The International Cessna 170 Association

My rag wing #18109 is registered as manufactured in 1947. There is no date of manufacture on the data plate.

It was manufactured in 1948 as the straight 170's were.
This N number (N2571V) has been "Deregistered"
If this is a project, it is recommended to try to get it registered as soon as possible and to request the same N number.
I am aware of a different airplane that is being restored and it was deregistered for several years. The owner/restorer requested that it be registered and the FAA refuses to review it until the airplne is fully restored. The N number was saved.

Dan, thanks again for all you do at the EAA. and thanks for your contributions here especially with your knowledge of the early versions of the 170. I believe this gentleman / plane lives in Nova Scotia. I’ve chatted with him, have been invited to his strip but have not had the chance to meet him in person or see his plane. Not sure how long it’s been under his care but there’s obviously much more to this planes history. A Pic of the data plate might help sort things out. Either the FAA records have erred or the present owner has been misled. Regardless it’s good to see the plane is still in use and loved.
Eddy Peck, another Nova Scotian is in the habit of acquiring aircraft suitable for restoration. He’s a good friend and certainly a good friend to GA especially when it comes to float operation. Amongst many of his for sale projects, he has an undamaged 170 sitting in his front yard thats looking for restoration. I’ve walked around it, it needs everything but it’s all there.
I’ve seen a few planes where the owner has an idea of the planes history based on the data plate but the data plate in my opinion did not represent the plane. Yet, the plane appears to be safe, well cared for and loved.

Hi Jim,
Hope all is well.
Perhaps the registration in the US was deregistered and now it is in the Canadian system. I am not sure how to look that up if we even can do it.
All straight 170s were 48 manufacture and I owned sn 18041 which was earlier than his and it was 1948. A pic of his data plate on the door post would help clear it up.
Thx, Dan

Looking up the Canadian records, who knew, I know this airplane (not well just walked around it a few times) as it was based on the west coast ( Sechelt). Canadian records for this serial number begin in December 1996. In 2017 I think it started its journey East, first Alberta then into Mikes hands on the east coast in 2019. Mike is probably looking at the Canadian records which state year of manufacture as 1947 which I believe to be incorrect. You get what your taxes might pay for so, much like professional wrestling not everything is, well ….. but also entertaining in a way.

Jim
That makes sense now except for the year. So when imported to Canada, does the data plate change with the N to C tail number? Have a great New Year and hope to see you at OSH this summer.
Dan

No date of manufacture shown on data plate, but that early US registration sure points to 1948. Probably not worth the government red tape to get it changed.
Mike

"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
Will Rogers

In my humble opinion the Cessna factory must have had red Cool Aide in their water fountains . I have seen a Cessna 170B [1956 ?] with dual undercarriage gear boxs. It had a nose wheel at some stage . It’s a tail dragger these days and the certificate on the door post says it’s a 170b.
I was telling the owner about mine [Cessna 170a] having half of a float kit fitted to the fuselarge . This when he shown me the structure on his aircraft . There is nothing in his log books . AND there is nothing in my books regarding half a float kit. I only found the float kit [1/2] when I pulled up the floor and side panels to fit a baggage door. This float kit is on the left hand side only with double fuselarge frames and thicker skin. The workmanship on both aircraft appears to be factory .

ghostflyer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 6:38 am In my humble opinion the Cessna factory must have had red Cool Aide in their water fountains . I have seen a Cessna 170B [1956 ?] with dual undercarriage gear boxs. It had a nose wheel at some stage . It’s a tail dragger these days and the certificate on the door post says it’s a 170b.
I was telling the owner about mine [Cessna 170a] having half of a float kit fitted to the fuselarge . This when he shown me the structure on his aircraft . There is nothing in his log books . AND there is nothing in my books regarding half a float kit. I only found the float kit [1/2] when I pulled up the floor and side panels to fit a baggage door. This float kit is on the left hand side only with double fuselarge frames and thicker skin. The workmanship on both aircraft appears to be factory .

It is a well-known matter that during the ‘56 production, Cessna was building on the same assy-line both 170B and 172 airframes. Many (all?) of which had both gear boxes…one at the front doorpost and one at the rear doorpost. The thought being that each airframe could be assembled as either model…that decision being made later in production.

On the other matter,… it is Common … in fact, it Should Always Be suspected that used airframes may have alterations and repairs made without proper documentation…. and that datatags may exist on airframes to which they did not always belong. THIS is why a Full Annual Inspection is preferable to a “pre buy” inspection when considering an airplane for either purchase OR service. (Serious defects may exist in airframes to which the records are not complete and accurate. Imagine if you will, a ground-looped airplane being repaired with a “borrowed” wing from a salvage yard.
The Donor wing may be one of those to which an AD note applied (addressing a scratch erroneously made on the spar during production…. but which the AD note was issued at a date AFTER the airplane had been sent to the salvage yard. I.E., that scratched wing, which ordinarily should have been repaired per the AD…. but which has no obvious problem…. has now been installed on an airplane which has been repaired from a ground-loop….. either of which may never have been recorded……the reasons for non-recordation being many and sundry.)

