The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Jon,

I hope you realize I'm not really serious. Cessnas C-170B, the only model I'm really familiar with, is probably the nicest flying airplane Cessna ever built. It is very responsive, light on the controls, easy and truly a delight to fly.

However I really have busted up two of them.

Apparently I am not the swiftest arrow in the aviation quiver!

P.S. Lets just keep my arrow speed between you and me, OK?

I had a couple hundred hours total time with about 75 of those in a J3 when I bought my B-model. I went around the patch 3 times with an instructor for confidence, then flew it home. That was over 25 years ago, and I think the insurance companies have more to say about it these days...

The wheel vs stick, and offset vs centerline are NON-ISSUES.

Miles

pif_sonic,

Thanks again for your response. I was hoping I would get some actual experiences from owners. Even at those winds and conditions it sounds as though you're comfortable with the airplane.

Jr.CubBuilder,

Thanks for the reply. The reason I asked about this is related to what I was told when I started flying the Decathlon. I was told by two people I happen to respect quite a bit that I could 3 point in any condition and thus provide more prop clearence, and in addition the plane is done flying with the tailwheel down. I guess I'm not a good listener or maybe a just feel better doing wheel landings. Probably 95% of the time I'm wheel landing. The reason for the question was to see if there are strong feelings that support either one which would be specific to this airplane.

KMac,

Thanks for chiming in. I was hoping someone had some Decathlon experience to relate to me. When you mention that your 170a is much easier to fly than the Decathlon, are you talking about flying or ground-handling (landing/taking off), or both?

blueldr,

I'm with you now. It's sometimes hard to discern sarcasm on forums. Bear with me.

Would you like to comment on those two incidents? Would there be anything for me or other members to learn from those? I hope you don't mind me asking. I suppose if there were a fleet of 170's in my area I'd just go out and fly one... as you know there aren't many of these planes around and this is probably the best place to ask owner's about the intricacies of the model.

Miles,

Thanks for pointing that out. I feel real comfortable with a stick in my right hand and the throttle in the left. I've wondered how it would be to fly a tailwheel airplane with a wheel. I suppose it would take a little bit for me to adjust. Maybe more than 3 touch and go's.

Thanks to all.

Jon

Jon,

Both of my "Incidents" (no one was hurt nor was there property damage other than to my airplane) were the result of runway excursions.

The first one exited the runway to the right and I have no idea why it got started or why I couldn't straighten it out. I ran into a rather severe ditch between the runway and the parallel taxiway and tore out the left gear. There is the possibility that the infamous insidious parking brake lockup could have been instrumental, but I attribute it to pilot error in some manner.

The second exited off to the left (I have no particular preference in matters like this) when my "athletic style" shoe jammed between the rudder pedals and prevented the right rudder pedal from bypassing the left one. By the time I realized why I couldn't depress the right pedal, it was too late. We went off to the left, down an embankment, and up on the nose. Got the right wing tip and right elevator tip too.

On both of these memorable occasions I had a passenger with me. Unbeliveably, neither of these two alleged friends are willing to accept, or even share, the blame for either of these discouraging incidents. There is a certain satisfaction in knowing that neither of them are members of TIC170A.

Apparently the only good thing resulting form the above is that I have drastically reduced the number of unsolisited requests for airplane rides.

Jon,

I agree with Kmac regarding the transition to lift-off. The C170 has a quirkly little period betwwen when the tail comes up and when it is actually ready to fly. The problem is, during this quirkly little period the airplane gets light on the wheels and feels like is ready to fly earlier than it actually is. I have 500 hours in mine and when I come back after a short absence I still have a tendency to pull it off to soon. The transition is something you learn to manage. Most of us wait for a moment after the tail comes up - maintaining (and even increasing) cross wind corrections until the airplane flies itself off.

blueldr,

Thanks for describing those two situations. I've read somewhere about the parking brake issue. I'll have to research it a little more. I hadn't thought about the closeness of the rudder pedals, but that makes sense. In my Decathlon the rudder pedals are literally about 1 foot apart. I've naturally grown accustom to that set-up. I suppose that would be something else to get used to. I flew a Warrior a few months ago and I remember having that odd feeling that the rudder pedals were too close. I guess after some practice, I'd get used to it.

Your humor is shining through now, the last few line have me chuckling.

