why buy a 170 instead of a 172

[sofronoff]

I would be interested to know the rationale for buying a taildragger instead of a nose wheel plane. I can understand the importance of it for a bush pilot, but is there anything other than nostalgia that drives the interest in the 170?
What about for an absolute beginner? Would you advise against buying a 170 as a first aircraft?

[N1478D]

After a few hundred hours in a 170 it is horrible to rent a 172 or a Piper which I have done a few times. It's like driving your Mom's station wagon when you are in a nose wheeler after being use to the taildragger. Taildraggers are more fun, more interesting to land - that does not mean harder after you have the training, and they look better. The pretty girl at the airport with the tshirt that reads "I Like Taildragger Pilots - They Know How To Slip It In" could be an influence also. Hardly anybody notices when a 172 comes in!

I bought a 170 before I had my pilots license. It came available so I moved on it and unloaded the 150 that I had purchased to take my training in. It makes a terrific first airplane, go for it, you will never regret it.

[Jr.CubBuilder]

Taildraggers are more fun and will make you a better pilot. They have their own frustrations though, they want to weathervane into the wind on the ground, they take more skill to land, even after you've learned how to handle one on landing it will still bite you in the ass if you aren't on your toes

I think my 170 has a lighter feel to it's handling in the air. It seems more frisky like a 152 compared to the 1976 172 that I used to rent

My 170 looks way cooler in my opinion, every flight in it is an adventure and I will be using it for back-country flying this summer. It will always be a challenge for me every time I fly, the 172 got boring. The visibility over the nose is much better than the 172 I used to fly, and watching the sceenery float by is one of my major motivations for flying.

The 172 though would be a better platform for flying IFR (more room on the panel) has a baggage door, and a little more elbow room. The ground handling and landing are so mellow and forgiving that if you have a hard time with it you really should not be a pilot. The taller fin and strake almost eliminate the need for rudder input except on climbout. Last of all, depending on what vintage 172 you get, the plane could have nearly half a century of subtle ergonomic improvements.

[doug8082a]

... Last of all, depending on what vintage 172 you get, the plane could have nearly half a century of subtle ergonomic improvements.

Loosely translated as - 'WEIGHT'.

[N2865C]

Unquestionably, taildragger pilots have better BBQ's.....

[bentley]

Having owned both aircraft here's my $02 worth. My last machine was a '59 C172 and in my opinion the last year that a 172 was classic. It was a dream to fly and as stated in other posts so easy to land that it made you look good in all conditions. Not a bad looking ship either with a straight tail and lack of back window. Now my C170B (53) is similar and yet very different. Flying characteristics are similar. Outside visibility is equal. LANDING however is much more of a sit up and take notice event. I wouldn't say it is hard to land but compared to the 172 it demands much more attention in a cross wind and unlike the 172 it continues to produce little surprises now and then. Of course many (including myself) regard these rather funky qualities of ground handling as part of the appeal but I am not sure I would want to train a flight student in one. I do imagine that if one were to do primary training in a 170 and then get a few hundred hours after the ink was dry with the plane intact they would be somewhat ahead of the average 172 driver in rudder skills. Then of course there is the hard-to-quantify looks factor. While the straight tail 172 looked good (especially compared to later model 172s) it would be hard to beat a round tail in my book. Bottom line ......172s are a great machine for thier forgiving qualities and 170s are a great machine for style and some degree of bush capibility as well as to keep you humble on occasion.

[sofronoff]

thanks for the great advice, everybody!

[170C]

Go for the 170 if you can find one that suits you. If not go for some tail dragger vs trike. My instructor taught me in a C-140 because he said it would make a better pilot of me. (I hope it did.) As many have said, a tailwheel plane isn't through flying until it in the hangar and/or tied down and this is sometimes correct. However as others have mentioned, the conventional geared planes are just plain COOL looking. Trike folks tend to drive their planes on the runway while us tail dragger types have to fly them on, but nothing is quite as satisfying as that landing when you don't even really know when you touch down. Especially if you have an group of hangar bums watching and/or a passenger. In the air they all fly pretty much the same.

Let us know what you end up getting.

[zero.one.victor]

Generally speaking, if it doesn't have a tailwheel, I'm just not interested in it. However, I will admit that for a all-weather, just-have-to go-now-bleep airplane, a nose dragger just might be a better choice under certain conditions. Like when it's there's a 25-35 knot gusty variable crosswind. And severe turbulence & wind shear on final. At night. When you're coming down with the flu. And the old lady is kinda scared. And you are too.
Them 172/182 types seem like a pretty good idea then!

Eric

[N73087]

Pull up to the ramp in a strange airport in a 172, and nobody will notice. Pull up to the ramp in a 170, and schedule extra time to talk to the people who come out to look at it.