converting 172/182 to tailwheel

A friend of mine said he saw an ad for a STC to convert a 172/182 into tailwheel config. He thought it was out of Florida. Anybody got any details.
Thanks, Marty

There are several conversions for the 172/175. Lots of tailwheel 175's around, with Lycoming motors. Great little airplane.

There is also at least one conversion for EARLY 182's. I believe that conversion only works on airplanes built before about 1960, though.

Those airplanes (the early 182's) were basically just 180's with a nosewheel.

You will see them around for sale at times, and if done right, they are essentially just whatever they were intended to emulate.

MTV

An acquaintance converted an early straight-tail 172 to tailwheel configuration, I forget which paperwork. Also installed a Lycoming 0-360, 180 hp. You've got to look and listen carefully to tell that it isn't a C-180. It was beautifully done, excellent workmanship and attention to detail.

That said, he told me that for what he has in it, he could have bought an equivalent C-180 and had a faster plane which could carry more load.

Also, apparently the conversion did not increase the elevator travel, it's limited to original 172 travel. Therefore, it's difficult to get good 3-point landings, especially with the heavier power plant installation. I've heard this of some C=150 tailwheel conversions, too, but take it as a rumour for now. Anyone know how the 182 tailwheel conversion stacks up?

Thanks. cubscout

I have only seen straight back 182's converted, there is a conversion however for a 172 omnivision, makes a weird looking Aircraft.

The 182's I've seen are just the same as 180's, comparing the costs thought the only way to do it cheaper instead of buying a 180 would be to convert it yourself if you are an engineer.

The weight problem you mention with a 172 elevator doesn't add up. a 4 cylinder 360 lyc is around the same weight as an old 6 cylinder Continental. The total conversion finishes up much the same weight as before, so the elevator deflection should still be OK?

I had a 1958 C172 converted with the BOLEN Tailwheel STC. It had the original O-300. I could not 3 point it unless somebody was in the back seat, or there was a case of oil in the baggage. It did make nice wheel landings.

I did not do the conversion. It is still on the registry owned by the man I sold it to. N8616B

Rich

There's a '58 or '59 182/180 conversion for sale in, I think, Minnesota. It looks nice but I can't help wondering if the model number reflects the change. If the data plate says 180 Conv. then it's probably OK.

Installing things that are approved for a regular 180 might get difficult these days if the feds think it's still a 182.

The asking price was reasonable, I think.

Jon B.

180 hp conversion / landing /nose heavy

Student Pilot said:

The weight problem you mention with a 172 elevator doesn't add up. a 4 cylinder 360 lyc is around the same weight as an old 6 cylinder Continental. The total conversion finishes up much the same weight as before, so the elevator deflection should still be OK?

Click to expand...

I've been flying my 1959 C172 Avcon conversion 180 HP C. S. prop for about a year now. Student Pilot, you are right, the engine isn't really any heavier, but don't forget the prop. Cubscout's report on a friends taildragger 180 hp conversion jives with what I'd expect. My engine prop combination was the lightest of the 3 choices, at +33 lbs, all in the nose. Getting the aircraft within CG involved carrying all kinds of extra weight as far back as possible (I had at least 75 lbs back there for my exam
javascript:emoticon('')). I looked at moving the battery to the back, then came across an extended baggage kit and stc from Silkirk aviation. That was installed last spring. Now it always has about 30 lbs of survivial/maintenance items in the extended baggage with an arm of 125 inches. I'm on tricycle gear, but I can round out and flare onto the main gear even power off javascript:emoticon(''). Before if you wanted to touch mains, then nose, you needed to keep power on.
I plan to take this even farther and go with a lightweight starter and get rid of the heavy generator. I figure I can get at 10-15 lbs of the nose there.
best regards
Stan

With the Delair conversion, a Lyc 360 with a fixed pitch is the same weight as the 300 Conti.

