Are ther any differences in flight and landing characteristics betweena a 170B and an early 172 that has a little wheel in the back. They have the same original engine, have the same stol upgrades and have the same engine upgrade options. I think. Also I heard that the 170B and early 172 have the same wing. Of course the round tail is good to look at

I was on a 170 site a while back and a poster uses 170D as his user name.

Tim

Good looks are in the eye of the beholder. The square tail 172 converted to a taildragger is the best looking plane...just like a 180 in great looks. The difference between a 53,54,55 170B and a 172 (56,57,58,59) are in the panel and fuel gauges, nose bowl. There are other differences but are basicly the same. Wings and fuselage same. Both fly pretty much alike with more difference in the rigging and weight difference between 2 so called identical planes. Who would ever think a P51 mustang would look better with a round tail. Let the debate begin!

Oh and one more thing our favorite guy Gump has a converted 172

several of my buddies have 170B with 180 hp and we all fly
pretty much the same...........of course mine is much more handsome
with the square tail

The only thing that would steer me away from a 172TD is the fact that I've heard they do not have enough elevator authority during landing. The problem is even worse at slower speeds and with full flaps. Maybe VGs on the tail might help this? The 172 has a trim tab on the elevator, compare that to a 180 that has a trimable horizontal stabilizer. Also the horizontal stabilizer on a 170 is tweaked down 3 degrees compared to the wing. The problem of having enough elevator authority on a 170 while landing doesn't exist, although you lose some speed in cruise because of the 3 degree downward angle of the horizontal stabilizer.

Keep in mind that I've never flown a 172TD and this is only something I've heard about. Maybe someone with actual experience can speak up? Or maybe you will have to fly one and see for yourself.

They look better than they fly... My square tail might look like a C180, but it certainly does not fly like a C180. Got just shy of 1K hours in the conversion now, and a bunch more than that in the 180/185s.

I've flown a Cessna 170 maybe three times in my life, and cannot compare the two. But I have a bunch of C120/140 time from owning the beasts, and the 172 conversion feels a lot more like the 140 than it does the 180. Like posted above, and a whole lot of old posts here on BCP, the issue is the tail, and a lack of trimmable horizontal.

Gump

Guess I should clearify what I said. The 172TD and 180 both look alike not fly alike. I have owned both 170's and 2 172TD's and there is so little difference in flying them it is more about pilot abilities. Again I will point out the difference in rigging,weight and PIC has more to do with the flying than the differences of a 170 or a 172TD. The elevator and rudder both do fine in both planes....
But the fact is the 172TD is still a much better looking aircraft than any round tail...

I enjoy flying mine, and the limiting factor most days is not the tail, it's the O-300. I can get it in most anywhere I want to go. It's the getting back out that presents the challenge. Especially here in NV on a hot, windy day. It makes for some interesting ground runs... Crosswinds pushing, ASI slowly pondering if it wants to register anything above zero, and wing not wanting to fly.

I deal with the elevator issues by using 20 to 30 on the flaps for wheel and three pointers both. That airplane flys so nice at slow speed I don't seem to need more. And if I did need more flap to get in somewhere, I'd never get out. If you ever do need full elevator authority with a trim tab on the elevator, use full "nose down" trim not "nose up," and that will get you more up elevator. Just have to pull harder is all!!!

Gump

I flew a ragwing 170 for over 10 years & 1700 hours, and the big drawback with it was the weak ailerons. Due to their small size (same as the 140) they don't have much authority, so roll rate suffers -- esp poor at low speed so you don't wanna get too slow on final if you need to do any maneuvering at all. I never realized how puny the ailerons were until I started flying my 150TD- it's like driving a sports car versus the family sedan. The Micro Aero VG kit now available for the ragwing should improve that. The Micro kits for the 170/A/B do not include VG's for the vertical- apparently they felt more rudder authority wasn't needed. I thought the elevator on mine was sufficient, but I see that the Micro kits include VG's for the horiz for all the 170 models.
I have heard that the 172TD's (even the straight-tails) don't have as much rudder area and therefore as much rudder authority as the round-tailed 170. The Micro kits for the early 172's include VG's for both the vertical & horizontal stabilizers, which should give some improvement to both rudder & elevator authority. Apparently the early kits for the sq tails did not include VG's for the vertical as an upgrade kit is available now for $150.
Interestingly, the VG kit for the early 150 do not include VG's for the horiz, just the wings & vertical. The ailerons on mine seem pretty powerful, but it does need more rudder authority- esp with the 150-horse.

