The International Cessna 170 Association

AOPA just dropped a video on their latest sweepstakes aircraft, the Cessna 170B. I am based out of Falcon Field and talked to Christian just after he brought the 170 in a couple months ago. I know - somewhat well - several of the young aviators mentioned in the article, and I will be the first to say that they are the future of aviation. They are all close to the age of my son, have amazing talent, are truly good, kind souls who selflessly give back to the aviation community. I have - more than once - been the recipient of their knowledge and guidance.

While sitting at my desk this morning with my first cup of coffee, I couldn't help but smile as I watched this video.

https://aopa.org/news-and-media/all-new ... hqe_23BVyg

Ineffective rudder? I have over 4000 hours of tailwheel time in:

T-Craft
J3
Fleet 16B
172 Bolen conversion
Legend Cub
Great Lakes 2T1A-2
C170B

I owned all of these over the years.

Additionally I have time ferrying:

Stearman PT17
Super Cub PA18 both 150 and 180
1931WACO UBA

I find the 170B rudder very effective. Certainly not any worse than any of the above. And I don’t recall my 1958 172 with the Bolen TW any different in that area than my 170B. I did like the Bolen main gear better, but maybe I was just a better pilot then!

I agree with you, Rich. I find the rudder very effective.

I find the rudder very effective.

Considering it’s the same one on C-190/ 195s, of considerably more horsepower, perhaps it’s a little too much. I note that the -170C was to have had a smaller one.

When introducing stalls to Student Pilots, I have demonstrated that while holding it in a stall, it is possible to keep the wings level with neutral aileron and just using the rudders. Tried that in my -170B once and it broke over into a spin. Only thing I could figure was that the rudder was larger, so the same input had greater effect.

Could the perceived lack of rudder authority actually be the lack of tailwheel steering?

4583C wrote:Could the perceived lack of rudder authority actually be the lack of tailwheel steering?

That is the issue, I believe. I wrote to AOPA for contact info to the author/videographer “Cayla” and hope to help her differentiate between tailwheel steering issues and rudder flight-control issues.

This is a pet peeve of mine, …that respected organizations do not reference type clubs before publishing “expert” or “first hand” experiences and opinions of those who have little experience with the aircraft model. I’ll post whatever response I get.

Edit: The rudder is SO EFFECTIVE in the 170…that I often cruise with no input to ailerons/elevator…and navigate entirely by almost imperceptible rudder inputs for heading control, bank, and turns. If this airplane is properly rigged and “in trim”… one can almost THINK about rudder input and maintain present heading…as well as introduce an entirely new course!
This rudder is so-effective the airplane is APPROVED for Spins. Any airplane with an “ineffective” rudder will not meet that criteria.

PS: it’s a shame, IMO, they are going to take a really nice original B-model and turn it into a highly-modified bush-plane. I’d have preferred they choose a “ratty” one to modify in that fashion. THAT would truly be an “Improvement”.

That's the coolest sweepstakes airplane yet (personal bias showing through)

I'm not sure how the ineffective rudder made the sub headline from this: "As I taxied to the end of the runway, I immediately noticed the ineffectiveness of the rudder."
Yep, the rudder is ineffective while taxiing. But that's not what a rudder is for.

then: "As we approached Peach State, Thaxton reminded me of the ineffectiveness of the rudder and to be prepared for it upon landing."
I never noticed this. When the airplane gets slow, you gotta push your foot further, but I have (almost) never run out of rudder.

But then there was this silly comment: "I initiated a power-on and power-off stall on our way back to Peach State. If I hadn’t known I was in a taildragger, I would have guessed I was stalling a Cessna 172."

Don't get me wrong here. The youthful enthusiasm is great. That's good to see. But the article would have benefited from some guidance from an experienced editor.

IA DPE wrote:I find the rudder very effective.

Considering it’s the same one on C-190/ 195s, of considerably more horsepower, perhaps it’s a little too much. I note that the -170C was to have had a smaller one.

Same rudder but the 195 it has a longer fuselage - a longer lever - by 3 feet or so...

I have never flown a 195 but to those that have, what is the difference in rudder effectiveness on a 195 vs a 170B?

falco wrote:That's the coolest sweepstakes airplane yet (personal bias showing through) ….

But then there was this silly comment: "I initiated a power-on and power-off stall on our way back to Peach State. If I hadn’t known I was in a taildragger, I would have guessed I was stalling a Cessna 172."

Don't get me wrong here. The youthful enthusiasm is great. That's good to see. But the article would have benefited from some guidance from an experienced editor.

The article would have also benefitted from a more-conservative approach to stalls. It is disturbing to me that the airplane was demonstrably and deliberately stalled… with people in the REAR SEAT! The most likely time to experience an inadvertent spin is during a stall with a rear C.G. Stalls are expressly prohibited except in the Utility Category, and it is unwise to perform deliberate stalls with the rear seat or baggage compartment occupied.
Stalls might be interpreted as an “acrobatic” maneuver.

