New 170a owner seeks advice

[rrice]

I am with Great Commission Air. We are a US based charity that does missionary aviation and humanitarian work, mainly in Guatemala.

Someone recently approached us with a donation of a 1949 170a that is reported to be in excellent condition (though we have not inspected it yet).
Can this board please recommend specific areas of concern on this plane that we should look very closely at during the inspection?

Also, can anyone recommend a reasonable appraiser and AI with 170 experience in Southern California? Insurance companies? Instructors?

Thanks very much!

Rob Rice
GCA

[GAHorn]

This is such a simple, yet wide-ranging question, that it would take a month to answer, but here's the basics:

Look up the "Blue Book" valuations. Follow the books guidelines and carefully input the aircraft times/cycles, etc.: http://www.aircraftbluebook.com/

Another resource: http://www.trade-a-plane.com/naaa (for Trade A Plane subscribers. Cheap.)

I can tell you that according to the above, the average range-of=value of the average Cessna 170A with a 900-hour engine is presently listed as $17,600 to $27,500. My personal experience is that aircraft are presently undervalued, especially those that are well-maintained, which are about 25% higher than the indicated market.

If you plan to operate the aircraft, perform an ANNUAL INSPECTION, using an A&P/IA, prefereably one who knows single engine Cessnas. (Not hard to find. Ask around the local airports.) Do NOT waste your money on a "pre-buy inspection". You want an ANNUAL INSPECTION!

Insurance is available from many sources. I suggest you try:
http://www.aopaia.com/
or
http://www.avemco.com/
or
http://www.usau.com/usau.nsf/doc/index
or
http://www.falconinsurance.com/

Finally: Before accepting the aircraft, perform a TITLE SEARCH. Do NOT accept an aircraft without a clear title: http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificate ... 050-55.pdf

My personal favorite, among Title Search companies: http://www.insuredaircraft.com/

[Brad Brady]

This is such a simple, yet wide-ranging question, that it would take a month to answer, but here's the basics:

Look up the "Blue Book" valuations. Follow the books guidelines and carefully input the aircraft times/cycles, etc.: http://www.aircraftbluebook.com/

Another resource: http://www.trade-a-plane.com/naaa (for Trade A Plane subscribers. Cheap.)

I can tell you that according to the above, the average range-of=value of the average Cessna 170A with a 900-hour engine is presently listed as $17,600 to $27,500. My personal experience is that aircraft are presently undervalued, especially those that are well-maintained, which are about 25% higher than the indicated market.

If you plan to operate the aircraft, perform an ANNUAL INSPECTION, using an A&P/IA, prefereably one who knows single engine Cessnas. (Not hard to find. Ask around the local airports.) Do NOT waste your money on a "pre-buy inspection". You want an ANNUAL INSPECTION!

Insurance is available from many sources. I suggest you try:
http://www.aopaia.com/
or
http://www.avemco.com/
or
http://www.usau.com/usau.nsf/doc/index
or
http://www.falconinsurance.com/

Finally: Before accepting the aircraft, perform a TITLE SEARCH. Do NOT accept an aircraft without a clear title: http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificate ... 050-55.pdf

My personal favorite, among Title Search companies: http://www.insuredaircraft.com/

Wow...nice scenario, George

[timberstone]