172 conversion

Student Pilot said:

With the Delair conversion, a Lyc 360 with a fixed pitch is the same weight as the 300 Conti.

Click to expand...

Ok, yes, I could see where that would fly with a cg very much like stock, but if I understand the author we are talking about a conversion that makes it hard to tell the difference between it and a 180? Cubscout reported" You've got to look and listen carefully to tell that it isn't a C-180." If it has the small spinner, thats a dead giveaway right there it's not a 180- so it sure sounds like a heavy nosed constant speed conversion to me. Your mileage may vary....

Thanks for the steer toward Del-Air. I wasn't aware of them. Found a bit of discussion on a 170 bulletin board. I also recall Penn-Yan offers a fixed pitch conversion- and they argue it is every bit as good as the variable pitch. I looked a bit for their flight testing that I read a year or so ago, but couldn't find it. I seem to recall they argued that their fixed pitch was a better solution, iirc, due to more usable blade area and a substantial front prop spacer, they argued they were getting the prop out in front away from the cowling where it offers better application of thrust. Interesting read from what I remember, so I certainly wouldn't write off the non-constant speed, but I'd want more data. Unfortunately, Penn Yan doesn't offer it for the fastbacks.

For me, Selkirks extended baggage kit was a great cure for the nose-heavy problem and gave me easy ski carrying capability.
http://www.selkirk-aviation.com
(I have no affiliation, other than being a happy customer)
I wouldn't have any hesitation flying a tailwheel / 180 hp conversion/C.S. prop WITH the extended baggage. The extended baggage allows you to manage your CG as needed.
As for elevator travel- what is the actual difference between the 172 vs 180 and 170?

I concur on the Selkirk baggage. Its a good addition, well made and gets the weight back where you need it in some conditions.

There is simply no comparison between a good early 180 and a 180 hp 170 or 172, in my opinion, although someone who hasn't looked at many of them might mistake any tailwheel aircraft for a 180 (or a Cub :lol: ).

I have an AvCon, with constant speed prop. Personally, I wouldn't even consider going with a fixed pitch prop on one of these things. As it is, even with the constant speed prop, the airplanes just don't have enough fuel, unless you have the 175 or long range tanks from the later 172's, of 50 gallons. With a fixed pitch prop, you'll be hunting for fuel all the time if you start with only 37 useable. I added Flint tanks, and don't care much for them, but they take care of the fuel issue.

I have the Hartzell 80 inch constant speed prop on my 170, and it pulls as well as any fixed pitch prop could. It is heavy by comparison. Perhaps soon, the MTV 15 prop will be available. That thing is a real puller, AND light to boot. Same weight as a fixed pitch, but much more versatility.

Anyway, if someone tells you their 180 hp 172 is just like a 180, you can conclude that they've probably never flown a 180.

MTV

fuel and prop

37 gallons usable....
Initially, I felt this was a problem, but lately on my cross-countrys I've adopted a 65% power, about half carb heat, and as lean as she will run smoothly. I don't do the carb heat when atmospheric conditions would suggest a high amount of airborne particulate (fires, high winds, low altitudes) and I watch my oil analysis for dirty air indication. A recent leg from southern Idaho to Nebraska at 15,500 yeilded a fuel burn of 6.3 gph (yes there was a tail wind and extra O2 expense). But, tell you what, I was ready to stretch my legs.

MVIVION wrote:
I have the Hartzell 80 inch constant speed prop on my 170, and it pulls as well as any fixed pitch prop could. It is heavy by comparison. Perhaps soon, the MTV 15 prop will be available. That thing is a real puller, AND light to boot. Same weight as a fixed pitch, but much more versatility.

