The International Cessna^® 170 Association

To answer the question regarding the cowling, The cowling is orignal and was modifier to accept the nose gear. It was modified again when the nose gear was removed. Again the aircraft flys great just buges me a little when I walk around the nose.

rupertjl wrote:...George, did that help?

Well, I knew it was something more complicated than the propwash simply blowing the wing up higher

Seriously guys, another way to look at it is because the acceleration caused by the increased thrust would normally be expected to pitch the airplane UP.. and the downthrust also helps relieve that tendency somewhat.

I'm going out to my hangar this afternoon and I will take some pictures and also take some measurements. Thanks Guys, been a big help.

Runk, there's also the matter of the 170's famous visibility over-the-nose.

Many taildragger pilots have a habit to taxying in S-turns...clearing the way before them...by S-turning so as to catch occasional glimpses of the taxyway ahead. This is because it's difficult to see over the raised nose of the taildragger. (This is markedly true of most radial engined taildraggers, but also of many others.)

When those pilots get into a Cessna 170 and see the remarkable, excellent view over-the-nose of this airplane...they are very well impressed! Cessna designed this cowling to slope downward from the windshield to the prop-hub, (coupled with a relatively high seating-position) providing an excellent view forward, and thereby alleviating the need to S-turn while taxying.*

When viewed from the side, it may give an impression of a "down" sloping engine installation, but that is mostly an optical illusion of the top-surface of the cowling.

*The first time I flew a Stinson I felt like a kid in an adult-chair trying to see what's in my dinner plate.

I'm trying to picture this, what would need to be modified on the cowling or the mount? I don't think there's a difference in 170-172 early 0-300 engine mounts.

Jim as I remember the nose wheel strut mounts to the engine mount. I can't imagine the cowl has to be changed. There is a 170A in NJ at Hammonton Airport that was converted to nose wheel and since then back to tail dragger. It still has the strut mount integrated in the engine mount.

c170b53 wrote:I'm trying to picture this, what would need to be modified on the cowling or the mount? I don't think there's a difference in 170-172 early 0-300 engine mounts.

I can't think of anything that would need to be modified; even the first 172 nose gear mounted to supports on the firewall, not the engine mount.
I'm not familiar with the nose wheel conversion for a 170. Did they employ a 172 type nose gear installation to the firewall, or modify the mount similar to a 150?

c170b53 wrote:I'm trying to picture this, what would need to be modified on the cowling or the mount? I don't think there's a difference in 170-172 early 0-300 engine mounts.

I think the 170 Metco mount wasn't the same but a welded up original 170 mount.

wingnut wrote:I can't think of anything that would need to be modified; even the first 172 nose gear mounted to supports on the firewall, not the engine mount.
I'm not familiar with the nose wheel conversion for a 170. Did they employ a 172 type nose gear installation to the firewall, or modify the mount similar to a 150?

Del, If I remember correctly the attach points for the nose wheel strut was an integral weldment on the original engine mount. Now it has been mucho water over the dam and I can't be certain.

The last one of these I had any close contact with was upside down in a snowbank at the old Noah's Ark airport near Parkville MO. I got a call to go there in the middle of the night by an acquaintance who had powered himself with budwiser liquid courage and attempted a student solo flight. The runway was plowed just barely enough to let experienced pilots to use it. This fellow let the plane drift far enough to the right that the right main caught in the 3' high snowbank and flipped onto its back. What a mess. In the middle of the freezing cold night we pulled it back onto the mains, took the wings off and hauled it 30 miles to my house. I had a shed large enough to put it out of sight. It stayed hidden in that shed for two years. It was finally sold to a friend of mine and eventually parted out.

Now back to your problem, , , Is this mis-match at the cowl upper lip or lower. If the spinner is closer to the lower then you might have a problem with lower mount rubbers mashed down beyond limits. If it is closer to the top it might be that the mount was different for the Metco conversion than the conventional mount. If you have another '53 or later close by you could measure the length of the mount long members to compare. I have been around and flew a couple of the 171s (Not like yous, Frank) but never did any research on the geometry of the basic mount itself. There is little else to consider other than a both lower firewall longerons shifting or being relocated at sometime in the past. AAAARRRG

Runk170 wrote: Thats why I asked the question to begin with. These would be design speck's set up by Cessna as they were the ones that supplied the orignal kits for the mod back in the day. By the way I'm a retired A+P/IA so I know what I'm looking at as opposed to a pilot messing around where he shouldn't.

It would just be a guess but I don't think Cessna got too much involved with that conversion. Now that is just a guess. Metco did lots of conversions to different planes in that era and they were pretty much independent of the OEM companies. It might be good if someone could find a mount that actually came from Metco and then be able to measure it for future reference.

Naw Gar, mine isn't a 171------its a 170C I have seen one of the 170's with the Metco conversion and of course the owner/caretaker of the plane can do whatever he/she wishes, but myself and others thank it a crime to do that to a 170 Did Metco do a nosewheel conversion on twin Beech's or Loadstars?

170C wrote:Naw Gar, mine isn't a 171------its a 170C I have seen one of the 170's with the Metco conversion and of course the owner/caretaker of the plane can do whatever he/she wishes, but myself and others thank it a crime to do that to a 170 Did Metco do a nosewheel conversion on twin Beech's or Loadstars?

AW SHOOT I FERGOT YERS MITE B A 170123ABC BUT URE REELY NOT SURE HUH
I don't think it was Metco that got involved when they did the Lodestar nose wheel mods, Seems like it was Howard or Lear and they also helped out with with the bigger engines, or at least delivering more horsepower with superchargers. Some where along the line they added 5 more feet to the fuselage.

The Lodestar was a helluva lot better looking airplane just the way Lockheed built it.

Yep, and had to be a LOT more fun to fly! (Don't know about that trike...never flew one...but the Lodestone was fun!)

As far as I know, a Lodestar belonging to Celanese Corporation was Dad's first flying job. It would have been about 1958-59. I know for a fact it was NOT a nosedragger!

blueldr wrote:The Lodestar was a helluva lot better looking airplane just the way Lockheed built it.

YA MEAN LIKE THIS UN?