The International Cessna^® 170 Association

I never thought my thread would go so far. A lot of good info here.

Modifing the wing to provide a change in performance does produce results unlike certain magnets attached to fuel lines. You just have to look at the commercial heavy fleet to see the number of winglets added to older airframes, the cost of which would think that the results are worth the effort. As for the 170 prop and wing mod selection such as Sportsman or Horton fuel consumption would be affected but which combinations would decrease fuel burn and improve over all performance?

It is nice to get a “new” topic going…..First of all I’m not flying the airplane in a 135 capacity. I’m a retired, (crop-duster), Grandpa up here in AK; having fun with my grandkids and flying our airplane. Of course there is moose hunting, king salmon seining, berry picking, boat building, etc., etc, to keep us out of mischief. Before we moved up here the last airplanes we owned were a PA-18 and the C-170-B. I had owned the Cub for 15 years before I bought the 170. I got a good deal on the C-170. It was stock……..except for the AVCON O-360 with about 2,400 hours and 800 on the engine. I bought it at an estate auction for $50K. I’ve done a lot to it since I bought it but mostly it was my labor so the cost was reasonable. I had the choice of bringing up the Cub or the 170 and I chose the 170 for numerous reasons. It will perform within 250 ft of a Super Cub on takeoff and landings are moot since it takes me almost twice the distance to takeoff as land. The big engine, big prop, Sportsman’s and Bush Wheels still give me about 850# useful load. I loose 150# when on floats but it still makes a GOOD two place, with some gear, float-plane. A C-180 may be a three place airplane with little load and a C-206 off of a short lake with any fuel at all is a three person airplane . Our lake here in Galena is 3,000+ with black spruce on the north and our solo power-line to the south. We are very happy with the choice of airplanes. I don’t think I’d trade it for a C-180 even money. I owned a K-model 180 for a few years that was a very nice airplane. I took it to AK once and was happy with it. The 170 is so much nicer to fly, [pick-up truck versus semi] that I’d really need the work and endurance of the 180 to turn my head. The 170 needs to be warmer……(the Super Cub was VERY warm with a Cub Crafters heat robber), it would be nice if it had a little longer legs but with floats and bush wheels it is usually not to hard to land and dump in a can or two of gas.

Buck, Galena, AK

So buzzlatka wanted to know what mods to make inorder to improve climb performance out of his stock 170. Correct me if I'm wrong Buzz.

We have STOL Kits, o-360 engines, & 80" props, suggested. Don't all three of these suggestions include the 80" prop? If you want climb performance why would you have a STOL or bigger engine without a climb prop?

Interesting information. Can someone tell me who has the STC for an 80 inch prop. The 170 book lists Alaska Propeller Specialists. Is this still correct?

marstall wrote:Interesting information. Can someone tell me who has the STC for an 80 inch prop. The 170 book lists Alaska Propeller Specialists. Is this still correct?

Kenmore

http://www.kenmoreair.com/

Having a O-360 gives you, if your smart a constant speed prop. Which gives you climb and cruse. Or go nuts and get a 80" climb and cruse prop. Lance

I've been looking at a 172 float plane as my 170 doesn't have a float kit. The 172 0-360 powered fixed pitch seems according the the SPA forum to be the best performer with a slower cruise speed of 5 knots over the C/S models even when those other models have more power (as in xp). In a previous post in this thread I'm (as I suspect many) are looking at fuel burn now as one of the principle deciding factors as to which aircraft to look for Looking at prices it would seem that the 170-172 have held onto their value.

Looks like MT has come out with a composite constant speed STC'd for O-360 170's and 172's. anyone done this yet or had experience with these props?

N171Q wrote:Looks like MT has come out with a composite constant speed STC'd for O-360 170's and 172's. anyone done this yet or had experience with these props?

I don't have any direct experience but I follow Vans RV and Harmon/F1 Rocket forums, and the MT props are getting fairly popular on Lyc. O- and IO-360's and -540's. Advantages seem to be light weight and smoothness. Some have reported 1-2% loss of top end speed.

Miles