The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Hi everybody!

I have a 170A with a stock engine and I would like to get "her" a couple of tundra (not sure if that's how you call them) tires. I'd like to be able to land in rough terrain, sand, muddy areas, etc. I'd really appreciate if you could help me answer the following questions:

What type of tire should I get, and where would you recommend me to buy it?
Do you think a stock engine is a problem for that type of operation? (from S/L to 3000')
Could you give me a couple of tips on how to get started? This type of flying is really unknown in Spain, and having as little air strips as we do, I would really love to learn about it and start practicing step by step.

Thanks a lot.

Best regards,
Pedro.

Pedro, I PM'd you with the Bushwheels web site they have a rugged tire for your kind of use and a tail wheel tire. I have installed them on a Male, Cessna 182 and I'm about to put a set on a 182/180 conv. They love them. Lance

Thanks Lance, I sent you a PM. It seems as though they have the right stuff, however my criteria is pretty much unexistent and I hope to build up a little more before I go ahead with my decission.

Take care,
Pedro.

A couple of sites you might find interesting:
http://www.fepco.com/Bush_Flying.html
http://www.bajabushpilots.com/
http://www.backcountrypilot.org/

gahorn wrote: http://www.backcountrypilot.org/

Ah George, I'd never thought I'd see the day (wipes tear from eye.)

George, once again I want to thank you for your advise. I ordered the book and it seems like a eally good one.

But when I visit these web pages I read about Maules, Cubs, Huskies C180's and C185's, no 170's. I would really like to know what the experimented 170 pilots have to say about the capabilities of our plane. Maybe the stock engine is way to short to take her out on the rough, and this is really not a good idea. My idea of bush flying is just landing at unprepared surfaces such as crop fields, sand beaches and muddy river beds, nothing the type of "Big Rocks and Long Props", although I'd love to. Maybe I don't need to use special tires to land at a harvested wheat field.

I really value your personal experience guys. It is usally more enlightning than anyting published. Anything you have to say, I'd love to hear.

1SeventyZ wrote:

gahorn wrote: http://www.backcountrypilot.org/

Ah George, I'd never thought I'd see the day (wipes tear from eye.)

Send $45 to headquarters@cessna170.org (jest)

wenetz - The stock 170 is a desceptive aircraft - by stock I mean 145 HP and stock gear. Because the aircraft is a tailwhell and resembles aircraft like the Cessna 180, Husky, and Super Cub, it is easy to conclude it can perform as well as they do - off airport. The 170 is a great economical aircraft able to carry three people and fuel comfortably off of most paved or well maintained grass/dirt strips that have some length to them. But, when it comes to Bush operations the 170 in my opinion is 20 HP short with relatively fragile leafspring gear. The stock 170 can be landed just about anywhere you can land a Super Cub. But, taking off in the same distance as a Super Cub is not possible. As a result, if not careful you may find yourself in a hole you cannot get out of. My experience has been with the weight & balance light, if the landing area is not overly rough or soft with at least 1,500 feet of takeoff run surface and no immediate obstacles at the departure end the 170 will generally do fine - INTO the wind. Add high elevation, heat and a tailwind and things get dicey fast.

wenetz-
I agree with what Robert Eilers just wrote. When I moved to Alaska in 1983, I had flown my 170 for 10 years and about 750 hours. I did not want to buy a different plane for bush work but was told by several knowledgable Alaska bush pilots the 170 was just too underpowered. I flew it for a year and decided they knew exactly what they were talking about for the type of flying I wanted to do. So I sold the 170 and bought a 180. It was a good choice, the 180 is a great bush plane mostly because of horsepower.

That does not mean the stock 170 can't be used for bush work, there are many stock 170s being used in the bush. You just have to be mindful of its capabilities and limitations. If your "bush" definition does not include extremely short or rough strips it will probably work just fine. Only you can determine if it fits your requirements. Use lots of good judgement.

