Not that I have any money, but have been wondering if the B is worth the premium you see advertised over the straight or A models.

It really depends on your mission and what you would be willing to pay a little more for. If you just want a nice classic taildragger to fly around from airport to airport then buy the best example that you can afford whether it's a ragwing, A, or B model. The B model has some improvements over the previous models, most notably the 40 degree semi fowler "barn door" flaps. It also has a pressure cowl aiding in engine cooling starting with the 53' model year. Also, the cabin heater system was improved on the 53' model with 4 separate heat outlets instead of one on prior models that would just cook the pilots toes and do little else for the other passengers. In mid 53' they replaced the gear legs with firmer and slightly taller "lady legs" (I wish I had these on my 53'). On the 55' model they improved the tailwheel steering, I'm not sure if it's much better but I hope so because my 53' needs a lot of brakes to help steer on the ground. The B model also has a balanced elevator that the A and ragwing did not have. The B model has 3 degrees of wing dihedral that the A doesn't, making it more stable in flight. Because of this the A model is said to be slightly faster though. That is most of the main differences although I'm sure there are others. A couple more things that are a plus for the B model (for me anyways) is that the Sportsman STOL kit is STC'd for it but not the A. Also, if you ever want to put an extended baggage compartment in you need to have a B model, the flap cable rigging gets in the way on the ragwing and A model. I believe the B model is the best version of the 170 for backcountry type flying YMMV.

Thanks, good review. Now if my kids would get a job.....

Having learned tail in a 48, and owning a "B," my answer is yes. The B is worth it for so many reasons. Rob covered many.

Another point of view:

While the "B" model is acknowledged as the best of the C170 line, the more pressing question is whether you're willing to spend up to twice the money over, say, a straight 170, for an airplane that will not materially outperform its predecessors. In my view, I don't think it's worth the steep premium over earlier models with comparable equipment and in the same condition, etc.

I received my TW endorsement in a "B" model, have flown the A model a number of times, and have a fair number of hours in both. I currently own a straight C170 and, frankly, it'll pretty much do anything an A or B model will, with appropriate modifications in technique to account for the differences in the airframes (i.e., bigger flaps & ailerons). The bottom line is all stock 170's are equally underpowered and will land much shorter than they will take off, a performance factor lost on lots of pilots, especially in the backcountry.

As for the specific differences mentioned in one of the earlier posts, here's my personal take: (1) Flaps - the B flaps are twice the size of the straight 170 flaps and will drag you out of the sky much better than the earlier models. That said, if you know how and are willing to forward slip (something expressly discouraged in the B model), you can descend as steeply and slowly as your heart desires; (2) cowl design -- my baffling is is good shape and I have yet to experience an overheating problem, so this is not an issue for me. That said, I live in the NW, so a pilot from Nevada flying in August may have a different experience; (3) heater -- mine has three registers and will cook you if you let it. On a flight yesterday at 8500' from Red's Horse Ranch to Tacoma Narrows, the OAT was 20F and with the heat on I stayed plenty warm; (4) gear legs -- mine has the original gear legs and is one of the most forgiving TW airplane I've ever flown, taxied or landed. On my trip back from Red's I was fairly well loaded down and everything was 18G26 with 45 degree crosswinds. The landing gear performed well and I would never consider spending $2-3000 to "upgrade" to stiffer or taller legs. Others strongly differ; (5) TW steering -- it is no more difficult to taxi my airplane in strong winds than the other models, though changes in TW steering may have other positive aspects; (6) no counterbalanced elevator -- if you want to hold tail-down elevator while taxiing, yes, it takes a little more effort than in the later,counterbalanced models; but, once under power you can't tell the difference; (7) wing dihedral -- mine has 1 degree of wing dihedral and it is very stable in all phases of flight. The A has no dihedral and the B has 3 degrees. I've yet to hear an owner complain that lack of wing dihedral was a problem in actual practice, though some may feel otherwise; (8) extended baggage -- yes, the straight 170 is not covered by any existing STC for extended baggage. That said, I've been camping with my airplane for years and have never wanted, needed or considered extended baggage, even in my C182 and C180, which were eligible. If you travel light, which is really good idea for any C170 heading to the backcountry, extended baggage is not really necessary. Besides, if you have extended baggage you'll need/want a cargo door, which I don't believe (??) was original equipment on any C170; (9) Sportsman's STOL -- if you want it, need it, and gotta gotta have, the straight 170 is not covered by any STOL kit STC. That said, I'm not sure any STOL kit will do all that much on takeoff for an airplane with a 145hp engine and fixed-pitch prop, but I have no experience to say either way. It is eligible for Micro vortex generators, though, if that floats your boat. Another plus of the A and B models is that they are both covered by the 180hp STC, while the straight 170 is not. But, given the cost and performance factors related to the 180hp upgrade, it really makes more sense to buy an early-model C180.

