robw56 wrote:A straighttail 172 would be a good choice for you Jason. You can usually find them a lot cheaper than a 170, especially a 170B. Then you can do the taildragger conversion on your own and have yourself a nice backcountry plane.

That's what I'm pondering on. I've been reading up on 170B's, thinking maybe get one and upgrade it later to 180hp....or possibly get the 172, and do both upgrades later at some point. Whatever plane I get will most likely be in my hands for many years. That along with being an A&P and hopefully IA at some point, and I don't mind doing upgrades myself. But it sure would be nice to just have something finished, flying, and not having to worry about downtime and more expenses after purchase.

I did a little looking earlier and there doesn't seem to be a huge price difference between older 172s and 170Bs, kind of why I'm interested in what the Tundra Hawk conversion would cost to see if it even makes sense.

Hi all, long time lurker first time poster. With a 145 horse 172 and 400 hours I don't feel I have much to contribute to the forums(but really enjoy reading them). EZ, I have a 1961 swept tail fastback 172 based at SZP. If you ever want to compare the rudder authority of that to your straight tail just shoot me a pm.

Regards,

Jim

boyfalldown wrote: EZ, I have a 1961 swept tail fastback 172 based at SZP.

The white and dark blue one that has an N number ending in X? If so, I remember looking at that one when it was for sale at Cable several years ago. The guy had done a lot of work to make it lighter, much more utility and less dead weight. An engineer using his brains if I recall. I was impressed by what he had done.

I'm at Whiteman, we should meet up and chat next time you're looking for somewhere to go. Good Mexican food 3 minutes off the field.

While its white and blue and the tail number ends in x, it wasn't from Cable. I bought it from a young man out of Redlands.
Work is crazy this month, but there is a possibility of me getting out there tomorrow if your around, otherwise I'm busy through the 16.

Jim

Tadpole wrote:

robw56 wrote:A straighttail 172 would be a good choice for you Jason. You can usually find them a lot cheaper than a 170, especially a 170B. Then you can do the taildragger conversion on your own and have yourself a nice backcountry plane.

That's what I'm pondering on. I've been reading up on 170B's, thinking maybe get one and upgrade it later to 180hp....or possibly get the 172, and do both upgrades later at some point. Whatever plane I get will most likely be in my hands for many years. That along with being an A&P and hopefully IA at some point, and I don't mind doing upgrades myself. But it sure would be nice to just have something finished, flying, and not having to worry about downtime and more expenses after purchase.

I did a little looking earlier and there doesn't seem to be a huge price difference between older 172s and 170Bs, kind of why I'm interested in what the Tundra Hawk conversion would cost to see if it even makes sense.

If Franklin really starts making engines again I'd really like to put a 220 in mine some day. If not I'd gor for an O-360.

robw56 wrote: If Franklin really starts making engines again I'd really like to put a 220 in mine some day. If not I'd gor for an O-360.

I agree, but we'll have to wait and see.

Hey EZ...your STC for the Tundra Hawk doesn't care which engine is installed right? In case I get swayed into buying a straight 172 and converting later.

Yeah, it's an airframe conversion independent of the engine. Although any and every modification has a catch-all caveat about it not conflicting with any other modifications or configurations. But since there are several taildraggers with 180 conversions, and the landing gear is structurally separate from the engine structure, it should not be a problem. You will always have to do a weight and balance for either and both upgrades, unless you do them both at the same time.

Cost-wise... there is one other "active" STC conversion product out there at present, and that product was reported to be priced at $14,000 with a big box of OEM parts. Like I said, I'm going after a different market segment, to play fair and distance myself from directly competing with his product on the same level. Those who hold genuine OEM parts up as being of prime importance and value, please feel free to go shopping in scenic Fairbanks. Those who are looking for a lower price point, or different design options, and are willing to say "Toto I don't think we're in Kansas anymore", then my product may have some desirable value and structural appeal. I'm shooting for about half of OEM retail on the big ticket non-standard items.