I bought my old 170 back again in 2006. It meets my requirements for how I intend to fly it in southwest Texas. I land at ranch strips and unimproved fields, some of which are not as good as some beaches in Alaska, but they are long enough to safely go there and I don't push the plane's capabilities.

Larger tires are good insurance but not necessarily required if the surface is good enough. Be especially observant for holes, logs, rocks, furrows in plowed fields, etc that are hard to see from the air. If at all possible, walk/inspect the proposed site yourself before you fly there the first time. If you can drive a car across the area at 40mph comfortably, it should work fine assuming it's long enough. Go in empty the first time. Be especially careful to watch for power lines that can be invisible from the air.

Don't forget to fly friendly by avoiding surrounding homes, businesses, schools, etc. Most folks think an airplane landing off-airport is crashing, so don't be surprised if the local law enforcement shows up.

I don't have any time in 170s with higher horsepower. There are guys who do and I suspect they will tell you they perform close to the 180s.

The standard engine develops 145 horsepower only at 2700 rpm.

Keep in mind that a standard 170 with a standard engine and standard prop only develops 118 - 120 horsepower on takeoff. (It is only turning about 2300 rpm. Check your power charts.)
If you use a climb prop (pitched to 51 inches or less, it will achieve higher rpms and therefore more horsepower...resulting in shorter takeoff distances, better climbs, ... and poorer cruise speeds with lessened fuel economy.

The 170 is a fine aircraft on unimproved landing sites. Just keep it light weight, and don't push it.

Thanks Richard and Robert!

That's exactly the type of advise I was hoping for, I really appreciate! Now I know what not to think about. Although it seemed pretty obvious I'm very glad you gave me the information. Since it's time for an OH I'm thinking of upgrading to a Franklin 220 (the punkin article looks great!).

The thing is that the stock engine is so nice to fly, that I'm really afraid to loose that smoothness and comfort if I convert to the Franklin 220. I really could care less about speed (although nice when traveling), but the fourth seat is an issue. The only reason for me to upgrade would be to have a solid four-seater and yes, the fact that I could "play around" a little and visit spots which would otherwise be "off grounds".

I don't want to fly her professional, I used to fly a B90 for a small company in Barcelona but I'm now in the helicopter business. During the past 5 years I have only flown fixed wing for my anual check ride. But since I started flying the 170 this summer, believe me I've had some of the most beautiful flights EVER!! She is just perfect!!! I just wish I could pack her full.

When I consider an engine upgrade, I can't help thinking that It's a big mistake to change the original concept. But then again the original design does have four seats. Do you think it would loose those beautiful and smooth flying ways?

Thanks again its really nice to read your comments!

Take care,
Pedro.

The Franklin engine is not the only engine to consider. (It is also a smooth running 6-cylinder.) In fact, despite Franklin owner's optimistic outlooks.... the Franklin is not yet a well-supported engine, and until it is, it's not a viable or recommended conversion, in my opinion.) It's future is not yet confident.

The TCM (Continental) IO-360 is a much better conversion. several approved installations are available, it's an engine that's common, well supported by it's manufacturer, with a future.

Hi George!

I was just discussing with Matt Haag and he pointed out the exact same thing; being as he is a happy Franklin owner.

I contacted the Polish manufacturer a few months ago and he said that he was working on the new engine and hoping to have it ready maybe for Oshkosh. Today I tryed to browse their page but it didn´t work. You're right, it looks a bit uncertain futurewise.

Plus, appearently the OI-360 conversion requires no cowling modification and I would be able to keep the "looks" of the 170A.

Do you know where can I find figures for the performance of the 170 with the 210 HP, OI-360? Does anybody out there have good facts on this? How smooth is it? Thanks a lot.

Best regards,
Pedro.

Got Wheels??

Pedro,

When it comes to take off and climb, a C-170B with a Continental IO-360 engine will out perform most C-180 airplanes.

I have found that if I fly my airplane at the same indicated air speed as with a stock engine my fuel burn will be the same.

Unfortunately, the only mod I am familiar with does not allow an increase in gross weight so you're still limited to 2200 lbs.