Landing a Ragwing

[mrpibb]

Hi all,
Well I just bought my first airplane ever, a 48 C170. I have always had a thing for tailwheel aircraft, so after a year of looking I settled on the 48. Dont get me wrong I like A and B models but the price was right and I kinda like the fabric wing and the round wingtips. I test flew the aircraft It flies like I anticipated but I didnt take off or land it. Last week I found a instructor that has 170 time thru a friend so off we went. We just stayed in the pattern to practice take offs and landings, what a workout!! It seems that the rudder is very sensitive as i was at first tending to overcontrol on the landing roll outs.

Now the reason for this post is that my instructor who has flown only 170Bs said that the B model was not as touchy as my 48, could it be the lack of the dorsal that the later models have? or is there something up? or is it just the way it is. Either way I dont really see it as a problem, the annual is due so I plan on checking all the rigging and replace the tailwheel steering and rudder pedal return springs as precautionary.
I tried a search on the forums for rudder control and didnt find any
I read the threads on crosswind landings and enjoyed it, my instructor had me landing on the upwind wheel while controlling my track with aileron and rudder.
Anyway sorry for the novice questions but I figure if there is anyplace to ask this the place.
Thanks
Vic

[Mike Smith]

I just bought a 1950 "A" model and it's pretty "touchy" on the rudder also. If it's been a while since the instructor has flown one of these he may be comparing it to the nosewheel rudder "feel". They are usually a little more firm in feel. I was flying a Maule before my 170 and it's firmer than the 170. The only other 170 I've flown was a "B" and it seemed about the same on the rudder sensitivity. I also had a C-140 and it was more sensitive than a C-150. Wait for a few more replies before you start spending money on "fixing" it and see what the other members think. Good Luck : )

[GAHorn]

That's OK to ask "novice" questions here, Vic, because that's all we ever give is novice answers.
Taildraggers generally have "lighter" rudder pedal feel than trikes do because 1) there is no additional control-circuit friction in the nosewheel linkage to overcome , 2) there is no nosewheel centering-circuit (that insures the nosewheel is centered when the oleo is fully extended) to overcome, and 3) most later aircraft had larger, square and/or swept rudder surfaces which have greater relative-wind forces with which to contend.
Individual 170's may display slightly different rudder "feel" depending upon rudder circuit condition, frictions due to cable tensions, pulley condition, and rudder return-spring strength.

[mrpibb]

Thanks for the replies, I was just curious cause later that evening after my instructor took his dad up to check him out who is also a cfi, they got back and commented about it being more sensitive than the cub and other tailwheel aircraft in that class, I guess it's cause they instruct in the cub and the swift that they were comparing the 170 to. However the next day I just concentrated on using less input even though I had the urge to push further on the rudder pedels wich work out good, also my instructor would place his feet close to the pedals to act as stops just in case.
Anyway I get to try again this weekend, cant wait. I love flying this ship, every time I look out the side window along the double strut wing, the taught fabric on the wings I wonder in the past 55 years who else has done the same. As we are all just keepers of these aircrafts, I wonder who else after me will look out the window watching the earth slip underneath wondering who has done the same.

Sorry for ramblin on,
Vic

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Vic
I also have a Cub. The handling is NOTHING like the 170. In fact it's apples and oranges. kind of different.

I also have the opportunity to fly 2 other 170's besides mine. None of them handle the same either. Each has a different landing gear model, brake setup and the wear on the Scott 3200 is different. One has a 180 conversion which buts the cg farther back. One has cross wind landing gear and Goodyear breaks which is really a thrill and then there is mine which will not turn without the application of brakes.

[Bill Rusk]

When I purchased my 170 I was current in Cubs and the like but the 170 is much more demanding in both pitch and yaw in the landing phase. I spent several weeks doing lots and lots of touch and goes before I was really comfortable in the 170. My gear is very true and the airplane is a pussycat now..... it just took some time to get used to. The first few weeks were embarasing and humbling. If your instructor has been out of C-170's for awhile and into Cubs what he is experiencing is normal and there is nothing wrong with your gear,rudder or tailwheel. The C-170 tailwheel is not as precise as on some other airplanes due to its linkage design, later fixed on the 55 and 56 models, but this will show up more on taxi than landing. Practice, practice and practice some more. Have fun.

Bill

[rudymantel]

"Sensitive" rudder means lots of control. It's big plus. You just need to get used to the sensitivity. When I had my Pitts S1S it was very sensitive in all axes. But it meant that it could handle crosswinds and all other contingencies with ease-
We're fortunate to have such large rudders on our 170's.
FWIW
Rudy

[GAHorn]

Round tail feathers are what give this airplane it's "classic" look, in my opinion. I've often wondered why in the world Cessna made the tailfeathers round. The only logical reasons I can find is that 1) they were a continuation of commonly accepted styling features, because 2) rounded flight controls were the easiest to manufacture when working with wooden bows and tubing. (That was the easiest way to end a wing, or a control surface.) So I guess the style just appeared correct to them.
But in metal, it's actually more difficult. And in actual practice, aerodynamically, they are less effective. A rounded rudder has a lot of lost effectiveness at it's upper and lower ends, due to the rounded shape. The square tail feathers were a great improvement in control, but the reason the engineers made the change may surprise you. (It did me at least.)
When the tri-cycle version of the airplane was prototyped, the pilots were unhappy with the short-coupling of the nose-wheel vs the main wheels, and they demanded more rudder for crosswind control. Also, it was found that the engine mounting angle placed tremendous downward load upon the nose wheel and tire when full power was applied.
So the engineers decided to increase the effectiveness of the tail feathers, and the simplest answer was to square them out, and still later, when swept became fashionable, to increase their size in order to make up for the loss of effectivity that the sweep produced.
Check out Wm. D. Thompsons comments on this in his book that Russ Farris mentioned earlier, "Cessna, Wings for the World".

[rudymantel]

I guess what counts is not so much the shape of the rudder but the area.
Rudy

[russ murri]

the ragwing does fly a little differant than A and B models. the elevator is not counter balanced with weights ,you will see this taxing with the amount of press needed to hold yoke all the way back and does require a little extra effort in the landing, easy to over control. the ragwing will fly slower than the others but without the bigger flaps it needs to. speed control is everything in landing. my buddy can bring his b model in at 75-80 with full flaps and land shorter than I can at 60 for approach speed. no drag with the baby flaps. My old granddad was a horse man and he always said that it took a lot of wet saddle blankets to make a good horse. to fly a tail dragger is no differant. I have owned my ragwing for over 5 years and it still makes me smile from ear to ear every time I set in the seat... and watch the world go by under my double struts. Russ