The International Cessna 170 Association

1948 Fabric wing C 170 was the original C 170. I understand.

Did the fabric covered wing go to any of the 1949 models?

What was the nature of the tail empennage on a 1948 , was it C190, 195? All metal?

No the '48 170 wing was used one year on one model.

The horizontal stabilizer and elevator on the '48 is similar in look and design of the 190 but not the same. The horizontal stabilizer and elevator used on the '48 is the same used on all A models and is all metal.

The 48's don't have that nice little dorsal fin like the later 49 - 56 A and B models...the original 170 vert stab is more like the 120/140 style.

The '48 vertical stab is exactly the same as the later stab with the dorsal. In fact it is approved to add the dorsal to the '48. I agree the '48 stab without the dorsal looks like the 120/140 which never had a dorsal, but that is the only thing that is in common.

This is what mine is .

John

Bruce Fenstermacher wrote:The '48 vertical stab is exactly the same as the later stab with the dorsal. In fact it is approved to add the dorsal to the '48. I agree the '48 stab without the dorsal looks like the 120/140 which never had a dorsal, but that is the only thing that is in common.

Agree....just looking 140ish...

I have flown a Cessna 170a without that dorsal fin and found it very twitchy and not pleasant to fly . If I had a original 170 I would be considering to fit a dorsal fin. A tree branch had fallen onto the aircraft destroying the dorsal fin. The aircraft was parked under a large gum tree for shade . There wasn’t any other damage anywhere and the aircraft was examined very closely and we had to get out of there in a hurry because a tropical hail storm was on its way. So in 100degs heat someone had to crawl into the fuselage as the dorsal fin was attached with loose nuts . We have some geniuses around . We had to butcher the rest off due to time and lack of tools.

The few minutes I have flying a '48, John Hess's before he owned it, and maybe a few minutes here and there after, I did not notice a twitchiness about it. No doubt the dorsal was added to A and B models for a reason. And that it is allowed on the '48 indicates, it can not hurt. Personally if I owned a '48, and I almost bought John Hess's plane before John, I'd never add the dorsal. '48s don't need no stinkien dorsal!

Perhaps Ghost, you felt it twitchy cause you just hacked a required part off an airplane, to fly it out of the bush, being chased by a tropical hail storm in 100 degree heat. That would make anything twitch.

I've flown all three types of the 170 line. No twitchiness on any of them. The only "slight" difference to me is in roll response which is different on the rag wing (aileron style is unique to the rag wing) but not twitchy. I found for the same power settings on all three types the straight 170 to be a little faster.....likely because mine has orange trim, which is very close to red.

I love the lack of dorsal fin on the ragwing models. It is pure elegance.

I've flown quite a few B models and an A model. I'm dying for some time in a '48.

The ailerons on the ragwing are essentially C-120/140 ailerons and slightly undersized for that wing-span (increased from the 120/140) resulting in a slower roll-rate than the metal wings have. Other than some folks perceptions that it suffers slightly in gusty crosswinds due to the roll-rate...the ragwing has no "twitchy" or other bad habits. In fact, it has a very sweet and predictable stall characteristic due to that squared wing planform. It's a good wing.

The metal winged airplanes, especially the B-model, did not enjoy the predictability or the good manners of the ragwing when deeply stalled. They often tended to "roll off" into a spiral or spin due to longitudinal instability. For that reason the dorsal was added to the airplane which improved that longitudinal stability, and the B-model (even deeper stalls due to the larger flaps) was required to have a Stall Warning system installed as well.

Anecdotal comments sometimes mention the lack of a dorsal being one reason the ragwing is not approved for floats. (Longitudinal stability issues arise with the addition of floats.)

X2 on Georges remarks....

With that dorsal fin removed , on take off I found each rudder input was felt over done but crosswinds really moved the aircraft around , yes I was trying to out fly the approaching storm and turbulence , it just didn’t feel the way I expected . In the end , we flew to a safe place and eventually a new [err repaired dorsal fin was fitted ] fin fitted and I test flew the aircraft and all back to normal except for the normal coat of paint.

ghostflyer wrote:I have flown a Cessna 170a without that dorsal fin and found it very twitchy and not pleasant to fly ....................... We had to butcher the rest off due to time and lack of tools.

Could it be the "twitchy and not pleasant to fly" characteristics were due to "We had to butcher the rest off due to time and lack of tools."?

hilltop170 wrote:

ghostflyer wrote:I have flown a Cessna 170a without that dorsal fin and found it very twitchy and not pleasant to fly ....................... We had to butcher the rest off due to time and lack of tools.

Could it be the "twitchy and not pleasant to fly" characteristics were due to "We had to butcher the rest off due to time and lack of tools."?

Ding Ding Ding Ding!