hey y'all I'm new here and was hoping to get some insight from you far more experienced pilots. Ive been looking for 170b's that are reasonably priced and in my search I came across a 1966 172G with the Texas tailwheel conversion. It also has a 180hp upgrade with roughly 400hrs on it along with a sportsman leading edge cuff and Horton wing tips and 26" bush wheels. Its priced right along the high time 170b's I have been finding but I just don't know how it compares in short field conditions. Thanks in advance!

Welcome,

Email me at [email protected] and I will send you a couple of ebooks on technique. It is more technique than airplane. The 172 is heavier but has the 40 degree fowler flaps that makes the big long wing (either airplane) easy to power pitch approach to touch down slowly and softly on the exact spot (within inches not feet) you wish without round out and hold off. 180 hp is more than 145 but again carrying more weight and landing has nothing to do with the size of engine, just use the power you have to handle the sink, Use those 40 degree flaps and elevator to get the sink, quite a lot of sink. It is about technique. Even on takeoff, it is more technique than engine, up to a reasonable point. Getting into low ground effect quickly and staying in low ground effect as long as possible makes a low powered airplane like the 170 perform as well as the 180 hp Cessna out of ground effect. No obstacles and down drainage egress is the safe way to go in either,

contactflying

jakek wrote:hey y'all I'm new here and was hoping to get some insight from you far more experienced pilots. Ive been looking for 170b's that are reasonably priced and in my search I came across a 1966 172G with the Texas tailwheel conversion. It also has a 180hp upgrade with roughly 400hrs on it along with a sportsman leading edge cuff and Horton wing tips and 26" bush wheels. Its priced right along the high time 170b's I have been finding but I just don't know how it compares in short field conditions. Thanks in advance!

I now own a tailwheel converted 175, and for many years I owned a 170B with a Lycoming O-360 conversion.

First, are you comparing this 172 to STOCK engine 170s? If so, there’s really no comparison, the 172 with O-360 will outperform a stock 170 most days. In my experience, the converted 172s tend to be heavier than most 170s, but that may simply be related to the fact that most conversions were actually weighed after the conversion, while a lot of 170s are still operating (legally) on decades old W/B....just sayin.

I believe the 66 172 is a swept tail, correct? If so, that’s likely part of the reason the price may be lower than a comparable straight tail. Frankly, a lot of folks just don’t like the looks of swept tails on tailwheels. Go figure. That said, in my limited experience with swept tail taildragger 172s, it’s my opinion that for reasons that are beyond me, the swept tail airplanes don’t seem to have as effective rudder authority.

Now, I’m also of the opinion that a competent pilot can likely get everything he or she needs out of one of these planes when it comes to rudder authority.

Otherwise, the 170 will have arguably the best over the nose visibility of ANT tailwheel airplane, and much better than converted 172. Not a huge deal, but it’s certainly noticeable. I’ve spent a lot of time in t/w planes that are bat blind in that regard, and totally manageable.

The 172 is a much more stable platform in cruise, whereas the 170 demands that you fly it all the time. In other words, the 170 is MUCH lighter on the controls. A very experienced pilot friend once told me the 170 feels “toy-like” compared especially to heavier Cessnas. Again, not necessarily bad. If you’re doing a lot of short local flights with a lot of maneuvering, the 170 is great. If there will be cross countries a lot, that 172 will be a lot more pleasant in that realm.

In short, they’re both great airplanes, but the O-360 engine really makes a big difference in either, and that would be the decision maker for me, all else being relatively equal.

MTV

Jakek, if you are comparing apples to apples with engines as MTV has asked the 170B would be the winner as I see it but I'll admit to some bias.

I'm sure someone else here can speak to this with more authority, but I expect the 170B has more available STCs (over 100, though the 172 sounds pretty well set up already), no real airframe ADs, (do yourself a favor and get the McFarlane seat rails) and has more latitude in getting mods approved due to being certified under CAR Part 3.

*edit* Did this topic just get revised to "stock 170B"? That doesn't change what I said above, but it certainly changes the decision calculus. I'd want to compare range and endurance and useful load. And know that for relatively few AMUs you can install an 8042 climb prop on a stock 170B that will give the best bang for the buck, in terms of short-field improvement.

-DP

I noodle around on floats regularly with a pal that has a 180hp 172 and as far as I'm concern I'm the winner. By the time I get to the lake the fire is on and the beer is nicely chilled.

I've owned a 172D (O-300) and a T-41B/172 with 180HP, CS prop, VG's and Horton Stol. For backcountry, no comparison. 180HP makes all the difference. The only thing I would have liked in the later 172 was manual flaps, as opposed to the electric it had. I can't speak to the taildragger aspect, but will say that in highly similar airframes, the horsepower easily doubled the climb rate and got off the ground significantly faster.