Hello All,

First i apologize if this topic has been extensively posted, but i had a look and did not find any detailed info. I have done my research and i know the model differences between the two aircraft. Is there any significant differences in the handling, landing/take-off speeds, controllability, landing/take-off distance, etc. If so, by how much? The 170B seems to be a more "prized possesion", why?

1) Big Fowler flaps.
2) Better heater in the '53-'56
3) counter-balanced elevator
4) Stiffer gear late '53-'56
5) Pressure cowl on '53-'56 <- simpler baffling and better cooling
6) More dihedral <- someone else will have to confirm that.
7) Better tailwheel steering design '55-'56

I added this to a C170Guide page tonight.

You are rite the 170A has no dihedral that is why they are refereed to as strate wing 170s I think the B has 2.5deg. the difference in flaps is amaizing and the airfoil doesent compare either. My dad had a B and my uncle had an A with the same load the A could take off first and even if dad had to wate for clearance he always was first to 1000 ft. I have been told that an A with a stol kit is about equal to a B without. interestingly an old rag wing will out perform bolth of them, in speed at least. but the B will kill them on landing and decend much steeper because of the flaps.

Yeah, but a ragwing 170 flown by a hot stick can out-land an A or B flown by an average pilot. The aircraft design is less limiting than the pilot's skill level. In the absence of barndoor flaps, you learn other techniques (extra slow speed for increased descent rate, slipping, etc) to get the job done with the small flaps you do have.
There's a good ragwing for sale in the marketplace forum BTW.

Eric

-Edit-

Great C170 Guide, Zane

With the standard C-145/O-300, all three will land shorter than they will take off in. So, unless you are planning on taking off over a cliff, the Fowler flaps are less important unless 1) you are salvaging a bad landing - important I suppose on a one way strip; or 2) you are landing somewhere after an engine out, in which case takeoff will be accomplished by a helicopter sling load

That being said I shopped until I found a later B model.

One advantage in buying a ragwing or A model, the "prized" status of the B models keeps the price lower on the other two- esp the ragwing. I bought mine to tide me over til I found a good B model, after a year or so I realized that I wasn't looking for a B anymore.

Eric

hotrod150 wrote:One advantage in buying a ragwing or A model, the "prized" status of the B models keeps the price lower on the other two- esp the ragwing. I bought mine to tide me over til I found a good B model, after a year or so I realized that I wasn't looking for a B anymore.

Eric

And although I own a B model, I have to admit the round wingtips + round tail of the ragwing is much cooler looking.

Tailwheel steering geometry makes a 55/56 easier on ground handling.
Dave

My hangar neighbor has a 170A.

Are the earlier models lighter? The neighbor's weighs in at 1350 lbs, it is mainly polished aluminum so am not sure where the extra pounds came from. Standard EW used to be 1220lbs?

Also ailerons might be more responsive in the later models?

The 170 with a fabric wing and 140 tail plane presumably is the lightest, and therefore the sprightliest, and with the best useful load?

I learned to fly tail in an "A" model, but bought a "B" model.

It's been my experience that those that talk up the "A" model are usually an owner. There is nothing wrong with an "A," but the "B" really is a nicer airplane for the reasons listed above. Another important and unmentioned factor is mod and upgrade-ability. There arent many STCs around for the "A." In a bush context, if you want to mod out the airplane, stick to the "B."

There is a reason that a solid "B" fetches almost double what an "A" does.

Just my .02

and.. the ragwings are not necessarily lighter..... according to the 170 gurus the fabric wing has more internal structure, making it heavier.

In my case, I decided I wanted a '53 or later B model for the improved cabin heat. Depends on where you fly if that is a big factor. The
'52 and prior models only have one heater outlet near the pilots foot. So the pilot cooks while others freeze. '53 and later have four heater outlets and a defroster duct for the windshield.

They will all land shorter than they will take off so the big flaps don't increase the available landing spots like you would think.

If you like to slip, the B models with the big flaps can't be slipped with full flaps.

Generally, like most airplanes, there were minor improvements throughout the production run. Until '56, when they started producing 172s and they started using some of the plastic interiors in the last of the 170s. Also, the right window doesn't open on some of the later ones.

for me, I decided a '53 or '54 B model was what I wanted. In '55 they changed to the squared off rear windows which, to me, takes away something from the looks. But that is just personal preference.

It seems to me most planes will land shorter than they will take off. I suspect the fowler flaps would let the plane fly slower which would also mean it would fly sooner/take off shorter, than one with the hinged flap.
Gary

kg wrote:The 52 and prior models only have one heater outlet near the pilots foot. So the pilot cooks while others freeze. '53 and later have four heater outlets and a defroster duct for the windshield.

If you like to slip, the B models with the big flaps can't be slipped with full flaps.

Says who? As far as I know, Cessna never PROHIBITED full flap slips, though they recommend against them. I've done them, and it's a non event, though the sink rate is high. In any case, with the big flaps, you don't NEED to slip in most cases.

As to heat, the stock 1952 model had a manifold attached to the heat duct, which was intended to distribute heat to both front seat occupants. No heat in rear, though, as you say. That said, it's not that hard to vastly improve cabin heat in one of these things, though it requires a field approval to be legal, and those are harder to come by now.

MTV

I never experienced it, mostly because I was spooked by the tales I read here of people slipping with full flaps and blanking out the tail, causing a sudden and severe pitching down.

No. It's a mild oscillation that you're in full control of as you slip.

Gump

If I recall correctly, the fuel system on a ragwing 170 consisted of three 12.5 gallon tanks from a Cessna 140, giving 37.5 gallons versus the 42 gallons in the later model 170s.

kg wrote:
If you like to slip, the B models with the big flaps can't be slipped with full flaps.

I knew that would start something when I wrote it. Cessna says to avoid slips with full flaps in a 170B.

From the 170B flight manual:(3) The flaps on the 170 allow
steep, well controlled approaches
making slips unnecessary.
Slips with full flaps are
to be avoided because if the
slip is extreme enough at a
relatively high airspeed, the
airflow is disrupted over the
tail surface resulting in a
sudden and steep, downward
pitch of the nose.


Some say that isn't a prohibition, just a recommendation. I figure Cessna knows something I don't and there are plenty of first hand reports of violent pitching and near loss of control... so try it if you want to but I'll "avoid" them.

But, as noted, full flaps creates such a descent rate that I've never felt the need to slip with them anyway.

I bought a B model for the flaps. the 40 degrees are really impressive, steep angle of approach with no increase in airspeed and SLOW touchdown speed.

My rule is not to slip with over 20 degrees, and if I am really that high go around. Lots of discussion on this on the 170 forum.

Couldn't be happier with the plane. Well a 180 conversion and STOL kit and .....

My CFI had it happen to him once in his 170B he owned it since I believe 63 and when he did he also had a tow rope on the tail for pulling gliders. that said we slipped all the time with full flaps. I suppose one could say that I liked the STEEP approach it would give me. One can peg the VSI at 2000 fpm decent at 60 mph easy with a good slip.