Comparing Taildraggers

[hkcarter]

I am hard bent to find a nice taildragger trainer. I know it is a loaded question....but how about a 172 taildragger versus a nice 170B? I don't have appreciable airtime in either so I love hearing the opinions of those with so much experience flying these classic birds.

Thanks
Kev

[N2782C]

My money would go on a Piper Cub first, Aeronca 7AC Champ second and a Cessna 140 third. Been there, done that and found that the order I gave was the easiest to the hardest...however, the're all failry easy. Get about 25 hours in any one of them and then go for the C-170. You could start out in the 170 and I'm sure it would work out fine but if you want to do it the easier way, and maybe better way, I would start out small.

One taildraggers opinion

[hkcarter]

Thanks for the quick opinion! I should have been more specific. I picked up around 20 hours of taildragger time in a Rotax 582 or 914 Ultralight over my years bumming around as a tandem hang gliding instructor. I liked it very much but was always too busy to do more. I have a few thousand hours doing the part without the engine.

My intentions with the 4 seater is to have a useful time builder through the first 400 hours or so of my private.

How does the performance between an early 172 compare to the 170 (b)? There are many opinions about the different 170's but I can't seem to find many that include a converted 172.

Thanks,
Kev

[N2782C]

I can't speak for the C-172 except that an early one converted to a taildragger for all practical purposes should be almost identical with the C-170 or C-170B. They use the same engine, basically, the same wing, same struts, tail, elevator, flaps (as C-170B). Everything else being equal the early C-172 is a C-170B with a nosewheel. In 1956 they went down the same production line with the 170B.

[N171TD]

The 170B and all 172's with the sq tail 56-59 are really the same. Same wing, same fuselage, 0300 same in almost every way but the tail. I converted a 172 using the gear parts from a damaged 170 and they bolt into the airframe with holes already in the bulk heads. Maybe 170C will reply as to flying the 171. Mine is still not finished but I understand they fly like a 170 but with a little more rudder authority. I have owned 2 170's and many TD pipers and the 170 or 171 would be a great plane for any casual aircraft owner.

[hkcarter]

Wow, great info, thanks guys.

I didn't realize putting stock 170 gear on a 172 was an option. How much time/money would that be today?

Do the early 172's have the same sideslip/full flaps warning as the 170B?

thanks,
Kev

[jrenwick]

As far as I know, all 172s have a warning about slipping with full flaps. At least all the older ones I've flown did.

As somebody said already, the only differences between the later 170Bs and early 172s are in the landing gear, vertical stabilizer and rudder. I haven't flown a 172 taildragger, but I would expect an early one (say a '56) to fly no differently from my own '55 170B, except for a different feel to the rudder pedals -- maybe I wouldn't have to use as much rudder pressure with the 172.

[AKGrouch]

The buzzard (my bird) is a 1960 172 TD conversion with Horton STOL and a 180 lyc fixed pitch setup. There are several conversions out there to turn a 172 into a TD. Some use 170 gear legs and some don't. The Bolens conversion has its own gear legs which are very similar to the 180 legs....same dimensions except the gear leg inserts further into the fuselage by about 2 inches. I compared one of mine to one from a 180..They appeared identical in every way otherwise. The square tails are better for conversion because they have more rudder authority than the swept back tails. I've been warned by several td drivers and instructors to be careful with crosswinds and the swept back tail and admit my bird has some rudder authority isses. I know with 180 hp, there are times when you really have to stand on the right rudder during takeoff. Would I do it again? I don't know for sure but lean toward either that or a 180hp 170B. The power is wonderful and it's quick. If I did, would I use a swept tail?.....nope.....in fact, I'm still thinking about putting a square tail on mine (or vg's). The fuselage on the early 172's (at least 56 thru 1960) is called the fastback because of no rear panorama windows. It is the same fuselage as the 170B. The wings are the same...in fact my wings were made from 3 170B cores. The engine in the 170B and early 172 is the same in the stock configuration. The tail is very different. Would I recommend someone use my bird as a trainer.....no. There has been some real good advice above in this thread. I've flown a super cub, a citabria, and a 172 (both trike and td). Even though I like my bird, the most fun I ever had as a primary student was in a simple bare bones 7ECA Citabria......just basics and a lot of fun.

