Has anyone rigged a 175 with a rear block kit for a 170? Craig, I see you use to run a 170, do you see any advantage, especially if already converted to TG and looking at other float options? I just spent eight days up at Trapper Lake watching everyone else enjoy some great sunny and 65 degree flying weather. Too hot for the moose though, bull-winkle is safe for another year!

I think that Ron Bell may have used a setup like this for his 2200's.

People say that a nose wheel float plane is not as good as a tailwheel because you have to attach the front float fittings to the firewall instead of the gear holes. Any damage to the firewall would be very expensive from a hard landing, where as the gear slots are stout.

Dont know how true, but sounds resonable. Installation of a 170 float kit is less parts and I would think cheaper than a 175. The 170 float kit I would think is the easiest installation of cessna float kits.

My first question is "Is it legal". A 175 is still a 175 even if its been converted to TW. I would assume it would take a field approval, to install a 170 float kit. As we know thats not as easy as it used to be.

Craig

That is why they don't use 206's for floatplanes...

It would change the geometry a bit but would it make in difference in handling for a 175? Seems like you would have to have the same basic reference in weight and balance while sitting on the water with reference to the stations on the floats, so would the rigging eventually put the floats in the same location?

I can't remember if I had that discussion with Joe or Dave the first time I saw the 175 on Baumann floats, but one of them made the case that the rear blocks take the most abuse for normal landings on floats, so the main landing gear box on the 175 is actually a stouter attach point than the rear blocks of a conventional gear aircraft.

Have not seen other 175's on floats and was not sure if other brands (EDO, PEEKAY, etc.) attached to pork chops on the rear gear or if they require rear blocks installed. The 170 rear float block kit includes large doublers, partial bulkheads and curved rib-like structure along the bottom of the fuselage. It looks a lot less complicated than the beef-up kit needed for the front of the cabin & firewall, and the already weak engine mount assembly.

Not sure about the rigging issues, there must be some difference in strategy though, since different floats have different characteristics and some are classified as deep water as opposed to lighter weight or shallow draft floats seen inland.

Well, the leaves have turned here and we had 24 degrees this morning, so my thoughts are turning to fitting a pair of Landes 2500's to the cub soon!

Erik,

There are lots of 206s on floats. I cant imagine they are steller performers on floats, but they haul a ton.

I seen alot of 182 converted to floats lately. 180s were getting very expensive and 182 are cheap comparitively. I hear they perform just as well as a 180, and that makes sense as they are just a 180 with a nose wheel.

Craig

Im in ND yet, hoping to get home to fly my plane this weekend.

Ditto on the 206 on floats. We flew out of Kaswitna Lake in a U-206 (rear cargo suicide door) for the short hop to Trapper Lake. The three of us were about 800 lbs on the hoof, plus all our gear for two weeks of hunting. The float rigging I have seen for the 206 attaches to the nose gear frame. It is completely different from ours and is hell-bent for stout!

Craig, I am shopping for a set of Edo 2000's for the cub, any good leads you know of in this area? Been a little breezy and wet here, but I have the "paper" airplane just about broke in now.

Funny, nobody seem to get my joke. Notice the little guy with his tongue sticking out? My point was that the 206 is one of the prime heavy haulers on floats in the light aircraft category worldwide, and they are nosewheel. It was just a remark commenting about the post that said: "People say that a nose wheel float plane is not as good as a tailwheel".

Cheers!

Enjoy your trip Craig!

Erik,

It's okay really...we just don't kid about our 206's up here! In addition to float duty, they run them on huge tundra tires, straight skis, even equip them with mud-flaps. Out west they fit them with the Capstone ADS-B and keep flying through anything that blows in off the Bering Sea. Up north along the Arctic coast they run them year round, even in the serious cold/dark all winter.

And, despite the photos you may see of the the pristine mountains, forest and streams the environmentalist would have people think makes up ANWR, that place is a flat treeless mosquito farm in the summer and a featureless white expanse with few navigation aids (a compass does really weird stuff the closer you get to the pole and magnetic variation is -21 degrees east down here) or landmarks in the winter. With enough oil under it to keep us in AVgas for a long time though!

There are 206 pilots up here that can fly one into spots that I would not even consider taking the cub into (I'm working on that though).

So no advantage to the 170 float kit, how about the 160 hp conversion/STC for the 175? Now that I have bonded with the 12, I am thinking the 175 might become an inexpensive trainer for the next generation.

Doc,

That should be an easy score as most cub pilots are drooling over the new aerocet floats certified for cubs. I would bet if you ask at floats alaska they can turn you on to a set. They are the aerocet dealer and will likely have lots of people trying to trade them in.

I dont specifically know of any though.

Craig

Good Point Craig, who did you work with at Floats AK? I had to dip into my float fund to finish up the "paper" airplane, so that gives me some encouragment! Hope you are back and able to take advantage of this great weather we have been getting before pulling your floats. I have almost 20 hours on this new engine and only had to pre-heat once. Flew up to Trapper Lake last night and got some great pics of Mt. McKinley, Hunter & Foraker all lined up.

I spoke with an aerospace engineer that ties down near me and he says the local ACO should be able to help with a coordinated field approval to put a 160 hp on the 175, (under 10% hp change rule), especially if it uses C-172 parts that deliver at least 172 performance. The engine mount for the later model 172's with a 160 hp should fit the stepped firewall, but I need more info on cowling (prop spacer?) and weight & balance, since it will be lighter in the nose. Even if I have to drop back to 2,200 lb gross weight (early 172 gross), my empty weight should be under 1500 for a useful of at least 700 lbs.

I suppose the float option may go out the window, but it should still make a good trainer and economical for quick hops locally, although, the larger fuel capacity would actually extend the range considerably. It should still out-perform the early 172's with the heavier 145 hp O-300.

Doc,

I deal with Richard. The owner is good to work with too, I cant remember his name right now.

They have my 74" Hartzell. I need to check up on it. They were either going to buy it from me or sell it on consignment.

I dont need it anymore as Im running the MT. I thought I might need the Hartzell when I went back on wheels as I may not have the required ground clearance. Turned out OK. I just dont plan on too many gravel strips while on wheels.

Craig