I’m bored with the 172s on 5000’ strips. I bought a house and built a 1700’ strip. Trees at one end, nothing on the other. Winds usually right down the pipe towards the safe end. It’s pretty smooth and I work on it every year. So a small Tundra would be in order. Anyway, I’ve looked at everything from a Kitfox to a Cherokee 180 for this place. I keep coming back to the 170’s. There’s a nice 170 ragwing fairly local for sale. I do understand it doesn’t have the Fowler flaps etc. I understand that it’s the least desirable of the 170’s. But I am trying to buy what I can afford to fly, hanger, and do it right. I’ve got my hanger done here at the house now. My field is 717’ MSL. Density altitude is not usually more than 4000 on a hot humid day here. Would the old stock ragwing make it in and out of here safely?

I would think a 170A shouldn't have a problem there. A 172 would handle that no problem.

Does a ragwing share the airfoil of A & B models? If it does, I’d think it’d be fine. My Dad flys his stock A model out of his pasture that’s 2600 ft between the pine trees with no problem at all. I watched him take off last summer on a humid 95 degree day with him at 170 lbs and a passenger at 275 with ease.

If the pilot uses all energy available, that plane (or most any small airplane) should pose no problem on the obstruction free end. Nose wheel off or tail up as soon as possible. Mains off into low ground effect below Vs, level as soon as in low ground effect, stay in low ground effect to obstruction free end or beyond if possible. Wind energy is important but some downwind best to stay in low ground effect (obstruction free.) Slope is more important. Taking off down slope and flying down drainage saves butts.

The airplanes Aktahoe flys will almost hover out of ground effect. They are expensive but cheaper than a helicopter. The stuff you and I can afford to fly doesn't need big engines and modifications, it needs an energy management type pilot.

You will be fine with some training and experience... That said, having flown both, I would really look for a B model rather than the ragwing. If your up for something a bit different, there is a member here who is just about to list his Stinson 108 with a Franklin and the STC'd big prop. Its gonna sell for less than a 170 ragwing. Perhaps he will speak up and list it. Might be worth a look.

I regularly fly a ragwing 170 out of a 2500' cabin strip at sea level up here in the NW, and used to operate a 170A out of the same strip.

Like Contact said, if you fly it right, you'll have absolutely no problem.

The ragwing has a different wing and airfoil than the A model (A's had the same wing as the 172, more or less). I really only noticed the difference between the two at gross weight - the ragwing doesn't climb as well, and wants to climb at a little bit faster airspeed. With fairly long grass (usually 4-6" long), and on a moderately rough part of the field, the ragwing will break ground at about 500' into the ground roll - I'll use 2 notches of flaps and a tail-wheel-low run if it's rough, then accelerate in ground effect - pretty much what ContactFlying is talking about.

I regularly have students fly the ragwing in and out of a smooth 1400' grass strip, with no trees at either end. No issues whatsoever.

With either the ragwing or a later model, your landing roll will be shorter than your takeoff roll, provided you can land it where you mean to.

So you should be fine.

--Tony

PS - While they're less desirable than the A and B model 170s, the old '48s tend to be lighter (meaning more useful load or better climb), and faster (if a few knots means anything.) They do have a semi-goofey fuel system setup though.

The wing is the same. The B got a little dihedral.

"Least desirable" hmph! I loved my 170A. I probably would have liked a straight 170 better. They're good, simple airplanes with few bad habits.

The biggest variable is going to be pilot skill. A skilled pilot would be able to operate a 170 out of half of your strip. Another pilot would probably end up in the trees. The guy I sold mine to told me all kinds of stories about his BT-13 and Stearman time in the CAF and then he ran it off the side of a 150' wide runway into a drainage and bent it pretty bad.

You probably don't need bushwheels. You can put 8.00x6 tires on per the TCDS with a logbook entry. You can do 8.50s with a 337 field approval (there's probably an STC too, there are hundreds for the 170). Anything else and you'll need an STC or move to Alaska. I had 8.00x6s and landed on just about all kinds of cow pastures, dirt runways, and a couple of sand bars. I did learn the hard way that my worn out brake pads were not sufficient with the heavier tires, so keep that in mind.

Have your prop pitched for climb. A prop OH should be under $1K and it probably needs it anyway. You'll want hollow steel axles (not hollow aluminum or solid aluminum). Replace the bolts with new NAS bolts and your gear will "work good, last long time."

