Cessna 170A Restoration w/TLGW Cont IO-360 STC

[TCU76109]

A few months back, I purchased a Cessna 170 project from Georgia and brought it back here to Ft Worth, TX. I’m finishing installing Continental IO-360 STC on a 1964 172 so I decided to contact Tom Anderson at The Landing Gear Works about doing another on this plane. We have a lot of lessons learned from the install in the 172, and I think it will make this project a lot more efficient. The shop I’m working with is looking at specializing in conversions in the future - more to follow when we see what progress we make on the project.

The aircraft is in the hangar disassembled, and a lot of work was done a few owners back on the airframe. Things that have been done:
-Stene Sportsman STOL - field approval complete, kit not yet installed
-Pponk gear mod
-B.A.S. Tailpull handles
-Shoulder harness nut plates w/replaced rear spar carry-through
-Cleveland wheels/brakes
-L19 tailwheel bracket
-Cessna 185 gear legs
-Scott Tailwheel

I’ve been researching the forum for things to consider on the restoration at this stage including:

-Eye bolt kit for lifting
-Inspection panel on the rear of the fuselage near the vertical stab
-“Lady legs” gear
-Complete rewiring
-Battery relocation
-Baggage door
-New panel/radios/antennae
-T3 Tailwheel
-Complete strip and paint - fuselage is ready for prime/paint, but wings need stripping.

Lessons learned so far on this project:

The 170 uses a different, longer -10 blade length than the 172 for the STC.

For anyone moving a project in the future, an entire Cessna 170A will easily fit in a 26’ Penske truck with no engine. The vertical was removed, but I think it’s possible it would fit with it installed. There is enough space to put a plane in the truck with an engine installed most likely, but it would be a challenge getting it lifted or up ramps. The wings will strap down to the sidewalls, and the horizontal and verticals will secure nicely as well. It makes it easier to load if it goes in tail first with a winch or forklift raising the firewall in last, but it could possibly be pushed up ramps into the box firewall first. We had to get a replacement truck after the plane was loaded due to a mechanical problem that precluded us from driving it anywhere, so we moved them back-to-back and rolled the fuselage over whiIe transferring the load to the new truck, ultimately transporting it tail aft. Unloading was surprisingly easy with some 2x6 boards for ramps.

Stripper 7 will remove original Cessna paint and primer as will D-Zolve, and D-Zolve seems to work better.

We will replace the firewall which will allow us to do the avionics install/upgrade from the front. This alone will make the radio work much easier than the 172 where we did much of the wiring out of the plane.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Interesting you're thinking of removing the 185 legs for "Lady Legs". Wondering why? I'm neutral on the use of 185 or even 180 legs, I'm just curious why you'd go through the trouble to replace them.

Also why the inspection panel on the rear of the fuselage near the vertical stab?

[dstates]

One other item to consider while you have it in process is a new windshield. Not a huge task, but I'm sure it would be easier depending on your state of disassembly.

I'm also a big fan of the door stewards I added. Super easy and great for a tail dragger. I left the door catch at the top of the door installed so if wind does catch the door it doesn't twist as it is supported at the top and bottom.

Next on my list is likely jump seats before a baggage door, but if you haven't painted yet then baggage door makes sense.

[TCU76109]

Interesting you're thinking of removing the 185 legs for "Lady Legs". Wondering why? I'm neutral on the use of 185 or even 180 legs, I'm just curious why you'd go through the trouble to replace them.

Also why the inspection panel on the rear of the fuselage near the vertical stab?

I haven’t got any experience in a 170 on the heavier gear so I figured while I’m putting everything back together I’d be on the lookout for an original set of gear or the “lady legs.” I have only heard second-hand that the 180 or 185 gear is more springy.

The inspection panel is referenced in the “Recommended Modifications/Repairs for 170 Owners” thread that’s tacked to this forum here: https://forum.cessna170.org/forums/vie ... 9&start=30

It’s on the 1958 172 we’re working on as well, and I can see the reason for its installation.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

The 180/185 gear is sprung for a heavier aircraft which may lead to more spring than you want. I wouldn't know. I know both gear are taller allowing more wing incidence at a 3 point allowing the plane to leave the ground slower and sooner. I think this is why most are installed.

[GAHorn]

The 180/185 gear adds 11-14 lbs of weight. I wouldn’t like that…but most folks who go to the IO-360 are so impressed by the horsepower/performance increase …I think they disregard/forget about that. But remember… the Gross Weight is not allowed to be increased…so the modifications Really Eat into the useful load. THAT would be a good reason to go back to the original gearlegs, IMO.

