banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 10:50 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: which taildragger...
PostPosted: 17 May 2018, 11:43 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/29/14
Posts: 2879
Post Likes: +2932
Location: CEA3
Aircraft: PA24-260, C340 Ram 7
Username Protected wrote:
Here's a Turbo Cessna 170, TSIO360. I just saw it on Craiglist. No connection with the seller.

https://philadelphia.craigslist.org/avo ... 39702.html




How does that even work?? STC? Field Approval? They didnt make a Turbo 170 did they?
And to Allen's comment, what is wrong with the TSIO360 ( I know nothing about them)?


Highest MTBF of that size of engine. Lots of crammed in flingy things trying to come apart.

Murray

Top

 Post subject: Re: which taildragger...
PostPosted: 17 May 2018, 13:39 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12797
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
That experimental turbo 170 has been for sale over a year


Top

 Post subject: Re: which taildragger...
PostPosted: 17 May 2018, 13:44 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/17/12
Posts: 589
Post Likes: +340
Location: Greensboro, NC
Aircraft: C170B, BE35, CRJ
Username Protected wrote:
Here's a Turbo Cessna 170, TSIO360. I just saw it on Craiglist. No connection with the seller.

https://philadelphia.craigslist.org/avo ... 39702.html




How does that even work?? STC? Field Approval? They didnt make a Turbo 170 did they?
And to Allen's comment, what is wrong with the TSIO360 ( I know nothing about them)?


That airplane is of the Frankenstein variety. It was built by a gentleman that owned a salvage yard in Texas back in the 1980s sometime and is a 172XP from the front doorposts forward, and a 1952 170B from the front doorposts back. The airplane, as I understand it, would have had no issues, but he decided to put the turbocharged engine in, and regaled it to the Experimental/Exhibition category.

It looks like a very capable airframe, and is pretty well-known in the 170 circles and appears to have had a quality surgery, but I guess folks are scared off of the category restrictions. That airplane has been for sale by the same owners for the last ten years or so.

Top

 Post subject: Re: which taildragger...
PostPosted: 17 May 2018, 14:33 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12797
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
scared off of the category restrictions.


Of which there are many, assuming you follow the rules.


Top

 Post subject: Re: which taildragger...
PostPosted: 17 May 2018, 14:55 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 8010
Post Likes: +5705
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
Which category is it? Experimental R&D?

edit: duh. I just re-read the thread and saw that question answered like 2 posts above.


Last edited on 17 May 2018, 16:17, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: which taildragger...
PostPosted: 17 May 2018, 15:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/23/08
Posts: 6059
Post Likes: +702
Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
An earlier lighter C180 would be a better more capable aircraft than a C170.

_________________
Former Baron 58 owner.
Pistons engines are for tractors.

Marc Bourdon


Top

 Post subject: Re: which taildragger...
PostPosted: 17 May 2018, 16:07 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/17/12
Posts: 589
Post Likes: +340
Location: Greensboro, NC
Aircraft: C170B, BE35, CRJ
I have made the same argument, Marc. Having flown both, I tend to agree, but my Alaskan friends say that a modified “Super 170” beats out even a lightweight 180 for takeoff and landing distance. Some of them land on some pretty short gravel bars.


Top

 Post subject: Re: which taildragger...
PostPosted: 17 May 2018, 16:18 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 8010
Post Likes: +5705
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
Username Protected wrote:
I have made the same argument, Marc. Having flown both, I tend to agree, but my Alaskan friends say that a modified “Super 170” beats out even a lightweight 180 for takeoff and landing distance. Some of them land on some pretty short gravel bars.


But what kind of load does that 170 carry, and what rate of climb? I'm guessing that with 3 people in each, the 180 compares a lot better.


Top

 Post subject: Re: which taildragger...
PostPosted: 17 May 2018, 20:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/17/12
Posts: 589
Post Likes: +340
Location: Greensboro, NC
Aircraft: C170B, BE35, CRJ
Early 180 has same MGW but higher EW.

