Thinking of downsizing

[Skywagonguy]

Hello fellow taildragger enthusiasts. I currently own a 1971 C-180H, and love it. But, it is quite intimidating to my student pilot wife. It appears to me that a 170 has roughly 75% the performance, at about half the cost...so we could afford to get something she would like to fly, too (with training wheels, of course).

I realize that I am talking to a crowd that might be a little disposed toward a Cessna 170 prejudice, but I was wondering what you all would think about me downsizing to a 170. I have the 180 because it does exactly what I need...I commute roughly once a week to Phoenix Sky Harbor (PHX), about 200 miles from home. The plane has to be reasonably quick just for the commute, but the real clincher is that when I check in with PHX approach, I tell them I can do 130-140 on final...this prevents them from putting me in a holding pattern to wait for a break in traffic. Since I can mix right in with the jets, I don't have to hold for half an hour or so like most GA airplanes, and can quickly slow down to landing speed on short final.

The plane has to be all metal, because it will sit in the sun in PHX for half its life. It has to be able to get in and out of a 2300 foot grass strip (with power lines at each end) at 4225 foot field elevation, and typically 100 degree summer temperatures. It has to be able to carry at least three plus luggage for family cross countries. In short, I think of my 180 as a 3/4 ton 4x4 Suburban with wings. And the question is, will a half ton Tahoe do the job?

[N170BP]

If you were to "downsize", my opinion is you wouldn't
be happy with a stock-engined 170. Your mission profile
you mention is pushing it for a 145hp 170 (4200+ feet
elevation, 100+ degree temps, 2300 foot strip with obstructions
at the ends). Add in the fact that you want to put 3 people
(and some fuel of course) and you're asking a lot of a stock
engined 170.

An IO-360 210hp Continental (or Franklin 220 powered) 170
is another animal, and will climb with or outclimb your 180. You'll
never be able to push the "big engined" 170 through the air
as fast as the 180 however, so expect somewhat slower
cruise speeds.

I have the privelage of flying friends 180s now and then, and
all I can say is... what a difference.... I love the 170 for what
it is (delightful handling, dirt cheap to own/operate, classic
lines, etc.) but it is no 1/2 ton Tahoe! (it's barely an S-10).

Before folks on the list flame me for dogging the 170, I love
my '54. Just trying to be honest/blunt about performance
issues for someone who is used to driving a 180 around.

Finally, if you price the big-engined 170s on the market, you'll
notice people are asking real close to what a 1950's C-180 goes
for so I'm not sure how much "downsizing" could be realized....?

Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP

[Mike Smith]

I agree with Bela. I also fly my C-170 to the bay area to go work now and again from the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas (3150 msl, 4000 foot paved rwy), and I can honestly tell ya that I could never see 130 to 140 mph on final unless I held a very high power setting and a constant rate of descent of a few hundred feet per minute. Level off ... and you're back to 115-120mph (but then I've never tried full power, level at sea level). This with the stock engine. You might be better off finding a cheap "beater" Champ or C-120/140 for her instruction and then selling it after she feels like tackling the C-180. That's assuming that while she's learning you still want to fill the mission profile you described above. Good Luck!!

[Skywagonguy]

Thanks, guys, I really appreciate the honest appraisal from some 170 fans.

Yeah, I'm pretty demanding of my airplane...but it doesn't have to do all those things at once...the grass strip is not my home base, just one I often visit, so I wouldn't have to get out of there fully loaded. The commute to work is done alone, or sometimes with the guy who lives there.

Even in the 180, the 130-140 on final is done at a constant rate of descent...long drug-in jet pattern! Mine won't go quite that fast, level.

My wife is currently learning in a Cherokee, and has cast her eyes on a Cessna 150. She's intimidated by taildraggers, but she likes the little Texas Taildragger 150s, so she might go with that, after a proper checkout. But we looked at the specs of a 160hp 150TT, and there was not enough payload capacity for the two of us combined, and that is with NO fuel...so, I was hoping a good 170 would be an acceptable compromise. I certainly can't afford to keep a 180 AND another plane, so I still may opt for the 170 and accept some limitations. Of course, burning only 8gph won't be much of a sacrifice!

[N1478D]

Sometimes daily, sometimes less often, but the commute in my A model to work and mixing with the jet traffic at ADS has not been a problem. Over the years they have learned to depend on a close pattern and landing at the turnoff, so the 170 is barely on the runway to be a conflict for other traffic. If money is not an issue, you might be happier with the 180. Your wife will eventually gain the confidence to fly it, but, the flap handle could be more than she can manage if she is small. She might have to lower her head below the panel to access the handle and that could be a problem for her. If that is the case, the early 170's have a lower panel and might be more comfortable for her.

[rudymantel]

I would not downsize from a 180 to a 170 for your missions. The 180 is actually easier to fly; it is a little heavier and has, in my opinion, a much better tail wheel and brakes. And you need the performance for your commutes.
If you want to make it easier for your wife to fly then buy a 182-
Rudy

[GAHorn]

Sounds like a visit to the local TRACON might be in order. You should take them up for a ride and let them see what your airplane can do when mixed with other traffic. (In other words, it sounds as if your local controllers are in need of a smack inna head with a 2 X 4!) The system is supposed to be first come, first served, and try a little sugar first, but don't be afraid to call for a meeting with the facility chief if you don't get some satisfaction.)
The 180 shouldn't be too much for your wife. Just let her have some patient time with it, and it'll be no more difficult than a 170. Clearly you prefer your 180 and should keep it since it does the job so nicely. On a per-mile basis, the 170 won't save you much.

