The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Just wondering what other B or 170 drivers find works for them on landing tech.?
Here is what I found. 52-170B stock legs 600x6 Flown 53 hrs in the last two months. First flight was a bastard cross controll to fly and a stall would break without any warning and spin. First landing both wing tips had a chance to take a closer look at the ground. Rerig the wings and controls hands off flying picked up 12 mph wow!Landing are still a handfull.Takeoff needs a lot or all rt rudder and brake input.Problem solved align gear. Gear loose in gear box. Wedge bottomed out,need shims.Now it flys hands off and in a no wind condition almost can land it with your feet on the floor. . I wonder how this thing was not balled up,maybe that is why it only has 2100 tt on it. Wheel landings ok, three points ok. I like wheel landings.
Now for a change. Here is what I found out after putting 180 legs on and 850x6. Take off run is shorter with higher angle of attack. It will get off shorter keeping the tail low and let it fly off with 20 on the flaps." It wont leap off with flaps being popped like a Maule will." Then go to 10 on the flaps and climb out. 20 on the flaps will keep the airspeed down. Now the fun part is landings. With the stance it has now, three points are out. It will do them, but a stall landing is waiting for the plane to quit flying then deal with a plump or a dip. It did it with stock gear and 600x6 tires,plus 5/8 gear gave it some sway. 11/16 gear is a bit stiffer. I am 6' tall and the top of the engine cowl is above my head now. The landings are 55/50 over fence, back pressure for a 3pt then you feel the mains touch yoke forward no bounce no sway incontroll for any crosswind or go around with the tail in the air. I lost 2 mph with the larger tires but it is well worth it. I had the gear and tires laying around so I tried it. Yes it made a big difference and yes it is worth it if you have thought about it. I am not hear to say it is sliced bread or anything just passing on something I was able to experience.Stock is good and works,but Cessna did change to ledy legs for a reason. If any one wants to fly it come on over and give it a try. Now with fuel coming down I hope to get 100 hrs in it buy the end of the year, weather is lousy along with my spelling,so I dought it will happen.

squaretail -
That first paragraph gave me shivvers, glad you made it thru all that with the plane in one piece. That would be a good lesson for any new owner. Check the gear security, gear alignment, and wing/control rigging during the pre-purchase annual inspection so you don't have to be a "test pilot" on your first flights while de-bugging the plane.

The rest of your post sounds about right except the part about not being able to see over the cowl. Your seats must sit really low. I am 6', have the 180 gear, and the cowl is way down below my line of sight with 6.00-6 tires and stock seats. Can't imagine 1-1/4" increase in tire radius would change that very much.

Oh no, the sight in the cabin over the cowl is great. I mean while standing outside how tall the cowl is now. I almost clear the flaps. I wish my seats were lower. Then I might beable to see out the side window.

my plane has stock gear,850 tires & a "stol" kit & I find that an actual 'Stall" landing is so high from the ground as to be unadvisable on a regular basis.if I'm close to the ground the tail wheel touches down first which of course brings the nose down with a thump.I try to three point most of the time but that is somwhat above actual stall speed.I don't experance any of the negative effects that I read about stock gear.I don't have an improved runway,just the pasture which has never been graded,just mown two or three times a year depending on how much rain we get.It seems to me that the gear is doing exactly what it should do.I also inflate the tires only to the point of filling out the shape of the tires which is between 15 & 20 PSI.Most all my landings are on grass so I'm looking at a new set of tires only because they are 15 yrs old.I know the "stol" makes the comparison apples to cum kwats but just thought I would chime in. I think that most of the negative things people think is because of soft gear is really due to wheel alignment.At least I know mine changed dramaticly when I realigned the wheels.

Zreyn wrote:...I don't experance any of the negative effects that I read about stock gear.I don't have an improved runway,just the pasture which has never been graded,just mown two or three times a year depending on how much rain we get.It seems to me that the gear is doing exactly what it should do.I also inflate the tires only to the point of filling out the shape of the tires which is between 15 & 20 PSI.Most all my landings are on grass so I'm looking at a new set of tires only because they are 15 yrs old.I know the "stol" makes the comparison apples to cum kwats but just thought I would chime in. I think that most of the negative things people think is because of soft gear is really due to wheel alignment.At least I know mine changed dramaticly when I realigned the wheels.

I don't know....that sounds drastically sensible/normal to me.