Modded out 170s are a crapshoot with regard to weight...can be 1400 to 1700 pounds. Unless you have a P Ponk 180, TCM IO-360 in a 170 is going to be pretty close to power loading a useful load to a stock 180.

I don’t see how the numbers work, but folks swear by it.


Top

 Post subject: Re: which taildragger...
PostPosted: 18 May 2018, 09:50 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 8010
Post Likes: +5705
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
Ryan, I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Early 180s had a max gross of 2550, vs. 2200 for a 170. Useful load in the 180 is a little under 10% greater, but it had ~60% more power.


Top

 Post subject: Re: which taildragger...
PostPosted: 18 May 2018, 11:20 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 12/09/07
Posts: 16989
Post Likes: +12386
Location: Cascade, ID (U70)
Aircraft: C182
I am SO tempted. I think this beauty might be a steal for a classic trailwheel plane. Stinson Station Wagon.

https://www.ksl.com/classifieds/listing/52064735

_________________
"Great photo! You must have a really good camera."


Top

 Post subject: Re: which taildragger...
PostPosted: 18 May 2018, 11:22 
Online


 Profile




Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 14525
Post Likes: +22857
Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
Tom, for what you're wanting, that thing is a legendary ground hog.


Top

 Post subject: Re: which taildragger...
PostPosted: 18 May 2018, 11:25 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 12/09/07
Posts: 16989
Post Likes: +12386
Location: Cascade, ID (U70)
Aircraft: C182
Username Protected wrote:
Tom, for what you're wanting, that thing is a legendary ground hog.


It would be just for putting around, having fun, and looking good. I already have a good backcountry plane.

Throw a 220 Franklin in it and it would have some spunk, I bet.

Nope. Not going to do it, but wanted to share it in case someone wanted a plane that's a pretty as a puppy.

_________________
"Great photo! You must have a really good camera."


Top

 Post subject: Re: which taildragger...
PostPosted: 18 May 2018, 11:50 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/06/13
Posts: 403
Post Likes: +246
Location: KFTW-Fort Worth Meacham
Aircraft: C208B, AL18-115
1) Can live outside
2) Fits 6'3" me
3) Carries 400# of people and 2.5 hours to tanks dry
4) under $75K

A Supercub with older fabric fits this nicely. 2 people, all of their crap, 4 hours of gas. A 150 hp PA-12 would do as well.

I only have about 10 hours in a straight 170, and it was not anywhere close to as much fun to fly as a cub. I have no 180 time, but I did own part of a 185 for awhile. The 185 is a rewarding airplane to fly but it was not "fun". I would think the 180/185 series would be overkill for your mission.

The best option is an older Citabria or Scout. Yes, the fabric will suffer over time outside, but plenty of fabric airplanes live outside for long periods of time. Covers solve a lot of the problem.

Stick vs. yoke: stick everytime!


Top

 Post subject: Re: which taildragger...
PostPosted: 18 May 2018, 12:15 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 12/09/07
Posts: 16989
Post Likes: +12386
Location: Cascade, ID (U70)
Aircraft: C182
Username Protected wrote:
1) Can live outside
2) Fits 6'3" me
3) Carries 400# of people and 2.5 hours to tanks dry
4) under $75K

A Supercub with older fabric fits this nicely. 2 people, all of their crap, 4 hours of gas. A 150 hp PA-12 would do as well.

I only have about 10 hours in a straight 170, and it was not anywhere close to as much fun to fly as a cub. I have no 180 time, but I did own part of a 185 for awhile. The 185 is a rewarding airplane to fly but it was not "fun". I would think the 180/185 series would be overkill for your mission.

The best option is an older Citabria or Scout. Yes, the fabric will suffer over time outside, but plenty of fabric airplanes live outside for long periods of time. Covers solve a lot of the problem.

Stick vs. yoke: stick everytime!


Or ...

https://www.ksl.com/classifieds/listing/52064735

_________________
"Great photo! You must have a really good camera."


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.