New forum member

[jm89g]

Hello dear C-170 enthusiasts !
I'm a french private pilot living in Senegal, former owner of a Broussard, then a Stampe, both sold when I moved from France to Africa.
I'm now looking for a nice 4 seaters taildragger to enjoy flying in Africa with wife and two boys, and C-170 seems to be a good choice (Or Stinson 108 but I'm not in the right place to talk about Stinsons )
I have targeted some 170s, -A and -Bs and it would be nice to gather owners opinions about the fabric wing vs metal wing before making this vital decision of purchasing a C-170.
Thanks to all for your warm welcome and now I will navigate through this forum.
Greetings from Dakar !
Jean-Michel

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

As you will find the '48 is the only year with a fabric wing. Otherwise the airframe is the same as a metal wing A. Generally the '48s have not been loaded with equipment over the years and you will find them to be lighter than a metal wing. Some feel the aileron authority of the '48 is not what the metal wing is. Most '48 pilots think the aileron authority is fine. Flaps on all three models are not the same. The B model having the biggest most effective flaps. '48 and A model pilots don't miss the big flaps because they use different just as effective techniques like a slip and good piloting rather than rely on larger flaps to make up for the lack there off. You should NEVER slip a B model with flaps, it can be deadly. And the good news it there really never is a reason to have to slip and deploy flaps.

Besides that there are those that would never have a fabric airplane and they don't like the '48 and there are those who don't like the spam can metal wings. To each his own.

We recommend you buy the best example of any 170 model you find which is more important that what model. There are plenty of bush pilots flying '48 and A models though many would only consider a B for that purpose. If your not going in the bush any model is as good as the other.

[Ryan Smith]

As you will find the '48 is the only year with a fabric wing. Otherwise the airframe is the same as a metal wing A. Generally the '48s have not been loaded with equipment over the years and you will find them to be lighter than a metal wing. Some feel the aileron authority of the '48 is not what the metal wing is. Most '48 pilots think the aileron authority is fine. Flaps on all three models are not the same. The B model having the biggest most effective flaps. '48 and A model pilots don't miss the big flaps because they use different just as effective techniques like a slip and good piloting rather than rely on larger flaps to make up for the lack there off. You should NEVER slip a B model with flaps, it can be deadly. And the good news it there really never is a reason to have to slip and deploy flaps.

Besides that there are those that would never have a fabric airplane and they don't like the '48 and there are those who don't like the spam can metal wings. To each his own.

We recommend you buy the best example of any 170 model you find which is more important that what model. There are plenty of bush pilots flying '48 and A models though many would only consider a B for that purpose. If your not going in the bush any model is as good as the other.

I can echo what Bruce said, though I have not flown a ragwing. If anyone in our membership would like to change that, I'd be happy to buy the fuel.

That said, I have the lion's share of my total flight time in a 1952 170B. I have flown three or four other B models, and an A model. The a couple of the B models were highly modified, and one of the B models was as original as it rolled out of the factory. Mine is fairly original with no major modifications. The A model was the same.

I find the weight of the elevator of the earlier 170s the bigger difference between them and the B models than anything to do with the smaller flaps or lack of dihedral. The all fly great, and there are plenty of guys flying ragwings and A models that can extract more performance from them than an average pilot schlepping around in a modified B model.

Get the best example of any model you can afford. The rest is just noise and shades of gray.

[jm89g]

Thanks a lot Bruce and Ryan for your valuable information ! I have seen a lot of 170s for sale, most of them in the USA, some of them polished aluminium. I like the early 170 with their rounded wingtips. I will ship the 170 to Dakar where I live and fly, it will be the only example of 170 there of course, and the only tailwheel to fly in Senegal. I think a -A would be the best as hot and moist climate must not be suitable for a ragwing, and almost permanent crosswind would be more challenging for a -B with larger flaps.

If any member knows an early 170 or a -A for sale, leave me a private message it would be GREAT !!