In my opinion...There is a lot of air that passes the lips regarding the "differences" that are told between these airplanes.... most of it simply the result of a lack of standardization. And I don't mean airframe standardization, I mean pilot technique standardization.

I've flown all three models 170, with all three standard gears, and I've flown two engine conversions, one with 180 gear. I do not think any of them are "problems" that need solutions other than can be addressed by training and practice of the pilots.
The 170 didn't have quite the roll-control of the metal wings.... no big deal, ordinarily. Slightly less cross-wind capability perhaps, but if so....then it'd be a day I wouldn't want to be out flying anyways.
The 170A didn't have as much flap as the later model .... but it doesn't really need more flap anyway. What it's got works just fine 98% of the time, and meanwhile it doesn't have any surprises for those who like to slip to a landing.
The 170B is only a slightly improved airplane over the A, but not so much as to be a detriment to the earlier airplanes. Slightly more stable in light chop, and slightly more willing to get off and on short strips, but nothing dramatic or worth more than a few dollars at purchase. Condition of the individual airframes is FAR more important than the flap/dihedral/gear differences.

Landing gear is a complicating factor, mostly in the minds of those who haven't yet experienced the airplane. To be blunt, a competent pilot will have absolutely no difficulty in handling ANY of the stock landing gears. If you find that you are fighting the early gear, then you simply need to admit to yourself that you need some training and practice. There's no reason in my opinion to spend a dime on changing the landing gear for a later gear, unless you had wiped the gear out in an accident and were looking for used parts to put it back together. Even then, it might be considered a waste of money if the later gear cost more than exact replacements.

As for swapping to a 180/185 gear... In many cases I think I've seen that done purely as a "fad" because of the airplanes that are on the market that advertise the 180/185 gear as if it were some kind of super-duper improvement of the original airplane. It's not. It's not an improvement at all in my opinion, unless the airplane is being used for specialized purposes such as bush-flying on unimproved strips that need every possible inch of prop-to-ground clearance and/or in conjunction with a heavier engine conversion. And even then, it's not required. To swap an early gear for a 180/185 gear for any other purpose is a back-yard/eastside mod, sort of like a "low-rider" job done to a '57 Chevy or a jack-up done to a '51 Ford pickup. Yecchk!
Those who can't land might like it. (It'd be like swapping the suspension out on a Buick for one that came off a truck.) Then when it came time to sell it, it'd have to be marketed like it was some kind of "improvement". (How many of you are willing to buy a chopped/lowered '57 Chevy or '67 Chevelle over one that is "stock"?)
If you are having some difficulty in the finer points of T.O.'s and Landings, then a better expenditure of money would be on a Cessna taildragger qualified CFI and some fuel. Don't just bounce around the pattern making the same old mistakes as before because all that will do is re-inforce bad techniques until they become ingrained. Find a tailwheel qualified instructor who has real experience in Cessna taildraggers and get some other opinions on how you can improve yourself. (As opposed to how you can alter the airplane in ways that only mask poor pilot technique.)















OK, I'll get off that...


As for the minor differences in tire circumferences etc. and how that affects things.... it's almost unimportant on the standard sizes listed in the TCDS. Tire pressures can influence things more. (TP should be 24 psi on standard tires.)

Zreyn is correct in the case of "full stall" landings. If truly "full" stall...the tailwheel will invariably touch first. This is true regardless of STOL kits or other mods. If a true 3-point is made, the airplane was still flying when it touched. This makes no difference in tires, gear, or other mods. That's why it's cumquat silly to start discussing landing techniques based upon mod differences of tires, etc. as if those made any real difference at the point of touchdown or required handling-differences.

(This reminds me of the discussion that ensued a couple years ago regarding dip-sticking the fuel-tanks as related to tire sizes. Jeesh!)

George is absolutely right!

If you will take the time to go to the gym and bulk up those muscles, you'll be able to lift that baggage over the back seat and wont have to chop open the side of your airplane and put a door in it.

