The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Hello all, I'm a new member to the association, and a hopeful 170 owner.

Can anyone recommend a knowledgeable A&P in the Massachusetts area who might be available to conduct a prebuy inspection on a 1952 170B out there? The airplane is located in Northampton MA (7B2). The airplane just came out of annual inspection, but I want to be thorough obviously, and I'd like someone with some 170 expertise to look it over.

Thanks in advance!

Tom

Ed Urbanowski of Urban Aviation at Sterling, MA (3B3). He has tons of experience with Cessna's and he was my IA when I was based there. He did the pre-buy on my '52 C-170B and my annual inspections. He's a great tailwheel instructor to boot.

Sounds like a good recommendation. FWIW, a friend looked at that airplane in person and he was looking at it favorably but he could Not get past the paint scheme. He said the paint was done well, just did not like the scheme. It is “eye catching “ as the ad says.

Best of luck.

Thanks for the info, I'll give Ed a call today.

And yeah, I would have probably gone a different direction with the paint myself, but I'm tired of waiting for the perfect airplane! We'll see how it turns out...

Tom

175 nose bowl might mean more mods, just ensure you are totally aware of what you can’t wait for.

Thanks for the heads up. Any issues with the nosebowl itself, or is it just the fact that it’s indicative of a not quite stock airplane with maybe some more hidden surprises?

That nosebowl is usually seen in conjunction with a belt-driven vacuum pump.

cessna170bdriver wrote:That nosebowl is usually seen in conjunction with a belt-driven vacuum pump.

And those belt driven pumps are no longer serviceable/repairable for lack of parts.... but I think I saw venturiis on that airplane...one on the left...one of the right like your’s used to have, Miles.

Although this is described as a 52, the panel is not configured that way. Could be this is a 53 model built at the end of 52 which causes the FAA to list it as a 52 when Cessna sold it as a 53. Or it could be a modification. Not a bad thing, just something I would want to know about.

My 1962 Comanche was built in December of 1961 so FAA listed it as a 61 but it had features first available on 62 models, like electric flaps and fuel injection.

Richgj3 wrote:Although this is described as a 52, the panel is not configured that way. Could be this is a 53 model built at the end of 52 which causes the FAA to list it as a 52 when Cessna sold it as a 53. Or it could be a modification. Not a bad thing, just something I would want to know about.

My 1962 Comanche was built in December of 1961 so FAA listed it as a 61 but it had features first available on 62 models, like electric flaps and fuel injection.

This question has been presented many times throughout the Forums. The FAA designates an airplane’s construction-year in the year it receives it’s Airwrothiness Certificate (rolls off the assy line) .... NOT in accordance with it’s Model-Year by design. My “53” model left the assy line in Nov of ‘52, so the FAA lists it as a “52 model. This is a HUGE revision from their first designation when FAA listed it at a 1971 B-model. (I should have left that alone as it made it appear unique.)

My airplane left the factory and went directly to El Salvador having ever rec’d a U.S. Airworthiness Certificate, instead receiving an El Salvadorian certificate. This meant that when it was imported from South America in 1971 and first rec’d a U.S. Airworthiness.... FAA listed it as a 1971 Cessna 170B.
I wrote a letter to them demonstrating that, by serial number, it was a 1953 model...and that it’s production test flight was signed off in Nov. ‘52.... so, in the only way the agency logic works.... they listed it as a 1952 despite the fact it is well down the serial list as a 1953. (SN: 25713)

GAHorn wrote:

cessna170bdriver wrote:That nosebowl is usually seen in conjunction with a belt-driven vacuum pump.

And those belt driven pumps are no longer serviceable/repairable for lack of parts.... but I think I saw venturiis on that airplane...one on the left...one of the right like your’s used to have, Miles.

F1043AEB-C184-47F7-9064-5BC7124AF292.jpeg

I believe my venturis were mounted a bit higher on the fuselage, and only the one on the right produced any significant vacuum.

Although you can't see behind the prop, that cowling looks very much like the one I have on my '56 172 and it is a '59 172 cowling I am told. No crossbar and open above and below the prop shaft.

Thanks so much for everyone's input, I'm appreciating all the knowledge on this forum already.

Thainline wrote:Thanks so much for everyone's input, I'm appreciating all the knowledge on this forum already.

There are so many things to consider when inspecting an airplane for purchase. An example is found in this discussion on the cowling.
Do you expect to find documentation for the installation of a later C172 cowling on a 170B? Technically, there should be something in the mx records to indicate that was done. It’s “picky” in most persons’ view... but that is what should exist. If you buy this thing and next year YOUR IA refuses to sign-off on the Annual Inspection what will you do?
This is why a “pre buy” inspection is worthless. What you want, when buying an airplane, is a full “Annual Inspection”. And if that inspector is paying attention, he’ll note that cowling “repair” and find some basis of approval for it before he approves it for return to service.

That is assuming that your inspector knows what a original looks like. It is often hard to find an inspector that is intimately familiar with the airplane model being inspected.

Tim