[GAHorn]

The J-3 has heel-brakes that are seperately mounted on the floor and take a little getting used to for a beginner, and the airplane can only be soloed from the rear seat. A good J-3 is also not an inexpensive trainer. The Champ is probably better for the purposes mentioned and for the pocketbook because it does not have the wide-spread collector appeal a J-3 has. (Don't ask me why tho'....it's a lot better airplane in my personal opinion.)
For a person who intends to go directly into another airplane or one that really wants a 4-seater .... the J-3 (while a fun and classic airplane) is not a good choice for you in my opinion.
I'd recommend getting a 170 and using your own airplane for training. (or if you really want a converted 172 taildragger..... go for it.... but that's not my choice because while a converted early 172 is a good airplane and while it has virtually identical features/performance.... it will never have the value of a true 170 classic to those who admire the airplane.)

[mrpibb]

Kev, if you want a 170 get a 170, I bought mine before I got my private certificate. When I got my liscense ( in a 172 ), I had a hour of pic when I picked my 170 up and ferried it back to NJ, with a friend instructor who was checked out in 170's of course. The 170 was so easy to learn for me that I thought all other tailwheel aircraft were bad to the point I was even afraid to fly a champ. I slip my 170 all the time, but I have a 48 so there may be differant opinions on the A or B models. But then again I'll slip a 172 now and then. As far as TD 172's the straight tails as mention are a better canidate they will give you better rudder authority. And as far as J3 go, I dont fly them because when you have a 58" chest and size 12 hoofs, there becomes a slight fitment problem in the back seat . there is picture somewhere of me in the backseat of a cub, you can see where my shoulders are pushing the fabric on the fuselage out .

[c170b53]

In my opinion the 120-140 is harder to learn on than a 170. The 170 reacts much slower than its smaller brothers.

[15A]

I've never flown a 170, so I can't judge. But I've got well over 100 hrs. on my '56 172 TailDragger and absolutely love how it handles. It's got the Bolen gear (sits up a little higher) with the Scott 3200 tail wheel. Tracks straight on the ground and flies 'hands off' in level flight. Excellent rudder responce on the ground and in the air. I've also got 100's of hrs. in my C-120. 2 different birds! 120 is light as a feather, the 172 is much more stable. I've got a 46 140 I just bought to put the C-90 into a Champ that's going on floats. I'm selling the 140 less motor and prop. New paint, new glass, really nice interior. It'll be a nice plane for someone that has a motor kicking around.

[KMac]

I got my tailwheel endorsement in a citabria (with some loops, spins and rolls in between). I agree with Akgrouch that the citabria is a good way to train vs the 170 because the 170 is a fairly forgiving tail dragger and I think is easier to fly than the citabrias. I would rather own the 170 because of the utility, economic flying and the classic/antique value;)

[170C]

Kev, I have a 56 C-172 TD (tail dragger) that was converted with the Bolen STC; I learned to fly in a C-140 and I personally think the 172 is easier to land. I think if I were you, I would decide whether I wanted a C-170 or possibly a converted (early model 56-59) 172 and get my training in it. Why spend money on a plane that you will use for 10 or so hours to get your endorsement (or even if you need to do the full 40 hour private pilot license deal) and then have to sell it and find what you really want. I have flown several 170's and only my 172 conversion. As others have said, the straight tail 172 has more rudder authority than the slant tailed 172's or the 170's. Whether that is an issue for you, provided you stick with the stock engine in either, is a matter for you to decide. I tend to think the control forces on both (170/172) are about the same. Its been long enough since I flew a B model 170 that I don't really remember which, if either, would be the lighter, but if one is, the difference is so minor as to not be an issue. I personally like my converted 172. If I were to make a change it would be to a C-180, but that is just me. There are a lot of super nice 170's with Lyc 180's, a few with the O-320 Lyc and even some with the older Lyc. that fell in between the O-320 & O-360. Don't think you would want that one. Some have gone to the C-IO-360's (my choice if I were to go with a larger engine on either the 170 or my 172) and finally some brave souls have put the Franklin's (good engine, but support may be an issue). The Lyc's are so called "bullet proof" engines, but they fall way short on being as smooth as any of the 6 cylinder Continentals. If you have any questions, PM me with your phone number or look mine up in the directory and we'll talk.

Good Luck!

[blueldr]

If you're going to learn to fly and you plan on having a C-170, learn in the C-170. They are about the best handling conventional geared airplane Cessna ever built. Their follow on being the C-172, by far the most popular airplane ever built.