Well I kind of figured that that might be true but I wouldn't know for sure since this is the only 170 I have ever had the good fortune to take off & land with me at the controls & it was configured the way it is now when I got it in 1981 & proceded to learn to fly in it. The stall angle is so steep that it would seem to be dangerous to at least the airplane if not the occupants to do a full stall landing with this airplane.I have done full stall landings in other airplanes & it just falls that last 6 or 12 inches & it is then taxi-ing.With this airplane no matter if it's a wheel or three point it is still flying when the wheels touch & you just keep flying till you start taxi-ing.I'm with George on all these mods.I personally love horsepower & if I could have more I would prolly take it,but only to get off & climb.Mine is a 180 Lyc but I pull it back to 115 mph for cruise cause the airplane is just to "harsh" at higher cruise speeds.If I wanted to go fast I would get a fast airplane,not a bigger motor.

Wow! How did it go from telling about an experience to talking about how one knows how to fly the plane or needs to learn the plane or get help with it? My post was for someone reading and wondering also about other gear options. As for the first post as mentioned after the gear was aligned it was ok, it did 3 and wheel landings ok.
Now for a change or experiment was putting the stiffer legs "early 180 or lady legs on, (which if I see in the photos of the airplane with the new baggage door just put on has lady legs on it), also maybe it is the photo but the wheel pants on that airplane look funny as if they are tilted forward to far on it.(Early 172 brackets) Maybe I am not the 170 god and do not want to be. My opinion would be wrong because I know nothing anyway on this site. This is not my fist 170b and I needed a ride home and bought this one. I just lurk around and read and learn what people have tried and learn. I do not need to battle witts. I just love to fly and like airplanes. There is not much you can do to a 170 to make it anything other than a 170. Bigger engines, stol kits, are a waste of money. If you want more sell it and buy a 180/185 or Maule or what ever. It is a 170 basic tail wheel trainer that is cheap to operate and can live outside. It did not cost me a dime to experiment with the legs and tires. I can change them back in and hour if I wanted to,But I like the way it feels. Like Bias plys on a 435 hp stingray to having radials. You still steer it with the throttle but it just feels better with the radials. I thought wrong to have dared to post my experiment here on George's domain. Why is it no one can ever share there experiences here on this site with out haveing MR. know it all hack it wack it all out of proportion. I fly all over and I have other airplanes but with the 170 more than once someone will ask, do you belong to the 170 club. I say no. They all say well it is helpfull but the guy is pretty opionated. Imagine that!
Years back I had a bunch of 170 stuff I wanted to get rid of and tried to post it here on the trade mart. Since I was not and won't be a member I was told I could not post it there but could donate it to the club. Too bad a lot of good 170 stuff went to scap just like I am about to after this post.

Squaretail,

If you have no desire to be a member of this organization, why do you complain if the members think you're some kind if a cheap assed freeloader on the forum?

On another forum there was some negative comments made about some of our members and I responded with the following;
" I'm a member of the 170 club and I can assure you that the club is made up of various different types of individuals with one common thread. They are all nice folks. I'm North of the border and I made my first trip into the States to our Branson convention this year. Small town America is a beautiful place, one you wouldn't imagine if you took in the nightly CNN news shows. Thanks to being a club member, I made that trip to meet friends I had made at a previous convention in Kelowna. I've never met xxxxx but I do remember a few differences in opinion he had with one of our members. Funny I had similar reservations about that person until I attended one of our conventions and met him in person, then it clicked how poorly, a one dimensional exchange of information can occur on the internet.
The 170 club membership is getting older just as the 170 airplanes but thankfully so am I. I'm more appreciative of my good fortune to have owned a 170 and I'm hoping to age gracefully as mine plane has.
Hopefully xxxxx you will sell your plane soon."

Fortunately there's always someone here who cares to either correct a mistake, add an opinion or state the obvious of which someone else differs with. Thank goodness for the salt and pepper that all members add to make this site enjoyable.

c170b53 wrote:On another forum there was some negative comments made about some of our members and I responded with the following;
" I'm a member of the 170 club and I can assure you that the club is made up of various different types of individuals with one common thread. They are all nice folks. I'm North of the border and I made my first trip into the States to our Branson convention this year. Small town America is a beautiful place, one you wouldn't imagine if you took in the nightly CNN news shows. Thanks to being a club member, I made that trip to meet friends I had made at a previous convention in Kelowna. I've never met xxxxx but I do remember a few differences in opinion he had with one of our members. Funny I had similar reservations about that person until I attended one of our conventions and met him in person, then it clicked how poorly, a one dimensional exchange of information can occur on the internet.
The 170 club membership is getting older just as the 170 airplanes but thankfully so am I. I'm more appreciative of my good fortune to have owned a 170 and I'm hoping to age gracefully as mine plane has.
Hopefully xxxxx you will sell your plane soon."