Have a look on my Broussard: http://240.mh-1521.fr/ and my Stampe: http://stampe.cornette.fr/ (Both now sold )

[GAHorn]

Jean, WELCOME...and please allow me to add my opinions to this conversation.
The '48 fabric wing version (sometimes referred to as a "ragwing") has some internal wing parts which are virtually impossible to find, and if damaged, will have to be custom manufactured. The approval processes of these parts could be a serious issue for an airplane maintained in accordance with some foreign authorities, however if you possess a U.S. pilot certificate and keep the airplane in U.S. registry may not be an issue.
The '48 uses the same ailerons as the C120/140 aircraft and does indeed have a slightly slower "roll rate".

The A-models and B-models, if similarly equipped, were actually a few pounds lighter than the ragwing when first produced, due to less internal structure to stiffen the fabric wings.

The chief advantage of a B model over the A, is the availability of parts, particularly 1953 and later cowling, empennage, and wing parts, and some cabin-ventilation/heating and fuel system parts, as the B-model was the prototype for development of both the Cessna 172 and the military L-19, which share many, many parts in-common, many are in New-Old-Stock Inventories, and some parts of which are still in production. This is one reason the B-model generally enjoys a higher price than the other models.

Otherwise, the B model has only slight performance advantages over the A and original fabric versions, while enjoying only slightly lighter elevator control-forces.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

When commenting on parts availability on the rag wing George may not have thought about it but there are also parts on the A model wing that are hard to source. The flaps and associated parts are only found on other parted out A models for example.

I have never and would never interpolate the A model with it's differences to the B model, to be a better aircraft for cross winds than the B. I'm basing this on having flown both many times in crosswinds only crazy helicopter pilots would fly in.

Fact is having owned both types of airframes, the idea that I could do something in one that I could not do in the other has never entered my mind. OK that is with the excepting of slipping with flaps which you can do all day long in an A and should never do in a B. But that point has no relevance because it is not a limitation of the B because there is never a reason to have to slip the B with the semi-fowler flaps.

[GAHorn]

That's correct. I'd thought of it but the A is so much more plentiful that it's differences are more easily addressed when it comes to parts (as opposed to the ragwing.)

And just to be accurate, (I'm certainly not attempting to correct Bruce, ...he was only being succinct, I'm sure)...but the B-model should not be slipped with FULL flaps deployed (and it actually SHOULD be a "limitation" in the sense that in todays certification environment it would likely be placarded as a prohibition on operating limits.) If I may paraphrase, ..what Bruce is correctly referring to is that the 48 170 and the A-model have no limitations or restrictions against slipping with flaps at all, ... while the B-model should never be slipped with full flaps deployed.

(The full-flap-deployment introduces a downward-relative-wind immediately forward of the horizontal-stabilizer/elevator, which in-effect is an increased angle-of-attack for that control surface to the point of bringing it to a stall. If a slip is also introduced, the fuselage will "blank" out the opposite-side horiz-stab/elevator, and the nearly-stalled half of the stab/elevator on the same-side as the slip can suddenly dump the nose downward, while the cross-controlled rudder introduces a spin.... with little chance of recovery in less than a thousand-feet (or more) for the surprised pilot.)
The same limitation applies to early 172 aircraft that have 40-degree flap capability. (one of several reasons Cessna later reduced the full-flap deflection on those aircraft.)

[DaveF]

If you plan to fly four people you may want to consider an airplane with a 180hp engine conversion. They are expensive but the extra power will get you away from the ground a lot faster. Also, parts for Lycomings are more available than parts for O-300s. Not that the stock airplane is inadequate, but extra rate of climb is welcome in high density altitude conditions. Just my opinion, living at 5000 msl.

[jm89g]

If you plan to fly four people you may want to consider an airplane with a 180hp engine conversion. They are expensive but the extra power will get you away from the ground a lot faster. Also, parts for Lycomings are more available than parts for O-300s. Not that the stock airplane is inadequate, but extra rate of climb is welcome in high density altitude conditions. Just my opinion, living at 5000 msl.

For the few next years it will be 2 adults and 2 children about 60 lbs each, altitude zero, temp between 17°C and 40°C. Should be OK ?

