Landing speed

[anjordan]

On a calm day what would be the speed and flap settings you would like to have for a student pilot to land. I have no time in any aircraft. My instructor has no time in a stock 170A.

[GAHorn]

I would suggest full-flaps 70-75 mph on final, and 60 "over the fence" using about 1700 RPM adjusted as necessary for glide-path.

Climbout at 65-67 mph for obstacle clearance and 85-90 for best rate, full power.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I concur with George.

So can we assume your training in a 170A with an instructor with no experience in that exact model. What aircraft model does your instructor have time in? It helps to know when giving advice sometimes.

This is not a criticism of your situation, it would be ideal to train in an aircraft the instructor is totally familier. Unfortunately sort of situation the only option today. There are fewer and fewer instructors with lots of first hand experience in many older aircraft and you are lucky to be close by an instructor with the right experiance for what you need.

[anjordan]

My instructor has 21,000 hrs. 5000 hrs in conventional gear aircraft. 2 hrs in a 170A. Perhaps I should have settled for the 150.

[bagarre]

A 150 may appear to be an easier trainer but, you'll have to learn how to fly the 170 sooner or later (specially if you own it).
IMO It's best to train the the airplane you intend to fly. (Best advice I never took)

I made this mistake. I got my license in a 172 then bought a 170 two months after. I had to learn how to fly airplanes all over again
The tailwheel is a very different animal. Going from tailwheel to tricycle takes little to no time. Going from tricycle to tailwheel makes you wonder if you ever had feet.
The 170 will fly differently than a C150. After 500 hours of different planes, this might not be that terrible. For a low time pilot like myself, there was considerable transition time from the 172 to the 170.

That and not many people will walk out on the ramp to compliment you on how nice your C150 looks

If you are starting out, and plan to fly little airplanes instead of airliners, grab a copy of Stick and Rudder. It really helped to put things in perspective for me.

You'll love the 170. It's not a difficult plane to fly. And after 100 hours you'll be able to fly the 150, 172, 140, 120 or most anything else in that range with relative ease.

Good luck!

Also, where are you located? There might be a club member near by.

[flyguy]

You'll love the 170. It's not a difficult plane to fly. And after 100 hours you'll be able to fly the 150, 172, 140, 120 or most anything else in that range with relative ease. Good luck!

The "flying" is the "fun" part. Taking off and Landing is where "Murphy" hides in the bushes waiting to bite!

ATTENTION ! ! ! Left Foot Right Foot READY - - SET - - GO - -

[bagarre]

Every time mine serves even a little, I hear Homer Simpson in my head.
"Tail goes up, plane turns left. Tail goes down, plane turns right."

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

My instructor has 21,000 hrs. 5000 hrs in conventional gear aircraft. 2 hrs in a 170A. Perhaps I should have settled for the 150.

Really, settle for a 150? Why would you settle for anything less than what you want?.

Sounds like your instructor has plenty of experience. Just curious what he's been flying because one tail wheel airplane is not another tail wheel airplane. There are differences. But if he's flown a 170 or a 170B, he's got a real good idea how to fly that A model, just allowing for a few slight differences.

[anjordan]

NC Forestry Sercice pilot. Super Cub. Bird dog. C180. And he owns a Champ.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Plenty of experience. You'll be fine.

Some fine differences you and he may have already figured out are this. The 170 tends to require use of brakes to turn and taxi more than others, The flaps on the A are not all that effective though they work better than not deploying them at all. But lots of A pilots don't bother with the flaps much.

The stock landing gear you should have on the A unless it's been changed is a bit more unforgiving when a less than perfect touch down is accomplished. it likes to bounce you right back in the air. I'll go out on a bit limb and say this A model might be the hardest of all the models your instructor has flown to land without bouncing. But it is just part of the fun.

[GAHorn]

Well.... FIRST OF ALL.... your instructor (having 21K hours and well-experienced in other taildraggers) will be the BEST judge of whether or not he is comfortable teaching a primary-course of flying in a 170. This is not likely a judgement YOU have to make.

While each model airplane has it's own characteristics, a 170 of any model will not be the most complicated taildragger he has ever flown....because the 170 series is one of the most docile of all as far as "quirkyness" goes. If your instructor would be comfortable teaching you in a Cub or Stinson or Luscombe or Swift or Aeronca or ....you name it.... the Cessna 170A will be a snap for him.

Also...with that much time as a professional pilot...I guarantee he will know how to read the Owner's Manual and figure out what approach speeds to teach you. And so will you.

That's my opinion of anyone learning to fly this airplane.

Thats NOT my opinion of using a 170 for a primary trainer. I would not recommend this airplane as a primary trainer because there are other airplanes more appropriate to handle the inherent risks of learning to takeoff and land without complicating matters by risking a ground loop and damage....which will definitely interrupt your training schedule, if it doesn't discourage you completely.

If you can, I'd recommend you rent a 150 or (Continental-engined 172) to learn in.... then immediately undertake a transition-course to the 170. In that fashion, it will only be another new skill to learn. Transitioning a competent private pilot to a 170 is a simple matter. But discovering that a private pilot applicant has absolutely no business attempting to fly airplanes...??? That's a job better discovered in a 150.

Meanwhile...ALL the skills learned in that 150 are applicable to that 170. There's nothing wasted simply because one wishes to now learn another aircraft....that's something that you will do all the rest of your flying career!

[jrenwick]

I've started only one primary student in my 170B, at the same time suggesting to him that he should also check out one of the local flight schools that had a good deal on a C152. He found the 152 much easier to fly and went with that, getting his private license in about 3 months. I couldn't have done that with him in the 170! Much safer too, IMHO.

He's working toward his commercial ticket now, and I expect at some point he'll ask me for a tail wheel endorsement. I'll be much more comfortable doing that than giving primary instruction in a tail wheel aircraft.

[canav8]

Anjordan, You did not say where you reside. An experienced instructor will spend all the time you need. I would like to be as bold an ask, What is your age? I have a lot of experience teaching in a number of Tail Wheel aircraft. The average flying hours before solo goes up in a taildragger, more then a training wheel aircraft (nosewheel). On the average of 7 to 10 hours longer. It just depends on how fast you pick up the skill set. I often see students excel quickly after they solo. In fact it is dead even with a nose dragger student. Unfortunately the reason why you hear people (no reference to anyone on this forum) say primary students are harder in tailwheel is generally we are older instructors and we do not have the teen age edge like we used to. At least that is my case. I still work with anyone but I am selective on my students because I want to make sure they want to tackle the challenge rather than be coddled. I like the younger students because they really like the challenge. I will say the older you get, the more difficult it is to master the tailwheel flying skill set. Not impossible just more difficult. Generally it is a case of LAZY FEET! Good luck. If your instructor student relationship does not work out give me a call. I try to help any member of the 170 Association. Regards, Doug

[blueldr]

With a strange airplane, I've always teken it up and stalled it a few times in the landing configuration noting the stall speed, and then mulyiplying that speed by 1.3 for downwind, 1.2 for base , and 1.1 for short final. Usually seems to work out pretty good.

[canav8]

With a strange airplane, I've always teken it up and stalled it a few times in the landing configuration noting the stall speed, and then mulyiplying that speed by 1.3 for downwind, 1.2 for base , and 1.1 for short final. Usually seems to work out pretty good.

Blueldr,
I think you meant 1.5 on downwind 1.4 on base, and 1.3 on final. That is the textbook. It also does not take into account for environmental impact(ie crosswind or gusty wind)