Introduction and question

[briank0001]

Hi everyone, I'm Brian. I'm a certified flight instructor and playing with some ideas. A few questions:

• 1) General thoughts on using a C-170 as a primary trainer aircraft. Can I solicit students through a website/fliers/etc to fly in such an aircraft?
  2) What kind of engine alterations can I make and still be able to use it for CFIing?
  3) What kind of internal changes can be made? Controls location (i.e. stick instead of yoke), instrument layout, doors, and seats/baggage area interior are some of the things I'm curious about here.

Thank you all in advance for the information. Maybe someday I'll join you all in the ranks of 170 pilots.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

1. Using a C-170 as a primary trainer would be OK as far as the aircraft goes. Certainly a lot of people have learned to fly in them. The issue would be how much the insurance would cost and can your business support it compared to a more traditional aircraft today like a 172 or a PA-28. Also compared to these aircraft there aren't many 170s around and some parts can be hard to find and some of the repairs more expensive (thus the higher insurance premium).

2. You can make any legal engine swap you want and still teach. How much money do you have? That is all it takes and it might take more money for these mods than it would be reasonable to spend given other aircraft options.

3. You can make any legal modification you want and have the money to do but why. It would take a ridiculous amount of time and money to convert any plane from sticks to yokes or yokes to sticks. You need to buy an aircraft that has the type of control you want. Most instrument mods are as doable in a 170 as any other aircraft. The exception being the earlier 170s have more limited options without spending more money for total panel replacement.

Almost any modification can be made to a 170 that could be make to any other aircraft given you have enough money and resources, but why change a classic aircraft when other aircraft are available that might better fit your need.

[jrenwick]

Regarding insurance: AVEMCO has a "limited commercial use" policy option for owners that will let you add a student to your policy for a minimum of 30 days, and for as long as the student is flying with you. You can have up to five pilots insured on the airplane, including yourself. In my particular case, for a single student the additional cost works out to around $100/month. I then charge the student $100/month plus an hourly rate equal to about twice the cost of fuel for "rental" of the airplane. It comes out very reasonable. They started this program in the last year or two.

[briank0001]

How much money do you have?

Actually, I have an investor. He is looking to spend around 50,000 for an aircraft. We were originally looking at a nice tail dragger light sport. However, being a light sport it is more expensive insurance than even a normal tail dragger. On top of that, apparently any mods you make (according to the manufacturer) that are not factory mods move you to experimental LSA category. This means no flight instruction. I still have some research to do on that, to see if he's right, but I'm looking at other options in the process.

In this case, I was thinking of finding a good C-170 with a solid frame (with or w/o an engine) and hacking into it. Starting with an engine and basic radio replacement and working up from there.

What other ideas for side by side tailwheel trainers exist? There are a million tricycle options on the market, but I'm of the belief that you don't develop good stick and rudder till you operate an aircraft with a wheel in the back.

[GAHorn]

If your "investor" is funding $50K, then the single action of purchasing an airplane in flying-condition and installing an engine will likely exceed your budget. It takes about $40K just to make the engine conversion, which is not much left over to spend on airframe acquisition, let alone the other mods you mention. I doubt you can even find an airplane which has already been converted in suitable condition for that price.
Why is an engine conversion a requirement for flight instruction? Thousands of pilots have learned to fly behind the standard C145. (And I'm STILL learning!)

[briank0001]

If your "investor" is funding $50K, then the single action of purchasing an airplane in flying-condition and installing an engine will likely exceed your budget. It takes about $40K just to make the engine conversion, which is not much left over to spend on airframe acquisition, let alone the other mods you mention. I doubt you can even find an airplane which has already been converted in suitable condition for that price.
Why is an engine conversion a requirement for flight instruction? Thousands of pilots have learned to fly behind the standard C145. (And I'm STILL learning!)

