Newbie Questions on the 170B

[aoresteen]

I'm a newbie and I have a bunch of questions. I have decided to get a 170B (my other choices were a Luscombe 8F and a Piper Cub J3). My wife and I would like to fly from the Orlando area to south Atlanta regulary. This distance is about 350 NM. At 65% power and at 7,500 feet I should make it ok (specs say I should get 376 NM with a reserve). I should make 109 knots so the trip should take about 3.5 hours flight time.

1. Am I correct in my calculations or should I estimate a longer flight time?

2. Will I get a longer range if I get a 170B with a 190/210 hp engine? Or will higher fuel consumption make it wash?

3. With a 190/210 hp engine, what would my airspeed and fuel consumption be assuming 65% power and 7,500 feel altitude?

4. Realistically, with two adults and suitecases, how much fuel could I carry? Figure 400lbs for the adults and 150 lbs for the suitcases total of 550 lbs load.

6. I am a ham radio operator. Does anyone know of an aircraft radio that also includes the ham bands?

Many thanks in advance!

[doug8082a]

I can't answer all of them, but I'll take a stab at a few:

1. I'd average it at 100kts. taking into account time to climb to 7500' from (nearly) sea level and the fact that not all planes/pilots perform to spec.

2. Engine conversions in the 170 generally add climb performance due to the addition of a constant speed prop. Someone who's actually done the 210hp conversion can answer this better, but I don't believe there's much gain in airspeed. Fuel consumption would certainly be higher with that engine and your wallet would be $30k lighter from doing the conversion (if it wasn't done already).

4. Useful load on 170s generally runs in the 800-900lb range. Full tanks (usuable fuel) is 37 gallons or 222 pounds (tank capacity is 42 gallons, but the 5 gallons unsuable is already accounted for in your empty weight). So, full tanks (222lbs), two people (400lbs - your number) and baggage (150 lbs - your number) equals 772 lbs which would put you approx. 100lbs below gross depending on the specific 170's empty weight. An engine conversion and addition of C/S prop add weight to the plane leaving you less useful load.

[PilotMikeTX]

Orlando to Atlanta at 7500?

[cessna170bdriver]

Tony,

Any of the 170 models should be able to do that mission non-stop with 15 knots or less of headwind. At roughly 100 knots TAS you'll burn about 8 gph (maybe a bit less) regardless of the engine installed. (It takes about 110 hp to drag a 170 around at 100 knots whether that 110 hp comes from a 145 hp engine or a 210 hp engine.) Using more power to go faster is a losing proposition, as fuel consumption goes up with power much faster than speed goes up with power. You might get a shade more efficiency with a constant speed prop, but probably not enough to justify the cost. The only person I ever talked to who had the 210-hp Continental IO-360 with CS prop said that he was just enough faster on a 4-hour leg to get fueled up by the time the rest of the pack was in the landing pattern, and never saved more than 2-gallons of fuel. The best justification for more power is improved takeoff and climb performance.

Even with a 15-knot headwind you'll still make your FL-GA trip in a shade over 4 hours. I made a similar trip en route to the 1998 Lakeland 170 convention, and covered the 396 nm from Cedartown, GA to Lakeland, FL in 4 hours plus a few minutes, and burned less than 30 gallons of fuel. One of the techniques I use is to make my descent simply by reducing power and leaving the trim at cruise speed. Fuel burn goes down drastically, and you get back some of that extra fuel you burned in the climb. If you make the trip regularly and run into headwinds, and don't want to stop for fuel, there are 170's out there that have been modified with an 18-gallon auxillary tank in the baggage compartment. Of course in that case, you've used up the 170's 120 lb maximum baggage allowance, and will have to carry your baggage in the back seat.

Hope this helps. Now join the Association, and go out and find a 170!

Miles

BTW where are you based near Orlando? My dad lives at Love field (97FL), about 25 mi south of Ocala.

[GAHorn]

And regarding the Ham radio question.... lots of planes (although usually corporate jets, etc.) have HF radio equipment onboard. There's no reason a 170 also can't be so equipped. I used to sit on the ramp while waiting for passengers all the time and listen to Ham operators all around the world converse on the HF.
(PS-Aircraft HF radios are not cheap. Most of them are ditigally tuned with synthesizers and utilize the airframe for the antenna, which requires a sophisticated (expensive) antenna tuning unit.
A portable unit which may work for you is: http://avionix.com/hf_port.html (Don't get too concerned about it's non faa approval. It's a portable unit and therefore is considered "loose equipment", no different than a handheld walkie talkie, etc.
There are likely other non-aviation units which would work just as well, perhaps for a lot less money. (An excellent trailing wire antenna I once saw was nothing more than a bait-casting fisherman's reel with the antenna wound up on it, and with a plastic funnel on the end (pointed end forward towards the aircraft) for drag. Reel it out the prescribed distance, and wind it up before landing.