Hey Gump..................ya gotta get into your kid's inheritance and put a 180 lyc
in that thing.............really perks em up

and you're right about a little extra flap.......seems to give it lots of elevator authority

Jimmy M wrote:Hey Gump..................ya gotta get into your kid's inheritance and put a 180 lyc
in that thing.............really perks em up

What inheritance??? They can get it from their Mom, she's getting most of my retirement

In my book not worth the $$$ to modify the airplane. For about the same out the pocket expense I can pick up a C182 or C180, and have a whole lot more airplane, and nicer flying airplane.

Gump

GumpAir wrote: If you ever do need full elevator authority with a trim tab on the elevator, use full "nose down" trim not "nose up," and that will get you more up elevator. Just have to pull harder is all!!!

Gump

Good thought Gump!

I have never thought of that but you're right.

I Saw a later model 172 converted to TD one time @ CNY. I think it used 206 gear legs. I kinda liked the wideness of them but they looked too short to get a good angle of attack for slow landings. Some Bushwheels probably would help this out.

The owner said it flew good but would have liked more rudder authority (it was a swept tail).

So the responces to my question lead me to conclude the following.

1 The 170 is better due to the angle of the horizontal stabalizer.

2 The 172 is better cus on the stait square tail

3 Buy the 170B cus it is cheaper to start with a tail wheel rather than convert one.

4 And the final conclusion is to just keep the 182B cus it has a strait tail, power, load carying abillity, burns just slightly more fuel than a 170 or 172 with an O360 in it and lastly I got it into this crappy state without paying sales tax . Hard to do that again.

Tim

No, Tim. The solution is to convert your straight tail 182 to a taildragger. Duh.

No, it is cheaper to sell then buy. But then I wouold have to pay sales tax.

tim

Brings up another question

How much of the weight of my 182 is on the nose compared to the total weight on the two mains of a 180. In other words, is the 182 more likely to sink the nose wheel in the mud than a comperable 180 mains

Tim

Hey Hotrod-150,
and anyone else that may be interested.

It IS POSSIBLE to get VGs on the 170B vertical.
How do I know? I just happen to have them on mine.

I know - photos - photos. If I knew how, I would. It is an Old Dog - New Trick thing here.

According to a nice lady at Micro VGs they never had a round tail to work on. I offered to loan them mine. She said that there was also not enough market for them to spend the engineering cost.

I cannot remember if I sweet talked her into sending me a set of the instructions, or if I bought the kit on an overdose of hopeium. Either way I discovered that the reference measurements and starting locations were identical for both the round tail 170B and the square tailed 18o series. The only difference that I ended up with was two or three fewer VGs. I lost one on the top and two on the bottom, or the other way around.

It took a small amount of convincing several people that the process was a no brainer and then getting them all to agree, over the phone, at the same time. I did it through Harry Delicker of Delair in Porteville California, a Fresno FSDO old timer, and that nice lady at Micro VGs.
It was done with a 337.

I cannot recall if it has had any benefit on the rudder. I just wanted it to be dressed up like the big boys. What does seem to have changed is that the plane no longer seems addicted to going over the nose when doing a hard full deflection slip with forty degrees of flaps. I should go and retest that just to be sure as I have actually used that “benefit” on an rare high approach. It may have something to do with my recent weight reduction on the nose by changing over to an MT prop and a lighter weight starter. I am happy with the MT.

Chris C.

MicroAero is just a short flight away from me at Anacortes- I should talk to them about a set of vertical stab-only VG's for my airplane. I seem to have plenty of aileron authority, no doubt due in art to my aileron gap seals, but I sure could use more rudder power. But I'm betting that they will want me to buy & install the wing VG's also.

I have a Swept tail 172 conversion. Mine has a Horton STOL kit too. This tends to bring the center of lift forward allowing the tail to land three point pretty well and wheel landings are no problem either. I have learned the planes limitations and mine does not have many of the reported undesirable handling characteristics. However, I have never flown the 182, 185, 180. My last two planes were shortwing pipers. People told me those were tough planes to handle, but that's what I learned tailwheel flying on. The 172 TD is forgiving and docile compared to the Pacer and may have bad manners next to a 180 or 185, but it is what it is and it does not have severe squirly tendencies. Mine was also already converted and I would never consider converting one myself as I could invest in something much more desireable.

Zane wrote:No, Tim. The solution is to convert your straight tail 182 to a taildragger. Duh.

I've been told the same.