Well it would depend on what we started with. I've found some projects with engine in the 20s. Figure I can sell off a good engine for 10k and get a typical IO-360. Give her 180 hp and be roaring to go. I can find rebuilt IO-360s for in the low 30s plus install. Radios would stay as is, and the other changes would progress as money was available. I realize most of it will be put off and added later. My curiosity is what can I do and what can't I do. I mean can someone put an IO-550 on the front of a C-172 and still have it certified for flight instruction. Not saying I would, but the point is I presume there is a limit to what I can do and still CFI in the thing.

Maybe this would be easier, what classifies a "legal" modification?

[GAHorn]

There is no limitation on the mods an airplane may have for it to be used for flight instruction. The limitations on the airplane are legality issues with regard to flight...not for the purpose of instruction.
You can legally instruct in a washtub held up with a bunch of balloons... as long as you can get FAA approval for a flight in a balloon-equipped washtub.

[Robert Eilers]

Considering the capital you are working with, if you are specifically interested in instructing in a tail dragger, I would consider the Aeronca Champ, or early model Citabrias. If you can find one a Texas Taildragger Cessna 150 makes a great and economic tail wheel trainer. The Aeronca Champ is also considered Light Sport. To get started with $50,000 keep it simple.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Maybe this would be easier, what classifies a "legal" modification?

Any modification you can get the Feds to approve is a legal modification. So if you can get the Feds to approve a PT6 in the nose of a 170, you can do instruction in it. Given enough money you could probably get the Feds to approve a PT6 in the nose of a 170. Given enough money you could design build and certify your own aircraft like Cessna, Piper and any of the other aircraft manufacturers.

But how practical is that?

As for your plan. I would be surprised that any $20K something project would have an engine someone would pay $10K for. After all engine condition is probably one reason the $20K something project IS a @20K something project.

Unless you are frugal and can do the work yourself meaning you wont charge yourself for your time your entire budget nearly be blown on the engine swap alone.

[jrenwick]

...but I'm of the belief that you don't develop good stick and rudder till you operate an aircraft with a wheel in the back.

Excuse me, but I really think this is nonsense. As soon as an airplane is in the air, it doesn't know or care where the wheels are, but it still has 3-axis flight controls, and you can still teach the skills of coordinated flight. Good landing technique is all about what you do before the wheels touch the ground, and it's the same for taildraggers as it is for tricycle gear aircraft. I have more tailwheel time than tricycle by quite a bit, and I know that while you have to develop more skill to fly tail wheel aircraft safely, they're also inherently less safe. Why wouldn't you want to teach in the safest, most forgiving aircraft you can find? Tail wheel is an advanced skill in the opinion of most people, the FAA, and the insurance companies.

Obviously you can teach primary students in a taildragger, but most students are looking for equipment that is newer, clean, in excellent repair, well-equipped, and in which they can feel safe. You can buy a pretty nice 172 for the kind of money you're talking about, and for training purposes, there's real value in using a stock airplane.

[GAHorn]

"nonsense" might be a strong word for it, in my opinion, but I do agree with John that good stick and rudder skills are not predicated upon learning in a taildragger.

While a taildragger requires good skills.... it doesn't necessarily teach them. It's a good instructor, using good teaching excersizes in an airplane with effective, demanding rudder control that teaches that skill.

I'm not picking on Cherokee's etc., but as a pilot and as an instructor, I can almost identify without any other input, those pilots who learned in low-wing Pipers, simply by observation of their lazy feet on the rudders. (Just to insure that I irritate the maximum number of readers, I'll throw in Air Force types who spent the majority of their time in F-16s. They haven't got a clue what a rudder is for. We had a program at the state of TX flight dept which allowed qualified non-employees to participate as a crewmember for the purpose of maintaining currency. The state got the benefit of a non-paid copilot, and the pilot got the benefit of occasional stick time (dependent upon the PIC's judgement and good humor coupled with pax-concerns, ie, empty legs until skills were established, etc.. ) A good many of the F-16 guys simply could not be trusted with crosswind landings because they did not know how to stop the drift across the runway, yet all the rest of their skills were excellent, of course. It was a very curious matter to me. I finally decided that if the nation's security depended upon ME to operate an F-16 "in a pinch".... we're doomed. It'd be like a fresh-water fish in salt-water. (Yeah, we're both fish. And we both swim in water, but..... that's the extent of the similarities.)

