The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Sometimes it's such a pleasure to reaffirm the beauty of our airplanes. This Cessna 170 is such a good all-around bird... good for single-piloting with light, responsive, well-balanced controls .... adequate power for most reasonable tasks.... affordable operation costs....Great too for carrying along friends and family on trips. Toss baggage onboard and go!

What brings this up is that I've lost a good friend who had recently acquired a Swift from another close friend. This particular Swift is a prime example of that model...low time, recent overhaul, last owner had it for 51 years...all the logs...etc etc.. Anyway...another friend ended up buying it from my friend...but had the misfortune of a rapidly-advancing health problem and did not get to enjoy it for long. HIs widow now offers it for sale...so knowing this airplane's history, I recommended it to another friend.... who decided to look further into it, and asked me to assist him in evaluating it.

That is when it became so obvious to me just what wonderful airplanes our 170's are! By looking into a beautiful airplane like the Swift...even a pristine example that is attractively priced.... it does not stand up to the utility of the 170...

Examples:

Payload: The typical Swift... is a one person airplane. It's basic operaing weight is 1250-1300 lbs...with a gross wt of 1710...leaving just enough to carry almost full fuel and one large person.

Performance: Here are the words of a long-time Swift-owner who is one of the guru's at the Swift Assoc'n, talking about his own airplane's performance at higher altitudes; "I live at 5,000 ft and ... I operated off a 6,000 ft runway in a valley. I tried the plane both with an Aeromatic prop and a fixed pitch metal prop. It would get off the ground in about 2500-3000 ft and would fly in ground effect, but climb was sometimes less than 50 ft/min. In the summer I always had to find the gliders and circle with them to get out."
Can you imagine a 170 needing 2500-3000 of ground roll...just to get airborne ?? In one of the worst examples of performance in my own airplane, which has a cruise prop...Jamie and I departed Animas (Durango) Colorado, which is at 6600 PLUS feet above SL. ... in the summertime heat-of-the-afternoon.... at gross weight .... (at least! ... Us two, full fuel, 200 lbs of baggage/goodies for convention, and two cases of bottled beer (donation to convention probably weighed another 60 lbs or so...) True enough...we used all 5,000' of the runway before we cleared the imaginary 50' obstacle... but we didn't use 2500-3000 of ground-roll! And 20 mins later we were over the 9,000' mountains to the west and cruising at 10,500', later on up to 12,500 toward our destination, Salt Lake!

The short Swift wings do not like to perform at high altitudes, and original wingtips are hard to find and expensive...and any other wingtip costs you in performance.

Reading other comments at their forums, ...they all love their airplanes, as all owners normally do... but they have some unique problems we don't have with our Cessna's. They are timid about left crosswinds on takeoffs because the airplane will turn left and go to California when the tail comes up... and they definitely do not like 3-point landings because the airplane suddenly drops out from beneath them...usually pounding onto the main gear first... and the Adel landing gear gives a POUNDING on grass runways unless they are putting-tee smooth. Tall pilots have to fly with a crick in their necks from tilting their heads...and their knees bang against the lower instrument panel. Their sciatic nerves go to sleep after an hour, and they have to modify their seat cushions/backs to the thinnest possible to accomplish that.

The low-wing makes the airplane a greenhouse in summer, and gives you wet seats if tied down in the rain. No baggage capacity worth mentioning.

Then there's the maintenance issues of hydraulic system, retracting landing gear (and it's added insurance rates) and electric flaps... cracking vert stab spars and outer wingpanel corrosion...

But, Gawd.... I'll admit ....it's a beautiful airplane! It ain't no Cessna 170 though!

George, as an originality nut, you won't be impressed by this -- but one of the attractive things about Swifts is all the things that can be done to them. Original C-85 engine, 90HP, 125HP, 145HP, 180HP, 200HP, 210HP, all are common configurations. When you talk about Swift performance, you should always mention which engine configuration you're talking about.

