I will hopefully put a seaplane prop and 8.00 x 6 tires on for the grass strips. The plane needs tail pull handles and shoulder harnesses first though.
Attachments
IMG_0036.JPG
IMG_0037.jpeg
Image 1.jpg
IMG_0657.JPG
1950 170A N5776C SN:19730
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20993
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Introduction to #1000

Post by GAHorn »

VERY Nice!

Welcome!...and congratulations!... on the nice airplane.

I would only point out that Cessna designed this airplane for grass strips.... and with 600 X 6 tires.... under wheelpants.
And that's the way I've operated mine now for 15 years with no problems whatsoever with wheels, tires, brakes, or wheelpants.

Don't know if the green ones can handle it, tho'. :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. ;)
hilltop170
Posts: 3481
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 6:05 pm

Re: Introduction to #1000

Post by hilltop170 »

Congratulations! That's a very nice clean looking plane. It pays to have patience when airplane shopping. Glad you were able to find a good one, they are great airplanes. I sure don't mind grass stains on my wheel pants.
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!
VFR52170B
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:04 am

Re: Introduction to #1000

Post by VFR52170B »

Beautiful aircraft! Thanks for posting the photos, as well. Great story.

Would love to see a larger res version of that last photo, during taxi.

- Joseph
User avatar
wabuchanan
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 2:51 am

Re: Introduction to #1000

Post by wabuchanan »

Ha! Ok, Ok……I will concede that the original tires and pants work fine on grass strips, and have been landing on our grass strip that is next to the pavement just fine.

I know you are trying to save me from using the "gateway" tire, which will just lead me down the sad path of ever larger and larger tires! I have no illusions of "Bush" flying or even landing on rivers and bars. But I have thought that once I reach an acceptable level of skill, that the slightly larger tires would be beneficial on our rougher back country strips.

Joseph,
I am limited on resolution by the forum software, but if you pm me with a contact email I could send you a very high resolution photo if you are interested. And thanks for your comments.

Cheers,
Bill
1950 170A N5776C SN:19730
User avatar
4583C
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 8:20 pm

Re: Introduction to #1000

Post by 4583C »

wabuchanan wrote:
I know you are trying to save me from using the "gateway" tire, which will just lead me down the sad path of ever larger and larger tires!

Cheers,
Bill
You have studied the forum well! :lol: :lol:
User avatar
wabuchanan
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 2:51 am

Re: Introduction to #1000

Post by wabuchanan »

I have two questions that have come up regarding Weight and Balance. I don't want to resurrect a long ago thread so thought I would add it to my plane thread here. I did read the two or three threads I found by searching which helped, but did not specifically answer these two questions.

Having just completed some modifications we performed a full Weight and Balance from scratch. What I have noticed however in looking at the old W&B sheets, and what my shop has quizzed me about is the fact that my previous sheets have used an ARM of +20 for the main landing gear, and +252 for the Scott tailwheel. The TCDS uses +22 for the main gear and +249 for the Scott 3200 tailwheel. This plane has the original spring gear on it.

Would there be an explanation for the differences? We are going to level the plane and re-weigh and measure this time, but hoped the collective experience on here might be able to offer some clarification.

Second question: I am inputting the new data into my electronic W&B calculator, and have noticed that the default graph uses the 1700 lb minimum as also used in the TCDS.

My specific question is in the wording used in the AFM and TCDS that specifies that the forward and rear CG limits stay the same at 1733 lbs and less. The Owners manual goes clear down to 1400 lbs but the graphed limits continue to angle to the left. (farther forward)

I was playing with the program and noticed that if I fly the plane solo down to my reserve fuel, the electronic calculator prints out, in big red letters, "You are out of the CG limits and are going to die"...... or at least words to that effect!

I can manually change the lower default limits to 1400 lbs to match the Owners Manual to stop this from happening, but are using the CG limits as stated in the AFM and TCDS sufficient to stay out of trouble?