Edit: Apologies PilotMike, I misread your post - but "less desirable" translates to "more affordable"....

For those not familiar with them, there were three models:
1948: Cessna 170 (ragwing) - fabric covered wing, different airfoil, no dorsal fin so no cool swoopy tail.
1949-1951: Cessna 170A - swoopy tail, metal wing (same as 172, but with small flaps, no dihedral)
1952on: Cessna 170B - mostly same as 170A but with big flaps and dihedral

I like 'em all, and, with training/experience (like others have said) any of them will do fine on that strip.

--Tony

Pretty much all the single engine piston Cessnas use the NACA 2412. The 170A and B had an outboard taper and used the NACA 0012 at the tip. So not exactly the same wing, but the same airfoil. At least where it counts. The 170 ragwing should, all things being equal get off quicker than a 170A, but maybe by a couple of feet. The B should beat either with the fowler flaps, but in reality it's going to be a little heavier.

Bonus points to the people who can guess the single engine (piston) Cessna that didn't use the NACA 2412...

The 177? Just a guess.

Didn't realize the 48 used the same airfoil. Thanks. I guess the difference in taper accounts for the difference at gross. It's not much difference though.

All the 170s are sweethearts.

--Tony

I based a stock 170B for years on a strip that was marginally longer than yours. 1600' elevation, with slightly higher DAs. It's best treated as a two-place airplane under those conditions, maybe three-place with light pax. If it's an option, the 8042 seaplane prop (Kenmore STC) improves your margin noticeably. You said the wind is usually straight down the runway toward the unobstructed end? Does this mean taking off with a tailwind will be standard procedure? Be aware that this plane will land a lot shorter than it will take off, so that wind arrangement would ideally be the other way around. Any downhill slope toward the open end would be advantageous. BTW, another common mod with the 170s is the gear legs- many 170Bs have been converted to stiffer, forward-swept early 180 gear legs (You have to join the International Cessna 170 Organization for a year to obtain that STC). I'm not too familiar with the model 170 options, but would be worth knowing what gear legs are available to you- particularly if you are dealing with a rough, uneven strip.
Good luck,

-DP

Winds are usually from the south. There are no trees to the south. Advantageous for me but I can’t always count on that.

Your info says you have a 172N, what is wrong with it? I've had an older 172 for 31+ years and have taken it a LOT of places. Unless you just have to have a TW, there is nothing wrong with the good old 172. You'll definitely be glad your flying it on the day you fly home and the winds are gusts 20+ from the side!! I fly both TW and trike and I guess I am a wimp, but if I know the winds are going to be beyond 'my' comfort level in the TW, I always jump in the old stead (172) as I am pretty confident in flying when the winds get nasty. JMHO.

Well said, Wwhunter. Angling across helps the tw more than the nose wheel when rudder begins to run out in strong crosswind. But we need to touch down slow on the downwind corner of the LZ. I used the angle as default to less likely be run over, but you are right about the 172. And far fewer have ground looped.

I am not a mechanic, but the mechanics I used for pre-buy always checked the main gear mount structure in tw Cessnas more closely than nose wheel Cessnas. The reason tube and fabric was so popular in the "conventional" days was that they could be rebuilt cheaply and quickly after the last ground loop.

TW is always going to be preferred on this site, but ask these guys how cheaply and quickly they can be rebuilt after ground loop.

Good luck with your strip and whatever airplane you get.

WWhunter wrote:Your info says you have a 172N, what is wrong with it? I've had an older 172 for 31+ years and have taken it a LOT of places. Unless you just have to have a TW, there is nothing wrong with the good old 172. You'll definitely be glad your flying it on the day you fly home and the winds are gusts 20+ from the side!! I fly both TW and trike and I guess I am a wimp, but if I know the winds are going to be beyond 'my' comfort level in the TW, I always jump in the old stead (172) as I am pretty confident in flying when the winds get nasty. JMHO.

It’s been sold now. Tired and Timed out. It went to a new owner.

Bigrenna wrote:You will be fine with some training and experience... That said, having flown both, I would really look for a B model rather than the ragwing. If your up for something a bit different, there is a member here who is just about to list his Stinson 108 with a Franklin and the STC'd big prop. Its gonna sell for less than a 170 ragwing. Perhaps he will speak up and list it. Might be worth a look.

STC'd big prop for the Franklin? I'd love to hear more as I'm overhauling my Franklin and would love a larger prop.