scott hayden

Hi Folks,

Ikon West has a new 1/5 Scale Cessna 170 Kit. I was wondering if anyone has built and flown this kit yet.

Any details would be great. I am seriously thinking of building one.

I have a full scale Cessna 140. See my photos. I may model the 170 after my full scale.

Thanks

Scott

GarySS

My Feedback: (13)

Hi Scott,
Yeah, I noticed the "intro" pictures in Model Aviation and RC Modeler. There just is something not right about the fidelity to scale in those pictures. I just visited their website for a few more pictures. There is a strange curve to the front of the fuselage where the cowl attaches. Looks like the cowl is too small or the fuse is to fat?? Pencil thin main gear, too. No wheel pants?? :cry: I was real excited when I first saw the announcement, but now I am really skeptical about the kit as a worthwhile project. And 12 pounds for a weight? You never see a magazine review of an Ikon subject, so it may be quite a while before we see any concrete information.

I sure wish a manufacturer would put out a really scale Cessna 170 or 185. :disappoin

Yak18

My Feedback: (11)

You are 100 percent right GarySS...that 170 from Ikon ain't even close to scale!!! Save your money Scott.

Ikon seems to be going downhill quick.

Yak

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

Does anyone know of a good model Cessna 170B? For any of you full scale guys, I would like around a 1952 styled one. My dad owns a 170 that I just soloed (only 3 months after my 16th birthday :angry: ). I love the full scale version of it, and I would like to try a model of one, even though scale isn't really my cup o tea. Thanks alot!

GarySS

My Feedback: (13)

Here is a good example of a 170B (1952, I believe). Does anyone have any polish handy?: http://www.russellw.com/photoalbum/p...sp?qModel=e170

Acroman330: You might give William an email as he has some plans/partial kits for a 170: [email protected]

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

Thanks Gary!

It looks like a '52 because of the rounded rear window (which they changed in 1954 I believe). It also could be a 1953 but I can't see the cowl intakes. Normally the spinner would be a give-away to the later style cowl, but ours had a spinner just like that one, which we switched to a skull cap because it was a pain in the butt to try and take the cowling on and off

What kind of covering material other than Chrome Ultracote (or Monokote) is there to get that highly polished effect?

linclogs

I'm not sure exactly which model it is (B?) but I like the old Berkeley Cessna 170. It's a little smaller - it's 1/6 (or 2") scale. I'm starting to work on one right now. You can often find these but the prices on Berkeley kits are really starting to climb. I'm glad I got mine several years ago.

I recently ran accross a project in the April 1995 issue of RC Modeler for a 1/6 scale Cessna O1E/L-19 Bird Dog. I never really paid much attention before but when I really started looking, I believe the Bird Dog is pretty much the same airframe as the 170, except the fuselage does not taper from the trailing edge of the wing to the fin. Instead, the fuselage is flat on the top from the base of the rear window to the fin. This was to allow for the "observation" configuration. But the wing, vertical and horizontal stabilizers, landing gear and cowl all look like straight 170 parts. The plans in RCM stated there was a cowl available from Fiberglass Specialities (http://www.fiberglassspecialtiesinc.com/). When I checked their website, sure enough - they still offer the cowl for the Bird Dog (part# RCM-1189). I have one on order now. This will save the time of carving and sanding a cowl from the balsa blocks provided in the Berkeley kit.

The Bird Dog project also mentions some pre-formed, simulated "Cessna type" skins (for making the corrugated control surfaces) available from SIG. These were apparently crimped plastic sheets with 1/2" spacing, but, unfortunately, an email to SIG came back with a reply they recently discontinued these. Darn! I sure hate the thought of gluing on dozens of tiny sticks to simulate the corrugated surfaces! Anyone got an idea for these?




The photo, below, is from the box top of the Berkeley kit.

linclogs

I believe the Berkeley kit shows promise for a nice rendition of Cessna's 170.

My plan is to paint it silver, with the very traditional maroon trim. I went to my local airport and located an example (though in pretty rough shape!) of the paint scheme I want to use on my model. The kit plans don't show any details for wheelpants so I also took some photos of the full scale wheelpants from different angles. By eyeballing the photos, I penciled in the pants right on the plans. Then I carved and finished a mold from soft sugar pine, and drew some wheelpants using a vacuum machine I designed last year. I know they aren't scale, but think they will still look pretty good when finished with the paint scheme of the model, and they seem to "look" right.