But anyone who learned in a high-wing Piper or Cessna 150/172 type usually has a good technique for rudder. It's a matter of airframe design, not landing gear, IMO.

[jrenwick]

"nonsense" might be a strong word for it, in my opinion, but I do agree with John that good stick and rudder skills are not predicated upon learning in a taildragger....

Yes, that was too harsh, and I apologize for the tone.

A friend of mine in Minnesota, former army helo pilot, has been a TW instructor for at least as long as the 20 years I've known him. Recently he flew with a student who was part-owner in a C170, and who wanted some experience in windy conditions. They did lots of landings on a sod runway away from home, but returning to home base, which has trees beside the runway, they caught a bad burble. The 170 bounced hard, and when it touched down the second time, the student had his feet on the brakes, hard. There's really nothing an instructor can do in that situation. The 170 nosed over, went on its back, and rolled itself up. No injuries, thankfully. It probably would have been a non-event in a 172. The partners replaced their 170 with a 172, and my friend is glad they did.

Certainly student pilots can learn to fly in taildraggers -- they've been doing it forever. But this isn't 1950 any more, and we have lots of safer tricycle gear alternatives that I think students should be encouraged to use as trainers rather than TWs.

When people ask how long it takes to transition to TW, I tell them 5 to 10 hours. A local instructor who asked me that didn't believe it could take that long, and I had to think about why it's true (at least in my limited experience). I believe it's because a taildragger isn't really a taildragger until it's on the ground. The skill we're teaching only happens in the transitions between rolling and flying, so for each pattern circuit you may only get 20-30 seconds of practice in.

The landing patterns we teach today aren't the same as they were in the '50s. Even when I was learning in 1970, we flew 600 foot patterns, very close to the runway. Now the FAA-recommended patterns are 1000', climb to within 300' of pattern altitude before turning crosswind, turn final at least 500' AGL, fly downwind about 1/2 mile from the runway, etc. That kind of pattern takes about six minutes with a full stop and taxi back, so you actually get less than ten percent of your time to practice tailwheel skills. I've responded to this problem by having my student fly a 600' pattern like the one I learned to fly my Cub in, and announce on the radio what we're doing (as long as we can do it without disrupting other traffic). It minimizes the time in the air, and (I hope) helps the student complete the transition in a little less flying time.

[canav8]

I just finished a primary student today. He has 48 hours TT. Dificulty in short field landing from nerves but he persurvered. He finished his rating at 1pm and was shipped out to Army Boot Camp at 5pm. Talk about a close call. Doug

[GAHorn]

I think another major difference in the "old days" of learning in taildraggers....and "these days" of learning... is that in the "old days" more folks learned in taildraggers on GRASS strips! Virtually all flight school ops these days are on paved runways. GRASS...means FORGIVENESS ....to a taildragger student. Pavement...means trouble! Far too much adhesion and traction which does not allow for minor errors in steerage/alignemnt/etc. of which a taildragger is most unforgiving.

[futr_alaskaflyer]

I think another major difference in the "old days" of learning in taildraggers....and "these days" of learning... is that in the "old days" more folks learned in taildraggers on GRASS strips! Virtually all flight school ops these days are on paved runways. GRASS...means FORGIVENESS ....to a taildragger student. Pavement...means trouble! Far too much adhesion and traction which does not allow for minor errors in steerage/alignemnt/etc. of which a taildragger is most unforgiving.

Hooboy...most of my flying is at 1900 lbs or less on and off gravel.

The other day for the first time in a while I landed on (warm) pavement near gross, with a bit of wind describes the landing. Held it between the lights though