170 Tailwheel difficulty

MichaelD · Post by **MichaelD** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:57 am

Hi All,

I'm a new tailwheel pilot and have just received my endorsement a few weeks ago in a cessna 140. I'm going to be renting a j-3 cub and building more tailwheel time soon. I am unfortunately unable to rent the 140. My question is how does the 170 handle differently than the 140. I'm a big fan of the 170 and hope to own one in the future. Any advise would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Mike

Post by **Bruce Fenstermacher** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:24 pm

Mike,

A 140 is one aircraft I've never flown. But I have flown other tail wheel aircraft and own a Cub. I can say this, they are all different and all require somewhat different technique. Even sometimes between two aircraft of the same model. You will find that to be the case getting into the Cub from the 140 I'm sure.

You should be able to handle a 170 but it will be different than the 140.

bigrenna · Post by **bigrenna** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:36 pm

delete

c170b53 · Post by **c170b53** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:47 pm

Mike, that's the airplane I learned on and if you can handle the 140, you'll love the 170. The difference besides having room to move around in the cabin comfort is again simply the size. In the 140 I felt I was strapped to the back of a butterfly. The 140 you think turn and it turns, the 170 in comparison requires bigger inputs, so don't be late because it takes longer to respond the longer you wait.
Welcome, you'll also love the 170 in spite of the increased fuel burn,

170C · Post by **170C** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:44 pm

Mike, I agree with what these other folks have told you. I, too, learned to fly in a '48 140 (C-90) and owned a '50 140A (C-90) for a number of years. If you can fly the 140 you can handle a 170. My plane is a '56 172 converted to conventional gear. Based on my experience I think the 170 may be a bit lighter on the controls than the 170's, but not nearly as light as the 140's. The 140's are quite a bit more agile and a bit more fun to fly than the larger airplanes, but IMO the larger ones are so much more comfortable, especially after an hour or so, and they will carry so much more. Good luck with your 170 hunt.

Andy Metzka · Post by **Andy Metzka** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 4:13 am

I agree with the above posts! I own a nice120 (for about 15 years) and recently bought a 170A. I have about 1350 hours in the 120 and about 60 hours 170A time. The 120 is MUCH lighter on the controls and feels "sportier". It is also cozy for a couple of "large" people. That being said- if the doors will close- it will fly. Not really any speed difference ( the 120 performs better than most)but the 170 obviously is roomier and climbs better with my typical load. The flaps are also fun to play with- shortens take offs and landings. The 170 comes DOWN when you pull the power back whereas the 120 will float all day... you WILL learn how to slip a 120! The 120 burns a lot less mogas ( 5 an hour is a conservative number) and is easier to pull in and out of the hangar. All that being said-if you can fly a 120/140, you can fly a 170! It is just heavier. I will probably sell the 120 as I am getting older and stiffer... Anyone need a NICE 120? (309 265 3424) I don't really need 2 airplanes... Based in Illinois at C75.

Post by **GAHorn** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:26 pm

My first taildragger was a 120. I checked myself out in it with no previous tailwheel experience, and flew it for about 800 hours on pipeline patrol. I next flew 140's and 140A's for about 600 hours. I did not fly a 170 until I bought N146YS in Nov '99.
I found the 170B to be easier than the smaller Cessna's.... very similar to the experience of learning in a 150 and later checking out in a 172.... the larger airplane is a bit more stable due to it's greater mass,...but... a bit more hazardous if it gets away from you due to it's greater mass.

I've felt this way about virtually every airplane I've ever flown.... the bigger they are...the more stable they are....and the more dangerous when mis-handled or carelessly treated. Their greater stability may lead a pilot to in-attention .... then POW!

"Boy! I'll never do THAT again!"

If you can fly a 120 you'll have no problem with a 170 as long as you don't overload it / or load it with excessive aft CG.
Excessive aft CG will destabilize directional control in all taildraggers, and is easily accomplished inadvertently in larger Century-Series Cessnas.

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 4:37 pm

Tailwheel flying is a real SOB. You're probably gonna die!

MichaelD · Post by **MichaelD** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:01 pm

Cool,

Thanks for the good advise. I'm really looking forward to getting into a 170. I'm 6'2" tall 230 lbs and the 140 is cool but definately a little cramped for me. I have about 10 hours in the 140 and did most of my landings without flaps. After reading a little more here and thinking about landing performance I am considering an earlier 170 too. Besides slipping is just plain fun. Has anyone here ever flown into the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome. If you ever do just ask for me and I'll give you a nice tour. I'm there sundays all summer long. Tailwheel aircarft are always welcome just call ahead first.

hilltop170 · Post by **hilltop170** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:18 pm

MichaelD wrote:Cool,
Has anyone here ever flown into the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome. If you ever do just ask for me and I'll give you a nice tour. I'm there sundays all summer long. Tailwheel aircarft are always welcome just call ahead first.

In September, 2005, the Cessna 195 Club had their annual fly-in at Saratoga Springs, NY. I was asked to be part of a group of five 195 owners who were invited to fly into Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome while the rest of the 195 Club members were bussed in for the performance, they couldn't handle 45 C-195s! It was a real treat to be part of the show that day. When it was time to leave, I asked the field supervisor if it would be ok to do a fly-by. He said, do three! So five 195s beat up the field for about 10 minutes. It was a day to remember. There was a video of the 195s flying on the Old Rhinebeck website archives but I haven't seen it in a few years.

If anyone has a chance to go to one of the Old Rhinebeck shows, do yourself a favor and see it.

MichaelD · Post by **MichaelD** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:37 pm

I missed seeing the 195s but I did see the video. Pretty awesome. 195s are really neat aircraft but totally out of my budget. Back in the day two C-46s landed at Old Rhinebeck and a B-24 once buzzed the field. I would have liked to have seen that!

Mike

hilltop170 · Post by **hilltop170** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:16 am

Mike-
Those old archive videos and pictures were good for hours of viewing, too bad they are not available any longer, it would be great if they could be re-activated, hint, hint.

The International Cessna^® 170 Association