I am interested in hearing more about your prop. I've also got a Hartzell 2 blade, a HC-C2YK-1BF. It is subject to a service bulletin for hub failure avoidance. The suggested action is hub replacement or an eddy current test every 100 hours of operation (SB HC-SB-61-227 Rev. 4). If there is a good replacement prop, I'd sure look at it although I don't know if I could easily switch based on the limited choices for props on the original Avcon STC. I recall 2 or 3K for the new hub alone, so if there is a prop that is lighter and maybe faster, I'd sure consider it.

MVIVION wrote:
Anyway, if someone tells you their 180 hp 172 is just like a 180, you can conclude that they've probably never flown a 180.

I agree on the 170 series, 180 series comparison- it's really apples and oranges. They are both wonderful airplanes, but different in useful load, fuel burn, and $$$$. That said, there's a guy nearby building a taildragging 170 series with a TIO360, now that will be interesting....

best regards
Stan

Stan,

The Hartzell prop is available as an STC from Hartzell, and is approved for the AVCON converted 170. It is an HC C2YK 1BF8277-4 propeller, as I recall. It is a similar hub to what you have, with a set of blades from a Pawnee and a harmonic damper assy from a Seneca I. Unfortunately, the harmonic damper is both expensive and heavy (9 pounds).

You can buy the prop stc from Hartzell, and just purchase the spinner, backing plate, harmonic damper and paperwork, without buying the prop from them. Or buy the whole nine yards for a lot of money. I was lucky and got a used hub in good shape, new blades at a bargain price, and a used damper all done on field approval before the stc was done.

You're right, they're both great airplanes, but very different. MPG is much better on the 180, due to speed.

MTV

Sorry if anyone misconstrued my comments on early C-172 Tailwheel conversion as being "Just like a C-180". The owner didn't claim that; in fact, he was quite modest about the actually decent performance of his conversion; it's just that, from a distance, the visual was similar. And of course once I got up in range, noticed the flat tailspring and other interesting details.....

People who are modest about their aeroplanes usually have something much better than what they let on. If nothing else, I find them much more pleasant to be around than the braggerts one sometimes encounters.

But for HIS type of flying this is a great aeroplane; I respect that. For the money, it might not work for me, but hey, that's just my personal taste. That said, I'm glad there are folks still poking around the edges of the envelope on conversions and STC's no matter the type. And heck, I admire the heck out of Cublite's Cessna conversion, done to his taste and flying style....

And yes, the one I mentioned has CS prop, big spinner, so probably heavy on the nose, and sounds like some further validation on that from other posts.

And if someone were to go out looking for a base to do a conversion, consider the C-175: Same TC as the 172, but a bit more fuel capacity, and battery aft, all of which should help. Plus they tend to be cheaper than equivalent C-172, owing to the geared engine issues.

These are all interesting and useful types, just very different animals. What I tryed to convey was that for the cost of a conversion, you might end up with as good or better original, and have better resale value to boot. And as MTV has noted, C-170 is another different (and very worthwhile) animal. It just depends on what you're interested in, and how you plan to use it.

Also, according to a respected local shop who've done a few LYC 0-360 conversions on C-172's, good reports on the Del-Air version. Reported as more complete, good baffles, less shop-time to install than the other versions. And to be clear, not my actual personal experience in installation (but I've seen some and concur), just what's been reported by reliable sources.

Thanks. cubscout

I went for a fixed pitch for the weight, also I read the "Cessna, wings for the World" book and in it they state with an 0-360 continental the top speed is the same with constant speed and fixed pitch. This is the factory blokes talking not somebody selling an STC. The only difference is off the ground, as most of my work will be off resonable strips (400 yards +) I went for the fixed pitch. With an empty weight of around 1355lbs and gross of 2500lbs (with a D model like ours the gross goes up to 2500 with the Delair conversion) it makes for a pretty usefull load of 1145lb.

Another thing is cabin space, the amazing thing is an old 172D is excatly the same size in the cabin as a 180 or a 185.

C. S. versus fixed, gross weights, mpg....

With an empty weight of around 1355lbs and gross of 2500lbs (with a D model like ours the gross goes up to 2500 with the Delair conversion) it makes for a pretty usefull load of 1145lb.

