Mistaken Identity?

[6863]

A friend of mine in MN went to a flyin in Osceola last week and took this picture of what he said is a 170. I told him it is not a 170 but is instead a 140. He then sent me the faa.gov registration info which sure enough says it is a 170. I'm curious.

IMG_1349.jpeg (64.58 KiB) Viewed 4715 times

https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquir ... rTxt=4098V

[6643]

The original 170 is very similar to the 140. 2 more cylinders and 2 more seats...

[6298]

Much bigger elevator. Looks like the rudder is, too. Can’t see the windshield, but the 170’s had a split windshield..

[2066]

At a distance, the entry step is a clue, 'though with rag wings they can surely appear similar to a 140, especially from a distance. Just from memory, it seems that in addition to stretching the fuselage, rib(s) were added to the wings and an additional fuel tank was added to one wing(?). ...also, maybe came initally with the C-145 that became the 0-300? I believe they used the 140 gear (sans the step holes) which was good testimony to the toughness of the gear. Haven't seen one in several years. Beautiful airplane...but, then, aren't they all? Mac

[simonlowther]

Another clue might be the horns on the tail feathers, correct me if I am wrong but 140 is sans horns.

Si

[4004]

Yes! Good catch - some things are so easily missed. Flew one in the late 40/50s - just an overgrown 140!

[6863]

The entry step and elevator horn have me convinced. The two piece wing struts thew me. The tail feathers may be larger but their proximity to the camera vs the other end of the airplane make them look even larger so I did not let that influence my perception.

Thanks guys for setting me straight.

[meloosifah]

Definitely an early 170 - as others mentioned: larger control surfaces on tail, step, extended fuselage, double struts. Nice plane!

[V529]

No skylights.............