Well I was interested on any info on a 172 taildragger conversions pros and cons and any to stay away from. I found a plane I am interested in and that has a 180 hp in it should preform pertty well I think any info would help thanks
Well I was interested on any info on a 172 taildragger conversions pros and cons and any to stay away from. I found a plane I am interested in and that has a 180 hp in it should preform pertty well I think any info would help thanks
I owned a 58 with the Bolen conversion. Stock O-300 motor. Very nice conversion. Easy to land, but you couldn't three point it without somebody in the back seat. It made me look better than I was at wheel landings. Since it was a 58 it had a straight tail and no back window, so it looked like a 180, just not quite as big. I liked the landing characteristics better than the only 170 I ever flew. The 172 gear was less springy, at least the 58 version was.
BAS used my airplane to add the 172 to his STC for the tail pull handles.
Rich
Comm/Inst/CFIA/CFII...Now a happy Sport Pilot
Straight tail 172: Good airplane as tailwheel
Swept tail 172: Not as good as tailwheel.
MTV
scouting, Sending you a PM
Would it be possible to copy & paste the email - can we learn from it?Originally Posted by WWhunter
Thanks,
larry
To elaborate a bit on my previous post:
I have flown three 172/175 airplanes that had been converted to tailwheel configuration. All of these were older, straight tail airplanes, and they handled very well in all regards. As I noted, very nice tailwheel airplanes.
I have also flown two 172 airplanes that had been converted to tailwheel configuration, but which were later models, with a swept vertical tail and rudder. I felt that both those airplanes were significantly lacking in rudder authority, compared to the straight tail models. These were not scary by any means, but the straight tail airplanes definitely have better tail aerodynamics, in my opinion.
I have heard similar comments from others on this as well.
MTV
Jack screw vs trim tab! Manual vs electric flaps. I wouldn't spend my time or dollars converting a 172 but it would make more sense to do a straight tail for the jack screw stab and the manual flaps.
My 58 172 had a trim tab. I didn't think any 172 had a jack screw trim system, but I could be wrong. In any case, I agree I wouldn't spend the money to convert but if one is already done then they can be had for less than a comparable 170 and the straight tail is a nice looking airplane on conventional gear.
Rich
Comm/Inst/CFIA/CFII...Now a happy Sport Pilot
for the cost of the plane and conversion, unless it is a wreck, you might find it less to purchase a 180
I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
I have a '56 with the Bolen gear conversion. Stock O-300. Very docile little taildragger, wheel lands simply and easily. Three points with full flaps are problematic with the elevator. You can if you roll in full nose DOWN trim. Kind of a moot point, as anywhere you'd need full flaps and STOL to get into, you'd never get out of with the O-300.
My big beef is with the tail. The trimmable horizontal is what makes the C180/185 airplanes such a joy to fly. Trim tab on the 170/172, and later C182's just doesn't do the job. The C172 TD is very tail heavy on the ground, and as mentioned above, lacking in authority for control with more than 20 or 30 degree flaps.
That said, it's a simple little airplane that'll get you to some fun places on not a lot of money. Mine lives in the dirt down here in Nevada, and it does dirt roads, dry lakebeds, and old airstrips quite well. I just can't go play with the Big Boys like I want to at times.
148326_1477076979507_419086_n.jpg
76054_1622589556871_6114703_n.jpg
Gump
Last edited by GumpAir; 03-23-2013 at 10:06 PM. Reason: Pretty Pictures
I'm an ex-citizen of nowhere, and sometimes I get mighty homesick.
That's pretty. Makes me wish I still had mine. It was a 58 model, but built in late 57. Your description of the performance is right on, based upon my experience.
Rich
Comm/Inst/CFIA/CFII...Now a happy Sport Pilot
Gump can you do the vg's under the horizontal stabilizer?Definitely more elevator authority with them.
I like the sraight tail it just looks right.Are you using the seaplane prop?
