Was it blue over white?
A friend of mine (Ken Gore) owns a "C-181" (blue over white, with a
pink !!! interior). He keeps it at Paine.
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
Just purchased a 1958 172 and looking for info.
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
-
Dave Clark
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 6:25 pm
Come on guys it's a flesh tone not pink. It was chosen to match one of the colors in the seat fabric and really ties it all together pretty well.
The STC holder at the time (1991) was in Montana but I don't know if it's the same now or not. It used to be that the difference between converting and buying a 180 was enough to make it worthwhile plus the benefit of having all new gearbox with standard sized rivets where most of the older 180's have been rebuilt at least once or have a lot of loose rivets. The same thing probably goes for 170s to some extent although they are not usually subjected to the heavy loads and abuse of a work airplane. The conversion is done using all Cessna parts so the end cost depends on how good of a scrounger you are. Just the conversion would take 100 hours or so I would guess. Mine was ten times that because the whole plane was rebuilt from spinner to tailwheel. EVERYTHING new or rebuilt. Everything.
Now I'm buried in the 170 the same way. The actual Lycoming conversion would be really quick but everywhere I looked when I opened the headliner up needed work so I'm going through everything. Except the Airtex interior which is still real nice. I know I'll really like the airplane but please stop the 181 talk because I really should have kept it to save all this work. But in a lot of ways I like the 170 much better.
The STC holder at the time (1991) was in Montana but I don't know if it's the same now or not. It used to be that the difference between converting and buying a 180 was enough to make it worthwhile plus the benefit of having all new gearbox with standard sized rivets where most of the older 180's have been rebuilt at least once or have a lot of loose rivets. The same thing probably goes for 170s to some extent although they are not usually subjected to the heavy loads and abuse of a work airplane. The conversion is done using all Cessna parts so the end cost depends on how good of a scrounger you are. Just the conversion would take 100 hours or so I would guess. Mine was ten times that because the whole plane was rebuilt from spinner to tailwheel. EVERYTHING new or rebuilt. Everything.
Now I'm buried in the 170 the same way. The actual Lycoming conversion would be really quick but everywhere I looked when I opened the headliner up needed work so I'm going through everything. Except the Airtex interior which is still real nice. I know I'll really like the airplane but please stop the 181 talk because I really should have kept it to save all this work. But in a lot of ways I like the 170 much better.
Dave
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
-
Dave Clark
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 6:25 pm
-
Dave Clark
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 6:25 pm
I thought of starting a new thread but...
I had some thoughts on tailwheel conversions. First on the 182 to 180. The 56 through 61 182s have the flying stab and thus would be the only ones I'd want to convert. The 59 was the first year of cowl flaps. Mine was a '56 and I had to get a one time STC (or maybe it was just a field approval) to add cowl flaps, a feat that would be very difficult now so that means you should look for a 59, 60, or 61. Now the 60 and 61 are the straight back cabins with more rear headroom which I think is nice. But of course they have a swept vertical fin and rudder so the changeover to a 180 vertical would have to be dealt with. I would want to check the possibility of this with the FAA before purchasing these years. But I like the idea of a 60 or 61.
Secondly, I have thought for a long time that a 175 would be a great candidate for a "mini 180" conversion. It has the wings with big flaps and best of all large fuel tanks for any engine conversion you'd want to do. Also there are a lot of them now that have 180 Lycomings in them, but they're not cheap. Hmm, I do have a 175 fuselage in Seattle that was given to me..... I could do a lot of work on that as I'm looking for a cheap 175 to buy to get everything else. OH NO! HERE I GO AGAIN!!!!
I had some thoughts on tailwheel conversions. First on the 182 to 180. The 56 through 61 182s have the flying stab and thus would be the only ones I'd want to convert. The 59 was the first year of cowl flaps. Mine was a '56 and I had to get a one time STC (or maybe it was just a field approval) to add cowl flaps, a feat that would be very difficult now so that means you should look for a 59, 60, or 61. Now the 60 and 61 are the straight back cabins with more rear headroom which I think is nice. But of course they have a swept vertical fin and rudder so the changeover to a 180 vertical would have to be dealt with. I would want to check the possibility of this with the FAA before purchasing these years. But I like the idea of a 60 or 61.
Secondly, I have thought for a long time that a 175 would be a great candidate for a "mini 180" conversion. It has the wings with big flaps and best of all large fuel tanks for any engine conversion you'd want to do. Also there are a lot of them now that have 180 Lycomings in them, but they're not cheap. Hmm, I do have a 175 fuselage in Seattle that was given to me..... I could do a lot of work on that as I'm looking for a cheap 175 to buy to get everything else. OH NO! HERE I GO AGAIN!!!!
Dave
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
More about cowl flaps: I have seen lots of the early 182's with only a fixed cowl outlet like ours,according to Dave these are 56 thru 58,usually they're jump planes. I guess the nosewheel apparatis was in the way of the early cowl flap arrangement. I almost think no cowl flaps might be a good thing,one less thing to have to mess with or to break. But I've don't have hardly any time in airplanes with cowl flaps--what's the up side? Drag reduction? Controllable engine cooling?
Eric
Eric
Hey Dave, in 1996 when I flew for Critical Air Medicine in San Antonio, I saw a fella taxi up to the avionics shop in an airplane that I could not quite identify. Turns out it was a 175 taildragger. A beautiful airplane it was! Sounded great, but don't think it had the original geared engine. I'd say do it! ...especially since you have a free 175 foundation. Don't know who markets the conversion kit.