Robert,

That's very interesting. Do you push the control wheel all the way forward to pick the tail up or do you add power with neutral elevator and wait for the tail to lift off? This quirkiness must also show itself on landings as well, doesn't it? I'd imagine it would show up on wheel landings as the tail goes down and could be an issue in a gusty crosswind. I don't know. Does your landing technique negate this?

Thanks,

Jon

Jon,

I do not push forward on the control wheel to lift the tail during takeoff. I trim neutral and wait for the tail to come up on it's own. During a wheel landing most of us push forward slightly on the control wheel to eliminate or reduce lift resulting in the aircraft sitting more firmly on the mains. The period during which the tail is losing flying speed and descending toward the runway requires attention but, in my opinion, is still the most effective method of landing in a crosswind. My experience suggests that most C170 (actually tail wheel pilots in general) get into trouble after landing by not pulling the control wheel fully aft after the tail wheel touches down insuring the tail wheel is firmly planted and rudder steering effective.

Sometimes if the tail is forced up too soon, there is not enough air rudder authority to counteract the 'P' factor and the airplane will want to go left.

This is a great topic for a newby like me. I hope to put much of this to good use when I pick up my 170 on Saturday

I have a question on the wheel landings... In the Citabria as soon as the tail starts to feel soft I pull back on the stick to firmly plant the tailwheel. At that point the Citabria is done flying. In the 170 do you allow the tail to bring itself down or use the same 'plant the tailwheel' technique?

Also, what do you guys use for approach and touchdown speeds for wheel and 3-point landings?

Thanks,

Most recommend wheel landing slightly tail low and then let the tail down easy. If you need to do a short field landing apply brakes which will tend to bring the nose down. Counter with up elevator until the tail feels heavy (you will feel an increase in up elevator). Then let it down easy (before you run out of elevator). The trouble with yanking the tail down during a wheel landing is that it can increase angle of attack and take weight off mains which is not helpfull in maintaining directional control at roll out speeds. Once the tail wheel is on the ground use full aft elevator just like in a full stall landing. The 170 has a great rudder and directional control is rarely a problem even in a breeze. It is really important to maintain "attitude" awareness on the runway (takeoff or landing) and to "KNOW" what each control including the brakes will do to that attitude. The biggest problem with wheel landings is the bounce. When mains touch down, the cg (which is aft of the mains) can keep going down causing increase in angle of attack. At touch down speed, this will get the ship back in the air and it feels like you bounced. If you have enough energy after the first bounce , try to land again, but don't go more than 2. Add power and go around or, if you have enough runway and energy, try to convert to a full stall landing. The best way to avoid the bounce is to be patient and ease the airplane on with a slight flare followed by slight fwd elevator. The next biggest problem with wheel landings is correcting for something that is not there like an imagined x wind. The scenario goes like this: set down on the mains and feel a slight swerve to left. Over correct back to right (because your thinking "that must have been a gust!") and fail to straighten out. If the cg (which is aft of the mains) gets about twenty degrees or so off longitudinal axis, the rudder and brakes can not stop it. The airplane will swerve out of control to the right and go off the runway. You will know when this happens and the best advice is to ride it out with full aft elevator and get it stopped. Some here will tell you to go around but once you swerve out of control, that is a dangerous option. Protect yourself/passengers and get stopped. If you damage the ship, you can get that fixed. I really agree with everyone on this thread that the 170 is a fine airplane to takeoff, land, and just about anything else you can do with it. Get a good tailwheel instructor (cheap insurance) and practice, practice, practice. You are probably safest right after you solo in the new ship because you are on the edge of your seat and really carefull. After 50 hours or so, you will start realizing this is fun and you need to watch out for complacency. I remember landing once and seeing this neat helicopter off my right. My head started turning and the next thing I new I scared the #!%$* out of myself. Lucky for me, I realized it in time to keep the forces in line. Good luck.

Jon,

To answer your question comparing the 170 to the 180, the 180 has a much heavier feel and is more demanding on takeoff and landing, primarly due to the much additional horsepower and torque. I was more comfortable with higher crosswinds in the 180 and it would handle higher crosswinds primarly because of the extra weight and larger rudder surface. I most often did wheel landings in my 180 and 3 point stall landings in my 170 but other pilots will tell you they usually do wheel landings in the 170 and 3 point stall landings in the 180, so that is just a matter of pilot preference. For information, my 170 was a stock 170A whereas my 180 had 185 gear legs, 800 x 6 tires, and the larger 185 tail section.