You are very fortunate to be given this Cessna 170A aircraft for missionary use in Guatemala because it is uniquely suited to the varied terrain and climate there and to the expected needs of your users. I know missions elswhere which use the Cessna 180, or even Caravan, for greater hauling capacity and range, but Guatemala is not a large country and the average size of the indigenous population is much smaller than the US, so the more economical 170 is eminently suited.
Having been to Guatemala on mission and service projects 4 times in the last 2 years, and being frustrated with the difficulties of getting around on the ground, I searched for a suitable aircraft when returning to the states. Ground transport where there are roads, can be slow even on the best road (which is for a short distance of the Inter-American highway), and is at a snail's pace and hazardous everywhere else. When I spotted a 1950 Cessna 170A, I knew this would be an economical means for people and baggage to be transported.
A good C-170A should be between $25,000 to $35,000 depending upon the length of service time, latest engine overhaul time, general condition and the extent of Avionics. I cannot think of any major modifications, other than Cleveland brakes and PPonk landing axles, to the stock C-170 configuration that would make this craft more suitable to Guatemala. I would NOT put any premium on, nor would I depend upon, navigation electronics, not even a GPS, due to the rough terrain.
There are many good airports in Guatemala which were built to FAA standards with subsidies from the US, but if needed you could also land on some of the good grass strips there, too. There should be competent local pilots, with experience in this craft, who can be hired fairly reasonably, given the favorable exchange rate of the Dollar for the Quetzale.
The mountains are rugged but the highest peak is only 8,500 feet, so the service ceiling of a C-170A is more than adequate. Since the mountains of Guatemala are geologically very active, avoid plumes from volcano eruptions. Do not fly at night even if IFR rated and watch out for the rainy season weather patterns that spring sudden violent thunderstorms, usually in the afternoons.
Thanks from Robert Griffey of Timberstone Farm in Vernon County Missouri

[rrice]

I operated a Cessna U206 in Guatemala with our missionary aviation organization (Great Commission Air) for almost three years in the most remote airstrips there. I am comfortable with the U206 in those environments but KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE 170A.

I am VERY INTERESTED in learing peoples oppinions about the 170a as a suitible (or not) aircraft to operate on short, un-improved aitrstips.

Most of the work we do are medical evacuations. Obviously, a stretcher probably would NOT be used. Most of the medevacs we have done in the past did not require a stretcher. Snake bitse, head injuries, machette wounds, bullet wounds, many breach childbirth situations, etc... That sort of thing. I think with the 170a, it would typically be a two person evac (The patient and a family member to care for them) and the Pilot. I, the pilot, weight in at 180 lbs.

The airstrips we use are usually about 1300´long but there are a few less than 1000´some over 1400´ long.
Most are between sea level and 4,500'.
Most of our trips are from small villages to clinics in towns no more than 50 miles away.
Guatemala City is about 100 miles away and we need to get over 8,000' high passes.

I welcome all of your opinions on performance of the plane under these conditions.

There are are few folks close to the ministry (my wife included) that do not think its an appropriate plane for the job, partly because of the age.
I am open to the opinion of you, the experienced 170 owners and feel like it is a contender.

Please pipe up either FOR or AGAINST the use I have described.

[Robert Eilers]

The answer to your question regarding the suitability of the 170 for the type of work you describe in most cases will come in the from of an opinion. The opinion will be formed by the individual providing it based on their level of experienece and success operating the 170 and may not necessarily be duplicated by yourself or one of your pilots. Not much is known about your particular 170 - we can assume it is stock, i.e., stock landing gear, stock engine, no STOL kit, standard prop, etc. Using my aircraft as a model the weight & balance figure for one 180 lb pilot and 180 lb front seat pax, spreading the weight of a 140 lb pax on a stretcher (absent back seat and some modification) over the back seat and baggage arms, I get 1990 gross weight with 20 gallons of fuel - about 2 hours. The takeoff and landing distances available to us are found in the 170 "Owner's Manual". The takeoff distance at sea level on an 80 degree day - over a 50 ft obstacle - is 1,795 feet with 20 degrees of flaps. At 80 degrees the projected rate of climb is about 600 fpm with the flaps retracted. Keep in mind the book figures do not reflect the true performance of a particular aircraft - the figure should be used only as an estimate. Condition of the engine, type of take off surface and experience level of the pilot all contribute significantly to actual performance.

My review of the performance figure available on the 170 and my experience flying with a stock engine and stock landing gear suggest it is probably a marginal aircraft for the type of operation you describe. Now add a climb prop and/or an engine with greater horsepower and you have a very different aircraft. The addition of a climb prop would be the least expensive modification for the best results considering you won't be traveling long distances. I would also consder at least the P-Ponk landing gear mod - I am not certain how well the stock gear will hold up operating the way you describe.