The photos, below, show the full-scale example and the result of one I made. By the way, the wheel is a 3" Du-Bro (treaded). I don't know if this is scale to the real aircraft. But that's what the kit calls for. I would think a 3" wheel at 2" scale would mean the real tire would be about 18". Would that be correct (you full-scale 170 owners)?

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

Yes, that is a B model because it has a dorsal fin on the rudder and one lift strut on each side. There are also subtle differences between the cowling and the rear window of the "B" models. The 1952 models have the early 170 cowling and rear window (rounded). The 1953 170's changed to the new style cowling which was used up until 1957 on the Cessna 172, when I think they changed the nosebowl. In 1954 they changed to the squred off rear window, and I think they switched to the Continental O-300 (which is really the same engine as the Continental C-145 that they used up to that point.)

The full scale tires on my 170 are 6.00x6. That would make the diameter of the full scale tire 18". Hope this helps.

GarySS

My Feedback: (13)

linclogs
Are you going to use ailerons on the Berkeley kit? I found an old Sig kit of the 1952 B model, 72" span, but it was rubber banded on wing with no ailerons, and some polyhedral in the wing. I didn't buy the kit, but copied the plans. Adding ailerons, flaps, etc looks like a big job.

Are you building the Berkeley kit in a totally stock format?

linclogs

Ryan:
If the full scale 170 has an 18" tire, then the Berkeley model must be fairly accurate, although I know they often designed in extra dihedral (for inherant stability) and often would increase the size of the vertical and horizontal stabilizers to make better flying models. But the proportions "look right" on the plans.


Gary:
Yes, the plans call for the wing to be rubber banded on. I'll change that to bolt-on in my case. The plans show the outline for the ailerons and flaps but don't cover building them. I'll definitely add ailerons - haven't decided on flaps yet. I've never tried flaps on a model but I hear a lot of guys say they aren't really that effective or don't give the anticipated results anyway. But I think they would look neat.

Adding ailerons is not hard to do. I won't be using scale hinges - this will be a "stand off scale" model. I was never much for building something that you can't see when you step back 10 feet and also can't see when the model is flying. As long as it "looks real while flying", I'm satisfied. Not to put down what the die-hard scale guys like to do - it's just not my thing. I admire someone that can spend hundreds (thousands?) of hours making the most minute detail. I just don't have the patience for it! Besides, If I lost such a masterpiece in a crash, I know I'd cry!

As you probably know (but for those that may not), Berkeley kits were acquired by Fox (the same Fox that makes the model engines) back in the early 60's (I believe), and later they sold the kit line to SIG. I don't know if Fox kitted the Cessna 170 (I'm not saying they didn't - I've just never seen one) but I know SIG produced the 170. I recall their version had a molded plastic cowl - a departure from the Berkeley method of carving and sanding the cowl from supplied balsa blocks.

I don't know if SIG did any re-design of the 170 - other than providing the plastic cowl. The Berkeley version was only drawn as a single channel, rudder only (using a rubber band powered escapement!). No throttle or elevator is shown on the plans, although the elevator outline is shown.

My plan shows the wing does not have polyhedral - only dihedral, and I would bet the amount of dihedral was probably increased from scale since it was a "rudder only" model.

While updating these old kits to multi-channel operation may seem like a lot of work, it's sure easier than trying to scratch build one! You just sort of have to redesign as you go, but the basic airframe is all there in the kit.

I've also got one of Berkeley's old Waco Cabin Bipe (52" span) - another future project (see photo below - it's a picture from the kit box). I've already made some molded wheelpants for this one, too. I really love the old Berkeley scale kits, but you've got to be ready to do some real "building" when you tackle one of these!

GarySS

My Feedback: (13)

Interesting. The Sig plans that I copied (and blew up by 112%) must have be very close to the Berkeley design.

I have been contemplating contacting Great Planes to request they design and come out with an up to date kit of the Cessna 170. I don't know how many they would need to sell to consider it worthwhile but it sounds like there are a few of us that would be interested. LOL. Their Cessna 182 is a fairly close to scale appearing design, so the more simple lines of the 170 would be feasible to do.

linclogs

I received the fiberglass cowl I had on order from Fiberglas Specialties (www.fiberglassspecialtiesinc.com/) yesterday (see photo, below). While it is quite a bit longer than necessary, it is nice to have the extra length to work with to get a correct fit. If cut approximately on the dashed line, I would think it should be just about right. Also note one of the vacuum formed wheelpants I made, laying on the plans over the wheel. As mentioned before, I penciled in the pants on the plans by eyeballing some photos I took of some full scale wheelpants on a 170 at my local airport. Then I carved and finished a mold based on the sketch. I don't claim it's scale - but I feel it "looks about right".