Student Pilot
That makes a lot of sense, nice airplane. A true 4 place 172 under most conditions. I've noticed one of the limitations with the early 172's is even when you get the horsepower up with the conversion, it is still legally a 2-3 person aircraft. I'm at about 1400 light with 2200 gross on the 1959 C172, for a useful of about 800.

Cubscout mentioned reasons to target the 175 for conversions- all good reasons. Another reason is the higher gross from the factory that the 170's and 172's. 175's started out at 2350 gross and the 175 C enjoyed a 2450.

MVivion, thanks for the prop info. I'll be looking into it. I'm curious- with that 9 lb dampner you mentioned, do you still have RPM limitations? My prop/engine carries a placard for avoiding continuous use between 2000-2250 RPM. Also, what data do you have on mileage? 180's getting better mileage doesn't jive with factory published numbers when do the math for mpg coming from fuel capacity and range. 180's look to be in the low to mid nines with the 172/175's being in the 11's. If you have similiar airframes, and one going slower than the other- the slower one should get better mileage (in general).

best regards
Stan

180Marty said:

A friend of mine said he saw an ad for a STC to convert a 172/182 into tailwheel config. He thought it was out of Florida. Anybody got any details.
Thanks, Marty

Click to expand...

Marty-

I actually know the guy that got the STC in FLA. It is for the swept tail. If you PM me ill track down his number for you. I rode in the 182 conv. pretty nice ride.

Tim

Heavy noses aren't the problem with converted nosedraggers. The problem is in the tails. Lack of elevator authority to maintain a high nose at slow speeds is the result of a tail that wasn't designed to maintain such attitudes at slow speeds. Watch a converted plane at take-off when loaded. They struggle to get the tail up on the take-off run. Same deal. Advantage jackscrew.

Stewart

C-182 conversion

Talked to a guy in Idaho the other day who had a 182 converted to a 180. His reasoning was he could buy a older low time no damage history airplane. Said he had looked for a long time for a straight low time C-180 and couldn't find one. Was a beautiful polished airplane and his reasoning made sense to me.

I have been doing a little thinking and looking at this 182 float stc. the cost for the STC is $8300.00 you can about double that when you add in labor. When you find a set of 2870 with 180 rigging it will cost another $3,400.00 for the rigging upgrade. After adding it all up you are at about the same cost of a 180 with a float kit. There are a couple of reason to opt for the 180 first it is a 180 not a conversion so your resale will be higher, second it has been corrosin proofed and depending on the year your usefull load will be much greater.

Down side to the 182 to 180 conversion is the STC is not for float operation plus the plane has no corrosion proofing. I don't know if you can get a gross weight increase?

I came to the realization that if a 182 fills your needs you will be hard pressed to get a better plane for the money. If you are thinking of converting 182 to a 180 you might want to reconsider, if your not carefull you may end up with a whole lot of money into something you will never get back. Buy a 180 or 185 it could very well be cheaper in the long run.

Cub_Driver

Bringing back an old thread.
My father passed suddenly this summer and I have been in Oregon settling his estate. I have inherited his low time corrosion free 61 model with a fresh engine so it’s fair game for a conversion.
My problem is I can’t find any STC’s.
Anyone know who is holding them?

thanks

I know.....just fly it. My thinking was it’s free....and the cost of conversion is going to be far less than a new 180. There’s also a sentimental tie to it.
Owning both a Cub and 180 would be amazing.

Bringing back an old thread.
My father passed suddenly this summer and I have been in Oregon settling his estate. I have inherited his low time corrosion free 61 model with a fresh engine so it’s fair game for a conversion.
My problem is I can’t find any STC’s.
Anyone know who is holding them?

thanks

This ad is currently running on Barnstormers.
I think there's also an outfit in Montana r somewhere that does 182 TD conversions.