Just my two cents - hope it helps.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I agree completely with Robert Eilers. Stock you would probably find the 170A marginal but with a 180 or larger engine or at the very least a climb prop like the 80-42 and you have a different story.

I would not be concerned with the age of the aircraft, only it's condition. Certainly there are some parts not common with newer aircraft that can be hard to find if needed but that's about it.

[jrenwick]

There seem to be plenty of 170s operating in the Alaskan bush with larger-than-stock tires and 180HP or larger engines -- so that's a big clue. But in spite of the mountains, most of Alaska's landing spots are at low elevations, and although they have their 80-degree days, Alaska isn't known as a warm place. Consider density altitudes when making this comparison!

I think if you ask an Alaskan about the best 4-seaters for their work, Cessna 180, 185 and 206 are among the top choices. (Oops! 206 is a 6-seater!) 170s are limited by maximum gross weight, primarily.

Best Regards,

John

[GAHorn]

It's difficult to turn down an airplane gift, especially for a charity. But the 170 is not the airplane I would choose for this work. A 185 or 206 is a far better choice, in my opinion, and if I were a person of influence with a charity I would attempt to make a trade.

[Brad Brady]

It's difficult to turn down an airplane gift, especially for a charity. But the 170 is not the airplane I would choose for this work. A 185 or 206 is a far better choice, in my opinion, and if I were a person of influence with a charity I would attempt to make a trade.

George,
This is truly good advice....Brad

[blueldr]

Let's all face reality. The stock C-170 is a truly great private sport utility airplane, but it isn't by any means a practical airplane for commercial or quasi commercial operations. It' too gross weight limited for the majority of that type of use. It's a positive delight to fly, but it just will not haul enough to be a viable commercial bush or semi bush hauler and it's normal performance is not coducive to real bush operations.

[n2582d]

Rob,
You've done a great job of using the internet for keeping partners informed with what you and Jennifer are doing. I especially liked the You Tube clip with you, the chief pilot, cleaning the cow pies as you recruited pilots to help. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RYAlgOGjm0 In the late 80's/early 90's I worked as a pilot/mechanic for JAARS in southeast Asia. Thus my remarks come with that perspective--a long time ago on the other side of the world.

You've heard the saying, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth." That may apply to horses but it doesn't apply to aircraft. A gift airplane may bite you. It seems to me that maybe that is what happened with your C-337. If you are not careful that may be what happens again with the C-170. I agree with others on this forum who say that this should not be your primary aircraft for mission flying. I wonder though if you could make it work as a second aircraft. You mentioned in one of your videos about wanting to instruct other bush pilots. Where I worked in SE Asia there is constant "encouragement" by the government for organizations such as JAARS and MAF to employ national pilots/mechanics. Is that the case in Guatemala as well? Is there opportunity to mentor national mission pilots there? If so, a C-170 for local flights would be a lot cheaper than a C-206/185/180. In my opinion a C-170 would make a great trainer. My initial taildragger time was at MAF in a 180 HP C-170B. I was fortunate to have an old time MAF pilot as an instructor. In SE Asia JAARS is using a C-172 for national pilot training.

How expensive is avgas there? If it is expensive, would you trust the quality of the automotive fuel enough to use it there? I'd be surprised if Guatemala adds ethanol to the fuel. An advantage of the C-170 is that there is an STC available to use autogas. If I recall correctly, JAARS used autogas in their DC-3 program in Africa. I believe they only used autogas in cruise, using other tanks with avgas for takeoff and landing.

In SE Asia we always took off at max gross from the main base. It was the only way to make flying affordable for flights that were subsidized. Commercial cargo or passengers helped to pay for medical emergencies, flying missionaries, national pastors, etc. Are you allowed to fly commercially there or are all your flights paid for by donors? For one or two passenger flights over distances of only 50 miles I would think the 170 would be a good option to more typical larger bush planes. But if this was your primary plane I don't think it would be too economical on a per passenger or per kilo basis. When I was with JAARS I flew a Helio Courier H-295 . Now they fly a Pilatus PC-6. They say on a per kilo basis the PC-6 is cheaper to fly than the Helio.