That 172? I would convert it as soon as humanly possible. I was going to go that route if I could not find a good 170 at a decent price. Not only will you get more utility and enjoyment out of a converted 172, I think you will enjoy higher resale value when/if you decide to sell.
That 172? I would convert it as soon as humanly possible. I was going to go that route if I could not find a good 170 at a decent price. Not only will you get more utility and enjoyment out of a converted 172, I think you will enjoy higher resale value when/if you decide to sell.
John, 2734C in Summit Point, WV
-
Matthew_bailey
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 2:50 am
I guess this thread went off in a few different directions...at least this forum is active! Converting my 58 172 to a tail dragger would be very cool. My 185 neighbor was trying to convince me to convert as well. Realistically, I don't want to bite off more than I can chew. This is my first project, and I think a taildragger conversion would up my complexity and cost factor considerably.
Here are some pics right after she arrived home.
http://www.rob.com/matt/Cessna/
I have some questions about removing paint but I will start a new thread.
Regards,
Matt
Here are some pics right after she arrived home.
http://www.rob.com/matt/Cessna/
I have some questions about removing paint but I will start a new thread.
Regards,
Matt
-
planepilot1
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2002 1:02 am
1958 C-172
Matt, congratulations on your new purchase. You are most likely in for a lot of interesting restoration work on your plane, but when completed I bet it will be a lot of fun to fly.
I have a 56 C-172 that I purchased in 1989 after selling my 1950 C-140A. When I bought it I was looking for a 170, but had been unable to find one at a price I thought was acceptable. It had already been converted to conventional gear in 1981. The conversion used was the Ralph Bolen STC. As someone else mentioned, that STC was purchased by someone in Kansas. I have tried several times to locate who purchased it as I have some questions I would like to ask. I am happy with the conversion ( also have a Horton STOL). It appears to be a well thought out conversion and works well. They used their own design for the main landing gear and it is strong and gives a good wide stance. I don't have any idea of the cost today of the conversion kit. A friend and fellow 170 er, Tom Benedict, in New Mexico converted a 58 or 59 C-175 with this same Bolen kit and he might be able to give you some idea of the time he spent doing the work himself. His plane looked really good. (A funny sidebar, the first C-170 convention I attended, my wife and I were on downwind to the Jennings, LA airport and I told my wife to look at that C-180 just ahead of us. Got on the ground and parked next to it and it turned out to be Tom & Lyn Benedict in their converted 175. Tom had just mentioned to Lyn that there was a C-180 coming behind them. Turned out to be my C-172 TD. ) I sometimes tell people it is a Cessna 170 C as it does resemble that one of a kind prototype that Cessna decided not to build, but started building the 172's instead--too bad. As you may know the 170/172 airframes are essentially identical other than the tail feathers and the necessary firewall plate to hold the nose wheel. I don't think you will gain much, if any, airspeed with the conversion. My plane is an honest 115 mph airplane. A lot of 170's that I have flown with are faster by a few miles an hour and some by quite a few mph's.
If you want to see what mine looks like let me know and I will email you some photos. bsfs@netzero.net
Good luck and keep us informed on the status of your project.
Frank Stephenson N6888A
I have a 56 C-172 that I purchased in 1989 after selling my 1950 C-140A. When I bought it I was looking for a 170, but had been unable to find one at a price I thought was acceptable. It had already been converted to conventional gear in 1981. The conversion used was the Ralph Bolen STC. As someone else mentioned, that STC was purchased by someone in Kansas. I have tried several times to locate who purchased it as I have some questions I would like to ask. I am happy with the conversion ( also have a Horton STOL). It appears to be a well thought out conversion and works well. They used their own design for the main landing gear and it is strong and gives a good wide stance. I don't have any idea of the cost today of the conversion kit. A friend and fellow 170 er, Tom Benedict, in New Mexico converted a 58 or 59 C-175 with this same Bolen kit and he might be able to give you some idea of the time he spent doing the work himself. His plane looked really good. (A funny sidebar, the first C-170 convention I attended, my wife and I were on downwind to the Jennings, LA airport and I told my wife to look at that C-180 just ahead of us. Got on the ground and parked next to it and it turned out to be Tom & Lyn Benedict in their converted 175. Tom had just mentioned to Lyn that there was a C-180 coming behind them. Turned out to be my C-172 TD. ) I sometimes tell people it is a Cessna 170 C as it does resemble that one of a kind prototype that Cessna decided not to build, but started building the 172's instead--too bad. As you may know the 170/172 airframes are essentially identical other than the tail feathers and the necessary firewall plate to hold the nose wheel. I don't think you will gain much, if any, airspeed with the conversion. My plane is an honest 115 mph airplane. A lot of 170's that I have flown with are faster by a few miles an hour and some by quite a few mph's.
If you want to see what mine looks like let me know and I will email you some photos. bsfs@netzero.net
Good luck and keep us informed on the status of your project.
Frank Stephenson N6888A
Frank Stephenson
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
A guy I know spends summers here in Washington & winters in Texas (Dallas,I think).He owns a really nice straight-tail 182 that he keeps up here. He used to also own a straight-tail 172 taildragger that he kept in Texas. I never seen it,but judging from his 182,it must be a dandy. He sold it a couple years ago. His name is Nelson Morris,is the current owner of his airplane among us?
Eric
Eric