The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Gentleman,

I am interested in buying a plane for the purpose of Swordfish harpoon fishing off the coast of So Cal. I am not a pilot (yet), and have plenty of questions pertaining to range, safety, etc... I would also like to solicet area pilots with an interest in flying my plane (pays 10% after fuel &cost, nagotable) and will fly out of Palomar, Gillespie, or Montgomery. You find fish,I'll be flexible.

The season gets hot around mid June-early July, and can go through Nov. We will usually hunt between 12-30 miles offshore with our efforts in the San Clemente, Catalina corridor.

Is a 170 the right plane for my needs? Would a 172 also be suitable? This plane will serve one purpose, time on target.

I need the maximum range possible, what are my best options for extension tanks, long range, Flint, Javelin etc... and what is the longest range/station time I can expect?

What will the mods cost me if I need to build the plane to suit my needs.

I look forward to your response

Archerfrog

archerfrog,

If I was going to be operating 12 to 30 miles off shore for what would likely be extended periods of time, I would want more than one engine. A good aircraft for your purposes would be the Partenavia PN68, a light twin. The Partenavia is equipped with two 200 HP fuel injected lycomings - which eliminate the threat of carb ice. The performance range of the aircraft would allow you to get on station relatively quickly - once on station and power reduced to a surveillance configuration the fuel consumption would be something like 14 gph. A number of Fish and Game Departments have used the Partenavia for their patrol and observation needs.

I agree that two engines are desirable and the Partenavia is a good patrol airplane. California Fish and Game uses one that has an entire plexiglass canopy with incredible visibility. I don't know about its range, however. I had a job in the 1970s flying a BLM contract from San Diego to Santa Barbara in a Cessna 337 with extended range tanks. If I recall, it had over 8 hours of endurance and we used it. We flew a grids that went SW from San Diego and turned north to Pt Conception and back and forth to the coast every 5 miles. We flew one week at 200' and the next week at 600'. We carried scientists from UC Santa Barbara tracking birds and whales. Even with 2 engines we had a life raft ready to deploy and almost needed it one morning off LA when a fuel controller went south on the rear engine while we were heavy. I used to tell those UC scientists we were nearly out of fuel when we had about an hour or so left. If you let them have their way we would have run out of gas and the pilot after me did just that, luckily for him it was on the San Diego freeway. He had been flying for over 8 hours. Anyway, good luck finding a plane and I'm sure you will have no problem finding someone to fly it.

As far as using a 170 if a 172 will suit your needs a 170 would as well. BUT you will likely pay less for a 172 in both purchase price and insurance and have more examples to choose from. Not to mention better availability of parts and mechanical support.

170 is a classic aircraft. The only reason you might want to pay a premuim for a classic aircraft to put to work is that it has a capability not usually found in newer models. In the case of the 170 over a 172 it is the fact that the 170 is a tail dragger and lends itself to rough runway work over the 172. You will not need this capability for your work so I don't know way your would ever consider the increased purchase price and insurance for a 170.

N9149A wrote:170 is a classic aircraft. The only reason you might want to pay a premuim for a classic aircraft to put to work is that it has a capability not usually found in newer models.

And because they don't float too good you shouldn't take a 170 into "HARM'S WAY" There are lots of cheep 172s around and if you have to ditch one of them it ain't too much of a loss . . . .

Archerfrog, just got off the phone with Zapata Protein guys which fly offshore LA. as fish spotter all day. They are using Cessna 172's and some 182's. On the 172 they have Javelin tanks or long range fuel. They also carry rafts and live vest for survival and have a 3 minutes portable air tank. Just for your info they carry 3-4 man rafts and thinking that another plane would drop a raft to a downed pilot rather than him trying to get a raft out. The comment was flying by yourself --you should carry a single man raft in the right seat and either drop it and land close of carry it out the door with you if you have a problem. The other commet was it doesn't matter whether you are 3 miles or 30 miles you will not glide to land-- have the survival equipment. They have 32 planes available. They have 3 plants and 5 planes out of each plant fly 15- planes in the air and rotate in 4 hrs periods. Sometimes they are all on top of each other at 500' spacing and other times miles apart seaching for fish. Pretty much the 172 does the Job and as Bruce said the cost, insurance, and maintaince would be less. Ron

I suggest you use Piper Traumahawks!

Remember those guys back in the 1930s that flew across the Atlantic. They filled the voids in their wings and cabin with ping pong balls for flotation in the event they ditched.

Apparently none of them were golfers.

Just for the hell of it - I wagged how much the ping pong balls required to fill the voids in the wings might weigh - I came up with a surprising 137.14 lbs of ping pong balls! Of course I am waging the square footage within the wings and applying that to the weight and approximate size of a ping pong ball - which by the way is 2.7 grams.

Bob.
Now that you've calculated the weight of the load of ping pong balls, how about calculating their number and cubic displacement versus their weight to determine their flotation displacement. I've been wracking my feeble old brain, but so help me I can't remember the formula to find spherical displacemnt.

Just a side note since BL mentioned ping pong balls. There is an episode of Mythbusters were they re-float a sunken boat with nothing more than ping pong balls. So it is not so obscure of a thought that at least one person has filled their plane with them for floatation. Neat idea actually.

The ping pong ball thing was a long time ago, but it seems to me the airplane was a twin engined Lockheed and the pilot was a famous flyer, maybe a Pan Am guy.

Ol' Gar says he'd NEVER use ping-pong balls or any other form of floatation in his airplane. He'd want it to sink to get rid of the evidence.

The proper aircraft for extensive over-water use is a floatplane or amphibian. My 2 cents.

The world's record for distance/time-aloft was set by a Cessna 170-B floatplane which used the floats for fuel storage tanks. I looked into buying the airplane that set that record in McAllen TX back in 1999, but turned it down due to corrosion. It was subsequently purchased and moved to Tomball TX. I sent the proofs of the records for the airplane to the new owner.

Howard Hughes had the same concern about the Spruce Goose only he used beach balls in the airplane's voids. When it was relocated to the Evergreen Museum in McMinneville, Oregon, it was disassembled and at least one beach ball was recovered from one of the sponsons and it is on display with the plane.

deleted by the author