Devil's advocate

[gparker]

Ok, with tongue in cheek, hoping to hear some legitimate boasting and really honest answers, I ask "why buy a 170 when I can get a bonanza or a 172 for less money, etc? What's so great about a 170? " (I know why I bought mine, I just want to hear other's opinions.)

Greg

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

OK that is easy.

With apologies to my friends here who might be a doctor. I don't have a Bonanza because I'm not a doctor.

With apologies to my friends here who own a 172. Who the heck would want a run of the mill 172? At least most of those here that do have a 172 at the least have the straight tail and some have even tried to blend in more by removing the training wheel.

I'll think of more later.

[Robert Eilers]

Off the subject maybe, but the title of gparker's Post got remembering past events. I believe I actually met the Devil's Advocate - late one night in a bad part of town. He was riding a flathead Harley - his friends called him "Ralph".

[hilltop170]

1. You can buy a horse pretty cheap sometimes but the cost of feeding and keeping it can really add up.

2. Do you want skis or floats?

3. Do you intend to make rough field or off-field landings?

4. Uncommanded Dutch rolls make me queasy.

5. Gear-up landings are no fun, neither are nose wheels.

6. Do the tails still fall off?

[jrenwick]

For starters, it depends on how one feels about taildraggers. I don't think I've ever met a tricycle gear-only pilot who never had an interest in getting a tailwheel checkout or endorsement, but some of them would point to the price premium (170s cost more to buy than 172s in general), additional insurance cost or the added security of a nosewheel as reasons not to own one (I'm not defending that, and I don't want to turn this into an argument about whether or not tricycle gear is really safer).

But here we're all tailwheel pilots, and we understand the satisfaction of a sweet landing, the value of the added utility that conventional gear gives us (my Cub lives on wheels, skis and floats, depending on the season), and the sense of accomplishment we have from meeting the added challenge of flying these things. Some people gravitate toward tail wheels, some don't.

If you're one of the former (us), then it's a choice between tailwheel airplanes. Bonanzas and 172s just aren't that interesting. C170s occupy a particular sweet spot among the small tail-draggers: four seats, cheaper than an 180 or 185, both to buy and to operate (although the 180 and 185 have greater utility than a 170) high wing (another matter of personal preference), simple to operate, great visibility, docile and comfortable to fly, and the round tail brings admiring glances everywhere. You just can't own one without being proud of it, regardless of you well you baby it, or how gorgeous or ratty it looks.

I notice I couldn't write this without using the word "sweet" -- twice. Maybe all the other words were unnecessary. Anyway, every airplane is a trade-off, and what you buy is mostly a subjective choice.

[voorheesh]

I don't think you could say it better than John. When I was a full time CFI many moons ago, I gave a BFR to a Dr. who owned a Bonanza. The first thing he told me was: "I am a Dr and I'm dangerous". He turned out to be one of the most talented and safest pilots I ever met. I spent a few days in Minden, NV this past week at a "wave camp" (glider deal) with several doctors/pilots who I believe also defy that stereo type. You can't tell a book by its cover and that goes for guys on flathead Harleys My friends who fly Bonanzas now mostly use them for long x countrys but they have higher gas and Mx costs than we do in small Cessnas. I love CE-172s and am lucky to get to fly a G1000 model every now and then. But as far as my hangar goes I'm with John on this one.

[Joe Moilanen]

I don't think you could say it better than John. When I was a full time CFI many moons ago, I gave a BFR to a Dr. who owned a Bonanza. The first thing he told me was: "I am a Dr and I'm dangerous". He turned out to be one of the most talented and safest pilots I ever met. I spent a few days in Minden, NV this past week at a "wave camp" (glider deal) with several doctors/pilots who I believe also defy that stereo type. You can't tell a book by its cover and that goes for guys on flathead Harleys My friends who fly Bonanzas now mostly use them for long x countrys but they have higher gas and Mx costs than we do in small Cessnas. I love CE-172s and am lucky to get to fly a G1000 model every now and then. But as far as my hangar goes I'm with John on this one.

Ahh...Minden, NV. Here's a video of me in Minden with some of my mis-fit buddies a couple of years ago, I'm the good guy in the turquoise shirt and white hat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7BWuR9E0OA

Joe
4518C

[GAHorn]

This is sort of like asking, "Why eat apple pie instead of blueberry?", or "Why date a brunette when so many Doctor's wives are blonde?"

The reason to buy a 170 over those other airplanes are primarly : MISSION!