[funseventy]

My wife is all of a 110 lbs and she flies the 180 just great. She gave a lot of instruction in it on Big Tires, Skis, and Floats. I have seen a lot of guys learn to fly in a 180 and my wife is an example of why couldn't a woman. I would say the airplane isn't the problem, but finding a qualified instructor who is comfortable with letting the 180 get a little outta shape will be tough. That might be the reason to look for another training platform. Lett her get 10 hours in a Citabria or something and that would be way cheaper than owning two airplanes.

I love my 170 and I take it to a lot of places I would never take a 180. But if you load up a 170 very much you'll be disappointed.

Kelly

[N1478D]

Hi Kelly,

Would you mind elaborating on your statement about taking your 170 places that you would never take a 180? It sounds like an opportunity for educating us flatlanders. It was one of those coincedences - at Reklaw a couple was sharing how they loved their 180, but, because when the wife would go to apply flaps, her head would be way down below the panel, so they sold their 180.

[funseventy]

Joe,

It is for a lot of reasons just like that. When your approach speed is at least 10 mph slower and the visibility over the nose is so good yopur choices apperar different. I will go into rockier or rutted places because I feel comfortable straddling the ugly parts with the gear. The visiblity over the nose in a three-point attitude is better than a 182, as you know. When operating on steep mountain strips the take-offs are gauranteed as the terrain drops away faster than you can. So safety lies in the nice slow approach speed and short landing distance.

At Mile-Hi, a 5600' elevation strip that is 500' long, you will hear alot of people talk about how rough the lower 200' is. But not for the 170 since I am only using the upper 200'. But if you load it up with full tanks and two people with overnight gear, this place starts to get scary. Remember these are great airplanes, but they do have limitations.

Kelly

[Dave Clark]

I agree with most that's been said....think long and hard before you make the switch. I downsized from a 181 (converted 1956 182) and was not at all happy with the performance of the stock engine here in Payson but the airplane worked really well for us at sea level in Washington State where we spend our Summers and where we put on 80% of the annual hours. We could no longer make the flight direct over the high country however, we were forced to go through California. ( be sure you pronounce that right).

Last Winter I got a good deal on a 180 hp Lycoming FWF and converted over. It now is a great plane for high, hot, heavy but of course you must still be a little careful. It's not quite the performance of the 180 but for us it's perfect. Of course now I have only $5,000 less invested in it than I sold my 181 for, but I like it.

Bottom line is if you do it then go for a modified one with a stronger engine for our type of flying out here. If you'd like come to Payson and we can fly mine and chat more. Send me a PM and I'll respond with my phone etc.

[N1478D]

Joe,

It is for a lot of reasons just like that. When your approach speed is at least 10 mph slower and the visibility over the nose is so good yopur choices apperar different. I will go into rockier or rutted places because I feel comfortable straddling the ugly parts with the gear. The visiblity over the nose in a three-point attitude is better than a 182, as you know. When operating on steep mountain strips the take-offs are gauranteed as the terrain drops away faster than you can. So safety lies in the nice slow approach speed and short landing distance.

At Mile-Hi, a 5600' elevation strip that is 500' long, you will hear alot of people talk about how rough the lower 200' is. But not for the 170 since I am only using the upper 200'. But if you load it up with full tanks and two people with overnight gear, this place starts to get scary. Remember these are great airplanes, but they do have limitations.

Kelly

Thanks Kelly,

On rough terrain do you wheel or three point? I've been trying to wheel land to protect the tail on the grass strips. It's easy on the smooth ones, but with camping gear( weigh too much ) and a little roughness on the turf my roll out has been greater than a three pointer so far. Planning on practicing to see what techniques provide the best performance. My plane seems to be a really different animal with a lot of weight in the back. Think I'll load up some bags of cement, or maybe some of George's exes , and practice with a load back there. The problem is 95% of the time the back is empty, so it's hard to get the feel for it.

[funseventy]

I will do a tail low wheel landing, this allows you to touch down slower and still protect the tailwheel. After touchdown roll up onto the mains and dump the flaps for increased braking without skidding.

Remember the best Performance increase for the dollar is to by lots of gas and go out and learn your airplane. Sounds like you already know this.

Kelly

[170C]

I probably didn't read your orginal post as throughly as I should have, but am wondering if your wife's difficulty is mainly being able to reach the flap handle or if levering it to the vrs flap positions is the culprit? If lifting the flap lever is the problem, trim can solve that problem. If reaching the handle and/or depressing the flap release button is the culprit I would think that some engineering type out there could come up with an adapter to facilitate her being able to use the flap handle. I think the 170's are great airplanes if operated within their design parameters, but like any machine when operated beyond those parameters they will not preform properly. I think,IMHO, that going from a 180 to something with less preformance will result in you not being at all happy. Kind of like going from a Vette to a Impala SS. Still a great preformer, but not in the same class! If I had the same situation I would look for any possible solution short of getting rid of the 180.

Ole Pokey

[GAHorn]

Unimproved strips almost always should be landed using the three-point technique, in my opinion. It results in a much safer landing (with regard to possible airframe injury.) A rough place can put you over on your nose when doing a wheel landing, and even mild bumps really stress the gearbox due to all the weight being on the mains in a wheelie. Spread that load out and use the 3-point technique on rough/unimproved/(grass) strips. My 2 cents.
The flap handle release button on many airplanes can be difficult to deploy unless the flap handle is pressed downward prior to depressing the button. By pressing the flap handle down first, you can relieve the button latch of friction at the latch, and then it will depress more readily. Raising the flap lever (lowering flaps) is much easier at slower airspeeds, so teaching her to slow it down first might be helpful.