1948 C170 versu C170A/B

[LRF]

How does the performance of the wing design of the 1948 C170 compare to that modified for the C170 A & B? In particular, is one better suited for crosswind landings? Are the smaller ailerons of the original 170 design a negative?

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

We A/B operators like our BIG ailerons.

Seriously as has been discussed here many times in the past. The major factor in the capability differences of each model of aircraft has more to do with the pilot and his skill than the differences with each model.

I have most of my 170 time in a B model and several hours in an A and just a few landings in a '48.

If my choice at purchase came down to one of each model I'd buy the one that was in the best condition for the price regardless of the model. If they where of equal value and price then it would most likely come down to the paint scheme with a slight favor going to the B model if it was a later "53 or '54. I'd lightly favor those years of B model not because of the ailerons or flaps but because of improvements in the cabin heat system.

[LRF]

Thank you 9149A. Most of your time is in a B, but you have an A? I sure like the visual lines of the '48 and they appear to be less expensive. Maybe that's because of the fabric. I am new to this and just concerened that they may have less aerodynamics in some respect. They changed the wing design in the later models for some reason, maybe it was manufacturing/economics related. Stall speed for the '48 is I believe 52 flaps up/49 flaps down vs 50/45 for the B. I am open to any other obserevations.

[doug8082a]

This was discussed quite a while back. See if this thread answers any questions for you...

http://cessna170.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1240

[cessna170bdriver]

LRF,

Like Bruce said, there is more variation in pilot skill and technique than variation in performance among the three models of 170. So most likely it will boil down to the airplane in the best condition in your price range, and your personal preferences.

For stock 170’s, if you lay the three owners manuals down side by side and compare performance, and you think you need one over the other for a particular operation, you probably don't need to be performing that operation. For example, the A-model's published stall speed is 49mph with flaps, where the B-model is 52. It's most likely that there's more variation than that in airspeed indicators. Besides, if you think you might not get stopped on the available runway by landing at 52, you probably don't need to try it at 49 either.

Most of my time is in my B-model. I have a few hours of stick time in A model, and the feel of the plane in the air is virtually undistinguishable. Theoretically, I guess the B-model with its dihedral should be more stable in roll, but I really couldn't tell the difference. I've never flown a ragwing so I can't comment there.

I looked at both A’s and B’s when I was shopping. The only reason I didn’t look at ragwings was that there weren’t any available in my area at the time. I basically chose the B-model that I have because of its 1250 hours TTAFE, which was about half the average at the time. Also, since I’m a ’55 model, I thought it would be cool to have a ’55 model airplane. (I also had a ’55 Ford F-150 pickup at the time).

There are many more minor differences between the three models of 170 (and even within each model), such as instrument panel layout, tailwheel steering geometry, cowling design, rear window shape, etc. These differences are pretty well detailed in "The 170 Book" available on the merchandise page of the web site.

There will be prime examples of original and custom 170’s representing each of the three models at the convention next month in Dearborn, MI. Come on by and take a look for yourself.

Happy Hunting!!
Miles

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Thank you 9149A. Most of your time is in a B, but you have an A?

If you look close at my signature it says sort of after A model. My aircraft has been modified and more closely represents a 52 B model. I bought it because it was the one I found and it grew on me. I was very happy flying my friends '49 A model and had one of those appeared that is what I would own. Actually I was prepared to buy a '48 Ragwing. On the day I was to make an offer on the '48 I had a heart attack. Being tied up in the hospital another friend with out knowledge of my interest in the plane, bought it. It's know owned by yet another friend and fellow TIC170A member.

As you will read elsewhere there certianly are differences in the aircraft. If you plan on pushing one envelope or another to the edge and beyond or you have a specific job you need to accomplish with the plane then perhaps there is one better model than the other. But like I said and know many here will back up the biggest difference in any of the models is the pilot in the seat.

Now if your talking the difference between red or green paint that is another story

[3958v]

When looking for a 170 the three most important things are condition, condition and condition. I was looking for a B model when I found a nice ragwing and bought it. Its now eleven years later and I am still happy with my decision. Just find a nice airplane and you will be happy with any 170 they are not that much different by model but they sure can be based on condition. Bill K

[jrenwick]

I have a friend who likes the ragwing because, he says, it may weigh less, carry more, and perform better. It may be worth looking closely enough at a few aircraft to see how the empty weights run, and think about how much useful load you need. I have a B model, and it's pretty heavy at 1406 pounds empty (many B's are closer to 1300). I'm told there have been ragwings that weigh less than 1100 pounds empty, and all 170 models have the same maximum of 2200 pounds.

