Newbie Shopping

[BenWlson]

I'm a relatively new pilot (approx. 200 hours in a PA-22), and I am currently shopping for a Cessna 170 (any model). It seems to be the most practical and affordable 4-place tail-dragger (Can't get parts for the engine in a Stinson Voyager and a Piper Pacer is not for new taildragger pilots). I had the priviledge of flying a 180 Skywagon last weekend, and I fell in love, but the 170 is much closer to my budget. I'm hoping to find a polished bird (or one in need of polishing) in good working condition. It doesn't have to look good, though, I can work on aesthetics. From the recent ads in Trade-a-Plane and other places, it seems the typical asking price for what I'm looking for is around $37-39k. What have these airplanes really been selling for recently? This will be my first airplane purchase, and I was hoping to find something closer to $30k. Thanks for any input!

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Why Ben we Cessna people think the PA 20 or 22/20 is a perfect plane to wreck eerrr I mean train in.

Really I wanted a PA-22/20 but came to some of the same conclusions you probably have. If I where to build a bush type plane it would be something like the Pacer/Bear Hawk.

Keep your eyes peeled you may find something worth buying for $30K. It could happen but probably not. Most likely if it does you'll spend another $7k fixing stuff.

Good luck. Enjoy the search and don't get to antsy and buy the first thing that looks like a 170.

[futr_alaskaflyer]

As some one who just finished shopping the market, I think "closer to $30K" as a realistic option is...well...not a realistic option It will need a lot of work, or will be close to or at TBO, or both. I'd be looking for something in the $39-$42 range.

[BenWlson]

Thanks for the input. I may end up having to sacrifice some seats to save money or just wait a few more years, I guess. I really don't want to have to finance anything when airplane ownership already has so many costs of it's own.

I hope to inherit a Swift (GC-1B) someday, and even if I am capable of flying it, an insurance company won't even look at me for that airplane until I've got a few hundred hours of tailwheel time, and you can't get that in a Tri-Pacer.

Any suggestions about what other types of aircraft I might look at? I really would like the ability to take both my wife and daughter with me, but it looks like a 4-place taildragger is just too expensive for me right now.

[doug8082a]

The only way you "might" find one in the lower$30's is if you buy a straight 170 (1948). Despite being an equally good plane, they do not command the same prices as an "A" or especially a "B".

[CraigH]

Ben,
I don't think you'll find a 170 in the 30's that you'll be happy with. However, if you are willing to limit yourself to a 2 place airplane the following would be great choices: Taylorcraft, Cessna 120/140, Aeronca Champ or Aeronca Chief. You might even find a decent 7ECA Citabria in that range.

I wouldn't rule out the Pacer's or Clippers either. They would carry your load, and aren't such unruly monsters that they cannot be flown by a properly trained new tailwheel pilot.

[futr_alaskaflyer]

Having a couple hours in a Citabria, I can say I am very impressed with them, and they are very docile but yet perform well. If I wasn't stuck on the cabin size and seats of the 170, I must admit that I might be a Citabria owner instead of a TI170A member

My neighbor has a really nice 7ECA, so I think we are going to swap add'l insured app's and both be pretty darn satisfied

[tshort]

Keep looking, don't get too anxious to pull the trigger.

I got my '48 ragwing for 35K, with a zero time (25hr) engine, new everything (wheels, brakes, tailwheel, fabric, you name it it was updated). There are some great airplanes out there for a good price, you just need to look long and hard (and frequently) and be ready when they come along - they get scooped quickly.

Thomas

[GAHorn]

Don't get so hasty to own a plane that you settle for something you'll be unhappy with later. There were 5,000 170's mfr'd. Not all of them are creampuffs. Not all of them are junk. There's a good chance you'll be able to find one in your price-range that'll meet your expectations.
One of the most difficult, yet simple bottom-liners is: Don't waste any more of your aircraft purchase dollars than you have to travelling all around the country to look at hopeful candidates. You can blow a $1,000 going to Timbuctu to look at corrosion.
Organize your priorities. Look at airplanes that:
1-the seller will bring to you to look at, and that he understands if it's not "as represented" , then you'll not be reimbursing him his fuel. (That'll get rid of most liars.) ... <or> ... You can go see without "ALOE" (a lot of expense) on your part. Aloe can be anything other than simply driving your car to a place within a half-days effort.
2-are currently flying. Don't bother with "project" airplanes unless you're willing to discover expensive hard-to-find/repair parts that are missing/unairworthy. (Don't buy someone else's "trouble". You aren't interested in a work project involving correcting someone else's errors. You are interested in flying, so you are only interested in a currently flying, airworthy example.)
3-are not heavily modified. Sellers who have highly modified airplanes ("Fantastic one-of-a-kind!") are hopeful of recovering their entire expense of the modification as if it added great value to a classic airplane. Not! It actually detracts from a "classic airplane", and you'll have issues with keeping that modification airworthy (assuming all the paperwork was properly done to begin with. In other words, a heavily modified airplane...one that is drastically different than the rest of the fleet...will prove to be a complex airworthiness problem at some point down the road, and it will not be as good expense-to-value when it comes to re-sale.
You should look for a simple, cared-for airplane that has average equipment, been flown occasionally, and hopefully has been stored indoors.
Be patient. You'll find one. (And if you hastily bought something else that didn't really meet your needs, then you'll possibly miss out on owning your dream 170 when it comes along, while you unload the temporary ride. And it will. There are lots of them out there. You don't have to buy/settle for the next one you see.)

