Old Cessna 170 article

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

Post Reply
User avatar
cessna170bdriver
Posts: 4059
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 5:13 pm

Re: Old Cessna 170 article

Post by cessna170bdriver »

Cool piece of history there, Aryana! The magazine was Sport Flying (first line of second paragraph), and from the pricing info, I'm guessing the date sometime in the 1970's. That airplane in the forground is the first B-model I've ever noticed with a "Victor" tail number...
Miles

“I envy no man that knows more than myself, but pity them that know less.”
— Thomas Browne
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Old Cessna 170 article

Post by GAHorn »

Well, the article ...is an ARTICLE, of course...not specifications.
In fact, he early-ON makes an incorrect statement when he says the "first model 170.." was produced until the mid-1950's. I imagine everyone here in the forums should know by-now Archie isn't really well-informed. ( I also have never heard the A and B models commonly referred to as, as he puts it, "tin-wing".

The 170 was heavier than the all-metal A model because it required the wings to be internally-braced. The A-model relied upon monocoque design and reduced the weight about 10 lbs.

I haven't read the entire thing yet but one thing that pops out at me is the author's comment about the control cables cutting the fuel line "cut through" and suddenly filling the airplane in flight with fuel. BULL SIT! What might occur is a slight fuel smell in the cabin. Long before that cable is cut "through" you'll be seeing fuel on the hangar floor.
I'm not implying it's not a serious matter, but that is a 100 hour inspection item anyway, and should never progress as far as the author wishes to excite.

HIs method of testing questionable landing gear bolts by actually flying the aircraft seems foolish to me, and not braking the wheels after takeoff and observing whether or not the gear shakes as it slows as a method of testing gearbox/attachment is pure fantasy.

Yes, it's faster than the early 172. (It didn't have to push a nosegear around the sky.)
The 170A dorsal fin comment is in error obviously. The author should have meant to write the 170 model had no dorsal fin.
He also is full of nincomPOOP when he claims it was added to avoid "dutch roll" (which he apparently doesn't understand.) The Cessna Test Pilot Bill Thompson documented the reason was to avoid "abnormally large angles of yaw" with full rudder applied. (However it reduced rudder effectiveness when water-taxying for the seaplane version, but not objectionably so.)

"Mild" aerobatics? Well.... that depends on the definition used. According to FAR/AIM "acrobatic" flight is :An intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration not necessary for normal flight. "Aerobatic Flight" is: Manuevers intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed.

Sometimes pilots mistake the rule requiring parachutes for a defining rule on acrobatics/aerobatics, (FAR 91.307(c)) but they are not the same.
That rule defines it as exceeding 60-degrees of bank, and/or 30-degrees of pitch. But FARs do not prohibit those operations by aircraft model per se,.... the rule only defines when a parachute must be worn by all occupants (with few exceptions regarding training.)

The 170 is placarded against ALL acrobatics/aerobatics except those listed (spins in the utility category, stalls, chandelles.) And those must be performed in accordance with the Flight Manual (AFM), which particularly states "No Inverted Maneuvers Permitted" on page 2.
'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
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Old Cessna 170 article

Post by GAHorn »

BTW, I edited my previous comment regarding parachutes to include the exceptions when training. It's a curious thing to me, that aerobatic flight requires the use of parachutes... unless it's a training flight for crew-training. Isn't ALL aerobatic training thereby exempt? :?
'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. ;)
Post Reply