headroom

[KarlWK]

I looked this afternoon at a straight 170 for sale. It's the first time I've sat in an older Cessna, one with seats that do not adjust vertically. I'm 6'5" with a longish torso, and my hair was rubbing the cloth on the liner. How might one get more headroom?

Neither mechanic I talked with was certain what's above the cloth. If nothing important is there, it seems to me one might have a head liner with more bow to it made.

Another choice would be to install a seat from a 172. I gather they fit (but you have to make sure the seat back is fixed).

Suggestions?

And is it me, or is the visibility from the '48 Cessna better than in '70s 172s? I could lean forward and look along the leading edge of the wing, and from that pose, the view straight up was nice, too.

[GAHorn]

Most of the area above the headliner is hollow space, except the area of the instrument lighting/cabin-speaker. A custom headliner might work just fine for you.
The 170's do indeed have somewhat better cockpit visibility than later 172 aircraft, partly due to cowling design, partly due to seating location.
The later 172 seats usually fit the 170 aircraft but BEWARE: There are AD-notes against some late seats. The AD notes do not identfy the seats...but only identify the donor-aircraft. This can lead to safety problems due to identification issues, and due to dangerous seats being installed in aircraft which do not have AD notes issued against their seating.
Another issue is that many later seats have "squared", over-stuffed seat cushions. This may give you two problems you may not have considered:
1-The later seats will even further reduce your headroom due to overstuffed cushions.
2-The square cushions will interfere with the forward doorposts making installation/removal/adjustment difficult.

Also, whenever replacing original seats with subtituted seats from other aircraft be WARNED that rear-seat passengers must be enabled to exit the aircraft in an evacuation. Do not use seats with locking seat-backs that cannot be unlocked by rear occupants. (You DO brief your rear-seat passengers on such matters, don't you?)
And keep in mind that flying with unsecured cargo or unsecured persons in the rear seat is always dangerous with forward-folding seat backs such as original seats.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

George hit all the points I think. Older 170s like the one you just looked at may not have any overhead light or speaker to interfere with raising the headliner, mine doesn't. But as I recall the headliner bows are attached within an inch of the cabin skin in the center and really couldn't be raised all that much. Certainly the bows may be squared off at the edges a bit which might be enough for you. We also don't know if the headliner and seat that you sat in is representative of a 170. The headliner could have been sagging and the seat stuffed higher than usual. You could do as I have and simply removed the headliner.

I'd think it be easier to rebuild the seat using different spring/cushion arrangement to get a lower seat than fooling with the headliner. In a more radical seat modification the tubing could even be shortened.

I'd think you'd have the same problem in any 172 except of course for the newer versions if the seat does have a height adjustment. Seems you need to sit is some airplanes.

[KarlWK]

gahorn, sorry, but sloppy English on my part created a minor misunderstanding. By "fixed" I meant "corrected," not "made immovable." I read some of the 172 seats will lay back without warning. I'll try to stay with the original seats. There is no ceiling speaker in this plane; I did see one in a 170A I looked at the same day (and having the same headroom problem).

N9149A, the idea of shortening the seat did occur to me. It didn't appear there is a lot of excess cushion in these seats. I pressed gently on the ceiling cloth and didn't run into the skin after about a 3/4 inch, but certainly one could run into the skin only another 1/16 after that. If I return for a more thorough examination, I might take a fine needle and probe gently. There's also a zipper above the rear seats, and I might be able to peer forward; I can't explain why I didn't try that yesterday. As for 172's, I flown '70s models many times and had no serious headroom problems, but I had the seat cranked all the way down. 177's are a no go.

Thanks for the replies. I have the telephone number of a gal who does headliners for 140's, and she lives near that field. I'll talk with her as well.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I was swagging that 1", it might be an 1 1/2".

On the '48, make sure it has a engine driven fuel pump. This is the only model 170 that must have one. It is located at the front left nose of the engine as viewed in through the front cowl (technically the right front of the engine). Looks like a Chevy fuel pump but it isn't. Made by AC i t

Can't say what the seats looked like in the plane you looked at. Mine are stock, tube construction with the major seat area support being those, for lack of a better term, S turn continuous springs from one side to the other. The springs are bowed upward like a mushroom. My wife has always said she feel like she's sitting on a pin cushion. Bet I could get a 1/2" easy out of mine with different cushion/spring technology.

[DWood]

Karl:
I am also vertically challenged (6'3+)and own a 48. When I installed my headliner (airtex), I actually sewed the fabric tubes closer to the headliner so I could get additional headroom. The headliner comes with fabric "tubes" where the hanger wires (bows) suspend the headliner. You might also be able to lengthen the bows but I didn't feel the need on mine. Not sure if you want to change the headliner but this might be an option. I hope you understand my explanation. On the other hand, later seatsare more comfortable but temper foam helps somewhat since the 60 year old foam is probably shot. The 48 should have the speaker on top of the Pilot's door opening and not in the headliner, there is a light but it is behind your head area.
Dan

[KarlWK]

N9149A, I didn't get under the cowling this trip; there were several planes I wanted to see in one day. This '48 170 was the best of the lot. I bought a copy of the Association's 170 book and am aware of the fuel pump, but I didn't know some engines were missing them!