[flat country pilot]

Search these forums for pre-buy inspections and annuals. In my case, I learned real quick that pre-buy inspections, pre-buy annuals and travel to look at planes was taking a bite out of my available cash. But there are pirates out there and you need to be careful.

If you really want a 170, be patient and it will happen. In the mean time you can build your savings account. I looked for over a year and did a lot of pouting, according to my wife, but the wait was worth it.

If $30K is your limit, don’t rule out a Cessna 120/140. Only seats two, but you can buy one and have money left for insurance and flying. 120/140s are reliable, inexpensive to fly and they have conventional gear.

When I was shopping for a plane, I had this tail wheel bug in my blood, still do. But I did consider a couple early model 172s. I like the old square tail, four seats and low operating cost. They are inexpensive to purchase, insure and fly. No doubt you could find a good one for $25 to $30K.

Bill

[HA]

what Bill just said. if you want a taste of 170 flying (systems, cabin, cruise performance, ownership costs) but need to limit your budget and want 4 seats - well, an older 172 will fill that bill. (I know, heresy! right here in front of everybody!)

no, you probably shouldn't try gravel bars in the Alaskan outback with that little spindly nosewheel thingie out front, but otherwise it is the same aircraft. and it could tide you over until the finances improve...

plus, you can still learn all about either plane right here on one of the best forums around, as you've probably noticed. lots of smart/experienced folks here willing to share.

my $.02 anyway.

Hans

[BenWlson]

I've been flying a Piper Tri-Pacer (PA-22-160). It can out-perform a Cessna 172 any day and is definitely within my price range, but they've both got the tail-wheel in the wrong place.

[HA]

but at least you'd start to look cooler

[GAHorn]

I've been flying a Piper Tri-Pacer (PA-22-160). It can out-perform a Cessna 172 any day and is definitely within my price range, but they've both got the tail-wheel in the wrong place.

I don't see how! The Rag Piper figures are better in only three ways. It has a 1400 foot higher service ceiling (but I've had my 170 up to 13,500 and was never able to get any TriPacer above 9500 and no one is likely to fly either plane at their service ceilings anyway), the Piper has only 15 lb more useful load, and claims higher ROC.
But the Cessna 172 goes just as fast on less horsepower, farther on less fuel (greater range), burns less fuel per hour, carries it out of and into shorter strips, clears obstacles better despite Piper's claim to higher rate/climb. (The Cessna has a better angle of climb.) And the Cessna has two cabin doors, one on each side for easy access, better interior room, and is made of better materials.

Performance Figs from TradeAPlane:

PIPER PA22-160 TRI-PACER
Engine: LYC O-320-B2A 75%
Horsepower: 160
Cruise: 113 kts
Stall: 49 kts
Range: 435 nm
Srv Ceiling: 16500 ft
Empty Wt: 1110 lbs
Gross Wt: 2000 lbs
(Useful Load: 890 lbs)
Std Fuel: 44 gal
Takeoff (over 50 ft obstacle): 1480 ft
Landing (over 50 ft obstacle): 1280 ft

CESSNA 172B SKYHAWK
Engine: CONT O-300-C/D 75%
Horsepower: 145
Cruise: 113 kts
Stall: 45 kts
Range: 515 nm
Srv Ceiling: 15100 ft
Empty Wt: 1325 lbs
Gross Wt: 2200 lbs
(Useful Load: 875 lbs)
Std Fuel: 42 gal
Rate of Climb: 730 ft/min
Takeoff (over 50 ft obstacle): 1370 ft
Landing (over 50 ft obstacle): 1115 ft

The Cessna 170B is even better! (Cruises slightly faster and with it's tail wheel and tail feathers is way cooler!)

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

George George George . Using Trade-a-plane figures now. I thought we've found errors in those figures before?

"And the Cessna has two cabin doors one on each side for easy access,"

Piper has a door on each side. One happens to be in the back which is one more than the Cessna has in the rear. Hmmm.

...., and is made of better materials.

I don't think so. I'd much rather be repairing/replacing a wing or fuselage or any part of either of any of the rag Piper products than I would my the aluminum of my 170.

I've often heard that a Piper Tri-Pacer will out perform a Cessna 172. Not in every category and not by much. The Cessna doesn't beat the Piper by much in those categories it wins.

I will concede that the interior room in the 172 is bigger specially in the rear area.

Assuming the Cessna 170 is the target first choice here is the order of preference as I see it for other airframes. High is better to the left is more preferable in a line.

Cessna 170 any model
Piper PA22/20, Stinson 108-3 or 2
Piper PA20 or PA16, Stinson 108-1

Then the two seaters:
Luscombe, Cessna 140/120 -mostly metal
or
PA15/17, 7AC Champ, T-Craft - fabric

In the two seat area I wouldn't prefer the mostly metal airframes over the fabric ones.

You may ask why a J3 which I own isn't on the list. That's because a good one will cost as much or more as the first choice 170.

Since we are talking only owning one plane here I'd hold out for any one of the 4 seaters over any of the 2 seaters.