I am looking to buy my first 170, and have found two beautiful choices in my local area. Both have similar, low airframe time. Both have new "field" majors. Both have recent ground loop wing damage histories. Both have recent paint and interiors. There are big differences in flight instrumentation, but I know what that's about. What I don't know is, is there some significant difference between these models that makes one automatically preferable to the other?
Any pointers would be much appreciated.
'52 or '56?
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
'52 - - '52 - - '52
VALT, IF THATS YER REEL NAME, U DOANT NO ME BUT DOANT LISSEN TO ENNY BODY TELL U THAT ENNY 170B IS BETTER THAN A '52! WE GIT A BETTER VIEW ON THU TAXYWAY, A BETTER VIEW TAKIN OFF AN FLYIN, OURS IS EEZYR TU GIT TU THE ENGINE AND STUFF AND FASTER THAN A GREESED PIG! OLE JOE WILL TELL U TU GIT A FLAT WING BUT HE DOANT NO MUCH BOUT REEL FLAPS SO JES IGNOR HIM CAUS HE HAS NEVER GOT TO SUMPLACE WE CAN SET HIM STRATE. THU '52 IS THU BEST OF BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET IN 170s. YEAAAAHHHH '52s! 
Hi, as you will be told by other members, if you are that interested in thhe 170's do joun the TIC170A if you haven't already done that. That said, I was looking for a '53 preferably when I hunted for my 170. That's the year the panel the got bigger, the heat and ventilation got better and the later models had the lady legs; plus, that's the year I was born. I looked at and kissed alot of toads before I found my princess which happens to be a '52. I did not think I would want to fly any kind of IFR with a 170, so the smaller panel was not a problem, it had a fresh overhaul and the books were in good order, the radios and some instruments were brand new, it had Madras wing tips which some find ugly; I find they add personality and yes George, reduce stall speed and improve low speed handling and control. What I am trying to tell you is with planes that are 50 years old or so, unless you want one like George's (and others) that has been restored to better than out of the factory original, or with a bad ass big bore engine conversion, STOL, float plane, there is quite a range in price and availability. Determine your mission and your usage, that will give you a list of must have or easily modifiable options. The rest is glitter. Then, if you like the early 172 back window and a few more inside trim of the '56 better than the classic rounded back windows and openable front windows... Then, if paint and interior is aprox the same and to your liking, the books are complete and neat, you're still stuck, find a club member near your home, do a detailed inspection with them and if one edges out the other, get a pre-buy inspection done by YOUR mechanic; the best is an annual inspection. If all checks out, buy it and enjoy it. If it doesn't pan out, get the other one or some other one inspected. It took me 4 years to find my plane. A 1952 B model. I heard of some that would have been nice before that, but not in my price range; sometimes it has to do withh mods that were done that are not important to you and I refuse to pay for what I would not get done myself... Oh! Put down a deposit early in the game, nice 170's go fast. Good luck, JD
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
Valt,I'll tell you upfront that Max is a friend of mine! His 52 model is beautiful! But friendship aside,I like the 52 model better.Here's why:
1) early cowl (48-52)--the left & right upper cowl can both be opened up at the same time & clipped together in the open position for easy engine access. I do oil/filter changes without having to uncowl. Easy to check for problems--leaks,loose fasteners,etc
2) I like the early (48-52) piano-key style panel. Switches aren't scattered all over like later models.Instruments are in a nice straight row across the panel.
3) I believe the 56 model came stock with a non-opening co-pilot side window. Also the first year to start with the "Royalite" (plastic) interior.
The 56 in Enumclaw may have been improved in these areas,I don't kinow the owner or the plane.
I know of a ragwing for sale,based at Kapowsin,for alot less money (like around $29K). But it's alot less airplane,too.Not recently majored,rebuilt & painted like Max's. If you were to buy it & bring it up to the same condition,you'd have at least as much into it.
Good luck with it! Look me up when you land on one,I'm based at Port Townsend.
Eric Taylor
N4401V
1) early cowl (48-52)--the left & right upper cowl can both be opened up at the same time & clipped together in the open position for easy engine access. I do oil/filter changes without having to uncowl. Easy to check for problems--leaks,loose fasteners,etc
2) I like the early (48-52) piano-key style panel. Switches aren't scattered all over like later models.Instruments are in a nice straight row across the panel.
3) I believe the 56 model came stock with a non-opening co-pilot side window. Also the first year to start with the "Royalite" (plastic) interior.
The 56 in Enumclaw may have been improved in these areas,I don't kinow the owner or the plane.
