Should have been in green I suppose.

You have a canoe lashed to the strut. There are some folks that Get overly concerned when you put so much as a GoPro on the wing.

So true... Ever notice the larger or more uninformed a population the more things they deem illegal?

I haven’t had the need to carry external loads for years but I understand you now need a restricted placard and paperwork from the fuzz. Makes me glad I learned to fly before tail wheel endorsements and all the others stuff that seems to have crept in.

I’ve definitely seen a few elk racks lashed to struts out here.

We tried to fit an Elk rack in the CJ-4.... nope. Never thought to lash it to a nacelle...

If only it was that simple! I've owned both a 170 and a 195 and there is a huge difference. Both great planes but big differences between them.

https://sfbay.craigslist.org/scz/avo/d/ ... 00379.html


30k. Save me

I wish him good luck.

I wish him good luck.

Late to the thread, and it's all mostly already been said. But since this is the internet, I'll tell you what I think anyway.

I've had my Avcon '54 170B for 10 years. The CS prop makes it a bit faster than the stock 170 on the same fuel, but you don't get a 180hp 170 for extra speed, you get it for short takeoffs, great climb, and load hauling. Four people, no problem. Two and packed with gear, no problem. High DAs and short strips, yes.

People say that for what you'd pay for the airplane you could get a C180. Eh, maybe. That's comparing a nice 170 to a lower-end 180. But they're very different airplanes, each one great at what it does. The 180 is big and heavy. The 170 is light on the controls and fun to fly. I could afford a 180 but I don't want one.

The 170 is very inexpensive to own. There just aren't that many parts to wear out. The Lycoming O-360 is a great engine. After owning an O-470 and a TSIO-520, I've had enough of low compressions and top overhauls.

I ditched the Hartzell prop for an MT and couldn't be happier. I bought it for the ROC and to be rid of Hartzell ADs (mostly that!), but it's better in ways I didn't expect. It's smooth through the full rpm range. I cruise at WOT and 2100. But I've also flown the airplane to FL200.

The biggest downside to the airplane is the small fuel tanks. Even at 8gph, 40 total just isn't enough for real XC flying, especially in weather. Yes, I fly it IFR. It's not the easiest IFR airplane I've flown.

I never expected to keep the airplane for this long, and have no plans to move on. There's a reason so many people who've owned a 170 say they wish they still had it.

I have a couple of questions on differences between 170A and B models.
Is there a significant difference in handling, stability etc. with an A model lacking dihedral compared to a B model?
Are the plain flaps on the A a lot less effective than the semi fowler on the B? Noticeably shorter landing or takeoff?

I've not flown an A model with the "flat" wing, but flew a B model extensively. My brother has a 140 (basically flat wing), so I can extrapolate a bit to what the 170A would have been like.

The B was pretty stable. If you were doing a slip, you had to put in ample aileron which I would presume wouldn't be as needed on the A due to less dihedral. The B was very flyable by rudder alone, and I bet the A was less so, which kind of matches the 140 experience.


The B flaps are amazing. I could land in 300 ft without trying too hard. The A flaps are far less effective.

I had the 180 HP CS prop conversion, so takeoffs were QUICK and I suspect the flaps make little difference there unless you were doing the flap "jerk off" maneuver. Loved that manual flap handle.

If a really nice A model was being offered, I'd not turn it down, but given a choice, I'd go for the B. The 180 HP CS prop conversion is worth it, too.

The 170B is a sweet airplane. I miss it dearly.

Mike C.

A few 170B have been fitted with the 175 wings which hold 54 gallons.

Also, if you throttle back to O-300 fuel flows, the speed is about the same as the O-300 provided, so there is no loss in range with the 180 HP conversion, it is just that most don't slow it down.

I found the speed advantage was more than you make it out to be, a good solid 10-15 knots. If you are bucking a headwind, 15 knots can be precious.

Mike C.

A few 170B have been fitted with the 175 wings which hold 54 gallons.

Also, if you throttle back to O-300 fuel flows, the speed is about the same as the O-300 provided, so there is no loss in range with the 180 HP conversion, it is just that most don't slow it down.

I found the speed advantage was more than you make it out to be, a good solid 10-15 knots. If you are bucking a headwind, 15 knots can be precious.

Mike C.