Stumbled across this old flight review article of a 170B. May have been shared here before, but good reading nonetheless. Can't say I'd agree with all of the author's observations about performance and handling...
http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepCessna170B.html
-Kennet
Old flight review article
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
Old flight review article
1953 C170B - N170RP S/N 25865
Re: Old flight review article
Yes, Budd Davisson is a well-known aviation-mag writer, who normally does good work, ... however, I also don't agree with everything written in this article.
1. That is not a 1953 model...it is a 1954 year model. (Notice the altered instrument panel, split radio-racks, and right-side throttle placement.)
2. The prices suggested in the article may have been fairly representative for when the article was written (1989) ...but they should be multiplied by a factor of about THREE for today's economics.
3. The takeoff technique offered in the article is not in accordance with Cessna recommendations (or my own observations)... instead, the tail should not be FORCED up (this is a personal interpretation)... but the tail should be held onto the ground until a NEUTRAL elevator brings the tail up of it's own volition. After the tail comes up on it's own (with elevator neutral, ...the airplane should be allowed to accelerate until the nose drops noticeably further/tail rises in a secondary-manner to a level-attitude, .....at which point the airplane may be slightly rotated nose-up, ...and the airplane will lift off very nicely into a climb attitude similar to C-172 aircraft. This is for a paved surface without obstacles.
The obstacle clearance speed should be 67 mph and made "tail low" according to Cessna.
4. I'm surprised he found the instrument panel with "plenty of room for radios...". When compared to modern panels, the 170 series is haphazardly arranged and needful of avionic space for modern displays. (But, I personally find I have all the instruments/radios I desire without a real estate issue.)
5. I don't know where he obtained his info that the full flaps is only 38-degrees. The AFM specifies it to be exactly 40-degrees. (Perhaps he was using data for the C-172 (with which he was comparing the airplane) which specifies 39 degrees PLUS or MINUS 1-degree.)
The 172 series which he was using for comparison went thru several flap settings by 1986, including a reduction in full flap deflection in order to achieve certification in the balked-landing-climb requirement with the higher weights Cessna continued to advertise for later airplanes, coupled with the post-63 "Omni-Vision" fuselages which incorporated rear-view windows. The fuselage at the rear door post (to accomodate the rear-window changes) in that area was found to be inadequate strength-wise for the higher gross weights, and the flap-deflection had to be reduced due to the need to accomodate the strain placed upon those rear door-post structures. The 170 models did not suffer that change.
6. The authors complaints about "busy elbows"/aileron control on short-final and during roll-out might be attributable to out-of-rig ailerons in that particular example of the airplane he was flying (as also indicated by the rolling/turning during stalls he noticed), as perhaps might be the "waddle" be blamed on wheel-alignment issues...those are subjective matters which cannot be easily explained, but I've never experienced those characteristics in well-rigged 170s.
7. Budd makes an error when he says the170As have "totally new tail surfaces we tend to associate with L-19s and C-195s." Perhaps he meant the dorsal fairing, which was new for the A-model, but the tailsurfaces normally associated with L-19s are unique to the B-models only, the L-19 being developed from the prototype model 170B/305, according to my sources.
Overall however, it was a FUN to read article, largely well done, IMO. Thanks for posting.
1. That is not a 1953 model...it is a 1954 year model. (Notice the altered instrument panel, split radio-racks, and right-side throttle placement.)
2. The prices suggested in the article may have been fairly representative for when the article was written (1989) ...but they should be multiplied by a factor of about THREE for today's economics.
3. The takeoff technique offered in the article is not in accordance with Cessna recommendations (or my own observations)... instead, the tail should not be FORCED up (this is a personal interpretation)... but the tail should be held onto the ground until a NEUTRAL elevator brings the tail up of it's own volition. After the tail comes up on it's own (with elevator neutral, ...the airplane should be allowed to accelerate until the nose drops noticeably further/tail rises in a secondary-manner to a level-attitude, .....at which point the airplane may be slightly rotated nose-up, ...and the airplane will lift off very nicely into a climb attitude similar to C-172 aircraft. This is for a paved surface without obstacles.
The obstacle clearance speed should be 67 mph and made "tail low" according to Cessna.
4. I'm surprised he found the instrument panel with "plenty of room for radios...". When compared to modern panels, the 170 series is haphazardly arranged and needful of avionic space for modern displays. (But, I personally find I have all the instruments/radios I desire without a real estate issue.)
5. I don't know where he obtained his info that the full flaps is only 38-degrees. The AFM specifies it to be exactly 40-degrees. (Perhaps he was using data for the C-172 (with which he was comparing the airplane) which specifies 39 degrees PLUS or MINUS 1-degree.)
The 172 series which he was using for comparison went thru several flap settings by 1986, including a reduction in full flap deflection in order to achieve certification in the balked-landing-climb requirement with the higher weights Cessna continued to advertise for later airplanes, coupled with the post-63 "Omni-Vision" fuselages which incorporated rear-view windows. The fuselage at the rear door post (to accomodate the rear-window changes) in that area was found to be inadequate strength-wise for the higher gross weights, and the flap-deflection had to be reduced due to the need to accomodate the strain placed upon those rear door-post structures. The 170 models did not suffer that change.6. The authors complaints about "busy elbows"/aileron control on short-final and during roll-out might be attributable to out-of-rig ailerons in that particular example of the airplane he was flying (as also indicated by the rolling/turning during stalls he noticed), as perhaps might be the "waddle" be blamed on wheel-alignment issues...those are subjective matters which cannot be easily explained, but I've never experienced those characteristics in well-rigged 170s.
7. Budd makes an error when he says the170As have "totally new tail surfaces we tend to associate with L-19s and C-195s." Perhaps he meant the dorsal fairing, which was new for the A-model, but the tailsurfaces normally associated with L-19s are unique to the B-models only, the L-19 being developed from the prototype model 170B/305, according to my sources.
Overall however, it was a FUN to read article, largely well done, IMO. Thanks for posting.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
Re: Old flight review article
Budd Davisson, the writer of that article, is in my opinion a hack writer who works for so much a word. I remember him writing a whole magazine article about the guy that runs stuff down at Calaveras airport at San Andreas, California. He wrote the whole article and never spelled the guys name correctly. Named him Davis instead of Davids. Makes me doubt he even went down there.
BL