The super 170

[54170b]

This is a remarkable tool. I found that cheap masking tape dosent do the job, then sticks hard to the surface, but blue painters tape works great; dosent stick, and no marring.

[54170b]

It actually handled the curves quite well

[54170b]

It gave the edges a real nice, factory look.

[54170b]

Minton, the instrument panel WAS field approved.

[jrenwick]

Thanks, Minton. But I kindly ask that you stay out of my approval process, because you do not know every detail.
I am on this form to share what I am doing, and if I am going to be argued with, I will leave. I have heard opinions from both sides, but MY IA is on the side of no major alteration: Structure was not changed, structure and aerodynamics are as good as or better than the factory installation.
Also if you read, you will find that there is little to no pressure on that section of the skin. What pressure is there is handled by the frame.

10-4 You are right, I don't. Others should'nt either but there are concerns over other (less informed) than you or I. BUT I'll stay out of it at your request

Wow. I like this. It's so much better when "basis of approval" discussions can focus on facts about what actually got approved, rather than opinions about what might or might not become approved. Moderators, you can set the tone for this. What everyone needs to understand (and our moderators have said this over and over again) is that approval for non-run-of-the-mill mods and repairs is an understanding between the IAs who approve them and their regional FSDOs. An owner who wants to make unusual modifications to certified aircraft needs to get to know an IA who has a productive, cooperative relationship with the FSDO, and proceed as recommended by the IA who's going to sign it off. Once the work is done and properly documented, the mod is legal. That's that. Factual stories about what can become approved are what we're interested in. A personal opinion that a particular mod could or should not ever become approved is not of much value, as long as everyone understands what the actual approval process is.

[54170b]

Thanks! You summed it up perfectly!

[54170b]

Thank you for the tool
couldn't have done it without it.

[minton]

As fate would have it, it is A/I renewal time and all have been studying hard. The processes should be fresh in our memories.

The approval process has been outlined by reference to the printed materials and made available to all in many forms. The actual approvals? Well, They are TO BE DETERMINED by the entire umbrella of Approved/Accepted guidance and Data, not going cherry picking in support personal opinions. AI's are not authorized to approve return to service, anything without supportive documentation. Even then their scope is limited by regulation. That is why such a large library of reference materials and experts outside of this forum exist, to support the good and lay to rest unfounded opinions and prevent blunders. Those experts and reference materials are to be used and refered to, logged in at every turn, chapter and verse in support of and prior to the final approvals and sign offs. That means grand plans, work sheets, log books, 337's, field approvals, or whatever. amen

[Blue4]

Hello to all, its been a long time. Happy new year! I'm posting to this 10-year-old thread (since its now 2022) in the hopes someone out there may have further information.

I stumbled across a set of Cessna 140 skylights for an unbeatable price. One of the best features of the 140 are the skylights--I was amazed the first time I was able to look "through the roof" in a turn. This made me want a pair in the 170!

I'm curious if anyone here has copies of any submitted paperwork. I liked the civil discourse here regarding it being a minor/major alteration, I spoke to my IA who tells me others have had them installed by field approval. In short, I'll take all comers before I start cutting metal.

Thank you in advance, be well and fly safely!
-Scott

[GAHorn]

Scott, I don’t have any good info for you other than to say that back in the early 1970s I flew pipeline patrol and the fleet included some former Humble Oil and Refining (pre-Exxon) 140s which had 170A wings and the cockpits had skylights. There was also a fleet of 172N models (I believe) which were operated by Embry Riddle which had custom FACTORY skylights in them…. so surely Cessna had worked-out this structural matter….(and obviously, the 170 is virtually identical in the roof as a 172.)

Not factually very helpful I realize…but hope it adds something to the conversation that may lead you to a solution.

[hilltop170]

Flying in Texas, I personally appreciate the shade provided by the solid roof and would not want to add a potential water leak source to my roof, but that's just my opinion.

[GAHorn]

Flying in Texas, I personally appreciate the shade provided by the solid roof and would not want to add a potential water leak source to my roof, but that's just my opinion.

That’s Excellent Advice, IMO, Richard!

One of the (many) reasons I prefer Cessnas over Pipers and Beech (talking all-metal singles here) is the high-wing advantages over low-wing aircraft…. Cooler cockpits, and EASIER fuel-drains during preflight inspections. (Anyone ever feel Fond of the PreFlight inspections of a Cherokee Six with it’s SIX fuel drains…all of which require you to lay on your back to drain them?…then get into a hot, sun-drenched Green-house cockpit with the dirty shirt-backs and pants-seats on the upholstery?)

Plus I enjoy the better downward view when flying.

One of the most irritating ownerships gripes I had with the Baron and my friend Bob had with his Debonair was that leaky overhead doorseal that drips water directly onto the co-pilot seat….and the turn-around, kneel on the co-pilot seat struggle to get out of the airpalne.