linclogs

Upon receiving the glass cowl, I couldn't help but notice the air intakes didn't seem to match the ones shown on the 3-view of the Berkeley Cessna 170 kit. I should mention, again, the cowl from Fiberglass Specialties was originally designed for a Cessna 0-1E/L-19 "Bird Dog" project from the April 1995 issue of RC Modeler. The 3-view drawings on the Berkeley kit showed intakes that were tapered and much more rounded on the outsides (near the outsides of the cowl) than what is molded into the glass cowl. What's really funny is the Berkeley plans show just sort of an open-front cowl...nothing at all like scale. Rather disappointing since the rest of the plans seem exceptional. I did a seach of the internet for photos of full scale 170's and did find many examples of cowls with both the rounded intakes, and the more rectangular versions. Note the one blue and white 170 in the photo montage has the tapered and rounded intakes, while the other 3 aircraft have the more rectangular ones. So I guess either shape is acceptable.

So, you full-scale owners, why the different cowl intake shapes? I would guess it has something to do with which engine is under the cowl?

I think this is going to be a fun project. Now if only someone can recommend an easy way to simulate the corrugated control surfaces - I still hate the thought of gluing on dozens of tiny sticks! Anybody???

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

linclogs,

First of all, your wheelpants look very nice.

Second, the reason for the different cowl intakes is not because of different engines. When I mentioned the two engines, the Continental C-145 and Continental O-300, they are essentially the same engine. They are both six-cylinder, horizontally opposed, carburated engines that are 300 square inches in displacement and produce 145 hp. I do not know the reason behind the designation change, but that is just the way that it is. The reason for the two different cowl intakes is because they changed the cowl design in 1953, which incidentally is when they "changed" the engine. From 1948 to 1952, the cowling was the same and is the one that is small and square. Some 170's like ours which is a 1952 have screens on the backside of the intake that were optional that were called in the handbook bird guards. The full scale ones are about 1/16" in diameter and the make about a 3/8" squares. I'm sure some real coarse screen from a screen porch would do the trick to imitate this if you are wanting to build a 1952 model. There are also three or four stiffners for the opening for the straight 170 up through the first year B model and those are rectangular and rounded on the front. they are about 1/8" thick and 1/4" wide. If you want a 1953 or later model, I would say that you could mix some epoxy and microballoons and shape the center stiffner.

Top Flite did make plastic corrugations for their Skylane, but they might be too big for your airplane that you are building. Also if you look, the are split diagonally, so they are triangles.

On a side note, good way to tell if someone has retrofitted a different engine from the Continental to look at the exhaust exits. The Continentals had two smaller stacks in the front and many people that have converted to 180 hp. Lycomings only have 1 large stack. I'm not sure about Franklins, as they are also popular conversions.

That's pretty good for a 16 year old isn't it?

GarySS

My Feedback: (13)

linclogs

What little I can see of your forward fuselage plans are very similar to the Sig plans!

Other questions for you: How will you attach the wing to the fuselage? The issue that I would like to addressed in my case is the minimization of that large plywood joiner that is common on many modern kits with one piece wings and dowels.

Will you build each wing panel flat on your building board and then add the dihedral at the point where they join the center section which rest on the fuselage?

OT: You can view a lot of 170 pictures on www.airliners.net, (sort on Other Cessna. You can pick out the cowls by model year from the description in some cases.

I am impressed with your project.

linclogs

Ryan:
That's very good for a 16 year old! Thanks for all the great info.

Gary:
The SIG plans SHOULD be the same as the Berkeley plans - in the cases I've seen where SIG produced what were Berkeley kits (and they did NOT re-draw anything) they (SIG) just changed the box in the lower right hand corner to show "SIG" rather than "Berkeley".

I know what you mean about "the minimization of that large plywood joiner that is common on many modern kits with one piece wings and dowels". The best solution I can think of is trying to paint the interior (the parts that show through the windshield) with a subdued color so as not to bring attention to the joiner. If you notice, a lot of times folks tend to just leave it as bare wood, which sticks out like a sore thumb!

Yes, I'll build the wing as you describe. That's also the way the plans call for it to be done. The only thing I might change, would be the amount of dihedral if it looks like too much has been designed in. Remember, this was designed as a single channel, "rudder only" model. The usual practice was to design in extra dihedral for inherent stability. It's not needed if using "full house" controls.