J170 update

[bushpilot]

Any J170 owners out there? Ive just done a thread search on J170 and there was some debate about a year ago about J170 virtues; in essence:

 

1. Longer wingspan gives bumpier ride but better climb rate (Makes sense)
    
    
   
2. Longer wingspan is cancelled out by heavier weight making TO roll the same distance(??)
    
    
   
3. Floatier on landing. (Makes sense - but is this an advantage?)
    
   

 

My interest is whether the 170 would make a better STOL proposition than a 160. Any thoughts from wise men (& women :-) ?

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

 

 

[blueline]

Larger wing area means that the aircraft can generate sufficient lift for takeoff at a lower IAS when compared to a smaller winged aircraft. Or put another way,

 

Big wing=lower IAS for liftoff= shorter takeoff run.

 

Same is true on landing - more wing= lower IAS on approach = shorter landing roll.

 

My experience is with the J160 and J230 (among other stuff) and have no experience on the J170 BUT for comparision even with its higher MTOW the J230 has a minimum approach speed of 55knots IAS versus 63 knots for the J160.

 

The J230 is easier to fly than the J160 ...............

 

I'm sure others will be able to provide more useful info.

 

 

[blueline]

I should add that a 700 metre strip would be no problem for the J160 or J230 (can do circuit training on a 560 metre strip with little problems).

 

 

[BigPete]

I own a J160c and I've tried the J170.

 

Let me put it lke this....

 

The 170 wants to fly, ;) the 160 wants to land. The wider wingspan (and the wider elevator on the factory built LSA J170c) makes a huge difference, the aeroplane leaps into the air ;) while the J160 drags itself of the ground. :;)4:

 

I have no problem landing the 160 (after all I now have over 600 landings under my belt). The 170 requires more attention to the approach speed and flare, otherwise your still flyin' and running out of strip. :black_eye:

 

AS much as I love my J160c ;) - I do appreciate the vitues of the 170, mailnly this:

 

shorter take off run,

 

ability to loiter at slow airspeed (50 knots is a doddle),

 

LSA take off weight of 600 kgs,

 

slower landing speed (stall around 38 knots at full weight)

 

regards

 

 

[Ross]

I endorse Peter's remarks as I remember similar comments from a nephew at Red Cliffs about his kit built J170 completed and flying in 2007.

 

One extra point is also a better glide angle than the J160 giving a bit more range on an engine failure.

 

 

[bushpilot]

BigPete says: "The 170 requires more attention to the approach speed and flare, otherwise your still flyin' and running out of strip. :black_eye:"

 

Then there is the point Blueline makes about lower IAS on approach.

 

So would one cancel out the other? i.e. Would the slower approach but with greater ground affect likely result in similar landing roll distance?

 

If so, it seems you are together saying that TO distance will be shorter (than J160) for sure, but landing distance will be about the same.

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

 

 

[BigPete]

Chris - I feel that handled correctly the 170 will land much shorter than th 160. You have to be make sure you're over the "keys" at around 55 knots in the 160 as it tends to drop as you near the stall. The 170 however can come in at say 45 knots and will still be reluctant to stop flying.

 

regards

 

 

[bushpilot]

Chris - I feel that handled correctly the 170 will land much shorter than th 160. You have to be make sure you're over the "keys" at around 55 knots in the 160 as it tends to drop as you near the stall. The 170 however can come in at say 45 knots and will still be reluctant to stop flying. regards

Its the "reluctance to stop flying" that could be a disadvantage; if flying into a shortish strip you want to know that it will stop flying - with minimal ground affect.

 

 

[bushpilot]

Downside of drought finishing..

 

I should add that a 700 metre strip would be no problem for the J160 or J230 (can do circuit training on a 560 metre strip with little problems).

A spring has re-emerged at the bottom of my strip - after 5 years of not working.. We measured the effective loss of runway today and I am back to a bit over 600m. Going to have to change my signature caption now.. :;)2:

 

Fortunately the 1:22 downhill slope helps with acceleration... Good 'ole Newton...;)

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I was speaking to the CFI today about the 170's. On my first landing 2 weeks ago I landed unaware of my speed which was 55 knots and it felt good. He said 50 is ok to with some practice and touchdown at 38 knots. With flap and a little wind I've seen the J170's getting airborne at the 150 metre mark and landing within a couple of hundred on grass.

 

 

[Guest AusDarren]

Question for those of you with experiance in both the 160 170

 

At the same loaded weight,

 

what is the FPM climb rate typical of both types?

 

thanks in advance!

 

Regards,

 

AusDarren