A buyer (or an A&P/IA performing his first Annual Inspection upon the airframe) … Either of which now has a hidden problem, which…if the written records are relied upon…will likely be completely missed!

An IA who charges for his time properly inspecting that airplane for a new owner who had bought it having relied upon a “pre buy” inspection at PoDunk airport …using an “inspector” who merely wanted a few hundred dollars to walk around it and look-over the (questionable) records…. may, and probably will, MISS this.

The new owner, now presented with new-found problems, may:
1- Hate the IA who (properly) inspected the airplane and charged fully for his time spent
or
2-Hate the “Pre buy” inspector for missing the issue
or
3-Hate himself for falling for this problem airplane
or
4- All the above…. When in-frustration he places it on the market and another potential buyer has it properly inspected during his purchase activities.

True Story:
Airplane records can be GORGEOUS…. as my gone West friend Bob found when he bought his first airplane , a 175C…. from an A&P/iA in Ardmore, OK...who had meticulously created Pristine Works of Fiction regarding the subject airplane.

Another person, a “friend”, an A&P/IA who would not charge money for his “inspection”…. guided Bob into purchasing the airplane, having read through and declared the Logs/Records to be “Wonderful” and the airplane to be “a beautiful value”. ***

Only a full Annual Inspection a year later revealed the Lies in those logs. (Needless to say, the friendship with that particular “pre-buy inspector” dissolved in a rather acrimonious manner, especially when I discovered (and revealed to Bob) the guy was attempting to cheat Bob in another transaction.) ***

When the seller, a Mr. James Bell, was presented with the fact his lies had been discovered and compensation demanded versus turning him in to the FAA….. Mr. Bell, being elderly and recently-retired, took the best avenue he could possibly choose for himself: He turned HIMlSELF in and surrendered his certificates to FAA…. who was then completely satisfied with the matter.

Our friend Bob was stuck with an expensive and unairworthy airplane.

*** Twenty five years later, our fellow Member Del Lehman called me to ask if I knew anyone in the FTW-FSDO who could assist in obtaining a ferry-permit for a Beech 18 which he wished to fly from Dallas to Mena “gear down” for repairs. It seems that a particular FSDO Inspector in FTW refused to approve such a ferry permit because there was no single-engine performance data for a D-18 with the gear down.
Since this data was not specified during original certification… I agreed with Del that the “inspector” …whoever he was…. Was in-error.

So, being based at DFW and being familiar with several GA Inspectors over at FTW which was only a short drive away… I figured to help our fellow Member Del out….by driving over to FTW-FSDO and discuss the matter directly with the recalcitrant inspector. So I asked Del the name of the uncooperative fellow…… Only to discover …. it WAS the SAME former A&P/IA who had misguided and attempted to cheat Bob years earlier.
He had managed to get hired and placed in a prominent/powerful position at the FTW-FSDO.
(I decided it would not prove fruitful for me to approach someone so likely to hold me in contempt.)

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying all, or even Any Other, FAA FSDO types are like that. (I’m also not certain that man is the same kind of man he once was….or, for that matter, if any of us are the same persons we once were.) I’m only giving a real example of how aircraft records can be INCOMPLETE and sometimes FICTION….and that just because someone possessing professional or official certificates does not prove any thing.
(“Trust..but Verify”-Ronald Reagan)

As David just proved in his post (quoted above)…. Only a Thorough and Personal and Full Inspection can reveal hidden and un-recorded factors….and Even THEN…. be suspicious. YMMV

When I am inspecting an aircraft ,I never read the logs first . It’s my belief that If you read the logs first you have an image in your mind what the aircraft is and maybe a “wow”factor has crept in. When inspecting I make written notes and then compare them to the log books .
I recently had a client that had inspected for purchase a Cessna 182 and rang me up all excited about the purchase. He asked me to have a “quick look “.
The aircraft had completed a 100 hrly [which I doubt] and it had the RAM STC. One look [30secs] from me and I pointed out it was a jump plane .
Any Maintenance done on this aircraft was just a paper work job. [OK, the oil had been changed ] . This aircraft was in terrible shape . It should not ever fly again. [ I have kept the photos of this aircraft to show the regulators if it crashes].
When I am doing an inspection ,i look at the condition of the aircraft [working rivets ,cracked /distorted airframe parts ,corrosion etc] but the biggest issue is bogus parts and mod status . Many airframe parts do not have numbers on them .
My client was very disappointed on my report and he then asked “Are you really sure about this ? It has a great paint job. “.
After a bit of research ,the owners of this aircraft had all ready had 2 aircraft crashes , with a loss of life . The owners had been banned from operating a sky dive operation.