I'm not saying the later model 170's were not an improvement over the earlier models, just that the earlier models are capable airplanes and in the hands of a knowledgeable and capable pilot (I'm not saying I am either) will perform every bit as well as a B in all but the very narrowest areas of the performance envelope.

Don't forget that the early straight-tail 172 is a minor improvement over the 170B (higher aspect vertical tail, which works just a little more efficiently), and are a lot less expensive. There is something like an 8 to 10K price difference. That's a lot of flying time (avgas), or a lot sooner you can be owning one on a budget, or a lot less loan payment, etc. etc. I believe most of the experts will agree there are far more low time, undamaged, not-worn-out 172's than 170's.

A stock early 172 (or 170) with the rear seat removed becomes a delightful light to medium duty sportsman bushplane. Pump up the nose strut a little to keep your propeller further away from the ground.

After you have done a little flying, and saved up a few dollars to improve the airplane, we can talk about cost-effectively performing emergency nosewheel-ectomy surgery on the airplane.

Thanks, great stuff guys. The comparison to the 172 gives me some perspective. As a young lad, about 800 years ago, I flew a '56 172 all over the west. No off airport stuff, my dad wouldn't allow that, but everything from Sandy Eggo to Omak, Idaho, Nevada, Grand Canyon etc. I think everyone of my high school friends got at least one ride locally too. Great airplane, it came with a new paint job and drooped tips! Not the big Madras type but more like the newer Cessna tips. You could hardly get that thing to stall. With me, mom and dad along with a tent, sleeping bags and one suitcase we got in and out of quite a few small to mid sized airports. Nothing real short at altitude but it did OK. Having said that a straight 172 is certainly on the list. Being on the coast some sort of basic, legal, IFR capability would be nice but not absolutely necessary. I don't want to weigh down the airplane with dual radios, DME or ADF but the ability to punch through the summer marine layer might save me hours of waiting in the morning.

After much testing at altitude, and reading the manual about not slipping w/ f. flaps, since I could never get it to happen, I consistently slipped my '52 B w/ flaps when necessary. Never had any problems, light or heavy, only had it for 7 years, though, got a 180 when the second kid came.

When I first got my B model, I would slip it with full flaps. One day 150 ft agl on final I put in some slip and it started to take a nose dive, I immediately nuetralized the rudder pedals and it recovered. Ever since then I don't slip with full flaps. If I really screw up an approach and feel the need for a slip I will reduce the flaps to 20* put in a full slip then pull the flaps back to 40* as I come out of the slip and flare.

no need to slip the B model. 40 degrees of flap works wonders.