If you want to go fast in a single engined airplane, the Bonanza isn't too bad of a choice (that is, other than Mooney's/Comanche's/Centruion's) .....BUT...it's way overpriced for what you get and has a nasty maintenance background of corroded/cracked wing spars and lost V-tails that "wag" in only light turbulence and, in some models, an incredibly over-complicated fuel system forward of the main spar which will surprise you with a tail-heavy airplane in most instances (the REAL reason Walter Beech tried to "lift"/lighten the tail with a V-design.....a plan that failed, by the way.....the V-t ail is actually 20 lbs heavier than the conventional tailed Bonanza/Debonairs.)
A Cessna 182 or 206 will purchase and operate and INSURE so much more affordably and only runs 5 kts slower, but has virtually NO landing gear maintenance and they both carry more and Center of Gravity doesn't WORSEN as fuel is consumed! Not to mention the annual inspection costs or the support fees Beechcraft charges every time you call them with a question...AND...the fact that TIC170A is an ASSOCIATION of friends...not at SOCIETY of doctors/lawyers/wannabees who paint their engines the same colors as their offices.

High wing airplanes are more stable in the air than low-wingers (lower C/G) and they're cooler in hot weather, give better view of the contryside, and are easier to load/unload, especially in rain. (Don't forget that Bonanza door has a nasty habit of leaking rainwater onto the co-pilot's seat, and how difficult it is to disembark from the co-pilot's seat without kneeling/stepping in it. Old folks with bad knees can virtually forget about boarding/de-planing from such airplanes....so if you plan to get older.... get a high-wing airplane.)

Why a 170 over a 172? Classic good looks and grass-fields, a bit more challenge to your flying-skills, and the unique-ness of ownership. (but if you ARE a Great Doctor who actually HAS great flying skills and a only a tiny HINT of snobbery.... like TIC170A Member Kevin West.... .... you'd rather have a round-tailed 170!

If you are one of those folks who accidently bought a 172 before you realized what a great plane and their owners the 170's are.... then you can always join TIC170A anyways, enjoy the close similarity of the airplanes, completely without fear of beign ostracized. (Unless you also happen to have the misfortune of having selcected a greeen one!)

Then the only saving-grace for you will be to remove the nose-tire and at least convert it to a taildragger! (and even then, it's required that you have a really cool personality!)

--George, Flat-Head-Harley's Forever!

[DaveF]

Wow, someone who's trying to decide between a 170 and a Bonanza is seriously confused! The Bonanza is for going places, but the 170 is for getting there.

I bought my 170 because I like the care and feeding of old machines, especially those of the no-frills variety. I like the way the 170 handles, I like its looks, and I like the feeling of flying it well. If, in fact, I do.

Nosewheels were invented for good reason, and it's possible to work diligently to perfect your 172 landings, but it just isn't the same. The range of challenges and possibilities is so much greater in a tailwheel a/c. It's just plain more fun, and that's why I fly.

[gparker]

Ok, so I am starting to get a feel why you love your 170's but I am still hearing more criticism of other planes than praises for the 170. Are you telling me that you bought a 170 because Bonanzas are too expensive to own and operated or because you don't want to be associated with "snobs" who flock to those types of planes? Is the 170 a plane you bought not because of its virtues but because of its lack of "issues"? Did you "settle" for the 170? Don't tell me what's wrong with other airplanes, tell me what is right about a 170.

[counsellj]

1. I have always wanted one since I was 21, finally bought one when I was 42
2. Taildragger
3. THE TAIL!
4. 7.5 GPH
5. Full Fuel, 4 Full Seats (my daughters are small and will probably never outgrow the plane, full baggage all at the same time.
6. It draws attention every time I pull up on a new ramp. (or was it my landing?.....oh well)
7. Not TOO fast, Not TOO slow
8. $$$
9. I would rather fly this airplane more often, then a bigger motor/faster airplane less often
10. Requires you to fly more often to stay proficient with your landings!. At least that is what I tell my wife and she believes it.

[GAHorn]

I wanted an airplane that:
1-Would be a challenge to fly rather than become as boring as most tricycles do.
2-I could afford to operate.
3-I could afford to maintain, without extraordinary assistance or tooling, and that the factory could still provide parts...even if I didn't like their prices. (Can't say that about all airplanes.....some mfr's have completely abandoned their creations or gone out of business. The 170 has enough in common with a 172 that it will likely be supportable as long as the 172.)
4-Has good utility, is useful for light IFR, and I can carry the occasional 4 occupants. (I usually fly alone or with my wife, but on rare occasion we take another couple with us. When we don't have additonal occupants...we have room for more of our own junk and the dog.)
5-I wanted a plane that was sufficiently popular that I could guarantee I'd get my money back out of it if I cared for it.
6-I wanted a classic.... not a "modern" airplane..... and this won fits into a neat niche of that category.

I've had rag and tube airplanes and found them not suitable for outside storage...even temporarily and certainly a factor for future buyers.
I've had Beechcraft "quality" and found it too expensive for what you get, although the speed of the Baron was nice...those $8K-$10K annual mx bills get tiresome, and I've already mentioned the other drawbacks.
I couldn't afford a C190/195 and didn't want a radial engine's idiosyncratic mx. The next best taildragger with such a pretty silhouette is...... a Cessna 170!

