I am very proud to report I've just finalized the agreement with Ron Fravel regarding new ownership and management of the "Fravel Conversions" STC, allowing an early 172 to be converted back to conventional gear. EZ Flap will keep the "Fravel Conversion" product name already associated with this product, so as to prevent any confusion with other similar conversions.

This will hopefully be of significant interest to back country pilots and straight tail 172 owners wanting more adventure and more capability out of the aircraft they already own and trust. Customers will be able to receive faster and more effective customer service and response, since Mr. Fravel is "not an airplane guy" and was unable to provide useful tech support. The FAA will certainly likewise be happy that the new STC holder can more effectively interface with them.

The straight tail 172 is a gentle trainer with a nosewheel, but it becomes a highly cost-effective and surprisingly capable medium duty bushplane when converted back to conventional gear. It fits in perfectly between the smaller Cub size bushplanes and the heavier duty 180/185 size aircraft. The 172 offers several highly desirable advantages, including problem-free metal fuel tanks, lighter and more responsive handling, and power options that can be tailored to the needs of the owner. With the stock 145 HP engine, it's a good performing aircraft on a budget, for two people and cargo. Upgraded to 180 HP, it becomes a solid medium duty four place aircraft at moderate operating cost. When your hourly operational costs and maintenance are a priority, the tailwheel 172 will be an option that's well worth considering.

If there are any questions, I will be happy to try and address them, however there is a steep learning curve I will be cdlimbing before I can answer some of the mechanical and structural questions. Yes it is my intention to soon be able to offer some or all of the parts for this conversion, but for now I will continue to offer the basic paper product as it had been offered by the Fravel family.

Congrats Bill. Wishing you good returns on that.

I'm glad you took this project on EZ! It's definitely a worthy conversion.

Very cool. Any conversion from tricycle to tailwheel is a worthy endeavor in my opinion.

Zane wrote:Very cool. Any conversion from tricycle to tailwheel is a worthy endeavor in my opinion.

Still would like to convert a 180B to a 182B

Tim

Sounds great, EZFlap, good luck! Is that STC applicable to any straight-tail 172? What would be the paperwork requirements for upgrading to bigger tires after such a conversion?

Thanks all... I appreciate the vote of confidence.

The ink ain't dry on the paperwork yet, and as mentioned I have to become an overnight expert on just what the hell I've gotten myself into. Anyone on this forum who owns or has installed the Fravel Conversion... I'd really love to hear from you to learn from your experience, incorporate improvements/upgrades that make sense, or avoid problems in the future.

Anyone with an early straight tail 172 in SoCal who wants to be part of a "beta test" getting a very attractive price on the STC paperwork, please contact me. Anyone who has 170 gear box parts and/or 170/180 gear legs I'd like to borrow them, do some head-scratching, and take some measurements if you'd be kind enough. One of the first things I would like to do is write out a good instruction manual or installation guide, with photos and drawings, etc. Having parts will make a better manual.

With the permission and generosity of the forum admin and/or the natives, I'll be glad to post updates and details as they happen, or I will refrain from doing so if it is deemed too commercialistic-like.

Kevbert, I believe it is approved for the 172/A/B/C, which means even the first handful of "Omni-Vision" airplanes are included. Definitely the early fastback swept tail versions are in, since that is the 172A. You can bet your arse that the very first proposal I will set forth to the FAA (if not already approved) is that the airplane should be approved to install Wup's Bushwheels... for the purposes of added safety, and protecting the environment against oil spills from airplanes that nosed over due to small tires!

Makes me wish my parents hadn't sold our '56 172 30 years ago.

Good luck and best wishes Bill! I agree, a 172 TW would be a fine plane to own.

Post up the progress, I'm excited to know more.

Bill:

I applaud your efforts to make this happen. I have gazed at several underutilized straight tail 172's thinking they would make a great first taildragger. There must be others out there that have thought the same thing, and if the economics work it could be great choice in the pacer/170 mix. I took a little different path buying an early 180, but still think a 172TD conversion could be a good project someday. Best wishes for moving this forward.

Regards,
Flynengr

EZFlap wrote:The straight tail 172 is a gentle trainer with a nosewheel, but it becomes a highly cost-effective and surprisingly capable medium duty bushplane when converted back to conventional gear.

Was the 172 ever TC'd as a conventional gear aircraft? I agree though, I've flown a ST 172 with 180hp, that thing was awesome, even as a nose dragger and with no STOL mods. It would haul 5 adults and rafting gear without a problem...of course, I wasn't the PIC that time.

qmdv wrote:
Still would like to convert a 180B to a 182B

Tim

Haha, and then show up at a 180/185 fly-in.

The 172 was never "backwards certified" into a tailwheel by Cessna. When they went from the 170B to the 172, apparently the sales skyrocketed and they never looked back.

Can you tell us more about it, are you going to be selling just the stc, or something like a kit? What changes have to be done for he conversion, what gear legs, etc


Thanks, and congrats,
Tom

I've been looking at tw stc,s for quite sometime only a few out there ,a complete kit would be a nice way to go .......I would be interested in one once you get up to full speed......congrats to your hard work....Dave

Bill,
Congrats!!!
Only wish my 172 were a straight tail. I had looked into doing the TW conversion many years ago but after talking to several people that had done one on an early swept tail I decided against it. My 172 is an "A" model, first year of the swept tail. Apparantly the rudder authority is greatly deminished when these models are converted. Not to the ectent that is ineffective, just that their is less rudder authority once the tail is planted on the ground.
Had this plane for 25 years and it sure would look 'sexier' with its ass on the ground.
Keith

Great job EZ. The 172 conversion is a excellent . I have flown several 172 converted to tail wheel and they are a great performer..


Ken

Cool deal Bill! Congrats!

WW Hunter, don't give up. Let's apply a little cleverness to the problem, or... as my HS physics teacher said... "look at the physics of the situation!"

There are a lot of swept tail airplanes that use VG's on the fin to achieve better rudder authority. It's known to work reasonably well. So this application would represent an excellent candidate for a (relatively easy) field approval. However, I think the wing VG kits come with the approval/req'mt to install them on the fin too??

As a last resort, you can swap the swept tail back to a straight tail, again this would be a field approval and some moderate amount of effort. But they are both parts which are approved on the same type certificate, so it's not as bad as you might think. The biggie would be finding out whether the attach points are any different.

Cessna_pilot, for the immediate future I will be selling the paperwork (which I have not yet had a chance to examine). I currently hold a PMA authorization, so it will be faster for me to get another one if I decide to make new parts... but I still have to figure all that out. There are several (obvious) options for new or upgraded gear legs. I'm not ruling out composite, un-obtanium, or anything else, but good old steel is good old steel for a reason. 60+ years of reliable service in extreme conditions is a pretty strong statement for any structural material.

I have not yet gone through the paperwork (posted the original notice 10 minutes after we finalized the agreement) but Ithe STC likely calls for installing OEM Cessna 170 gear boxes and gear legs. Substituting early 180 legs, PPonk brackets, better bulkheads, etc. etc. are strong possibilities for future updates to the STC once I have gotten it established and running.

I will go on record as saying that I don't think a swept tail Cessna looks right in a tailwheel configuration. They look great as trikes, but the lines of the straight tail sitting on the ground just look... proper. As for the actual effectiveness of the rudder in straight vs swept, I'm not sure. I haven't flown a swept tail Cessna in years.