I know of a ragwing for sale,based at Kapowsin,for alot less money (like around $29K). But it's alot less airplane,too.Not recently majored,rebuilt & painted like Max's. If you were to buy it & bring it up to the same condition,you'd have at least as much into it.
Good luck with it! Look me up when you land on one,I'm based at Port Townsend.
Eric Taylor
N4401V
Re: '52 or '56?
===========valt wrote:I am looking to buy my first 170, and have found two beautiful choices in my local area. Both have similar, low airframe time. Both have new "field" majors. Both have recent ground loop wing damage histories. Both have recent paint and interiors. There are big differences in flight instrumentation, but I know what that's about. What I don't know is, is there some significant difference between these models that makes one automatically preferable to the other?
Any pointers would be much appreciated.
Hello, Valt! My advice is:
Join the Association. Decide if you like cabin heaters that barely work, or work well, since you live up where it gets cold. Decide if you want to live with an engine cowling that is quirky, hard and expensive to find latch-parts for, and doesn't provide true pressure cooling for your engine, or do you want one that does all those things and is also replaceable with later 172 cowls and parts. (And by the way, the later pressure cowl doesn't have to be removed to do oil changes if you have the FM-Enterprises spin-on oil filter conversion and sump quick-drain installed, two mods you'll want no matter which airplane you decide upon. And if you ever do have to do serious engine work, you won't have to deal with removing an interior air-box with the later airplane.) Decide if you will be happy stuck with obsolete and becoming hard to find "piano-switches" rather than common automotive-type push/pull swithces (mostly available from NAPA parts dealers). Decide if you like simpler tailwheel steering with less authority, or slightly better tailwheel steering authority. Decide if you can be happy with only 0,20, 30 and 40 degree flap settings, or if you believe that a 10-degree setting for takeoff would also be nice in addition to the other settings. Decide if you are comfortable with a "springy" landing gear which is interchangeable left and right, versus a slightly stiffer gear (that some claim is more maneageable, has a slightly "prettier", slender shape, but is not interchangeable left/right). If the second choices in the above comments appeal to you, you'll be happier with the '56 model.
If you prefer metal interior trim rather than plastic, if you prefer openable right-side windows, if you prefer a rear window that flows aesthetically with the same curves as your tail-feathers, then buy the four-year older airplane.
But keep in mind, that seemingly minor differences can actually make one airplane more attractive than just the above items. Do both have desireable solid axles? Or does one of them still have the old hollow and prone to break axles? Do they both have Cleveland wheels/brakes? Or is one still with the expensive and unreliable, and hard to service Goodyears? Does one have modern radios and the other obsolete ones? Avionics can be worth thousands of dollars if they've been replaced with good serviceable radios instead of obsolete stuff. What about corrosion? Has either one of them been on floats? Was the float-kit factory
or aftermarket. 
Does one have the P-ponk landing gearbox beef-up kit? 
Tail-pull handles? Shoulder harnesses? I personally prefer the interior appointments of the '52 model over the '56 model, but the rest of the factory-original features of the '56 are improvements over the earlier one. (And the '56 has parts more in-common with the subsequent Cessna 172's, 175's, and 182's.)
Hi Valt,
I think I would vote for the '56 model. I just bought a '54 last month and am having a ball with it. My first taildragger. I would agree with George on the panel switch issue. Nice to be able to walk in to NAPA and get what you need. Can't agree with JDH on the Madras tips, though. My '54 had Madras tips on it. I was checked out in the plane by an old L-19 Birddog pilot, and he said the Madras tips were causing all sorts of problems...like floating you down the runway...you wishing you could touch down and the Madras tips keeping you just inches away from the surface while the wind does it's nasty work. Was also advised that the Madras tips also make the aircraft more suceptable to turbulence in flight. Those droopy tips also hurt like the dickens when you walk into them
I have already removed the Madras tips, repainted and reinstalled the original tips. Who wants these old fiberglass devils 
I find the new vortex generator kit by microair much more appealing and much more efficient at first glance than the Madras tips.
You do want the 10 degree flap setting. As a tailwheel newby, I want to hop up and get the heck away from the ground as soon as I can. I find the 10 degree setting most valuable, and would have the mod done if it were not standard on the '54.
