C-145 Cessna 170B

[Robert Eilers]

I am in the process of purchasing an nice 170B. The aircraft is equipped with the C145. I would appreciate owner comments regarding the C145, i.e., adequate power plant vs. underpowered.

Thx

[N170BP]

For "flat-land" flying (midwest, Florida, etc.) it's fine.

For just about anything else, it's underpowered (I have
a '54 B model).

I consider it a 2-place airplane even though there are
four seats. Matter of fact, most of the time I just leave
the back seat out and throw my camping gear + stuff
in the back.

[Jr.CubBuilder]

Ditto, what BP said. I took the rear seat out and tie down the cooler right where it used to go. I like it, it's good cheap flying.

The C145 is plenty adequate for flying around from town to town, and the 170 will do just fine with three people in it so long as you remember to be aware of density Alt. etc. It's at gross weight with three people and full tanks.

If you can afford it more power is always better, but unfortunately it always costs more, at purchase, at the gas pump, at rebuild time, etc.

[GAHorn]

The C-145/O-300 series engine is one of the classic/best in aviation. It enjoyed the reputation of the lowest in-flight failure rate of any recip engine throughout it's long production run. (It only suffered slightly when it passed into non-production and frugality during repairs/rebuilds and frequent re-use of important parts like valves/cylinders became common practice. It still enjoys an excellent reputation when properly re-built/maintained.)
Like a lot of civil airplanes, the 170 was not overpowered. It will do what the performance charts claim, but if you become accustomed to operating it as a 2-place or single-place airplane (like most of us do) then load it up with wife/girlfriend/mistress and another couple and lots of luggage, and full of fuel...the airplane will no longer leap off the ground and climb skyward with too much eagerness. It WILL however still perfrom reasonably well in standard conditons, except it will use 2500-3000 feet to clear a 50' obstacle without concern and will spend about 30 minutes to get to 10,000'. It is not a "bush plane" when it is operated at gross weight.
If you remember this, and operate off decent-length runways (3500 or more) and keep it at/below gross wt, then the airplane will be satisfying in most 4-place situations.
Is it more exciting with more horsepower? Yes, of course. The price for that is also exciting.
As for plain ol' reliability, from a 1959 news report:
Flight endurance record. John Cook and Robert Timm took off from McCarran Airfield in Las Vegas NV in a Cessna 172 and, with in-flight refueling, remained aloft for 64 days, 22 hours, more than two months in continual flight. They finally landed at McCarren on 2/7/59.
And from another source: Dec. 4, 1958. The world's longest air flight began when Robert Timm and John Cook took off from McCarran Airfield, Las Vegas, Nev., in a Cessna 172. Without once touching the ground, they landed back at the same airport on Feb. 7 of the following year! Their flight had lasted 64 days, 22 hours, 19 minutes, and 5 seconds. By continual airborne refueling they managed to fly the equivalent of six times around the world. Hows that for reliability?

This record still stands, and the aircraft is displayed hanging over the Las Vegas baggage claim area.

[Robert Eilers]

Thanks for all the comments. Based on the 1956 Owner's manual I pulled off this site (thanks to whoever made it available), looks like 110 MPH is an average cruise speed.

[4-Shipp]

My 53B cruises reliably at 117 MPH. Cruise speed will depend on what prop you have: Cruise, climb or mid range. I have the mid range prop. You can search this forum for many good discussions onthe different prop options and associated performance.

[cessna170bdriver]

The C-145/O-300 series engine is one of the classic/best in aviation. It enjoyed the reputation of the lowest in-flight failure rate of any recip engine throughout it's long production run. (It only suffered slightly when it passed into non-production and frugality during repairs/rebuilds and frequent re-use of important parts like valves/cylinders became common practice. It still enjoys an excellent reputation when properly re-built/maintained.)

If I read my engine logbook correctly, the C-145 currently (but not much longer) on my airplane ran 3000+ hours over 53 years on the same set of valves until the # 5 exhaust valve stem decided it didn't want to hold hands with the head any longer. In retrospect, I’d say that was pretty darn good service. The only internal parts mentioned as being replaced at the "major" overhaul in the mid 60's were bearings and pistons.

