Another seat question

scsmith42 · Post by **scsmith42** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:17 am

I recently acquired a '53 170B, and am in the process of reworking the panel and interior, going for a more modern look and functionality instead of the vintage look.

The original seats are a low-back bucket seat with a rounded top. They are not particularly comfortable - no lumbar or upper back support. I'm 6' tall and plan on making regular, long trips in the plane.

My question is this - what other, more comfortable front seat assemblies are available that would work in my plane? Based upon recommendations I will start checking with the salvage dealers. My mechanic has a very good relationship with the FAA folks, so I do not anticipate any problems with getting a field approval.

I will probably leave the rear seat out - saving the room for baggage instead.

I check the archives and found some good info, but nothing that stated all of the options and pro's and cons.

Thanks much.

Scott

Post by **GAHorn** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:43 am

Careful which seats you ultimately settle on. (pardon the pun) Some Cessna seats have AD notes against them (certain rollers, certain seat-back latching mechanisms, etc.), and the AD notes are directed at certain model airplanes. Those AD notes may be missed if the seat is switched into another model aircraft.

Don't forget it's permissible to re-upholster your existing seats and include lumbar support, etc.

N1478D · Post by **N1478D** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:19 pm

Two or three years ago, maybe more, the guy that runs the Hamilton, TX airport said he takes our low back seats and adds metal to make them a tall back, like the modern seats. He showed me an example airplane that he had done, it looked very nice and comfortable.

Post by **GAHorn** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:29 pm

Of course, it's a personal comfort thing, and perhaps I'm a dead-butt, but...(another little pun, heh-heh)... Jamie and I have flown our little 170's original seats to both coasts and to Vancouver and back to TX, and I never thought the seats were that bad.
Of course, they were re-upholstered and re-cushioned by the restorer, but they're original appearing. Perhaps the closed cell foam he used helps.
If I sit in any seat, airplane or otherwise, for more than an hour my sciatic nerve goes nuts and I start to squirm. A 3hour leg is all I usually attempt in a 170.

Joe Moilanen · Post by **Joe Moilanen** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:34 am

Speaking of seats, a 180 friend of mine showed me what he did to make the installation/removal of his back seat easier. While it was tore down for a re-upholster job, he took (1) " out of the middle and uses 1/2" spacers on the side bolts. No more wrestling matches and ripped up side panels

.

Joe

scsmith42 · Post by **scsmith42** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:34 pm

All - thanks for the feedback. I'll plan on having my current seats reworked to increase the height and add lumbar support.

Scott

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:42 pm

Joe,

Thats a great solution to the seat removal issue. Last summer Susan and I went biking often and seat removal was key - but still a pain. What I came up with was inserting small rubber washers on the screws holding the arm rests. That way when I removed them, to make getting the seat out easier, I could put them back in and not worry about water leaking in.

Reworking the seat would be a better long term solution ..... might require a 337 though.

Merry Christmas to all...........

Kyle T.

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:26 pm

Joe M.,

The guy who narrowed the rear seat had an excellent solution, but you shouldn't have told about it on this forum.

There are too many guys who are going to lose sleep over whether or not he had an approved 337.

Joe Moilanen · Post by **Joe Moilanen** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:48 am

I think a scared rear seat passenger had an unexpected bladder release and the seat just shrunk a bit...

Joe

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:37 am

When I scare a back seat passenger, the results are generally a lot stinkier than that.