Bill
yes, i agree aktango. best to find one already converted. this already had the fravel. its a nice handling lil' girl. but stock 0-300 so i dont have to wear a neck brace on take off and climb out. but it is just a likable lil' airplane. i use it as a two seater, tho it has two jump seats in back.
i havent flown mine a lot, but it has seemed wierd to me, tail heavy on the ground or on roll out or just pre-rotate. but wont three point?
bill, i know you didnt ax me. but. i have heard vgs under the hor stab heps. i just hate those little razors anywhere on my cessna, citabria, or my former super cub that i shouldnt have sold. i would like to try the 8042 as you suggest. its not as easy to do stuff to the 170C as the 170B because the FAA seem to look at the 170C as a 172 just because thats what it says on the data plate. go figure.
and i also agree aktango58 on the repower costs. i had big eyes when i bought this nice little 170C. had thoughts of sugar plumbs and del air 180 hp conversions or if i got crazy stoots 210 or 220 hanging on the tree, or should i say, hanging on the front of the 170C. then.............enter quotes for repower. i dont know if i should walk to school, or carry my lunch. like you say, you could probably take the cost of the conversion add to the sale of the plane and come up with a 180, not a jazzed up late model 180, but a 180 you could spend a munch of money on to make it your own. you see, i have this fever. and the only thing that puts it out is stupid mods and do dads. however, my mechanic likes me. i am job security. like polosi and bohner say, " I DONT HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM" opps maybe i do. oops no politics on this thread. to end this long winded answer, what would be very neet would be to copy the light weight ideas of bigrenna's 170B project and hang a 180hp with a big flat prop. you would have a very unique bird. you could probably have a 180hp weighing in at under 1300lbs untill you hang big tires and wheels on it. but keeping my 800x6's on it my bet is i could get it under 1300
got an aircraft idea? no probem......just add cash.
so, i agree with myself. a 170C with 180hp and 8042 prop and light weight big renna mods would come in at under 1300lbs. it would be very cool. its still not a 180 that you can take off with anything it it,i am told, as long as you can get the door shut. and, its not a super cub that is pretty much throttle ahead tail up and off. (but will get off quicker than a 180) i dont think there is one perfect airplane. i dont like driving much, so i should have kept my 53' light frame 160hp borer prop. but as age come on, its harder for this 6'4" slightly beer bellied old farmer to put my foot behind my ear to get in my former super cub. cessna's have the ingress egress won hands down. they have side by side visiting that most of my passangers have preferred won hands down, cessna has more cargo room generally too, but now,i have to drive more. theres no throttle in tail up and your off on any cessna. do you want to be able to push your plane in your hanger,if there is a little ice on the ground, and not be guarnteed a visit to the chiropractor? the super cub wins and not to bad with the 180hp 170C. do you want to go some what fast? 180 wins. want to haul a lot, go faster, spend more on annuals, fuel, upkeep, ins, purchase price? 180 wins. i am just a wreck. i want one of each. throw in a caravan on amphibs for good measure and might as well get a gulf stream for tee time at augusta.
And that is another huge problem with the C172TD. The data plate says C172, and in the Fed's eyes it is a C172, not a C170.
I spent months trying to get field approval for the GarAero tailwheel. A 337 wasn't good enough, despite copies of other converted 172's using the equipment, and drawings provided by Gar Aero. Oh no, it was going to be a single aircraft STC, with my IA having to start from scratch with technical drawings, documenting prop clearance with the 6.00 tires (whatta ya mean you have 8.50's on the airplane? Who told you that you can use 8.50's on a C172?) On and on ad nauseum. I finally told them to stuff it.
Same for other mods. Kennmore holds the STC for the 8042 seaplane prop. On C170's, not C172's. Good luck with that one. And as for VG's under the horizontal... Sounds good, but all the STC's for VG's I'm aware of are showing wings and tail in combination, not the tail alone.
So, in the end it's a bastard airplane that no one is really sure what you can do with.
Gump
I'm an ex-citizen of nowhere, and sometimes I get mighty homesick.
but it sure is a nice little bastard
i underpants. its harder to get stuff done to a 170C (mods) . i have had the A and the B. to me they fly the same. (except for the little barn door flap on the A)
i just like the looks of the square tail. and i have read a ton that cessna was pretty close to making the 170C instead of the 172 which would have been a bazillion dollar mistake. (i have even hooked up via email with an engineer working for cessna at the time) i wish they would have made both.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks