170 (ragwing) seating limitation

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

Post Reply
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

170 (ragwing) seating limitation

Post by GAHorn »

It is so amazing…. Every time you think you are familiar with our “simple” airplanes…. and then you discover a tidbit you never knew-before.

While revisiting the required placards or our airplanes …a new limitation I’d never considered previously was discovered.

If one is operating a “ragwing”…. one cannot put your two grandkids in the backseat, kiss your wife good-bye….and take them back to their parents… unless you have someone sit in the right front seat! 8O
'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. ;)
User avatar
KAP54
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:29 pm

Re: 170 (ragwing) seating limitation

Post by KAP54 »

Where did you find this tidbit? I have been flying my ragwing for 25 years, and have never run across this.
User avatar
brianm
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:04 am

Re: 170 (ragwing) seating limitation

Post by brianm »

It's in the TCDS and AFM. Every '48 should have a placard that says, among other things, "with 2 people in the rear seat both front seats must be occupied".

I had some of these placards made last year when I did a panel upgrade. See attached. They measure 4"x1.25". I have a bunch extra, happy to send them to members while supplies last. I have also attached the SVG file in case somebody wants to print their own.
Untitled-11.png
Untitled-11.png (20.96 KiB) Viewed 1993 times
Attachments
placard_final.svg
(142.25 KiB) Downloaded 112 times
Brian M
N2669V - '48
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10313
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Re: 170 (ragwing) seating limitation

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

Looky at that. If I saw that before, it didn't sink in. For those looking, it is the second and third line under Normal category for a 170 only.
Screenshot 2022-03-30 122616.png
Of course it would make more sense to limit the load in the back by weight rather than persons and also specify a weight at the front seat stations. For example a 300lb pilot with 2 - 30lb kids in the back may actually be forward of the CG limit with fuel fuel.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: 170 (ragwing) seating limitation

Post by GAHorn »

I’m only guessing at the reason…. No data to support it at all….

BUT…the ragwing did not have the dorsal fin…. which would improve spin recovery… and perhaps with the rear seat occupied with that “square” planform wing it might be a bit trickier. (It would make more sense if they’d specified specific weight/bal numbers-solution however.)
'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. ;)
User avatar
KAP54
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:29 pm

Re: 170 (ragwing) seating limitation

Post by KAP54 »

Finally made it out to the airport over the weekend. Checked the placard and by golly it does say that! Like Bruce, I guess it never sank in before. That line starts out stating no acrobatics, so I guess I just skipped over the rest.
Post Reply