[kmisegades]

Tony, I have owned a '52 B model for 2-1/2 years and find it to be an ideal "empty nester" airplane. My wife and I fly regularly 2-3 hour legs around the Southeast, and I am sure that it would go 4 hours at gross if my bladder & rear could stand the torture. The former is a matter of planning; the latter is due to the original seats. I hope to replace the seats with some of the new ergonomic ones that are out there. We just flew from Raleigh, NC to Decatur, AL this weekend, cruising at 7500-8500 feet over the southern end of the Appalachias in severe CAVU. At 22" MP (I have the luxury of a MP gauge in my plane) at this altitude, with most everything else stock in the plane, we cruised at 95-100 MPH indicated. Nice winds pushed us along at 110-120 kts. The smoooooth 6-cylinder, C-145 Continental burned 7-7.5 GPH, which still amazes me. It takes a while to get up to altitude when near gross, but doing this at 90 MPH or so seems to be a good compromise between climb rate and fuel burn. Now, whether you can make your desired trip in one hop also depends on your home base. I fly out of a 2400' grass field with real, tall pine trees around it. So I am somewhat limited by T/O performance, not stellar in a C-170 at gross, especially in the HHH (hazy, hot, humid) weather of the south. After 2 hours in the plane I am ready anyway to stretch my legs a bit, so long duration flights are not something we do. But again I think you'll find that for the money there aren't many planes to beat the C-170 (B model of course!). Good luck and much fun on your search. Kent

[blueldr]

I fly from my home base at Jackson, CA (O70) to Nampa, ID (S67) several times a year, The distance is 367 NM. With a climb from 1600' to 9500' to cross the Sierras and a normal cruise at that altitude, my time is usually about 3+45 to 3+55 and the fuel burn runs 25 to 27 gallons. Thats a very comfortable reserve and about the comfort limit physically. I find those numbers seem to be fairly consistent on other legs too.
I'm running a 50 inch prop pitch so I cruise at about 2575 to 2600 and my fuel burn is the same as it was at 2450 with a 53 inch pitch.

[spiro]

for the money there aren't many planes to beat the C-170 (B model of course!).

Kent, why do you make that distinction? Ever flown an "A"?

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

for the money there aren't many planes to beat the C-170 (B model of course!).

Kent, why do you make that distinction? Ever flown an "A"?

Or a '48 Ragwing?

[aoresteen]

Many thanks guys for the help! After thinking about it I am considering an A or B 170.

Thanks again!

[kmisegades]

Tony et al, I own a B model, and have flown a few hours in an A model. I do like the Fowler flaps in the B due to my field being surrounded by high pine trees. If I flew from asphalt or had fewer obstructions, I suspect that a 170 or A model would be just fine. In fact, the way these things go, the simpler aircraft are probably lighter and perform a bit better on the same engine. Just a guess. As far as the dihedral in the wing that the B has, I didn't notice the difference in the A model I flew. The 170 is a very stable aircraft, from my 200+ hours in my plane in the past 2-1/2 years. I sure would like trying the ragwing for comparison; I'll bet they are beauties. There are clunker B models out there and pristine A models. I think I would focus on the engine condition and make sure the panel has what you need. Check also for corrosion, and as the gurus of this Forum will tell you, BUY THE 170 BOOK to understand the ins and outs of our favorite birds. Enjoy the search. Kent

[blueldr]

There is no question that the 170 and the 170A are great airplanes. But lets be honest, ---- the B model with wing dihedral and the counter ballances in the elevators is a definite improvement. It simply is an improvement over the earlier models. If it wasn't an improvement, I feel sure Cessna would have gone back to the old system on all the subsequent airplanes of all models they built.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

BL

I might buy the elevator improvement. I occasionally notice my friends unbalanced elevator when I fly his. It really isn't an issue though. As for the dihedral, I don't notice any difference between aircraft.

[Bobo]

Just a note about flying the C170A, I agree with the counter balance elevator, as it makes less work for the pilot on landing. But on the other hand I fly with a friend who has a C170B and I land my 'A' where ever he does, so my point is you have to get to know the airplane and I believe the 'A' model can land almost anywhere a 'B' can. We have both been into
strips as small as 1800 feet grass and trees at both ends.

[cessna170bdriver]

...I fly with a friend who has a C170B and I land my 'A' where ever he does, so my point is you have to get to know the airplane and I believe the 'A' model can land almost anywhere a 'B' can...

Amen to that. If there is a field where you need the difference in performance of a B over an A to get in, you don't need to be there at all.

Miles