Dan, I hope I didn't drool too much on your plane at Oshkosh this year. Yours inspired me to look further into the '48 170's. I'll continue to investigate what can be done with the liner and the seats; thanks for the tips.

[DWood]

Karl:
Thanks for the kind words. I am not sure if we spoke at Oshkosh or not. If so, I probably don't recognize your sign on name. If not, I will be at Sun N Fun and OSH this year, so please stop by. Also my cell phone is listed below if I can help in any way. The 48 is faster but isn't as stable in flight and more difficult to land than the later models.
Dan

[GAHorn]

Is that the same cell phone number in all the men's rooms on Cheshire-Bridge Road?

No...wait...I don't want to post that! I've never been in the mens rooms on Cheshire-Bridge Road!

Never!

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Dan why to you say the '48 is more difficult to land?

[DWood]

Bruce:
The flaps are almost nothing as compared to the B model and there isn't any dihedral in the wings. Also the gear is light (unlike the later lady legs). Approach is flat and typically I have to add power to wheel it on. What is your feedback on the 48?
Dan

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Well Dan I only have one or two landings in a '48 so it would be hard to compare the differences between them and the A and B models. I've never heard anyone describe them as being more difficult to land than the other models and I didn't have any problems with my limited experience.

Certainly there is a different technique used with the small '48 flaps specially compared to the B model but I wouldn't call it difficult just different. Landing an A or B model using no flaps is about the same. Something I don't practice enough but not because it is harder.

The gear is indeed lighter than most B models but it is the same as all A models and early B models. It is the same gear that my 170A has and the gear I have the vast majority of landings on in all my 170 experience. I actually have very few landings with the later gear so I'm not really qualified to say that gear is easier or more forgiving might be a better term. But the later gear is generally considered to be an improved gear.

It is true the B model does have dihedral and I suppose is more stable because of it than the A model or the '48. But I have to say that I jump between my 170 with is essentially a B model with dihedral and an A model and I can't tell any difference. I'm sure it's there somewhere but I've never landed the A model and thought it more difficult because of the lack of dihedral. I'd expect the '48 to be the same in this regard.

I'm thinking the a reason you have to add power to wheel land is that your landing profile is so flat and that you have your airspeed at a minimum and the aircraft naturally gets into more of a three point attitude. In order to fly that flat attitude and keep the slight additional airspeed needed to wheel land you have to add power. I'd try increasing your approach angle just a bit which naturally will increase your approach speed. Your only looking for maybe 5 mph more. Arrest your sink rate just above the runway and keep the airplane level letting speed bleed and the main wheels touch. You won't have to add power to achieve the extra airspeed. This is where you might see a difference between the early lighter gear and the later gear. If you don't time this right the lighter gear is more likely to bounce you into the air than the later gear.

[GAHorn]

... In order to fly that flat attitude and keep the slight additional airspeed needed to wheel land you have to add power. I'd try increasing your approach angle just a bit which naturally will increase your approach speed. Your only looking for maybe 5 mph more. Arrest your sink rate just above the runway and keep the airplane level letting speed bleed and the main wheels touch. You won't have to add power to achieve the extra airspeed. ....

Uhmmm ... I think I know what you meant... I just don't think everyone reading this will.

If his approach speed is ...say...60...., and he wishes to use less power during landing....the use of less power will indeed result in an increased descent angle......but the airplane will still maintain it's trimmed speed of 60. It would not result in an increased approach speed.

You probably mean to simply increase approach speed by use of the same power and reducing pitch...which WILL result in increased speed. Unfortunately it will also result in increased "float" and use of more runway distance. And it will not be a reduction of power for the approach, therefore will not achieve what he desires.

Perhaps you meant to carry existing power all the way thru the approach (at the same speed as previously) and delay power reduction until AFTER the wheels roll onto the runway?

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

OK let me try again.

I think Dan might be a bit slow at touch down and tending to get into a three point attitude at the moment of touch down. In order that he not do that he has found that he has to add power which makes him float just enough to touch down nicely on just the main wheels. I've been there many times.

He probably needs to increase his approach speed just a few miles an hour. Maybe 3 mph is all with 5 mph probably causing a bit more float than necessary.

Since Dan mentioned he had to increase power I was thinking how could he go faster without increasing power. He could do that by shortening his approach and making the angle a bit steeper.

A nice wheel landing without bounce is perhaps the one area that the later stiffer gear is more forgiving than the early gear and takes maybe a bit more practice. That is what I've been told anyway as my light gear to later stiffer gear experience ratio is maybe 400 to 1 favoring the light gear.

[DWood]

Bruce and George:
I think you're both right. Maybe the issue is that I haven't been able to find one magic set of parameters that gives me the perfect landings. Very seldom will I have 2 landings the same and I have around 500 hours in it. Of course the biggest factor seems to be if people are watching. I have better landing when no one is around and worse landings at busy airports. It might be the "nut behind the wheel".
I would like to hear what others use for landing technique with the 170 and if it every warms up a little in Georgia, I will go practice other techniques.
Thx,
Dan