As mentioned, to help you scroungers and collectors save money... I'm also not going to force you to buy a tailwheel, or axles, or wheels and brakes, or tires, from me as part of this kit. The Scott 3200 and the Alaska Bushwheel 3200 are both already certified and approved on this (Scott listed on the STC and ABI according to their website). High quality solid axles, and wheels, and perhaps other stuff, will be available from me for those who wish it.

boyfalldown wrote:While its white and blue and the tail number ends in x, it wasn't from Cable. I bought it from a young man out of Redlands.
Work is crazy this month, but there is a possibility of me getting out there tomorrow if your around, otherwise I'm busy through the 16.

Jim

Nahhh I was thinking of something like 7740X if I recall. The airplane in your avatar photo is not the one I was thinking of.

Bill,
Since you mentioned me and my swept tail (1960 model) you can come get it and use it for the test bed! Had it nearly 25 years and just can't seem to part with the old bird so I may as well convert it one of these days.
Heck, I doubt I will fly it much in the near future as I am enjoying the RANS too much right now.
Keith

How is the "new" parts coming for your conversion?

Any prospective blessing date from the Feds?

Flap,

A great thread on a great endeavour. My first ever ride in an airplane was a 170B when I was 8, first solo 8 years later and not stopped flying since. Never forgotten that taildragger trip.

I'll be eagerly awaiting your inclusion of the 175 in the STC.

Mr Flap as been quiet for a while. Figured he be back by now since we all seem to be one big happy family once again.

cessnaford wrote:How is the "new" parts coming for your conversion?

Any prospective blessing date from the Feds?

A friend sent me a message that there had been activity on this thread.

The parts are coming along very nicely, but FAA approval is NOT "imminent" . I will be lucky if I have something to sell for next Spring. Re-designing the entire Cessna landing gear system was not a small chunk to bite off. I expect to deliver a 25 to 50 pound reduction in aircraft empty weight, significant increase in strength, and vastly reduced number of hours to accomplish the conversion. The kit price will reflect the four 10 hour days per week this is taking, but will still be lower than using OEM parts.

For those of you interested in the progress on the Fravel SportHawk/TundraHawk 172/175 tailwheel conversion, here are a few photos. I promised I'd post when there was something significant to show. I never figured out how to embed photos in a post, so I put them on photobucket and pasted the links. The forum admin is welcome to wave a magic wand and embed these photos in this post at his discretion.

These photos show the brand new prototype welded aluminum fuselage reinforcement doubler/tripler assembly and integral tailwheel spring mount bracket, just completed today. This will replace the old 170/L-19 "alligator bracket", and/or the rectangular strap doubler and riveted (Cessna part) mounting deck of the later Fravel (and Bolen) conversions. I'm sure you will agree this unitized and thickened assembly is stronger, tougher, and even prettier. After two re-designs and making it out of two thicknesses of metal, this complex part weighed in at only 2 lb. 8 oz., while still having over 1/4 inch of wall thickness at the locations of maximum shear and fastener load!

Also shown are the inboard and outboard main landing gear brackets installed on the test aircraft, as well as the integral bulkhead reinforcement and structural skin flange. Note that I have left room on the inboard bracket shear wall for the owner to install the PPONK reinforcement block at their discretion.

Comments, questions, discussion, etc. are welcome. No, I do not know when I can sell you a kit.

http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/BooRa ... sort=3&o=0

http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/BooRa ... sort=3&o=1

http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/BooRa ... sort=3&o=2

http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/BooRa ... sort=3&o=3

http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/BooRa ... sort=3&o=4

http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/BooRa ... sort=3&o=5

http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/BooRa ... sort=3&o=6

http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/BooRa ... sort=3&o=7

Bill, tail mod. looks good and simple. Great workmanship.

Those look like hunky weldments...wow! Looking great...

Bill, the language is

[img]http//www.blahblahblah%20etc%20etc%20no%20spaces%20etc.[/img] No spaces just as it is given on Photobucket or Tinypic.

So simple even an idiot can do it....I can Zzz has it set up so that the system will parse the link if it's really long.

EB

Emory Bored wrote:Bill, the language is

[img]http//www.blahblahblah%20etc%20etc%20no%20spaces%20etc.[/img] No spaces just as it is given on Photobucket or Tinypic.

So simple even an idiot can do it....I can Zzz has it set up so that the system will parse the link if it's really long.

EB

For imagebucket, it's even easier than that:



Clicking on that "IMG" field automatically copies all the code you need. Just paste into the post. Nothing more.

Looking good, Bill!