Is a Cessna 170 the right aircraft for me?

[GAD]

Hello! I just jumped on board the 170 club wagon . I haven't had my own plane for 15 years and I'm excited about getting back into general aviation. I'm hoping to teach my kids to fly! At his point I'm liking the 170 because I want a tail wheel aircraft and something to hall most of my young family around in. Can't really aford six seats ! I would be flying off of both prepared and unprepared strips. Would some of you share your thoughts and considerations for using a 170? Thanks, Greg

[Curtis Brown]

It is a great airplane. I have had mine fro about 15 years now. It has preformed well carrying four adults, no luggage and full fuel. It has done well with two people and all the camping gear needed for a week. And I have just return from an Idaho camping trip which began from Mississippi. With the 145 hp engine it is under powered but with proper planning it can get the job done. Operating expense is a lot less than the more powerful 180's and I am very happy with mine.
Good luck!

[trake]

Ifyour looking for a family hauler youre going to be disappointed with the original 145 hp engine. I rarely fly with more than 2 aboard and love mine. Its a great airplane, but its not a load carrier. The 180 hp conversions are performers, but move the plane into another expense category completely.

[GAD]

I wasn't thinking so much about the plane being used to as a hauler, just that with 4 seats and consideration of the STC for a seat in the luggage area that I might be able to take most of my family, at least before they become teenagers. So two questions, any experience or thought on the luggage area seat? What I was more curious about was using the plane as a family trainer. Any thoughts?

Thanks, Greg

[futr_alaskaflyer]

With full fuel, myself, and basic stuff in the cabin such as flight bag, basic survival gear, etc I have 300 lbs left over for luggage and other persons before reaching gross weight. But my plane is a bit heavier than many, mostly due to a different engine, and I top out at 200 lbs clothed (due to my height and striking manly physique )

To some extent you can trade fuel/range for weight of course, if you aren't going too far.

After getting lots of advice I consider my plane a three seater unless we are talking about very small children (my intercom is only wired for three anyway.)

I love my plane so far, it is easy to insure and affordable for me - I'm sure I would love a 180 or a Maule but then you are getting into more money and airplane than I can handle for now.

[GAHorn]

I wasn't thinking so much about the plane being used to as a hauler, just that with 4 seats and consideration of the STC for a seat in the luggage area that I might be able to take most of my family, at least before they become teenagers. So two questions, any experience or thought on the luggage area seat? What I was more curious about was using the plane as a family trainer. Any thoughts?

Thanks, Greg

A "family trainer" implies the teaching of those who probably have less than a burning desire to fly airplanes. They most likely will do it to please you. A Cessna 170 is a joy to fly, and a very docile taildragger, but...I'd not teach a non-pilot to fly in one. It's too valuable to risk the wreckage.
Rent someone else's taildragger and then check them out in your own later on.
As for luggage compartment seats.... Why? Do you intend to carry more than four people? If so, you need a C-206, not a 170. The 170 will have marginal performance with four average adults, luggage, and fuel. You'll likely have to leave out either luggage or fuel if they're full sized adults.
The luggage compartment also has zero visibility, zero ventilation (except from the tailcone which in some airplanes contain exhaust fumes), the sidewalls have no insulation in the original airplane, also no padding in incase of accident, offering added possibility of injury from sharp bulkheads hidden behind thin upholstery, and difficult emergency access in case of accident. I'd advise against that idea.

[c170b53]

I'd buy the airplane for it's most common mission. There's not too many 4+ seat trainers that I know of. If you hauling buy an older 182, less likely to be banged up than an 180 and cheaper and you can put it on floats with less rework than most aircraft.

[N170CT]

Agree completely with George. Don't mean to dash your hopes for owning a fantastic airplane, but any idea of seats in the luggage comp is asking more of a stock 170 than it can reasonably deliver. Ya might want to consider what that does to the cg. I fly out of airports near sea level most of the time, but don't need a "crash" (pun intended) course in performance to know my airplane would be uncomfortable in a loaded/high altitude/short runway/warm temp departure. As Dirty Harry said: " A man's gotta know his limitations".
The same applies to airplanes .
Regards,
chuck

[Jr.CubBuilder]

"consideration of the STC for a seat in the luggage area that I might be able to take most of my family" "Any thoughts?"

Thanks, Greg

Wouldn't even consider it.

[blueldr]

I suggest you have a look at the baggage compartment on a C-170 and then try to immagine anyone, no matter how small, being jammed in there. It would be criminal just to subject even a small child to that,and any sort of an emergency at all would be disasterous.

[dentistpilot]

Hi Greg,
Be careful of aft loading.
First: the bulkhead behind the baggage compartment in my 1951 A model is cardboard or something similar, and if you push it rearward, you can bend the stringer at its base backward and foul the (I think) elevator pulleys and cable located right close there. Scary to contemplate.
Second: Balance. In my airplane, with full fuel, 222 pounds in the front seat, 400 pounds in the back seat and 45 pounds of baggage, I would be at gross weight, and would have exceeded the aft limit.
Third: At zero density altitude, a C145 engined 170 at gross weight will climb adequately. At 2000 feet DA, it might scare you.
Jim

[GAHorn]

As a matter of minor improvement, I cut and installed inner walls for my baggage compartment and covered them with grosspoint baggage-fabric. My aft baggage bulkhead was closed off above the hat-rack, and the bagg. comp. aft wall was made of 2024 T-3 and also covered with grosspoint. This had several effects. Because it, in effect "double-walled" the baggage compartment, it slightly reduced the cu. ft. of the baggage area by about 2 inches on each sidewall. This is almost miniscule and not missed (but protects the stringers from rough handling. It also protects luggage from the sharp edges of those stringers.) It stiffened and strengthened the baggage comp. walls. It reduced noise, especiallly when taxying over rough terrain (oil-canning, cable-slapping, etc.) which is fairly obvious to rear-seat passengers in a 170. It prevents any exhaust in the tailcone from flowing into the cabin. It improved cabin heating by reducing loss thru the rear bulkhead and improved side-wall insulation properties.

[silkyd]

do you have any photos of this...it sounds like a great idea

[GAHorn]

I'll take some pics this weekend and post them. -George

[Indopilot]

Hey George,

Do you advertise late at night, with all those benefits for three easy payments of 19.95 but wait that is not all. Call now and you will knock off one payment?
Another benefit you didn't mention is protecting the A/C skin from getting unsightly bulges and creases if you bump something into it. Especially on extended baggage compartments where there isn't any upholstery to cushion it anyway. Brian