Rob, if you are going to have just one plane, might you be better off selling the 170 and using that and additional funding to buy a plane that best fits your needs? JAARS and MAF are now in transition from a piston powered fleet to turbine powered aircraft--Kodiak, PC-6, PC12, Caravan, etc. This is because avgas is either not available in many countries or prohibitively expensive. Is there a chance you could get a good deal on piston powered aircraft they no longer need? I see you are a IAMA member. I noticed on IAMA's website that MAF is selling a C-206 that is set up for bush flying. Some of the stuff on that plane you cannot buy such as the JAARS "S" frame seats. In my opinion you can't find a better or safer bush plane than a H-295. The problem you would have is maintaining it--pressure carb, complex flight control system, geared Lyc. and no manufacturer to sell you parts.

If you were to use the C-170 down there for bush flying (rather than pilot training) these are some of the things I would consider: 1.) More HP. The Lycoming 180 mod from Del-Air is the most popular. 2.) Corrosion control. Ideally epoxy primer on the interior. Otherwise Corrosion X, Boeshield T-9, or ACF-50--I don't know which is best. 3.) STOL kit. Sportsman has a good reputation. 4.) Cleveland brakes on larger tires. 5.) P-ponk beef-up kit. 6.) Shoulder harnesses for all four seats. Beef up the shoulder harness mounts. The original ones are pretty wimpy. I vaguely recall making stainless wedge shaped hat sections for MAF's rear seat shoulder harness mounts 7.) Atlee-Dodge folding rear seats if you can't get JAARS or MAF to sell you some "S" frame seats. 8.) Retractable tail pull handles. 9.) Get rid of the parking brake or install a cane type that doesn't rely on wedging the brake master cylinder shaft. 10.) Using a carbureted engine in a high humidity environment is a recipe for carb ice. A carb temp gauge, manifold pressure gauge, or ice detector might be a worthwhile addition.

EAA will be showcasing organizations using aircraft for humanitarian causes this summer at Oshkosh. Are you planning on being there? It might be a good opportunity to give your organization some exposure.

Fly safe.

[rrice]

Gary, thanks for the very well thought-out response! I must say that I agree with your sentiments throughout. Implementation is not so easy, of course.

Our real goal is to put a U206 back where we were operating in the Ixcan. The 170 would not be a long-term solution in that location. It might be an interim solution, that could help us cover some of the medical flights we would otherwise have done now can not as we have no aircraft at all. In other words, short flights, light loads, medical emergencies. It may also be a good solution for other missionary aviation environments that are not quite as demanding as the Ixcan.

And thank you for your kind words about our ministry. I must say that the failure on our 336 caused me to swear off older aircraft. The fault seems to have been a Service Difficulty known about in Canada but did not seem to have circulated here. My wife asked me if the pain from my whiplash was gone (and it is) and she suggested that this might be the reason I am even thinking of operating a circa 1949 plane down there. Of course, she is right.

Thanks!

[timberstone]

Robert,
Earlier I described the use of the Cessna 170 in Guatemala for our water installation and service projects in the Western Highlands of Guatemala. After reading all the posts and also checking the website for Great Commission Air, I gained more appreciation for the specific use to which your organization is using its aircrafts in Guatemala and the Caribbean islands.
About 80% of what you are doing can be done by the Cessna 170, but the other 20% may be crucial enough to your operations that you will need to upgrade to the larger capacity of a Cessna 180 or 206.
However, as several members stated, the 170 would be good as a backup or secondary craft for less demanding missions.
Also, as stated, the Cessna 170 is at least 50 years old, and so most would need a good going over to bring up to the demands of operation in Guatemala. My belief is that the mechanics there will know lots about the 170 (as well as the 172's), so keeping it running should be less of a problem.
I am flying my 170 to Guatemala this summer and will be using it there for about 2 months to assist our partners with their projects. Perhaps I can see you there!
Thanks from Robert Griffey of Timberstone Farm in Vernon County Missouri