Everyone's focusing on the bigger flaps of the B model over the ragwing or A. BTW the A has simple hinged flaps like the ragqwing but the A's are bigger. I owned a ragwing for 11 years & 1700 hours and really enjoyed it. I never realized how puny the ailerons were until after I got my next airplane (C150/150TD) and flew them back-to-back. generally no big deal if you don't wanna yank and bank, but it also makes it slower to correct when suddenyl out of shape on short final on a blustery day. I believe the ragwing ailerons are (like the fuel tanks) left-over C120/140 parts. They are not only smaller in area than the A or B models, but hinged differently so you can't easily install gap seals. Micro VG eventually came out with a kit for the ragwing C170, I was underimpressed with VG's on my 150 but they might improve the ragwing ailerons enough to be worthwhile.
If you're too high on approach even with full flaps, instead of slipping instead try pulling the nose up somewhere between your normal approach speed and stall speed-- the descent rate will increase dramatically. It is counterintuitive but works great. There's been many a time when I didn't think I'd even make the runway, but pulled the nose up to increase the descent and not only made the runway but made the midfield turnoff to boot.

I do use that technique often as well, with the sportsman leading edge I can hold between 40 and 45mph and the plane will drop pretty quick.

I bought an A model back in december. The price was the big deciding factor for me. I was able to pay cash for the A model if I had bought a B I would have had to take out a loan. Not having a loan payment makes it easier to stomach the high gas prices. My insurance cost are also less, its quite and increase in premium to insure a $39,000 dollar plane verses a $25,000 plane.

Is the B model an improvement? Sure it is. After a long taxi I think how nice it would be to have a balanced elevator. Then I go on barnstormers an for $15,000 I'm just fine with the arm workout to hold the yoke back. As for the flaps well the thing comes down like a rock in a forward slip. Would you slip your plane for $15,000? I was bummed when I found out I could not put that nice baggage extender in my A model. Well the first trip with the wife, my 90lb dog and bags for the weekend fixed me of wanting to put any weight further aft in the plane. It would be nice for long objects like skis or fishing poles but with a little padding on the tails I would have not problem letting the skis extend into the tail. Mine has a snap in place cover for the rear bulkhead. The heater in the A seems to work ok in OATs of 20F. I think you can get an upgrade kit? My A model came with a Horton STOL kit. The airspeed indicator goes to 0 before the plane stalls and I show about 40 knots ground speed on the GPS. The Sportsman sounds like its a better STOL kit but its not STCed for the A model. I don't think I would spend the money to change it. All the 145hp 170s will land shorter than they will take off.

I think the important thing is to buy a plane you can afford and afford to put fuel in. They are all compromises.

Ken

But, his question was is the B worth the premium over the earlier models......

Of course that depends on whether you have the money or are willing to spend the additional money to buy a B model. I doubt he would have asked the question if he didn't feel like he COULD fund the B model.

But, the earlier post outlined the major differences between the models. Personally, I think the B is a significantly better airplane than the A or the straight 170. And, the 56 model B is a significantly better airplane than the 52 that I own.

Except that my 52 model has a Lycoming engine, and it'll outperform a lot of airplanes.

So, the question is how much money are you willing to spend? If you're REALLY limited in funds, buy whatever you can afford. If you can afford a little more....go for it. Just don't forget that you're going to want to buy gas, insurance, etc.

Buy as much airplane as you can reasonably afford and utilize. Then get out there and enjoy it. Does'nt matter if its an A or a B or a 120....

MTV

I think a 170B with 180 hp motor and constant speed prop would be about perfect!

Waterboy wrote:I think a 170B with 180 hp motor and constant speed prop would be about perfect!

Ah, well that's a whole different bank account.

Porterjet,

If your ever in the Northwest look me up. We'll go fly my A model and then you decide if the B model is worth the extra money for you.


Ken

Waterboy wrote:I think a 170B with 180 hp motor and constant speed prop would be about perfect!

Now you're getting up into C180 price range. Maybe it's not as sweet a flyer, but for that kind of money I'd sooner buy the skywagon.

Waterboy wrote:Porterjet,

If your ever in the Northwest look me up. We'll go fly my A model and then you decide if the B model is worth the extra money for you.


Ken

Sounds good to me. You never know when I might get a kitchen pass.

If you get up to Rio Vista I'll show you what a slightly modded 170B will do.