Have fun Valt, you are just a month or so behind me in a very fun adventure
I think I would vote for the '56 model. I just bought a '54 last month and am having a ball with it. My first taildragger. I would agree with George on the panel switch issue. Nice to be able to walk in to NAPA and get what you need. Can't agree with JDH on the Madras tips, though. My '54 had Madras tips on it. I was checked out in the plane by an old L-19 Birddog pilot, and he said the Madras tips were causing all sorts of problems...like floating you down the runway...you wishing you could touch down and the Madras tips keeping you just inches away from the surface while the wind does it's nasty work. Was also advised that the Madras tips also make the aircraft more suceptable to turbulence in flight. Those droopy tips also hurt like the dickens when you walk into them
I have already removed the Madras tips, repainted and reinstalled the original tips. Who wants these old fiberglass devils I find the new vortex generator kit by microair much more appealing and much more efficient at first glance than the Madras tips.You do want the 10 degree flap setting. As a tailwheel newby, I want to hop up and get the heck away from the ground as soon as I can. I find the 10 degree setting most valuable, and would have the mod done if it were not standard on the '54.
Have fun Valt, you are just a month or so behind me in a very fun adventure
John, 2734C in Summit Point, WV
vortex generators
Hello, John!
If you found the Madras tips unforgiving due to slow speed floating, then you certainly will be disappointed in the vortex generators. I have an email from a member who wrote to me (making me promise not to reveal his name), that despite all the favorable comments he made originally regarding his stol kit with vortex generators,...he really had to admit privately they were a mistake.
They actually did lower the stall speed below what his airspeed indicator would register (although he had no idea how much lower that was because the airplane already didn't stall until the lowest indication possible, around 40 IAS). But the problem is he would float so badly in ground effect he couldn't get it to reliably touch down, while the winds played havoc with him. Then when it did touch down it was so light on the wheels it would skid the tires and the brakes were ineffective. On top of it all, the airplane already would get into places it could never get out of, so he couldn't really use shorter strips anyway. And if he loses 5 of those little doo-hickey's, his airplane is illegal to fly until he replaces them, which requires another A&P bill. $2445 spent to have an ugly wing.
(Heading down into the bomb-proof for a few days.) gh
If you found the Madras tips unforgiving due to slow speed floating, then you certainly will be disappointed in the vortex generators. I have an email from a member who wrote to me (making me promise not to reveal his name), that despite all the favorable comments he made originally regarding his stol kit with vortex generators,...he really had to admit privately they were a mistake.
They actually did lower the stall speed below what his airspeed indicator would register (although he had no idea how much lower that was because the airplane already didn't stall until the lowest indication possible, around 40 IAS). But the problem is he would float so badly in ground effect he couldn't get it to reliably touch down, while the winds played havoc with him. Then when it did touch down it was so light on the wheels it would skid the tires and the brakes were ineffective. On top of it all, the airplane already would get into places it could never get out of, so he couldn't really use shorter strips anyway. And if he loses 5 of those little doo-hickey's, his airplane is illegal to fly until he replaces them, which requires another A&P bill. $2445 spent to have an ugly wing.
(Heading down into the bomb-proof for a few days.) gh
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
George,George,George,I can't believe you of all people are advocating the installation of non-PMA automotive switches. (Shame on you other guys for egging George on). I can remember countless times that you took someone to task for some unapproved minor mod,and here you are talking about NAPA parts. I would NEVER do ANYTHING to my 170 wothout proper approval & documentation.One question--what's a 337? 
As far as float induced by VG's or STOL cuffs hindering timely landings,this can probably be avoided in most situations by performing a wheel-landing instead of a 3-point ("full stall") landing. I haven't flown a 170 with VG's or cuffs,my trusty ragwing doesn't need such outlandinsh mods,but it seems to me that proper speed control would eliminate alot of the floating trouble. Fly your final at 1.2 or 1.3 times stall speed--I stall at 47 so I use 65 for a "V-ref" speed (47 rounded up to 50 times 1.3 = 65). For short field I use around 60ish,if it's gusty &/or Xwindy,70ish. If a STOL-modified 170 stalls at 40 then use 50 or so for an approach speed,eh?
One of my favorite comments when I see an airplane come in fast & flooooooat down the runway is "he must be working on his float rating!".
Eric
As far as float induced by VG's or STOL cuffs hindering timely landings,this can probably be avoided in most situations by performing a wheel-landing instead of a 3-point ("full stall") landing. I haven't flown a 170 with VG's or cuffs,my trusty ragwing doesn't need such outlandinsh mods,but it seems to me that proper speed control would eliminate alot of the floating trouble. Fly your final at 1.2 or 1.3 times stall speed--I stall at 47 so I use 65 for a "V-ref" speed (47 rounded up to 50 times 1.3 = 65). For short field I use around 60ish,if it's gusty &/or Xwindy,70ish. If a STOL-modified 170 stalls at 40 then use 50 or so for an approach speed,eh?
One of my favorite comments when I see an airplane come in fast & flooooooat down the runway is "he must be working on his float rating!".
