170 vs. 182

[N170BP]

Having posted that (and taken a few more sips off of my
Moose Drool), I can't help but pontificate that;

A. The 170 is a really cool looking, classic airplane that's dirt
cheap to fly

B. The wing is too big.

C. It's a metalized version of a Taylorcraft (BC-12__)
(i.e., the wing is too dadburned big).

D. If the wing wasn't so big, it'd never get off the ground
with only 110 (or so) horse power on tap when you cob it.

E. It's an "unbalanced" airplane (at least the Bs are). You
can get them into places they'll never come back out of again.

F. I thoroughly enjoy mine, to the tune of flying it 200+ hours
per year, but I don't kid myself about what it can do and
what it can't

[djbaker]

Have you looked at your 170 today? Have you seen it's nose pointing up in the air asking you to come closer and say " Hello ". Have you noticed the eyes close together, large, dark, and shining. The mouth, always open, ready to ask the question " Want to go for a ride big boy ". But when men gather they always stand to the rear to admire the round tail moving up, over and down onto the back. That is the prettiest view you will ever see of a woman. AHHH mean an airplane dear. The 182, great airplane. The 170 a work of art

[N170BP]

You have a far better command of the English language
than I do.... What he said!

[beeliner]

No question, a Skylane is more practical than a 170 (if the word practical and airplane can be used together). The 170 wins all bets of the heart over the 170:
- looks, on the ground or in the air.
- handling, much lighter, a more "willing" partner
- visibility, the panel is low and out of the way

Fly a 170, enjoy a piece of history. Or buy a 182 and just get somewhere a little quicker with a little more stuff.

[Dave Clark]

It's interesting that even with the 180 Lyc there is still a little pig left when you add that last 200 lbs. Not nearly as noticeable but still there.

[GAHorn]

Bela wrote: "Dead nuts = you're right on the money (I'm a "young" whipper
snapper, it's an old saying, I'm 1/2 surprised I'm familiar with
it and you're not!!!).

Thanks for the 3rd grade level math lesson. My point (which I
apparently didn't make quite clear enough) is a stock 170 flies
like a turkey with a full diaper load at 2200 lbs (certified
gross weight). So while you can load the airplane as you
describe, and be completely legal about it, it will still suck
hind tit when it comes to getting out of it's own way. A stock
170 loaded to gross weight is only good for flat-land flying on
relatively cool days. Mind you, I agree it's a really cool way
to get around on such days.....
_________________
Bela P. Havasreti "

I'm sorry I didn't re-read that msg I posted ....or I would have realized it sounded sarcastic...something I never intended.
I completely agree that being legal doesn't equate to being a high performer. \

Eric, ..you're also correct about that loading of course, but it's not 145 hp that's installed in our 170's no matter what the sale brochures said. We all know this engine only puts out about 120 hp at best on takeoff and during climb.
Remember everyone, the C-145/O-300 engine is RATED at 145 hp at 2700 RPM. When did you last see that kind of RPM in this engine?
The type certificate has the maximum allowable RPM (static,...meaning basically at the beginning of takeoff roll) limited to 2330 RPM with the standard prop. With that kind of limitation (and the reality that most standard props only turn around 2250 static) the max horsepower we're getting benefit of on takeoff is about 120. So the power loading arithmetic is actually much worse than Eric demonstrated with computation. It's what makes 170 pilots such greater pilots than all those 182 drivers who can't make the grade with anything less.

Russ,..you're wrong in my opinion. The 170 is NOT the greatest looking of the Cessnas at all. The 190/195 is. The 170 is just the closest to it I can afford.
170 owners are the greatest type-club folks though, no question about it!

[Harold Holiman]

George,

I agree with your last paragraph completely. In looks; 1st 190/195, 2nd 170, 3rd 180 (would tie for 2nd except for tail), 4th 120/140. If you want to go older, I would put the Airmaster 145/165 2nd after the 190/195. The 170 club members are number one, even allow a few of us 180 people in the club. See you in Tehachapi.

Harold

[zero.one.victor]

George,your last post reminded me of a quote from timber Houlton's 170's In Alaska website.
"Bigger engines are just an excuse for lack of skill".

Eric

[russfarris]

OK, George I won't argue that point at all about the 195 being the best looking Cessna, especially the affordability part!!!

I like the looks of the square tail 180 and early 182s. They remind of DC-6s/7s. Light plane designs tend to follow airliner styles, I think. It's hardly a coincidence that the 1960 Cessna swept tail designs happened at the time that the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Convair 880 were being introduced into service.

Speaking of 195s, I saw you met Mike Larson; great guy! Mike and I go back over 20 years, when we were DC-8 captains for a non-sched airline (Arrow Air.) Saw him and his airplane at Sun-n-Fun this year, but he didn't have the "For Sale, 1 million dollars firm" sign out! Russ Farris

[170C]

Ya gotta like em. Those curves are graceful on all the round tailed planes. All airplanes, with few exceptions, are super lookers. Now, as Harold said, the 170 group is tops. I'll ditto that. Of all the organizations I have been or am a member of, I have never been around a better bunch of folks. Regardless of where your from, what you do for a living (or did), what you fly (or whether you fly or not), you are accepted and treated with friendship and respect. Yea, sometimes a few feathers get ruffled a bit, but they soon settle back down and some of the best friendships can be had anywhere in the 170 Assoc. Most associations could take lessons from this group and there sure is a lot of knowledgable folks out there willing to give suggestions and lend a hand when its needed. I just wish I had joined sooner!

[GAHorn]

OK, George I won't argue that point at all about the 195 being the best looking Cessna, especially the affordability part!!!

I like the looks of the square tail 180 and early 182s. They remind of DC-6s/7s. Light plane designs tend to follow airliner styles, I think. It's hardly a coincidence that the 1960 Cessna swept tail designs happened at the time that the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Convair 880 were being introduced into service.

Speaking of 195s, I saw you met Mike Larson; great guy! Mike and I go back over 20 years, when we were DC-8 captains for a non-sched airline (Arrow Air.) Saw him and his airplane at Sun-n-Fun this year, but he didn't have the "For Sale, 1 million dollars firm" sign out! Russ Farris

Aha! So...he sounds willing to dicker!! Where's my wallet....