The International Cessna^® 170 Association

cessna170bdriver wrote:

gahorn wrote:(

gahorn wrote:(although there is anecdotal evidence that owner's of red B models are admired by more women.)

Hmmm... where is that gagging emoticon....
.

I gotta agree with George... Chicks dig polished red airplanes . During the process of convincing my wife that A 170 was a good investment , her only request was that it be polished and red!!

blueldr wrote:... I can't even remember when I've had a third or fourth SOB (Thats "Soul On Board") ...

Awww, Dick... I wish you hadn't said that.... until you defined it, I was believing it mean "Sexy, Opulent, Blondes"
Now you've gone and ruined my image of you....

If you are going to use the plane in Alaska, I would definately go with the B model. The flaps and heater are worth the money. As has been mentioned, if you are going to upgrade the engine at somepoint in the future, it would be a much better investment to do it in a B model.
You will definately want the lady gear or 180 gear also. Especially on skis.

I bought a B several years ago. I have been fortunate to fly several 170 and 170A's since then, and while thay are fine airplanes, each time at the conclusion of the days flying, I was glad I had a B.

Flame suit on, ducking for cover....

Bill

Bill Rusk wrote:If you are going to use the plane in Alaska, I would definately go with the B model. The flaps and heater are worth the money. As has been mentioned, if you are going to upgrade the engine at somepoint in the future, it would be a much better investment to do it in a B model.
You will definately want the lady gear or 180 gear also. Especially on skis.

I bought a B several years ago. I have been fortunate to fly several 170 and 170A's since then, and while thay are fine airplanes, each time at the conclusion of the days flying, I was glad I had a B.

Flame suit on, ducking for cover....

Bill

Bill, your words prompted me to think of it in terms of "dollars-for-doo-dads" (mods).
If a modern combustion heater is going to cost an owner $3600 to get better cabin heat (and still not have a defroster)... then, when someone is looking at airplanes to purchase, how much more value should one give a B-model that has the improved cabin heater/ventilation system?
I see airplanes with 180/210/220 hp engine upgrades asking $25K-$35K more than standard engined airplanes....and that sort of makes sense too.
I'm not sure the landing gear is worth anything more to someone operating on regular airports and/or simple grass. I'm not as enamored of any of the landing gear changeouts...(I'm so opinionated about it that I refuse to call it an "upgrade")... but if I were going to have a 170, and if I were going to operate it in rough-country/un-improved landing sites, ... I can certainly see an advantage in having a taller gear with more prop-to-ground clearance, despite what I view as it's ugliness.
If we give factory features a value in alignment with the cost of making such modifications ourselves (not to mention the loss of use while the mod is being undertaken), then perhaps that might help the decision-making process.

On a 170, not a lady, what defines lady gear? Lady Gear is mentioned on this site alot, but what is the definition?

Bill

You have a '54 so you have the lady legs. They are a different shape than the earlier gear legs, similar to 180 gear. I think Cessna changed to the lady legs on the 170 sometime in '53. You will see the difference right away if you look at other 170's around the airport. IMO they were a big improvement over the earlier gear legs, but that's probably because I have them........

Previous to serial number 25612 (a 1953 B-model) the landing gear legs were flat spring-steel with no "arch", with relatively straight leading/trailing edges which decreased in chord fairly consistently from where they exit the fuselage all along their length, to where the axle attached. They were interchangeable between left and right sides.
The term "lady legs" is sometimes used to describe the "later legs" which were installed by Cessna on 170's subsequent to serial 25612. They were no longer interchangeable, because the leg had a narrowed "ankle" (in chord) just above the axle. The sculpted portion (which narrowed mostly at the trailing edge) perhaps inspired the term. The spring-rate is slower/stiffer than the earlier gear. (Many pilots who had learned to fly in Piper/Aeronca/Stinson aircraft, which had landing gear configurations considerably stiffer than the Wittman spring-gear, complained about the "springy-ness" of the original 170 gear. Pilots who first learned in a spring-gear Cessna usually had no such complaints.) The later gear can also be identified due to it's outward or "bowlegged" appearance when viewed from the front, but the most accurate way to identify it is by comparing the "ankle".