Best Regards,

John

[trake]

A modells have a heavier elevator feel-no counterweights. You have to be on the trim. B models have a lighter more harmonized feell IMHO The 55 has the 10 degree flap setting-optimum for normal takeoff. Theyre all good-go for condition not model

[mrpibb]

I have owned my 48 for over two years now and put over 180 hrs on it since I bought it, yea sure I was looking for a A or B model but when I came across my ragwing at first I wasn't expecting much, but being it wasn't going to cost me anything to go for a test flight I went. needless to say I bought it, with a standard prop she gave me a honest 118 mph at 2400 rpm at about 2000ft and would max out at 2650 at 132mph indicated. with my 76/50 prop I cruise at 108 to 110 mph at 2500 rpm and 2400 rpm gives me about 100 mph. The 48 handles differently than the A/B models, It flys like a older Cessna 140, a little lethargic on the ailerons so you will need to be johnny on the spot with your aileron control corrections in a cross wind. The wing has not as much lift at the slower speeds as it's A/B brothers, it needs speed to fly which means also come in a little fast and you tend to float, the flaps are cute but thats it, it gives you some lift and drag but thats it. Slips are real fun, I could be at pattern altitude abeam the numbers, pull power and head for the threshold in a full slip right to landing and stopping in about 700 ft just like them super cub boys. Takeoffs at close to gross weight you burn up runway, it's all about speed, I find that I will become airborne at about 55 to 60 mph but I need to get to 75 to 85 mph to get any kind of climb. the book says 89 mph and seems to be pretty darn close on the performance figures. Yesterday I flew with a friend oat was 82deg den alt 1900ft and about 150lb from gross weight, I used 1300 ft to get airborne and another 1500 feet to clear my 50ft obs. but once I got to about 80 mph I was climbing at 800 ft per min. Stalls are fun with the straight wing, I love the way it does wing overs and lazy eights. The ragwing has a very nostalgic feel and look that I enjoy, and I love telling people that it's a 170 after they say "hey nice 140" or " I never saw a 140 with seats in the back?"

In conclusion any 170 you buy will be satisfiying, economical and will make you a darn good tailwheel pilot.

[cessna170bdriver]

mrpibb,

Is there any problem of slipping a ragwing with flaps deployed? As most of us know from discussions on this forum, there is admonishment in the B-model owners manual against slips with full flaps. I am a survivor of ignorance of this fact during my early ownership of my '55.

The ragwing has a very nostalgic feel and look that I enjoy, and I love telling people that it's a 170 after they say "hey nice 140" or " I never saw a 140 with seats in the back?"

Once upon a time, I actually had a line boy in Kennett, MO tell that he didn't know that any 4-seat taildraggers had ever been built. My airplane was the first example he'd ever seen.

Miles

[mrpibb]

Miles,
The only mention of the flaps other for take off and landing is not to spin with them down due to fact that the recovery speeds needed exceed the limitation speed of 90 mph. The ragwing flaps a really small, they extend only 30 deg as opposed to the 50 deg? on the A models, and no comparison to the mongo flaps on the B. The ragwing is a fairly clean ship and even with full flaps and you find your self a little high lowering the nose builds up speed pretty quickly. I like flying a tight pattern at Aeroflex due to the topography, so I like to slip on occasion to steepen my approach.
A while back I flew to a safe altitude and performed slips to landing, I extended the flaps, slowed to approach speeds and then threw in a full slip, I talking to the stops. I did this to the left and to the right, slipping right turns and left. I then slowly slowed the aircraft up to the point of a full stall to if the was any warning of the break, the aircraft gave me the prestall buffet and when it broke I was expecting the trailing wing to break first, but it wouldn't unless I removed some rudder (logical) only then would a wing drop.
I only use slips as a tool now, because there really no substitute for a properly executed pattern with a stabilized approach. As with most small airports, the usually weekend gang hangs out and watch the landings of others. a few months back I made a perfect 3 point landing in view of one of the older aviators of great knowledge. Later he came up to me and said "Vic I give you a 9 on the landing, it was perfect" I said " I thought ten was a perfect landing " he said "nope, you slipped the airplane on the approach which meant you were too high, you get a 9"

[thammer]

mrpibb,

Is there any problem of slipping a ragwing with flaps deployed? As most of us know from discussions on this forum, there is admonishment in the B-model owners manual against slips with full flaps. I am a survivor of ignorance of this fact during my early ownership of my '55.

Miles

For comparison, with the little brother 140 the only prohibition on flap use in the operation manual is no spins with flaps down and only lower flaps below 82mph.

tye

[N1478D]

As with most small airports, the usually weekend gang hangs out and watch the landings of others. a few months back I made a perfect 3 point landing in view of one of the older aviators of great knowledge. Later he came up to me and said "Vic I give you a 9 on the landing, it was perfect" I said " I thought ten was a perfect landing " he said "nope, you slipped the airplane on the approach which meant you were too high, you get a 9"

That must be a really nice airport! The only time people are standing around watching landings at the airports I land at is when I screw up and do a bad landing! Any other time there's no one around!

[beeliner]

I got my insurance-required checkout in a rag 170 in 1987. I've owned a 53B and now have a 56B. I do like the "modern" features in the newer B but all 170's are among the best classics ever. For me the only drawback to the ragwing is the rag- and it's just economics. If you get one with good cover at the right price it's great. If you have to pay to have any small plane to be recovered, the price can easily be over half the value of the plane.