Eric
An excellent point, Eric (the switches), but not too long ago I actually discussed this with a FSDO Inspector who referred me to an internal policy letter (I guess they're too chicken to make it public) that discussed replacement electrical switches and current limiters. That letter said that traceablility could be disregarded on such minor parts that were "equally interchangeable" by original mfr. part number and "verifiable" by inspection. (Quotations per my poor memory.) What it all boiled down to, for example, was my replacment of my Baron's landing light circuit-breaker/swithces with Potter & Brumfeld W31 series devices obtained from an electrical parts supplier rather than the same part ensconced in a plastic bag from Raytheon. ($11 vs $38 ). Both switches were originally mfr'd and marked on the device with the same pn's, and it was blessed by the FDSO due to "identicallity" determined by inspection. (None of the rest of the W31 series installed originally in that airplane had PMA markings, as didn't the replacements purchased from either the electrical supply house nor Aircraft Spruce.)
Several years ago, when redoing the instrument panel of a friend's C-175 we obtained several light switches straight from the mfr's distributor. They arrived in NAPA boxes, complete with corresponding original mfr.'s pn's on the package.
A similar occurance happens when original C-170 interior door handles are replaced with early Chevy parts. (Although a good argument could be made in the latter case that such substitution falls under FAR 43, Appdx A, I doubt that would hold up under the scrutiny of the REAL talent down at FAA,....(I'm speaking of the legal dept.). I'm sure they could argue quite effectively that example would not be "refubishment or preventative" but would be "subtitution" of bogus parts.)
I personally take the position that automotive switches do not belong in airplanes. But in at least some cases, there appear to be some aviation switches installed in trucks. (check out the NAPA catalog, headlamp switch section.) In a few cases at least, the FAA appears to agree.
Several years ago, when redoing the instrument panel of a friend's C-175 we obtained several light switches straight from the mfr's distributor. They arrived in NAPA boxes, complete with corresponding original mfr.'s pn's on the package.
A similar occurance happens when original C-170 interior door handles are replaced with early Chevy parts. (Although a good argument could be made in the latter case that such substitution falls under FAR 43, Appdx A, I doubt that would hold up under the scrutiny of the REAL talent down at FAA,....(I'm speaking of the legal dept.). I'm sure they could argue quite effectively that example would not be "refubishment or preventative" but would be "subtitution" of bogus parts.)
I personally take the position that automotive switches do not belong in airplanes. But in at least some cases, there appear to be some aviation switches installed in trucks. (check out the NAPA catalog, headlamp switch section.) In a few cases at least, the FAA appears to agree.
While were getting a little off topic here, I have an interesting NAPA parts story. I just overhauled a set of Cleveland wheels and planned on putting in new Timken cone bearings and races. The magazine Light Plane Maintenance just had a set of articles on using NAPA to get your bearings in order to save some $$ but the parts of course are not PMA'd but are functionally the same? They officially did not recommend using NAPA purchased bearings but they more or less stated between the lines that somethng must be done about parts pricing.
Having been brutilized on other parts in the past, I immediately went off to NAPA and got a quote of $34 for a bearing cone and $12 for the race. Of course niether part has that PMA sticker. Thinking this was not real cheap I decided to see how much the real deal cost down at a Aviation Wholesale at Merrill Field. An "official" PMA Timken Bearing Cone was $25 and the race $9. NAPA is not last word, it pays to check!
Having been brutilized on other parts in the past, I immediately went off to NAPA and got a quote of $34 for a bearing cone and $12 for the race. Of course niether part has that PMA sticker. Thinking this was not real cheap I decided to see how much the real deal cost down at a Aviation Wholesale at Merrill Field. An "official" PMA Timken Bearing Cone was $25 and the race $9. NAPA is not last word, it pays to check!
This is true, about parts pricing. I've never seen any stamps/tags on bearings regarding PMA. But if you're really a stickler, (and I'm curious as to how the FAA allows Timken to get away with this, when no other mfr is allowed to simply print "blanket-authority") here it is:
http://www.timken.com/products/bearings ... achart.asp
P.S.-Timken recommends automotive wheel-bearing grease to specification NLG#2.
http://www.timken.com/products/bearings ... achart.asp
P.S.-Timken recommends automotive wheel-bearing grease to specification NLG#2.
WHEEL BEARINGS AND SWITCHES.
Several years ago I was inside an industry that used lots of bearings from many different sources and I researched cross-over numbers on several of them. That particular bearing is only used in general aviation airplanes as wheel bearings and is priced according to what the market will bear. The non-aviation retailer is not told why the bearing is so expensive but Timkin et al have to take that particular assembly through the PMA thus the expense.