In reality the plane and I will never weigh less than 1590 lbs so I imagine it is all good if I just lower the limit to 1400 lbs. These are obviously questions of a new owner learning the technical information and limits of his plane, so I thank you for your help.
1950 170A N5776C SN:19730
User avatar
johneeb
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 2:44 am

Re: Introduction to #1000

Post by johneeb »

WA,
Pretty sure the difference between the main gear location of 20" and 22" is the difference between the main wheel location on original gear legs (22") and the main wheel location on lady legs (20"). The below link will take you to a page where the location of the tail-wheel is (not very scientifically) explained.

http://www.cessna170.org/forums/viewtop ... el+station
John E. Barrett
aka. Johneb

Sent from my "Cray Super Computer"
User avatar
Kyle Wolfe
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 12:30 am

Re: Introduction to #1000

Post by Kyle Wolfe »

Welcome Bill! Nice bird!

Jughead did a nice job on the trip report and saw an article on you in the AOPA e newsletter too. Glad to have you back in the saddle.
Kyle
54 B N1932C
57 BMW Isetta
Best original 170B - Dearborn, MI 2005
User avatar
wabuchanan
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 2:51 am

Re: Introduction to #1000

Post by wabuchanan »

John,
Thank you for that link and the info. Very much appreciated. I am having some of the same problems with the current numbers in that with full fuel and two in front I am out of CG by a slight forward margin.

I will go back through the log books again, but did not believe this plane had the lady legs on it. Thought they were original.....but I will go back and look at the descriptions of the differences again and check.

As far as the W&B program, I was playing with it again tonight and found that in addition to having the default W&B graph as I mentioned with the lower limit of 1700 lbs, the program also has the graph from the Owners Manual which goes down to 1400 lbs, so am using that one also. So that question is answered and needs no further clarification.

Kyle,
Thanks! I am enjoying myself very much. It is indeed good to be back in the saddle!

Cheers,
Bill
1950 170A N5776C SN:19730
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10318
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Re: Introduction to #1000

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

It does not matter what original 170 landing gear you have, the tires are at +22 and as the tires are symmetrical and mounted on the axle in the center the axle and the center of the tire on the scale with the tail lifted so the top of the door frame is level, will also be +22.The Scott tail wheel is at +249. All of this can be found in the TCDS. CG limits can be found in the AFM or the TCDS.

The forward CG on a '48 is 36.3 and the aft CG is 40.3 for 1733 lbs or less. The forward CG on a A or B model is 36.4 and the aft CG is 40.3 for 1733 lbs or less.

It is very common that W&B are incorrect. So looking at past records and following them without question will likely lead to more incorrect calculations. I've found this true for every aircraft I've ever done a W&B historical search. This includes 4 of my own aircraft and about 15 airframes I've flown for 135 operators. BTW, most of my mechanics at and fellow pilots at work do not know how to compute a W&B so the process is doomed from the start.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
User avatar
blueldr
Posts: 4442
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 3:16 am

Re: Introduction to #1000

Post by blueldr »

I can'i imagine a real aviator that would stop flying just to get married, have a child, and buy a bouse. What kind of a aviator would even think of buying a house before he even had a airplane?
BL
User avatar
DaveF
Posts: 1519
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:44 am

Re: Introduction to #1000

Post by DaveF »

Hi Bill,

Nice airplane in and out!

When you post pictures of your airplane you tend to get questions about minutiae that you never thought about. So here's mine ...

It looks like your venturis have an upward tilt, but I suspect that's an illusion from the photos. Can you take a close-up showing their alignment with the fuselage, maybe using the stringer in that area as a reference? I ask this because I'm in the process of installing a second venturi and I'm curious about venturi placement and angle. (For others reading this, yes, I have the Cessna service bulletin that describes the two-venturi installation).


Thanks!
Dave
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10318
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Re: Introduction to #1000

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

Dave, you don't need to be curious. We have the Cessna drawings for correct placement as far as they are concerned in our library. It's found here: http://www.cessna170.org/forums/viewtop ... 36&t=11842
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
Post Reply