The International Cessna 170 Association

Has anybody fitted a external belly pod to a 170 . They are available for the 180 series .

i was just thinking about this the other day...I was considering the baggage door mod, then i thought about a belly pod. I have not seen a 170 with a pod.

rupertjl wrote:i was just thinking about this the other day...I was considering the baggage door mod, then i thought about a belly pod. I have not seen a 170 with a pod.

That belly tank, obviously for fuel only, looks like it is held on with straps, probably a temporary installation for that record flight. Standard Cessna belly pods are permanently attached.

I don't know why a C-180 cargo pod would not fit on a C-170.

I did a bit of looking into this idea and came to the conclusion that the empty weight of the pod alone made it's usefulness questionable.

I respectfully suggest that the following three available mods will serve the typical 170 pilot much better. The extended baggage area, baggage door and an baggage area aux fuel tank. These three mods combined bring a lot of "operational" flexibility without a significant weight penalty when not in use. I currently have two of the three; baggage door, extended baggage area and will be installing the baggage aux fuel this winter.

Mapleflt

The cessna 170A doesnt really allow the extended baggage area. The extra fuel tank in the cargo area has its issues also but a external pod could work for me . I have the baggage door and its a very good mod .saves my back big time .

Just do the research, the pod alone is in the 50 lbs range empty and that comes straight off your max allowable weight for every flight not just when its in use. The options I went with might have added 10-15 lbs to the air-frame, I can check the weight report if you'd like some better numbers for your deliberations. Each as its risks and rewards but the one most suitable for the nature of your flying is your call absolutely.

Mapleflt

I would not be surprised if larger tires are required for ground clearance.
You could really overload a 170 with all that extra cargo space.

I stand by my original thought, the empty weight only will negate any benefit on a 170 and as pointed out above only increase the possibility of an overweight issue. A quick look around the various supplier indicates empty pod weights upwards of 50-70 lbs depending on methods and material used in it's construction.

Mapleflt

Airglas is certifying a pod for the 172.

Both a combination fuel/cargo and all-cargo pod for the Cessna 172 are under certification. Other models and approvals are in design and development.

Might be worth seeing if they could expand that STC to include the 170 series.

Consideration should be given to belly-mounted antennas that might need to be moved.

gahorn wrote:Consideration should be given to belly-mounted antennas that might need to be moved.

And I have no idea where the extra gross weight is going to come from.

It’s not about the weight always. I often fly by myself with 1/2 tanks but have long fishing rods and smelly bait and sometimes fish and the odors stay in the cabin especially when the temperature often exceeding 100 deg F . Sleeping bags and tent doesn’t take up much weight but are very bulky . It would be a good place to throw a couple bottles of oil in there also so if they leak ,the carpet isn’t messed up.