Harold

Jinkers wrote:This is a great topic for a newby like me. I hope to put much of this to good use when I pick up my 170 on Saturday

I have a question on the wheel landings... In the Citabria as soon as the tail starts to feel soft I pull back on the stick to firmly plant the tailwheel. At that point the Citabria is done flying. In the 170 do you allow the tail to bring itself down or use the same 'plant the tailwheel' technique?

Also, what do you guys use for approach and touchdown speeds for wheel and 3-point landings?

Thanks,

I like 65mph on final, but with just me in it I'm usually about 55mph over the threshold. Obviously you have to use judgement and change things up for wind conditions and load, those numbers are for still air and what I'm comfortable with. During my first fifty hours or so I was almost always wheel landing at about 70mph and going around if I bounced.

If you haul back on the yoke and feel a huge shudder in the tail (you can't miss it) it's the tailwheel doing a shimmy because you've got to much weight on it, that's not so good for the tailcone. I suggest not trying to plant the tail, but rather let it come down on it's own and as the speed bleeds off the elevator goes to full up.

I had about 500+ hrs in my Citabria 7KCAB when I bought my 170A. My insurance Co wanted me to get an instructor for transition but I never found one. The reason I bought the 170 was because all 170s are the most beautiful plane I've ever seen. But it is like comparing a Corvette to an Impala. The weight/power combination of the Citabria can get you out of almost any bad situation, just put the throttle forward and climb at 1,000+fpm. After I say this I will never have another friend in the 170 group but, here goes-----The 170 flys almost exactly like a 172, just a little better. With full tanks, two people it gets off the ground in 300 ft. Like the Citabria you put the throttle forward, let the tail come up and your off. With the 170, because of that wonderful round tail, you don't have to dance on the rudder like the Citabria. Climb out at 80 wherever that brings you and then set up to fly. The 170 is much easier to land than the Citabria because of the weight. I know , I know this will hurt but a very good landing set up in a 172 will be a great landing in a 170, 80 down wind, 70 base, 60 final hold the yoke back for three point, roll it on for wheel landing. The 170 is much better to taxi, again you have more weight and larger tail. All in all I liked them both, but it's better to have a metal plane, it has a lot more room, and it is soooo beautiful to look at.

Jon,

Everyone hit on the reasons I feel the 170 is such a sweetheart to fly. It is forgiving and stable. As I wrote, I transitioned from a Decathalon (and a lot of 172 hours) to the 170. I got one ride in my plane for about 20 min. when I bought it. Then I talked an instructor from the FBO where I bought it into flying around the field a couple times and did 2 touch and goes and a full stop. I am glad I had the instructor fly with me because I was so excited about MY airplane (the first one I have owned) I forgot about stabilized approaches and basic flying stuff on the first circuit. I had always wanted a 170 because the flying I do is mostly recreational and the 170 is a very economical airplane for what it can do. I haven't regretted buying my airplane once. I agree with djbaker, the Decathalon is more like a corvette and the 170 like a Sierra 1500 extended cab (or an Impala). I miss the power, climb rate and aerobatic capabilities of the Decathalon but I still wouldn't trade my 170 for one.
Kevin

I had about 15 hrs in a Decathlon when I bought my 170. There was a period of about a year and a half between the last time I flew the 8KCAB, and when I first flew my 170. Coincidentally though, a friend on our field had a newer 8KCAB at the time, and I went flying with him right before taking possession of my 170. That 8KCAB was a 2004 model, and everything was tight and crisp...aileron rolls were a sinch. What a mistake! Later that day my new-to-me 170 felt like flying an old Ford tractor, or riding a rubber bicycle by comparison. The gear are way more springy, the tail slower to react, but it is exactly what I wanted and I wouldn't trade it.

The longer moment arm of the tail helps keep things straight, but there is more mass hung back there, so if it does get out of line it can be a handful to get back. One thing I found myself doing with the original style control yoke is unintentionally holding slight right aileron, because of the ergonomics of that wheel. After I noticed it, it was not a big deal to correct.

I have a lot of hours in a 172, and I find the 170 to feel lighter on the controls, and just a greater pleasure to fly. My sense of self-satisfaction is bolstered 10 fold just knowing I'm riding in it.