I've spent the last several years contemplating an engine upgrade but I just can’t justify the cost. Looking back at the 23 years I've owned my airplane, almost 9 years of which have been operating in 7000+ density altitudes, the 170 does well with the O-300 & C-145; it just takes liberal doses of common sense and patience. At 2200 lb gross at Tehachapi on a 90-degree day it climbs pretty flat, but it climbs. It gets myself, Karen, and camping gear in and out of Johnson Creek, ID (3400 feet of grass at nearly 5000-foot elevation) http://www.airnav.com/airport/3U2. Yes, I have to leave early, and have to circle Yellow Pine a couple of times before continuing on, but it works.

As long as I don't try anything any dumber than I've already done, an upgrade just isn't worth the $20K or more ABOVE what it will cost to rebuild the factory original engine (with factory new cylinders this time).

My two cents worth, Miles

[GAHorn]

Yep, and you don't lose useful load or fuel endurance either.

[blueldr]

George you're absolutely correct on the loss of useful load. When I installed the Cont. IO-360, a constant speed prop, and a C-180 landing gear, I lost about 125 pounds of usefull load. However, the fuel consumption was the same as the C-145 AT THE SAME AIRSPEEDS. As long as the configuration of the airplane is unchanged, it requires the same horsepower to achieve the same airspeed. Since both engines have almost identical specific fuel consumption, they will both have the same fuel burn for the same horsepower. But, with all that "P/Ex", on a hot day you can sure climb a lot faster!
I've heard that Delair has a gross weight increase for their Lycoming conversions.

[Jr.CubBuilder]

Just for the sake of conversation why couldn't your get a gross weight increase with the Cont. 360? I think I remember the XP site saying something about a gross weight STC approval pending, but I suppose that's bogged down in red tape.

[GAHorn]

Just for the sake of conversation why couldn't your get a gross weight increase with the Cont. 360? I think I remember the XP site saying something about a gross weight STC approval pending, but I suppose that's bogged down in red tape.

Anything is possible if you're willing to spend the time/money with the FAA to obtain the approval. Higher horsepower does not meet all the requirements to increase gross weight, however. It meets one requirement: That of extended-flap go-around/climb requirement. But other airframe strength limits must also be addressed to obtain higher gross weight approval. (An example of that is the later Cessna 172's which got horsepower increases from the OEM but not gross wt increases, because their doorposts would not accept the higher stress loadings from the flaps during go-arounds.)
Harry Dellicker of Del-Air offers increased gross wt's with some of his engine conversions. He obtained approval for that (and will sell that approval for additonal cost, presumeably.)

[Jr.CubBuilder]

Hmmmm, that's kind of what I was wondering, so presumably at some point some destructive testing would have to be done(?) rather than using engeneering data from years past.

[GAHorn]

Not necessarily "destructive". The FAA usually accepts OEM engineering data in lieu of destructive testing. The problem might be getting that data from Cessna, however. Otherwise, you'd be stuck with hiring the services of a qualified person to determine the strength of your airframe. Usually this is done by hiring a "DER"...a Designated Engineering Representative. All it takes is money. Usually less money is required to simply buy Dellicker's STC.

[4-Shipp]

I enjoyed the company of a bonified DER in my 170 several weeks ago. We had hired him to do some work on another airplane and I picked him up in the 170 for the round trip from OKC to Wichita Falls. He started work for Cessna in 1959 right out of college, and workd at the Pawnee plant until 1977 when he left to work for Commander in OKC. Lots of interesting stories about the single engine programs of the sixties and seventies.

I jokingly (only half so) commented on getting a gross weight increase to go along with a larger engine for 9CP and he echoed the previous issues: Cessna will never give out the required data, and he didn't have enough days left on God's green earth to do the math himself! So, a GW increase is unlikely unless someone has very deep pockets.

On a side note, he sent an interesting piece of Cessna memoribelia - we'll enjoy some "stump the dummy" iquestions in the weeks ahead...

Bruce