Devil's advocate

[dacker1]

Well, since right now I own a 170 and 172 I need to chime in.
The 170 is all about fun, challenge, and developing my skills as a taildragger pilot. After flying it for 600 hours with probably several thousand landings under my belt I still feel like I am getting all of that and more. There is nothing that makes me grin bigger than making a pretty wheel landing with minimum ground roll, after touching down within a few feet of my target (I freely admit that this doesn't happen every time!).

The 172 was purchased for my one man flight school as a trainer. I did not feel that the 170 would be the best choice for that, not to mention that it is equipped for VFR only. In other words the 172 was much more practical in the flight training role than the 170. Plus I don't think that I could sit in the right seat of a 170 for very many hours with new pilots learning to land before someone made a mistake that I wouldn't be able to straighten out. I just didn't want the extra liability.

The 172 has been a great airplane so far, it has fairly low hours and is a pleasure to fly. It is by no means as exciting to fly as the 170, nor has it ever drawn attention on the ramp like the 170. But it's performance is better, and when the winds are crosswind to the runway and gusting 15kts I don't think twice about flying. To be fair though, I should mention that my first 300 or so hours in the 170 were with 1/2" -3/4" toe out between the main gear and it was pretty squirrelly on landing so that has left me with a deeper respect for crosswinds than is probably warranted.
The 172 is a much better cross-country ride than the 170, in my opinion. It is a bit faster, climbs better, is more stable (my 170A does not have dihedral), and a bit more comfortable inside. The drawbacks of the 172 are less visibility, less rudder effectiveness (at least that is how it feels), and slow control response (the same thing that makes it more stable also make the control response seem more "truck-like").

With all of that said, my daughter will probably be going off to college in two years and the 172 will be a bit more practical to use to visit her. So at this point, if I had to decide between the two, I would chose the 172. But it would be a decision similar to choosing the minivan over the '66 Mustang.
David

[GAHorn]

Dave, to be fair...the 172 you are describing is a MUCH later airplane, right? (which would explain the performance...more horsepower...and the heavier control feel (Cessna re-designed that on-purpose to make the airplane the perfect "If you can DRIVE--you can FLY"... trainer for Cessna Pilot Centers.) In particular they re-designed the elevator control-cable geometry to give a much heavier elevator feel to de-sensitize the pitch to prevent inexperienced pilots from chasing airspeed/attitude.

The rudder feels different (heavier) primarily because it IS different (larger and swept) and ....in a 170 there is no nosewheel-centering cam on top of a non-existant nosewheel trying to keep the nosewheel centered upon landing despite crossed-controls used in a crosswind.

[dacker1]

My post wasn't meant to bash the 170, it was just pointing out the diferences. The 170 is VERY fun to fly while the 172 is just fun. The 170 presents a bit more challenge, but the skills I have developed in the 170 make me look really good in the 172. I get a little tickled when the students are struggling with trying to keep centerline on approach and I am able to assist them on the controls and immediately straighten the airplane out for landing. They look at me as if I have some remarkable skill, while any taildragger driver knows that it is just a run of the mill landing (or skill set).
By the way, I believe the 170A has a heavier elevator (due to less or no? counter weight)... Cessna must have taken a design step back!
The 172 has definitely benefitted from the design improvements developed through it's father the 170. Can you imagine how incredibly popular the 172 would be with the taildragger crowd if it were presently sold in a taildragger version (no swept back tail)? I don't think the Maule would have a market. Would it be the 172STD (172S in taildragger configuration)?
David

[GAHorn]

The elevator in the B-model (in comparison to earlier 170's) was counter-balanced in order to make it easier to to operate the larger surfaces (in comparison to earlier 170's) which were necessary to control the greater pitching moments of an airplane with larger flaps.

The 172's elevators were squared-off, which gave them still more surface-area, thereby increasing elevator effectiveness. This alone created a heavier feel as that greater area worked against the relative-wind. In later airplanes (subsequent to 1962) Cessna changed the "gearing" (cable/bell-crank relationships) to increase control feed-back pressures for the pilot, which successfully dampened elevator over-control tendencies.

As a comparison, try flying a pre-1963 172/175 and pay close attention to elevator sensitivity....and then fly a post 1963 airplane and notice how much heavier that elevator feels.

[futr_alaskaflyer]

I bought mine because it met my mission more than any other aircraft, relative to operating cost. Periodically I try to convince myself that my mission is other than what it is, but then sanity prevails.

I do wish I had 200 more lbs of useful load. If only. If if if. That's the devil on my shoulder talking I need a freaking 180 like I need a drain in my bank account. Oh, wait

[GAHorn]

...I do wish I had 200 more lbs of useful load. ...

A certain brain-phazed/unthinking member once lifted off Wilmington NC on a flight to Kill-Devil/First-Flight airport weighing 2400 lbs approx....(2 overweight adults in the front and 2 modestly "plump" adults in the back, full of fuel and forgotten tools/survival/floatation-gear in the baggage) and other than requiring an extra 700 feet of runway and a sad climb rate (until the speed reached 90 IAS, the airplane didn't know it. It cruised at the normal 104 kts once level flight was reached.

If it weren't for the certification balked-landing-climb requirement (and a few other certification speeds, notably stall), structurally this airplane wouldn't have any trouble with a 200 lb gross wt increase.

[Zreyn]

If it had the correct amount of horse power (which is all you can get) it could go lots more than that.(all the M.R.E.'s you can get into every empty space full fuel, except the aux tank +one lard butt to drive) take off from Tela direct Tegucigalpa no problem!!

[Joe Moilanen]

What sold me on my 170 was my skydiving days. We jumped out of a ragwing 170, four jumpers plus pilot. Didn't matter how big all the people were or how much the parachutes weighed, we still went to 7,200' all day long even in the summer. Of course we didn't carry much fuel, and even ran out on jump run occasionally....

Joe

[flyguy]

...I do wish I had 200 more lbs of useful load. ...

A certain brain-phazed/unthinking member once lifted off Wilmington NC on a flight to Kill-Devil/First-Flight airport weighing 2400 lbs approx....(2 overweight adults in the front and 2 modestly "plump" adults in the back, full of fuel and forgotten tools/survival/floatation-gear in the baggage) and other than requiring an extra 700 feet of runway and a sad climb rate (until the speed reached 90 IAS, the airplane didn't know it.

WHATCHA MEEN 2 OVERWATE ? ? 1 OVER WATE WHITE HARE DUDE AN ONE 6' 6" 250# AINT OVERWATE BUB TOO MUCH JUNK INA BACK BEHINE THE 2 PETITE GALS IZ WHAT MADE THE LOAD WAY TOO MUCH NOT THE PEEPLES. AN U BETTER WACH YER SEF CALLIN OUR WAY BETTER HAFS "PLUMP" YOU PROBLY MEMBER SLEEPIN ON MY COUCH AT NITE? . DEENIE IS SOME SENZITIVE BOUT BEIN CALL PLUMP AN U MITE WAKE UP WITH SOME O YOUR HAIR MISSIN. MEMBER SHE IS PART INJUN. .