Pilot/Pax Wht Limitations

[Robert Eilers]

My good friend is considering the Cessna 170B. He formerly owned a Cessna 206. He is a big man - 320lbs - and is concerned about Cessna 170 pilot/pax wht limitations. He is primarily concerned about CG. I suspect there is a wht limit on the seat itself - however, he exceeded those in the C-206. Typically, he would fly with another adult male 180-210. I have seen large men flying the C-170 but your opinions & recommendations are welcome - thx.

[GAHorn]

I've actually owned both types, a C-206 and now a C-170B.
For utility and load-carrying ability VS expense of operation there is simply no comparison. The 206 is one of the best airplanes ever built for personal/family use, in my opinion. I miss mine.
But the expense of that airplane, while certainly very affordable for what you get, is no comparison to an equally equipped and similar conditon 170. The 206 is capable of some pretty interesting annual inspection bills compared to an otherwise identical 170. Since I rarely carried more than myself and one other person in the 206....the 170 is an excellent replacement aircraft for me...and is certainly a lot more affordable. Not in fuel bills, as the per-mile fuel costs are comparable, but in overall operating costs.
So the trade-off is actually pretty clear when trading a 206 for a 170.
You get: similar per-mile fuel costs, 25% slower travel over similar distances, and a smaller shoulder-width cabin. Two heavy-set guys in the front of a 170 may be firmly wedged in there if they both sit facing exactly athwarts. If the non-flying pilot puts his arm across the seat-back of the flying pilot, then they'll fit OK probably. The 206 cabin width is 44" while the 170B is 40".
As for weight, it'll be approximately the same as three FAA-standard occupants and the airplane will do just fine. (That outrageous climb-capability of a similarly loaded 206 will not be there tho'. With 500 lbs of cabin-payload the 170 won't clear 50' obstacle in 700' like the 206 will.)
CG- no problem. Seat load - it's the same seat and seat track set up as a 206. They both have a 200 lbs. per sq. ft. floor limit. The floor of both airplanes will need careful inspection every so often when the seats are so heavily loaded, because the seat tracks and supporting structure will be subjected to increased bending moments and may experience increased tendancy towards cracking (both aircraft.)

[N1478D]

I have had three different passengers over 300 lbs, two of them were around 400 pounders. It was crowded with the 400 lb guys, felt like I had to turn sidways to have any room. The 170 didn't seem to notice at all though. On the biggest one of them I kind of got to thinking on final if there would be a balance problem and a need to compensate to keep the airplane from leaning, but it wasn't the case at all. There was never a hint of being out of cg or any problem except being crowded. After Blue Bell Chocolate Chip ice cream I weigh about 220, other times only about 212 - 215, so we had over 600 lbs in the front seats. I don't know if we could have climbed up to the 16,000 feet where George flies or not, we might have been able to. But, we did go in to Laguana Park, a 1900 foot grass strip with obstacles and didn't leave any parts hanging in the trees on departure. As a little side note: On the return trip from Laguana Park I had let the 300 lb guy fly, his first time ever in a small plane. He got kind of cocky and was getting kind of full of himself at how easy it was so while he was looking out the side window I reached down and cranked the trim way forward without him seeing me. I pretended to be occupied looking out my side window and ignored him while he was screaming for me to take the airplane. After a while I turned around and asked him what was wrong and his eyeballs were larger than his glasses. He was a friend and co-worker who I could do this with and get by with it, wouldn't do it to very many people, if anybody else. That next Monday morning Fernando was waiting at work saying "You did something to that airplane didn't you?" We laughed pretty hard when I shared what had happened. Over the next couple of years taking different coworkers to lunch some would request that I do to them what I did to Fernando. Even though they knew it was coming it still scared them pretty bad, so guess it scared Fernando more than I knew at the time. A very excited large Cuban guy in a small plane is quiet a sight.

[GAHorn]

I bought my '64 C-206 in Mesquite, TX for $21.5K in '88. I flew it for six years and put about 700 hours on it, earning about $25K in rental/leasing income. I sold it to the first caller for $59K, almost tripling my money. I bought a '62 Baron for $43K and put $20K into it, flew it for 5 years earning about $200K in leasing income with it (and realizing about $50K in depreciation tax advantage) when I sold it for enough money to buy my 170B and build my hangar.
While I love my 170 and never plan to sell it, I doubt I'll realize the same appreciation schedule I did with the 206, or get anywhere near the income benefit of the Baron. (I also do not suffer the same incredible annual inspection bills. The Baron's annuals over 4 years cost $9K, $11K, $8K, and $6.5K. My most expensive 206 annual was $2K...most ran around $1K. My most expensive 170 annual so far has been $450 including the $175 for new spark plugs. Most of them have run less than $250.)

[rudymantel]

I too have owned both 206's and a 170. In terms of cg the 320 lb gentleman should carry any other pax in the rear seat, in both airplanes. He'd be more comfortable that way in any case. The 206 tends to be nose heavy with a lot of weight up front and nothing in the rear and with forward cg elevator authority suffers with full flaps.
The 206 is a really nice performing airplane and will lift a good load.
Pocketbook permitting, he'd be better off with a 206 but the 170 would also work for him. As George said, the op and ownership costs are a good bit higher in a 206.
Rudy

[mvivion]

Dang, George,

I'm going to fly my airplane to your home drome for my next annual. We're talking thousands up here, and I did intend the plural.

Mike Vivion

[mrpibb]

Rob, I being of a svelte 300 lbs have experienced my 170 in different loading conditions. I regularly fly with a buddy who weighs in at about 210, if he keeps his seat aft of mine there usually isn't much of a problem. although this puts me at the most forward cg I have not experienced any issues. This summer I took my buddy and a third pax who weighed in at 145, minimal baggage and tools and 26 gal of fuel, oat was 80 F and density alt was 1800ft, field elev 580. my take off run was about 1700ft out of a 1980ft strip and if I needed to clear a 50 ft obst I fig about 3000ft. When I am by myself and full fuel and on a cool day I get about a 1000ft run and a climb of 800 fpm on a climb prop. As with most aircraft when i get close to the gross weight performance drops rapidly, but if I keep her under 1900 lbs she performs well and when I burn some fuel off she wants to leap into the air. Your friend will find that his left arm will have to be tucked in which at first gave me problems during the flare, I was inadvertently rolling in some aileron but after time I learned to overcome that tendency to do so.
Vic

[zero.one.victor]

George, you mention flying both your 206 & your Baron, as well as earning lease income from both. Was this a leaseback to an FBO or something, or was it leasing to a company for whom you were the corporate pilot?

Eric

[GAHorn]

In both cases I leased the aircraft to an individual who used it for his business. He usually had a pilot in his employ or he would contract out for pilot services.