what are the differences? I owned a 185 for several years so know a little about them

Looking forward to all the answers from the Gallery Personally Joe, I'd be Proud to own either one of the Planes. I know a little about them I doubt as much as You do though.

Aerodynamically, they have the same wing. I think the main noticeable difference is the power loading. Even though the 180 is heavier, it has proportionally more power. That results in faster climbs and higher cruise speeds.

Fuselage is the same width, but the 180 is a little taller and I think has more bagge capacity.

I think they have the same 470 but not sure

Joe, I think the 170s had 0-300 continentals that produced 145 HP

I think some have been modified with 0-360 Lycoming's producing 180 HP

The Super 170 upgrade gets a 180hp O-360. I don't think the STC includes a gross weight increase. So that's another difference. You get to carry about 300 extra pounds in the 180.

When light, the 180hp 170 is a pretty good STOL plane, but lacks the same carrying capacity and climb performance.

Lyc IO360 or IO370 from Stoots:

https://stootsaviation.com/building-%22 ... c170%2F175

Don't go "cheap". I know a guy who built one with an O360 Lyc he found sitting in a crate somewhere for some time. He's had nothing but problems with the engine, had to have the cylinders replaced, but getting it sorted out, slowly and expensively.

170 has a pretty steep pitch down if slipped with full flaps. Round tail is not as effective as the squared tail.

The 170 always felt a bit dangly in the air with the soft gear and the very low firewall. Great forward visibility. You feel a bit perched up in the chairs compared to the low dash but it is good to see. I have flown them with 180 gear installed and I think that is better. Early 170s with fabric wings have smaller flaps so they are a bit different also. More like a large 140 but I have not seen one with a big engine conversion.

A 172 with stepped firewall has a higher gross and might be a better candidate for engine upgrade with a tailwheel conversion.

The later 172 aft fuel lines with a small vent tube to the forward tank vent would be nice to be able to run both tanks above 5000. There have been odd power loss events with O-360 conversions that may be due to vapor lock in the rear lines.

170 is light so easier to move around if stuck someplace. Push in hangar etc.

180 is well a 180. Designed for big engine. Solid flying and handles great. Many variations of engine, wing, gear, cabin depending on the year. Given the choice if flying 4 people and going places I would pick the 180. Light the 180 will really perform. Structurally I would prefer the 180. Straight tail 182 converted to TW is also an option. A bit different wing structure and cowl.

If trying for STOL contest or solo into very short spots maybe the 170 is better.

The IO 390 is a much bigger physical size than the O-360. Plus complication of fuel injection fuel system and constant speed prop. If to that point I'd take a 180

IO-550 180 goes like crazy but is way up in the yellow arc in cruise. At that point just buy a 185 and be done with it. New aluminum scimitar prop conversions on the 550 are very loud. I liked the older PHC Hartzell paddle blade props better. I have not flown the Trailblazer carbon 2 or 3 blade to compare directly.

Beware of 3 blade prop conversions unless the engine mount is specifically for a 3 blade. They will shake terrible with original mount and it cannot be balanced out.

I have watched some Powerflow exhaust installations. (Loud). Not my thing, I'll stay with stock exhaust on the 185 just add muffler gussets with a seaplane tailpipe.

There are letter suffix variations of O-470. Some good some bad. Will have to research what is best depending on what model.

Late 50s 180 is an easy going airplane that 3 points or wheel lands well. 185 is more of a truck but sometimes you need a truck. Carb vs fuel injection the carb will be cheaper to maintain.

180 Bladders vs late 70s wet wings are always a debate. Metal 170 tanks are easiest to deal with.

I liked the 79 A185F stock with IO-520D and 3 blade Harzell the best. But it was flying hauling a load for work not play.

Ask on backcountrypilot.org

That said folks have spent a TON of money making beautiful hot rod 170s, they NEVER sell for even close to the amount a somewhat ruff 180 sells for, there is a reason.

If you are debating a 180 get a 180, trying to make a 170 into something it isn’t is going to cost a good bit and it won’t be worth nearly as much, plus insurance on the super modified planes can be a issue as lots will just look at it as a 170


A 180 has a trim able stab vs a trim tab
Has a larger tail
180 is going to be faster, and a better IFR platform most times
180 will always be a 180 and demand the price

Most 170s that get even close to the abilities of a 180 will end up with a experimental cert and the limitations therein


It’s really two completely different animals

This.

I own a "super 170" and used to own a 182. The 170 is light on the controls, it's fun to fly, it's STOL, it has great visibility, burns a lot less gas than anything 470-powered, and is easy to push around on the ground. It'll carry four people, but isn't a load-hauler, and it does not have long legs. But it is an airplane about which people often say, "I used to have one and wish I'd never sold it."

All depends on what you want.

edit: And the 170 is kind of slow, too.

We have a 170 that competes in National STOL. I have seen him post sub 150' takeoffs and landings on a regular basis. Amazing performance from a 4 place airplane.

Here’s mine. ‘53 170b, ‘59 180, ‘68 180 pponk. Pre-1960 180 is the best all around.

180’s are great but spendy. The 170 has had a run up in prices with the rest but still a steal in my opinion. Put a 180hp lycoming 360 in it and it’s a great performer for a great price. Spend more and get a great one, and don’t be scared off by the rag wing.

I'm one of those guys. I had a 180hp converted 170B, and if I could only own 1 airplane for the rest of my life it would be that. Light on the controls and well balanced. With the big fowler flaps it would get in almost everywhere, and it had enough power to get back out. If you want to be a STOL hero or haul hunters onto sand bars there's probably better options. If you want a fun flyer to bop in and out of local grass strips and hundred dollar hamburgers it's perfect.

Downsides: it doesn't have enough useful load, doesn't hold enough fuel, and has a smallish weird panel that's not great of IFR. So if those are high on your mission set look at the 180.

DO NOT SLIP A B MODEL WITH FLAPS. The flaps blank the tail and it stalls turning the plane into a lawn dart. If you are on final and kick in a slip YOU WILL DIE. That being said with a constant speed prop and 40deg of flaps you won't need to slip it, and if you do you did something wrong. My understanding is that one of the reasons they went with the square tail feathers on the 172 and 180 was to tame this issue.

It's hard to describe, but it was just a really nice flying airplane. The bigger Cessnas tend to fly like trucks. The 170B felt like a glove in my hands.