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Did you "settle" for the 170?

Why yes in fact I did settle for a 170.

What I was looking for was a high wing aircraft so I could sit under the shade of it while at fly-ins. I wanted it to go 250 knots and stall at 25 kts. I wanted it to burn 3.5 gph of MOGAS. (OK if it actually produced gas while it was flying that would be OK as well.) I wanted it to have 4 seats for either people or cargo. I wanted it to be a just a bit challenging to fly so that people thought I was better pilot than the average Joe. I had to be able to afford it and the on going maintenance and my affordable budget is $0. If it was a classic and you didn't see them on every ramp so much the better. I never understood the logic of a nose wheel. I would be storing it outside because of the cost.

After throwing out the unobtainable there were 4 airplanes left. A Stinson 108-2 or 3, An Aeronca 15AC Sedan, A Piper PA 20 or PA 22-20, a Cessna 170 or build one myself. Building one myself is not out of the question even today but reality is it is unlikely to happen. There are very few Aeronca 15AC Sedans around so that was a shot in the dark. Stinsons for the most part are powered by Franklin engines and parts for them are a question.

That left a Piper Pacer and a Cessna 170 though if the right Stinson came along well who knows what I'd done. I joined the Short Wing Piper Club and learned all I could about Pacers. My first airplane was a Piper Cherokee. Great airplanes if you can stand a milk stool, don't want to sit in the shade of the wing and don't mind owning one of the 40 or so on the ramp. One of these days I'd sell my Cherokee and get a Pacer... or a Stinson.... or a Cessna 170.

I lost my medical for a time and so I sold my Cherokee. Once I got my medical back I had the proceeds for the sale of my Cherokee burning a hole in my pocket. While waiting for the medical I had plenty of time to shop for airplanes and the reality of the situation was that I'd be storing this airplane outside. An all metal 170 would be better suited than a Pacer or a Stinson. And so while still looking at Pacers and Stinsons I started really looking for a 170. I found out there was a 170 Association and I joined it and I also found a Yahoo based 170 forum site with this moderator named George Horn. That wasn't enough to scare me away and shortly after that I found my 170.

The 170 meets most of my goals. It is as affordable as it gets for a good looking, classic, all metal, 4 seat, high wing airplane with a tail wheel. It might not do 250 kts but you can get them to stall pretty slow. It burns a bit more that 3.5 gph but in the 7-9 gph range is about where all the alternatives are. And if I could get ethanol free MOGAS, it can burn it. And to top it all off we've got a pretty good association of 170 minded folks to help keep it in the air and have a convention to attend, giving us an excuse to use our 170 for what it was intended, flying and enjoying our great country. Pretty tough to beat.

[3958v]

I have a friend with a Stinson and another with a Pacer. As far as I am concerned the 170 is a much better plane than either of them. The Franklin engine would be a deal breaker for me. The Stinson and the Pacer both have better roll rates than my 170 but that is where most advantages end. The C145 engine in the 170 has much better parts availability than either the Franklin or the D290. When I give fellow pilot rides they almost all comment on the excellent visibility and the large amount of room in the front and rear seats of a 170. The 170 gives you an economical classic which is still useful as a cross country machine. It basically does what a 172 will do but you have a classic plane to fly. With the cost of maintenance I could not even consider a Bonanza. I will also never own a retractable gear plane as I feel that sooner or later I would forget the gear. Those are some of the reasons I bought a 170 and probably it will be the only plane I will ever own. Bill K

[GAHorn]

i had a friend that admired my ability to travel around the country without being strip-searched and asked me how difficult it would be to learn to fly and own an airplane. Cut to the chase, his budget put him in a $20K Stinson with a 150 Franklin. It was a really nice plane in good shape,...and excellent value for the money. I helped him pre-buy (annual inspect) it and ferried it to Oklahoma (Mustang actually) for him. It was the first time I'd ever flown a Stinson. It wasn't bad. It flew sweetly.
But NOT as sweet as a 170. The visibility is like sitting down in a deep bucket (and in fact, the seats are very much like that...very rudimentary.) The "roll rate" (mentioned above by a forgetful person) sucked. The ailerons are "geared" into an "oversteer" condition (poorly balanced versus the elevator and rudder.) The ailerons and elevator in a 170 are MUCH lighter and more responsive and MUCH better balanced with each other.
While the Stinson, in good condition, is a very nice airplane... it does not compare favorably with any of the 170 models except in takeoff/climb performance and that is due to their having more horsepower.....from an unsupportable engine.

By the way,,, after three ground-loops he was cashed out of his Stinson by the insurance company and he bought an early straight-tail 172 because he was worried he might ground loop a 170. He's a very happy flyer now, and he and his wife and dogs travel back and forth between Texas and Montana in it regularly.