Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:44 pm
by hilltop170
I hear you Dave. Thank goodness the 170 has none of those shortcomings! Just pre-flight, push the starter, and enjoy. I fully believe I'll end my flying with the 170..........in 30 or 40 years.
Richard
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:24 am
by hilltop170
Dave- I just remembered, Cessna did make one prototype in the early 1950s from a 195 called the XP-210 that was a 195 airframe with the barn door flaps, square 180-like tail, squared wing tips, and a Continental O-470. It wasn't a bad looking airplane, I have a picture of it. That prototype might have been what convinced Cessna to go ahead and make the 180 from scratch.
I bet the success of the 170 showed Cessna they could make a lighter, higher horsepower plane (180) based on the design of the 170 which was much lighter and probably performed much better than the XP-210, plus it had a much more modern look to it. The final straw was probably the 180 was MUCH cheaper to produce.
Richard
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:18 am
by Dave Clark
hilltop170 wrote:Dave- I just remembered, Cessna did make one prototype in the early 1950s from a 195 called the XP-210 that was a 195 airframe with the barn door flaps, square 180-like tail, and a Continental O-470. It wasn't a bad looking airplane, I have a picture of it. That prototype might have been what convinced Cessna to go ahead and make the 180 from scratch.
I bet the success of the 170 showed Cessna they could make a lighter, higher horsepower plane (180) based on the design of the 170 which was much lighter and probably performed much better than the XP-210, plus it had a much more modern look to it. The final straw was probably the 180 was MUCH cheaper to produce.
Richard
Yep, and here we are