The maximum gross weight is easily increased to 1970 lbs, with a couple of small metal straps added to the wing connections. Bubble canopies, retractable tail wheel, Cessna 150 seats (for adjustability), electric trim, control sticks instead of yokes -- all are popular modifications. Mods are so common that my nearly-stock Swift won an award at OSH two years ago simply for its originality. My C-125 Swift has been upgraded to an O-300, same engine as is in my 170. The Swift is faster, and will go the same distance on less fuel. So if it's just me and maybe a friend and not much baggage, the Swift can be my first choice for cross-country (but not to a C-170 flyin!).

Everything you said above is true, but there's another side to the story that's worth hearing.

That's all correct, John. And of course, many of those type mods have also been done to 170's.

Another way to look at mods tho'....is ... why did it need so many mods...? What deficiencies were they trying to correct? (HP in the case of the original engine, of course. When they finally put 6-cyl Continentals in them, it really made the difference.)

I'm not so sure it will operate cheaper over any particular route, tho'. Even tho' it runs faster with the same engine...it has higher hourly operating costs due partly to systems complexity.

By the way... the yokes-to-sticks conversion is one my friend was considering...until he discovered the up-elevator geometry is diminished by that mod. That's another discussion topic at one of the Swift discussions which surprised me.

My friend's Swift (for sale) also has the O-300, which is the engine I'd wish for if I had one. I'll admit it... if I had a spare savings acct. I'd consider it for a second airplane. I like the way they look. (A basic early Mooney is priced not that much different and is more useful, however.)

I own two of maybe 5 airplanes on my short list of classic airplanes that I could even consider being able to afford. The Swift is one of those 5. And George's comments comparing the Swift to the 170 wouldn't deter me for even a blink of a moment should I decide I just had to have a Swift. The title of this thread is perfect, apples to oranges. Sometimes you want to eat an apple and many times there is just no beating an orange.

I like apples, oranges, bannanas, watermelons, grapes, and even the occational pomegranate. When it comes to aircraft, I pretty much like them all.

There is something special about the Swift though. They are beautiful planes and they speak to ya. But since I can (barely) afford one plane at a time I'll stick with the 170 for now for the beauty AND utility.

Planes, like just about everything, are an exercise in compromise. I think of the Swift as an early MG. Not very useful but still pretty darn cool. I think of the 170 as a more of a Bel Air. Looks nice and has utility.






I'd still love the Ferrari (Extra 300/P-40E).

You are likely right George. But a Swift is so darn good looking (especially if it has a Green stripe). One with sticks, bubble canopy, cs 3 blade prop and a C-I0360 sure makes a nice plane. I can't afford one with or without my 172 TD, but gawd I'd have one in my gaggle if I hit the lottery

I owned a stock Globe for 10 yrs. Actually, I say stock but during that time I installed a C-145 in place of the 125. Everything said so far about the Swift has been true, at least to some degree, but man what a fine flying airplane! If I hadn't needed the extra seats I would probably still be working on it...I mean flying it

Glenn wrote:I like apples, oranges, bannanas, watermelons, grapes, and even the occational pomegranate. When it comes to aircraft, I pretty much like them all.

There is something special about the Swift though. They are beautiful planes and they speak to ya. But since I can (barely) afford one plane at a time I'll stick with the 170 for now for the beauty AND utility.

Planes, like just about everything, are an exercise in compromise. I think of the Swift as an early MG. Not very useful but still pretty darn cool. I think of the 170 as a more of a Bel Air. Looks nice and has utility.






I'd still love the Ferrari (Extra 300/P-40E).

My thoughts exactly! Back in the 50's my Dad had a friend that had a 125 Swift. I thought that was the neatest plane ever. Then he landed it on a rough runway and destroyed the landing gear. Not so cool. He replaced it with a staggerwing - he was cool again. Another of my all time favorite airplanes.

My Globe had the ELI gear, air (nitrogen) over oil and a Scott 3200. This was a great setup and didn't have that saggy look common to the Adel spring gear when the springs got weak. I was based on an 1800' grass strip for a year with the 125. Never had a tense moment but if it was hot and humid I would meet my passenger at a longer strip. I won't debate the book figures but from personal experience the ground loving reputation of the Swift is greatly exaggerated.