Unless you intend to operate off backcountry/rough “outback” areas on really UN-improved landing areas…. (I.E. need some addt’l ground clearance…to accommodate a really heavy engine/prop modification)..… I do not personally like the 180185 gear on a 170. (But it’s a fact… pilots who spend money on mods… rarely admit it was a bad mod they did after-the-fact. I never admitted I once-married the wrong woman …. until after the “Ex” was gone.)

[TCU76109]

One other item to consider while you have it in process is a new windshield. Not a huge task, but I'm sure it would be easier depending on your state of disassembly.

I'm also a big fan of the door stewards I added. Super easy and great for a tail dragger. I left the door catch at the top of the door installed so if wind does catch the door it doesn't twist as it is supported at the top and bottom.

Next on my list is likely jump seats before a baggage door, but if you haven't painted yet then baggage door makes sense.

Great idea on the door stewards, hadn’t put those on the list but that’s a must-have.

And, I hadn’t really considered the jump seats but after a short search they look like they’d be a great idea.

[GAHorn]

One other item to consider while you have it in process is a new windshield. Not a huge task, but I'm sure it would be easier depending on your state of disassembly.

I'm also a big fan of the door stewards I added. Super easy and great for a tail dragger. I left the door catch at the top of the door installed so if wind does catch the door it doesn't twist as it is supported at the top and bottom.

Next on my list is likely jump seats before a baggage door, but if you haven't painted yet then baggage door makes sense.

Great idea on the door stewards, hadn’t put those on the list but that’s a must-have.

And, I hadn’t really considered the jump seats but after a short search they look like they’d be a great idea.

Fat-guys…(like me)…who struggle to swing a leg into the cockpit while hanging onto the asstist-strap… trying to clear the doorpost…. will find the stewards to be an obstacle to boarding. (I also don’t care for the addt’l strain the short-coupling/stess the stewards place on the door and hinges.)

But they certainly are a popular alternative to the original door hardware that’s difficult to find and replace.

[dstates]

One other item to consider while you have it in process is a new windshield. Not a huge task, but I'm sure it would be easier depending on your state of disassembly.

I'm also a big fan of the door stewards I added. Super easy and great for a tail dragger. I left the door catch at the top of the door installed so if wind does catch the door it doesn't twist as it is supported at the top and bottom.

Next on my list is likely jump seats before a baggage door, but if you haven't painted yet then baggage door makes sense.

Great idea on the door stewards, hadn’t put those on the list but that’s a must-have.

And, I hadn’t really considered the jump seats but after a short search they look like they’d be a great idea.

Fat-guys…(like me)…who struggle to swing a leg into the cockpit while hanging onto the asstist-strap… trying to clear the doorpost…. will find the stewards to be an obstacle to boarding. (I also don’t care for the addt’l strain the short-coupling/stess the stewards place on the door and hinges.)

But they certainly are a popular alternative to the original door hardware that’s difficult to find and replace.

I'm definitely not skinny (250+) and I don't have any issues getting in or out with the door stewards. They are one of my favorite mods I've done. My door catches worked most of the time without them, but the fact that they hold the door open against gravity (since it is a tail dragger) is very nice. And by leaving the original catches in place now the door is supported at the top and bottom from a wind blowing it open protecting the door from twisting and slamming open is much more beneficial than the small additional load they add.

If you are looking for more ways to spend your $$ I also recommend the Rosen visors. The visibility out of the 170 is awesome, but flying towards the sun can be blinding because of it.

[TCU76109]

The 180/185 gear adds 11-14 lbs of weight. I wouldn’t like that…but most folks who go to the IO-360 are so impressed by the horsepower/performance increase …I think they disregard/forget about that. But remember… the Gross Weight is not allowed to be increased…so the modifications Really Eat into the useful load. THAT would be a good reason to go back to the original gearlegs, IMO.

Unless you intend to operate off backcountry/rough “outback” areas on really UN-improved landing areas…. (I.E. need some addt’l ground clearance…to accommodate a really heavy engine/prop modification)..… I do not personally like the 180185 gear on a 170. (But it’s a fact… pilots who spend money on mods… rarely admit it was a bad mod they did after-the-fact. I never admitted I once-married the wrong woman …. until after the “Ex” was gone.)

This project came with the 185 gear, and the weight of additional mods is my primary reason asking about alternatives. If it becomes a real back country airplane, then I can see about it. In the meantime, I’ll be on the lookout for alternatives.