A Co-incidence of Date of Construction

[poteroo]

VH-OSZ is a Cessna 170A which was rolled out the Cessna factory door on 11th September, 1950.  Yes, on 9/11 - the same date that 51 years later saw the terrorist attack on the USA. It was flown in the US by several owners, and in the 1990s it was exported to the Phillipines. Then it was purchased by a Melbourne helicopter operation and registered OSZ in Australia, with claimed 2500 hrs TT. We purchased it in 1992, and sold it in 2006, after having flown 2400 hrs on the airframe, and repainted it in WC Eagles colours!. It has since changed owners again, but has been really well maintained along the way. Thought it of interest that I present this info today. NB: we often flew it 'door off' for photoshoots.   happy days,

[Old Koreelah]

Wow! It’s older than me and still flying!

Can’t help comparing that with America’s car industry, which managed to convince people to buy a new one every year or two.

Imagine the roads filled with well-maintained Plymouths and De Sotos.

Like Cuba.

[red750]

Note the seat in the open door is reversed.

[Flightrite]

On 11/09/2021 at 9:25 AM, red750 said:

Note the seat in the open door is reversed.

That's cause they where so slow/gutless that looking fwd was pointless:-)

[rgmwa]

3 hours ago, Flightrite said:

That's cause they where so slow/gutless that looking fwd was pointless:-)

Dumb comment. 

[jackc]

1 hour ago, rgmwa said:

Dumb comment. 

Well, I got a little laugh out of it 🙂

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, rgmwa said:

Dumb comment. 

I'm beginning to wonder whether he flies at all.

[Flightrite]

That you will never know, but I love the fact that you are guessing:-)

[rgmwa]

39 minutes ago, Flightrite said:

That you will never know, but I love the fact that you are guessing:-)

And that’s obviously the real attraction. Pretty much sums up everything.

[poteroo]

On 12/09/2021 at 4:04 PM, Flightrite said:

That's cause they where so slow/gutless that looking fwd was pointless:-)

It was worth every cent I paid for it.  Flew it for 2400 hrs over 13 years.   It took me into almost every paddock in the WA wheatbelt:  with its' 8.00 tyres and just me up, it had very good soft surface performance. In the air it was reasonable too: 98-102 KTAS on 27 LPH.

 

I used it to deliver over 100 tailwheel endos, and the same in low level endos. Made a good trainer as the door sill was exactly the same height above ground as a C180/185,  and that was with a full size Scott 3200 tailwheel fitted.  It you could fly the 170,  and many found it quite a challenge,  most other tws were easy.

 

The reversed rh seat made air-to-air pics very easy.  We used it several times to get RV single ship shots. It was a bit too slow to do formation stuff. 

 

What the old 0-300 Conti lacked in power, it almost compensated for by being a very smooth running engine. It also ran on just about any grade of petrol. 

 

Horses for courses.

[facthunter]

Conversions of other Cessna's to TEXAS TAILDRAGGERS  produced some challenging ground handling planes too. I've a pair of magnetos with harness  for the 0-300 here if you are interested. Nev

[Flightrite]

The C170 was/is a classic looking machine, much improved with the lethargic Conty adding a Lyc 360, a common mood in the states:-)

[facthunter]

Much more "clunky" four compared with the ultra smooth six. Probably more practical though. The earlier 172's had an 0-300 also.Nev

[peterg]

18 hours ago, poteroo said:

It was worth every cent I paid for it.  Flew it for 2400 hrs over 13 years.   It took me into almost every paddock in the WA wheatbelt:  with its' 8.00 tyres and just me up, it had very good soft surface performance. In the air it was reasonable too: 98-102 KTAS on 27 LPH.

 

I used it to deliver over 100 tailwheel endos, and the same in low level endos. Made a good trainer as the door sill was exactly the same height above ground as a C180/185,  and that was with a full size Scott 3200 tailwheel fitted.  It you could fly the 170,  and many found it quite a challenge,  most other tws were easy.

 

The reversed rh seat made air-to-air pics very easy.  We used it several times to get RV single ship shots. It was a bit too slow to do formation stuff. 

 

What the old 0-300 Conti lacked in power, it almost compensated for by being a very smooth running engine. It also ran on just about any grade of petrol. 

 

Horses for courses.

I share your enthusiasm for the 170 - I have a few hours in them plus some in the 120 and 140.

I didn't find any of them to have challenging handling (I learn't in a Chippie) - if you want a challenge, try some of the short bodied Pipers.

 

I took 170's to lots of different paddocks and conditions etc including snow in France and dust in the Middle East - handled it all with grace and reliability. An A model like yours got me from the UK to Australia and around NZ in its inaugural and, I think, only around NZ air race - all in the days before the magenta line.

 

Those who criticise aircraft like the 170 probably don't like classic vintage aircraft and haven't experienced what a joy they are to fly - I include the Comanche 400 in that definition and it is not slow just a bugger to start when it's hot.

 

 

 

[Bosi72]

Discussing about vintage aircrafts, I learned to fly in 172N, but now mostly flying 61 years old 172A with conti o300c.

 

The difference is noticeable, much better forward visibility, lighter, easier on controls, lower 35kt Vso, smooth engine, less stress on engine, slightly lower fuel consumption. People say 5 cylinders can take you to the aerodrome vs. 3 (haven't experienced any), apparently better aluminium and better corrosion protection (although with non-environment friendly chemicals)..

 

.. On the other side no rear windows, 10-15kt slower, lower usable weight, smaller fuel tanks 140lit vs 190lit hence lower endurance 4hrs vs 5 hrs, ageing parts, more expensive overhaul, prone to fuel fauling and carb icing, but always leaning on ground and carby heat on whenever rpm is below green.. I can't think of any other "disadvantages"..

 

I am probably subjective when I say that joy is higher when I fly older aircraft..

 

 

[Methusala]

On 13/09/2021 at 8:02 AM, Flightrite said:

That you will never know, but I love the fact that you are guessing:-)

TROLL!

[facthunter]

A mate of mine was flying in the ME and instead of making an approach over the FAF from 3,000 feet he did a visual and joined final at about 600' or less. The F/O said Captain How did you do THAT?. HE at the end of a long day said "You will NEVER EVER know". and was most likely right. Nev