[DaveF]

Having no experience with a stock 170 at sea level, I'll leave that question for someone else to answer.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Generally speaking, with two adults, 200 lbs each, and 120 lbs of little people in the back from a 3000 ft or so runway, with half full tanks from 17c to about 32c at sea level, you will be OK. There are so many variables. Are there any winds down the runway? Is there an obstacle at the end of the runway you need to clear? Are you departing off of grass or asphalt?

No obstacles or headwinds you could feel comfortable with more gas.

All this of course is dependent on what accent rate you are comfortable with. Your not going to be going up very fast. 400ft a minute at the hotter end.

You may be fine over 32c but quite frankly I wouldn't want to sit in a 170 much over 32c and it's going to take a long time to climb to a cooler altitude and your not going to do it with full tanks.

My experience is with A and B models, stock C-145 and a standard prop. A climb prop will be better and a cruise prop worse.

Now as Dave points out a 170 with a Lycoming 180 is a whole different ball game. If you by one with a Lycoming you will likely never be unhappy you did. Unless of course you find out you don't have adequate documentation of the Lycoming installation to make the airplane legal. Many Lycoming powered 170s are severely lacking in the documentation department.

[n2582d]

Jean-Michel,

Welcome! You're following in the footsteps of the legendary Antoine de Saint-Exupe´ry to Dakar. Should be an interesting experience. I'd be fascinated to hear more about general aviation flying in Senegal.

At the risk of sounding like a traitor, from a maintenance standpoint I'd suggest you consider a Piper. Take a look at the list of registered aircraft in Senegal here. You'll find that Pipers far outnumber Cessnas. So first, you're more likely to find maintenance technicians that are familiar with Pipers. Second, Piper corrosion-proofed their aluminum aircraft much better than Cessna did. Based on the coast corrosion control is going to be a large part of your preventative maintenance. Whatever aircraft you purchase get familiar with Corrosion-X, Boeshield, and ACF-50.

The other aircraft I thought of was something from Aerospatiale -- a Rallye, Tampico, Tobago, Trinidad or from Robin -- thinking getting parts for these would be much easier in that part of the world than for a C-170. In any case, it appears finding something powered by a Lycoming would be easier to maintain in Senegal. But if you're set on a taildragger what about a PZL Wilga?

P.S. What's with all the De Havilland Dove's in Senegal? I count ten that are registered in Senegal -- three flying, two destroyed, and five scrapped. Is that where Doves go to die? They even have a De Havilland 89 Dominie (military version of the Rapide) in the registry. Now that would be an interesting restoration project. ... Or, if you're very ambitious, there is a scrapped Lockheed Constellation waiting to be restored there.

[jm89g]

Gary,

Having flown to the main airports of Senegal, I'm pretty sure that there is no more than 15 or 20 general aviation planes here. Dakar aeroclub owns 3 PA-28 160, small taxi companies own a few more PA-28s, one Cheyenne, two light piper twins, I've once seen a C-150, a private owns a TB-20 (PH registered), then a few french registered ULMs and that's all !
No more Dove, Constellations etc... At Saint Louis rests a PA-32 wreckage, wheels up landing (F-registered). Unfortunately, Senegal authorities don't allow amphibious I had a very clean FN-333 Riviera in view, which would be the perfect bird.
I'm still found of the C-170 B !

[n2582d]

Jean-Michel,
Broussard, Stampe, FN-333 Riviera ... Please disregard any advice I gave about finding an easy to maintain aircraft! I think you need to track down that de Havilland Rapide. What's the price per liter of avgas? Or would you be using auto gas if you were to buy a C-170?

I'd never heard of the Riviera. Looks like their designers were trading notes with the Seebee designers. How unfortunate the government won't allow you to fly one there. We had a similar experience in Maluku, Indonesia. Our organization was hoping to purchase a turbine Grumman Goose to fly between remote islands. The government thought we might use it to fly rebel guerrillas so that plan never got off the ground. We also considered adding amphibious floats to our Piper Aztec but the performance wasn't there for our intended operation.

[MoonlightVFR]

A PLZ Wilga

Really


I have wondered in the past about the Wilga showing up a Cessna 170 Convention.

In 1985 I was in Poland and viewed the WILGA factory. They were very proud to mfg the aircraft.

It is a Very unique Taildragger.

STOL for four.