Now George I have been insulted by your forbiding me to read that post you avalanched us with so I don't know all the inside poop. All that aside I am going to have to jerk you up again!
"Piano Key" switches are just small, cheap toggle switches hidden behind the neat little sub-panel that looks like a little piano. (IPC page 71) They are AN37027-1 for the master and AN3021-1 for all the rest. They far less subject to failure than some push pull "chineese junk" (not speekie about boatee).
I have a little mod in my '52 that came from later model 170's that is a cabin heat system par excelence. When coupled with a later model H/W muffler and 3" outlet heat muff it does a great job. The air distribution box, the cross the firewall manifold and down the inside kick panel ducts were already in my '52 when I bought it. (IPC page 95) I acquired the H/W exhaust system when I bought a low time engine off a storm damaged '57 172. (IPC page 88) It has flown the brutal winters in northern Missouri and kept us toasty warm. I could have used aome vents to defrost the windshield a time or two but no big problem there.
I didn't do any mor 8Ol stuff to my flap ratchet lever than you did by putting a little condenser on your voltage regulator I just milled a little notch in it, polished and painted it to make it look like a newer one! So it gave me an extra notch of flaps so what?
I didn't quite understand the one about taking the cowl off to change the oil. I have a quick drain on the sump and it works ok. Had a little green hose on it to keep from soaking the inside of the lower cowl with oil but it fell off somewhere a few years ago!
Hard to find latches will not be needed if you do my little mod and fix them little suckers where they won't fly open. Beleive me, one of them flying open causes lots of immediate activity in the cocpit! Of course the small door flying open on a '53 or later will cause much the same reaction.
Tail wheel steering improvement on later modes is something I can't really address. Most tail wheel airplanes weather vane like crazy in strong cross winds and the 170 is among the most vulnerable because of the large rudder/vertical fin area. I have never had any steering problems while taxiing in normal winds, that the good old Cleveland brakes havn't been able to handle. Steering on takeoff and landing are just toes on the bottom of the pedals and zooooom. YEEEAAAHH '52!
Now George I have been insulted by your forbiding me to read that post you avalanched us with so I don't know all the inside poop. All that aside I am going to have to jerk you up again!
"Piano Key" switches are just small, cheap toggle switches hidden behind the neat little sub-panel that looks like a little piano. (IPC page 71) They are AN37027-1 for the master and AN3021-1 for all the rest. They far less subject to failure than some push pull "chineese junk" (not speekie about boatee).
I have a little mod in my '52 that came from later model 170's that is a cabin heat system par excelence. When coupled with a later model H/W muffler and 3" outlet heat muff it does a great job. The air distribution box, the cross the firewall manifold and down the inside kick panel ducts were already in my '52 when I bought it. (IPC page 95) I acquired the H/W exhaust system when I bought a low time engine off a storm damaged '57 172. (IPC page 88) It has flown the brutal winters in northern Missouri and kept us toasty warm. I could have used aome vents to defrost the windshield a time or two but no big problem there.
I didn't do any mor 8Ol stuff to my flap ratchet lever than you did by putting a little condenser on your voltage regulator
I just milled a little notch in it, polished and painted it to make it look like a newer one! So it gave me an extra notch of flaps so what?I didn't quite understand the one about taking the cowl off to change the oil. I have a quick drain on the sump and it works ok. Had a little green hose on it to keep from soaking the inside of the lower cowl with oil but it fell off somewhere a few years ago!
Hard to find latches will not be needed if you do my little mod and fix them little suckers where they won't fly open. Beleive me, one of them flying open causes lots of immediate activity in the cocpit! Of course the small door flying open on a '53 or later will cause much the same reaction.
Tail wheel steering improvement on later modes is something I can't really address. Most tail wheel airplanes weather vane like crazy in strong cross winds and the 170 is among the most vulnerable because of the large rudder/vertical fin area. I have never had any steering problems while taxiing in normal winds, that the good old Cleveland brakes havn't been able to handle. Steering on takeoff and landing are just toes on the bottom of the pedals and zooooom. YEEEAAAHH '52!
Gar, I have a copy of a letter from Cessna that specifically states that installing a later flap sector on an earlier airplane is not allowed. Since you altered your airplanes sector (ratchet), I am just certain that you obtained approval, or at least put your airplane in the Experimental Category. 
My little condenser was installed according to an avionics shop's instructions. Just goes to prove you can't trust just anybody with a license.
When was the last time you found AN switches at NAPA?
My little condenser was installed according to an avionics shop's instructions. Just goes to prove you can't trust just anybody with a license. When was the last time you found AN switches at NAPA?