The International Cessna^® 170 Association

The small, rounded tail feathers on a 170 are much less effective than later Cessna tails which have greater surface area and span. But the "gearing" of the elevator is much greater, and therefore it feels much lighter/more sensitive than Cessna's subsequent to the post-'64 airplanes. The rudder feels lighter because it is not restricted by nose-wheel steering/centering mechanisms. It is not more authoritative than later designs, however.
The ailerons should be crisp and responsive in all respects, although not nearly so effective as in most modern aerobatic designs. (If it feels like "rubber" then they probably need rigging. All the "all metal" Cessna's have wonderful ailerons compared to most others.)
The landing gear was made deliberately soft. Many pilots found the stiff oleo, bungee, and other designs of the post-war period to be too challenging/unforgiving, aerodynamically "draggy", and some were, maintenance-wise, more complex than necessary. The leaf-spring was a beautiful answer for light planes.

Robert,

Thanks for explaining your method.

voorheesh,

I liked your expaination... very detailed. Thank you.

Harold,

I guess that makes sense about the 180. It's good to hear from someone with actual 180 experience. I've often considered a 180, and more so recently, only because the prices seemed to have flattened a bit. Based on what I've read, I suppose I'll wait until I get a bit more experience before I consider a 180.

djbaker,

Thanks for sharing that. I agree with you about the looks of the 170. It's got to be one of the prettiest planes around. I more or less figured the citabria/decathlon would be a little lighter on the controls and feel as though it had more horsepower. It's good to hear about your experiences with landing and it how compares to my current aircraft. Now all I need to do is fly one!!

KMac,

That's a good point about the Decathlon. I'm sure I'll miss mine as well for similar reasons, but I'll be able to haul a whole lot more in 170 and have 2 extra seats.

1SeventyZ,

That's interesting about the heavier feel about the tail of the 170. I flew a friends PA-12 and couldn't believe how light the tail felt compared to the Decathlon. It all made sense after I was done flying and I lifted up his tail with one hand easily.


gahorn,

Have you flown any of the tw converted 172's?



Thanks again to all.

Jon

Jon, I meant the 170 tail feels "heavier" laterally. It doesn't feel heavy in pitch at all.

George, I meant rubbery by comparison to a purpose-built aerobatic plane. For a 170, my plane feels crisp and wonderful, and I do like the soft gear on rough grass, it smooths those strips out nicely. Like I said, just what I wanted.

jworth94 wrote:...gahorn,...Have you flown any of the tw converted 172's?...Jon

Only one, a 1974 172 with a Bolen. Specific conversions might have varied control feedback (feel) due to gearing and quality of workmanship. This probably affects the perceived flight control effectiveness, although the actual effectiveness is more influenced by surface size. The Bolen I flew was nice and crisp, but the rudder-to-aileron geometry seemed over-balanced to my tastes. (It either needed more aileron/greater aileron-to-rudder rate, in my opinion, to balance roll-rate. Overall, however, it was a very nice airplane.)

gahorn,

Thank you for the great info. I've only seen a couple of these tw converted 172's for sale. They seem to be a rare bird. I've only spoken to 1 other person who's flown one. I think his comments were similar to yours. The thing I took away from his conversation is that one wouldn't necessary know the difference if the conversion was done right. In fact, he had recently checked out a pilot in a slant tail 172 converted to a tw and said it was one of the best tw airplanes he had flown. I suppose that had as much to do with the quality of the conversion as it did the airplane.

Jon

The following is an unasked for opinion.

Even if a converted a slant tail C-172 flys like an angel, it has to be the ugliest tail wheel airplane in existance! If it is a model with the rear "OMNIVISION" window it is even worse than that. I always have thought of them as being the resulting offspring of an incredibly indiscrete liaison between a female C-172 and a Maule of indiscriminate sexaul orientatiion.

BL,

I guess I can't argue with you on that point. The straight tail models do look a lot better.

Jon

blueldr wrote:The following is an unasked for opinion.

Even if a converted a slant tail C-172 flys like an angel, it has to be the ugliest tail wheel airplane in existance! If it is a model with the rear "OMNIVISION" window it is even worse than that. I always have thought of them as being the resulting offspring of an incredibly indiscrete liaison between a female C-172 and a Maule of indiscriminate sexaul orientatiion.

Thanks Blue........ppppppppbbbbbbsssssstttttttt!!!!!!

I guess maybe I didn't quite make my love of tailwheeled C172 airplanes clear.

An early flat back, square tailed C172 conversion is nifty. Looks like a real airplane! Best thing in the world that could happen to it.

It's the bent tailed and bent tailed with a back window that should, for aesthetic reasons, be destroyed if they have been converted to a tail wheel configuration.

Will the real grouch please stand up. Although I do agree the square tail 172 is the best looking airplane in the air ( wish I could afford a 180 but a 172TW ain't bad )

I'll second that!

Me Too!

Another square tail trying to find a place in this round world...