Fortunately there's always someone here who cares to either correct a mistake, add an opinion or state the obvious of which someone else differs with. Thank goodness for the salt and pepper that all members add to make this site enjoyable.

Thank You and very well said.

Even though most on this site have a "roundtail"(strange looking) and I have and older "very beautiful" squaretail there are a lot of commonalities. There is way to much "good" on this site to let a little rub get me down. I remind myself that sometimes my personality may rub someone else also.
It's a new day smile and go forward.
W.

Also you must remember as mentioned earlier that this is a one dimensional exchange (no voice enflection,facial expression etc)& many times things are taken in the wrong way .if you are inclined to be a little sensitive you may not want to put yourself in a position for others to comment on your comments.

squaretail wrote:Wow! How did it go from telling about an experience to talking about how one knows how to fly the plane or needs to learn the plane or get help with it? My post was for someone reading and wondering also about other gear options....

Well, squaretail, your curious response to my previous post might be answered by re-reading your own... You began this message thread with a question that begged an answer and opinions from others.

Here's your opening comment:

squaretail wrote:Just wondering what other B or 170 drivers find works for them on landing tech.?,,,

I simply gave you what you requested.

It''s difficult to understand your anger at receiving what you requested. You weren't merely posting results of some successful experiment that required agreement. (Even tho' my response was one that virtually oozed with agreement.) It's very curious to me why you're so upset ... especially since you and I seem to have pretty similar feelings about such things.

Here's what you posted:

squaretail wrote:There is not much you can do to a 170 to make it anything other than a 170. Bigger engines, stol kits, are a waste of money.

Exactly what part of my post agreeing with you .....do you disagree with?


You posted:

squaretail wrote:... (which if I see in the photos of the airplane with the new baggage door just put on has lady legs on it), .... also maybe it is the photo but the wheel pants on that airplane look funny as if they are tilted forward to far on it.(Early 172 brackets) ...

Yes, squaretail, you are wrong. The lady legs on my serial number are original. Those are exactly the same ones Cessna put on it at the factory. As are the wheel fairings. And they are mounted correctly, and with original (not 172) mounting plates, ... mounted so the lower edges are parallel to the ground, just exactly as originally designed.

squaretail wrote:... I thought wrong to have dared to post my experiment here on George's domain. Why is it no one can ever share there experiences here on this site with out haveing MR. know it all hack it wack it all out of proportion.

Perhaps if you'd quit focusing on your anger you might open up your mind and enjoy an exchange of friendships here.

squaretail wrote: Wow! How did it go from......

....from... talking (asking) about airplanes, landing gear mods, and such.... to whining about another participant posting on the same subject? (And that post actually not even quoting YOU squaretail? I quoted and responded initially to Zreyn!) Sorry if you're unhappy participating where you chose to be welcomed as a non-paying guest.

Zreyn wrote:The stall angle is so steep that it would seem to be dangerous to at least the airplane if not the occupants to do a full stall landing with this airplane.I have done full stall landings in other airplanes & it just falls that last 6 or 12 inches & it is then taxi-ing.With this airplane no matter if it's a wheel or three point it is still flying when the wheels touch & you just keep flying till you start taxi-ing.

Sounds like you're going to fast. Sounds like you are flying the plane onto the ground, which is fine if that's the way you like it. That's also the way I land when it's not calm.

On a calm day, with a long runway you can slow the plane down with the wheels just inches of the ground and it will do a perfect three point stall, drop the last inch to the pavement landing on all three tires at the same time.

However I can count the times I've done that on my fingers and toes. The times that the mains have kissed the ground a little before I planned and I turned it into a nice tail low wheel landing I've long since lost count of.

Maybe you are right Cubuilder ,& Gahorn's sugestion of getting some duel instead of continuing honning my bad habits to the point of never being able to break them may be what I need! My real pilot friends complain about my airplane being squirlly on the ground but it seems perfectly ok to me but then this the airplane that I learned to fly in so it may be like that 53 Studebaker that I learned to drive in,when I got another car I found that they didn't all pull hard left all the time.OH by the way my real pilot friends airplanes all seem to fly perfectly OK & handle fine on the ground too, no 170's but lots of tail draggers.