From FAA.GOV: “Still another acrobatic maneuver is the Stall, where the aircraft speed is slowed enough that lift is lost…”

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/he ... batics.doc
Note that in a legal “opinion” by an outside law firm**, the FAA is “quoted” as not considering stall demonstrations to be “acrobatic”. However, that opinion misses an important feature of “acrobatic” definition in the AIM… Which is “unusual attitude not necessary for normal flight”. I am of the opinion that a deliberate stall in a 170 should be performed only in the utility category…and that the AOPA video/article is ignoring the safety-of-flight issues normally expressed by that org.

** https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... l-briefing

Regardless, both the Type Certificate and the Airplane Flight Manual prohibit intentional Stalls except in the Utility Category, which itself requires the Rear Seat be Unoccupied.

From the written article accompanying the video:

GAHorn wrote:

4583C wrote:Could the perceived lack of rudder authority actually be the lack of tailwheel steering?

That is the issue, I believe. I wrote to AOPA for contact info to the author/videographer “Cayla” and hope to help her differentiate between tailwheel steering issues and rudder flight-control issues.

This is a pet peeve of mine, …that respected organizations do not reference type clubs before publishing “expert” or “first hand” experiences and opinions of those who have little experience with the aircraft model. I’ll post whatever response I get.

Edit: The rudder is SO EFFECTIVE in the 170…that I often cruise with no input to ailerons/elevator…and navigate entirely by almost imperceptible rudder inputs for heading control, bank, and turns. If this airplane is properly rigged and “in trim”… one can almost THINK about rudder input and maintain present heading…as well as introduce an entirely new course!
This rudder is so-effective the airplane is APPROVED for Spins. Any airplane with an “ineffective” rudder will not meet that criteria.

PS: it’s a shame, IMO, they are going to take a really nice original B-model and turn it into a highly-modified bush-plane. I’d have preferred they choose a “ratty” one to modify in that fashion. THAT would truly be an “Improvement”.

Maybe I’m an old fuddy-duddy, but I 100% agree with George here. I realize that part of the upgrade process is campaigning and marketing the upgrades, but an airplane that’s not original would have been (in my opinion) a better candidate to highly modify. Kyle Fosso’s airplane restoration was a good example of that.

To each their own. I hope this airplane doesn’t get bent in the process (their Sweepstakes Tri Pacer lost an engine due to carb ice, if memory serves, and ended up flipping over in a field during the restoration) or by the winner like several 140s have recently resulting in fatalities.

falco wrote:

IA DPE wrote:I find the rudder very effective.

Considering it’s the same one on C-190/ 195s, of considerably more horsepower, perhaps it’s a little too much. I note that the -170C was to have had a smaller one.

Same rudder but the 195 it has a longer fuselage - a longer lever - by 3 feet or so...

I have never flown a 195 but to those that have, what is the difference in rudder effectiveness on a 195 vs a 170B?

I have a fair amount of experience in C170, C180, C185, and C195 aircraft.

I have flown in some windy conditions over the past 52 years and have never run out of rudder or thought the rudder was ineffective in the 170.

("George-doesn't-like-spins" Horn- don't read this!.............) The 170 rudder is especially effective in spins and will recover from any type spin I have tried in 1/4 turn. Aerobatic champion and FAA DPE Gene Beggs from Midland, Texas who did exhaustive spin testing in the 1970s in a Pitts S-1 he built, and was the premier instructor of the “Beggs/Mueller” method of emergency spin-recovery training. He taught me spins in my 170A and gave me my CFI Rating in 1981 when I lived in Odessa.

I have run out of rudder in the 180 many times with one pedal against the stop in a crosswind. Worse in the 185 because of the larger dorsal fin.

If you look at a 195 rudder it looks identical to the 170 rudder and it is, almost. Look closely at your 170 rudder and you will see a rivet line up about 20% from the bottom of the rudder. On the 195, that is the bottom of the rudder with a fixed tailcone below that covering the tailwheel. So a 195 has about 20% LESS rudder than a 170. The 195 fuselage is longer than the 170 and the 195 lands faster than the 170 so that makes up for some of the difference. I have never run out of rudder in the 195, it's a great crosswind airplane. However, the 195 rudder is not as effective below about 40mph airspeed and many 195s have been ground looped because of this. Knowing that, judicious use of brakes at low airspeeds is mandatory and eliminates this problem.

I'm not surprised by the AOPA Sweepstakes write up.

It is frustrating that someone wouldn't do some simple research prior to or at least after their introduction to a plane, so they can write something intelligent for a Sweepstakes which I'm sure is important to the AOPA. Doesn't look well, specially for the AOPA.

To be honest, reading the writeup and the supposed comments of the "more knowledgeable" person keeping things in line, it seems like neither knew much of what they were doing. That's a little scary.

I hate the current bush flying fad. That airplane should be restored to original, not bushed-out.

No kidding! AOPA should have done a correct restoration out of respect for the 70 year old plane, then if the new owner CHOSE to modify it, that would be an individual choice. Most of the pilots who think they are bush pilots simply because they have a prepped airplane either never fly off of pavement or wreck a lot of very nice airplanes.

Check at 5 minutes into this video from AOPA. They recognize that her comments about rudder authority is getting grief from 170 owners. She didn't back down from it, but clarified that her thoughts were compared to her experience...

https://youtu.be/2LCCJ1ED5nk