Thanks for the help everyone, I finally settled on a 55 model (3 guesses which one ) and should be able to have a nice N # signature under my posts when the smoke and paperwork clears.

Richard,

You're actually going to be based at McKinley(Denali?) National Park? How cool. I was in a group of three 170's that camped there overnight on the way to Anchorage for the 2000 convention. My only dissapointment was that the top 5000 feet of the Mountain was obscured and we never got to see the top.

Miles

Congrats Richard.

My buds down at Denali Air will be hitting town the first week of May. Head down to Denali Private Airstrip and meet those guys. You won't find a better group of friends in the airplane business. I'll touch base with you when I head up in June. Keith

cessna170bdriver wrote:Richard,

You're actually going to be based at McKinley(Denali?) National Park? How cool. I was in a group of three 170's that camped there overnight on the way to Anchorage for the 2000 convention. My only dissapointment was that the top 5000 feet of the Mountain was obscured and we never got to see the top.

Miles

Yeah, one of the perks of the job here. Live on an airport and not have to hand over your firstborn to the bank to be able to do it!

Pretty typical weather you experienced - seldom are there days that we can't see some part of the mountain, but only on special days do you get to see all of it at once Actually winter can be better for that.

I plan on getting the bird up here in May, unfortunately I will be passing over Kelowna two months too early. Can't wait to get it rigged for skis in December

KG wrote:Congrats Richard.

My buds down at Denali Air will be hitting town the first week of May. Head down to Denali Private Airstrip and meet those guys. You won't find a better group of friends in the airplane business. I'll touch base with you when I head up in June. Keith

Thanks! You know, it is amazing how many people around the country have said they know those guys at Denali Air. I need to get down and meet them.

I was forced to make the same A/B decision last July. I searched high and low and ultimately purchased a 1950 A model in very nice condition. So far I've had no significant regrets. However, I must confess I have confined my flying to my base strip at Wolf Lake and surrounding Mat Valley strips of length. Ole 77C had many of the standard Alaska options such as bubble windows, 8.50's, 180 gear, clevland double pucks and a nice avionics package. Due to budget restraints I couldn't find a B model in my price range in good shape.

My observations so far:

Having flown 180's and 185's I really miss the feel of the extending wing chord when you pull that flap bar and being able to slow the aircraft close in. The drag flaps on the A model are effective but certainly won't bail you out of a bad approach. The up-side is you have to fine tune your skills or go around. I should also note that I'm not impressed with the A model flap linkage. At annual I found structural cracks in the spare on both flaps and elongated holes at the linkage attach points. These cracks were confined to the inboard hinge area. I only mention this because it was missed on the pre-buy inspection and resulted in costly sheet metal work. I fully believe most of the damage to the flaps came from years of sitting outside in the Merrill field winds not from actual flying. It's now hangared.

There is definately some advantage to two notches of flaps for take off as allowed for in the A model POH however it is minimal at best.

As for the heater 77C has the 3" scat hose and have flown the aircraft in
-21 C temperatures quite comfortably. Of course my daughter was not as toasty and my left leg got a little too hot.

Thus far I have only made two flights of any length with 77C, and have been quite pleased with both. One Wolf Lake/Valdez dist 105 n.m. at 5500 ft 1:05 over and :56 back returned with 1/2 tanks. The other was a round robin Wolf Lake to just south of the McClaren River in the Alphabet hills 2:30 total and burned a mere 24 gallons of 50/50 mix. Tough to beat that. Best of all, the brokedown snowmachiner I was dropping emergency food to said to his disappoinment from twenty miles out that C-145 sounded like a 180 coming but he got a big grin when he saw my 170 . Bonus!!

In short the C-170? is a great airplane whichever model you decide on. I do however think the B would be better for skis and floats. Feel free to contact me if you want to go out and see an A model in action. I fly a Lear 35 medivac ship 2 on 2 off out of Ketchikan. So on my time off I reside at Wolf Lake just looking for an excuse to take 77C out.

Lars

Guess I should read all the postings closer. Congrats on you purchase!

ENJOY

Lars

If it keeps you telling us about your 170Adventures... then skip 'em and keep posting!