I just bought a Cessna 172K that was converted to tailwheel (Ralph Bolen conversion). It also has a Horton STOL kit. I was looking to buy a C180, but I came accross this 172 and I began to think this was probably more appropriate for me than a gas guzzling 180 and I got it for under $45k. It's low time with a recent strip and paint job and interior. Its packed with avionics, but there a little dated. It has a pair of KX 170 Nav/Coms, ADF, DME and a transponder. It's a real great plane so far. If I up the hp to 180, this could be a real keeper. I have been experimenting with it from a performance standpoint and it's actually fairly impressive at low speed with the Horton STOL kit. I am afraid to fly it too slow on final so my slow flying has been all at altitude to see what the STOL kit does for it.

Anyone have any experience with the 172 taildragger or the performance of a 172 with a Horton STOL kit? I would like to hear what kind of low speed performance and take-off performance can be safely accomplished with this plane.

Mark

A lot of it would depend on how tall the landing gear is, and how much of a "deck angle" you can achieve in TW config. versus the nosewheel config. On the older 172's like mine you can get a higher nose angle with the tricycle than you could with a tailwheel. That has a lot of effect on how soon the airplane will fly on takeoff, or how slow you can get it during the flare.

What EZFlap said...plus I have read that the rudder authority is not the best with the slant tail models. Many years ago I had considered doing the TW conversion on my '60 model 172 and was told way back then that the pre '60 model straight tails made much better TW planes....more in line with the 170 lineage I guess.
I think one of the posters on this site had/has a '60 model 172 TW. Hopefully he wil chime in with his experiences.

How are you liking the STOL kit? I have been thinking of putting the Sportsman STOL on mine if I decide to keep the plane.

WW

Thanks for the information. The plane has 185 gear legs and 800x6 tires but its not raked up real extremelyl high. I certainly don't expect it to leap off the ground like a true bush plane, but this seems to be a good compromise of docile C172 flying characteristics and off field configuration. I see what you mean by the straght tail vs the swept tail. The straight tails look better too IMO.

I am not too sure about what the STOL is doing for this airplane because its winter now (fairly cold temps) and I have only been using the paved runway due to lots of heavy rain recently. The Horton STOL site has some testimonials that indicate it lowers the stall speed below 45mph. I can slow fly it at altitude and without sinking to about 30mph. The turns are too mushy to try an approach at that speed. A slight crosswind would knock into a spin. At 45mph it seems to fly normally at altitude with no signs of a stall other than the whining of the stall horn. I will keep practicing and learning to fly it on the edge of the envelope.

Use the site's search function for C172 tailwheel conversions. Lots of info there.

Big problem with them, and I own a '56 Bolen conversion with O-300, is the lack of trimable horizontal. Makes them tail heavy on take-off, and impossible to really get a true three pointer out of them with full flaps. All moot point for short field work anyway, because you can get in most anywhere with one, but you can't get back out.

The straight tails might look like a C180, but they do not fly or handle like a C180.

Gump

Hi Gump,

I don't expect this to do the job of a 180. Its more of a novelty. I am into taildraggers and I think this plane will go places other 172's will go. The Horton STOL kit may give it a slight advantage over another 172 without it and the tail wheel will give it alittle more prop clearence. I really don't need a 180 as much as want one. That's why this one made good sense to me. There are plenty of backcountry places that I can get in and out of with it i'm sure. They may not be as remote though or high altitude.

I've had mine for 3 1/2 years and about 750 hours now. In spite of it's limitations, I love it. Very docile, cheap to run (I say that tongue in cheek as the pull-start shit on me two days ago and filled the engine full of gear teeth), and just a sweet little airplane.

I have stock wing and run 8.50's on it, and it does fine on the dirt roads and dry lake beds up here in Nevada. I rarely use over 20 degrees flaps for landings which allows me to get a true three-point if I want to, but in all reality, I use a tail-low wheel landing for most of the rougher ground landings and crosswinds, which gives me, in my opinion, much more precision and control.

Where these airplanes are dangerous is with weight, horsepower and density altitude issues. Some hot summer days here in NV, and I'm at 4,300 feet, I'm lucky to get 100 fpm climb with just me and light on gas. I spend a lot of time playing glider pilot, and really paying attention to microclimate stuff. Where is the wind moving UP, so I can get some lift.

Fly it and enjoy it...

Gump

I've also heard that the swept-tail Cessna's are low on rudder authority for tailwheel op's. In fact, my 150D taildragger (square tail with rear window) seems a little low on rudder authority, compared to the 170 I used to own. I've been thinking of adding a VG kit, as much or more for the VG's going up the vertical in front of the rudder as for the VG's on wings. I already have pretty good aileron authority at low speed (my aileron gap seals no doubt help with that) but more rudder would be nice.
As far as more power, I'm assuming that your 172K-TD has a 150-horse Lycoming. There's an STC to bump some of those (the -E2A for example) to 160 horse by going to higher-compression pistons. That might be an idea, esp if you have to tear into the top end due to leaky valves or something.

Eric

Does anyone have experience with VG's on the lower part of the stabilizer, to be able to get more tail authority for three-point landings? I believe the Cub VG kits do this, but do the Cessna kits do it too?

I also have a 56 172, and with just my fat ass in front and nobody in back I also run out of elevator authority for full flap landings. The old 172 will slow down and land short very well, as mentioned. At the local municipal airport, the 172 when light will land and get off the runway almost as short as my old Taylorcraft. That surprised me big time.

The same principle that was mentioned about the VG's on the fin would probably come into play with the stab as well. Paperwork notwithstanding, some of the quick and dirty glue-on clear plastic VG's might help a little. Of course having a case of oil or a few gallons of drinking water in the rear of the baggage compartment will help a lot too.

An experimental spoiler on the top of the stab could possibly make this situation better, but that's probably way too freaky-deaky for most "normal airplane" people to try out

Hey obxbushpilot,

My first Alaska plane was a 1956 172 with the bolen conversion. Also had the standard 0300 contental with a climb prop. Great plane, took off and climbed well, just a dog on cruse though. Lived out on the coast not to far from Nome, so density alt wasn't much of a concern as Gump mentioned. After a couple years got to trade up for a 1956 172 with the bolen, horton and avcon O-360 conversions; completly different animal. Down here in Texas, even during the summer, TO's feel more like getting in an elevator. As you mentioned already, with the horton conversion it will stall (full flaps) in the high 20's but the controls are so sluggish i would not try landing it that slow. I find that 60 short final, 50 over the fence and 40 touchdown gives me the most consistant control with the shortest landing. With the extra weight up front, i can use all 40 degrees of flap and do either a 3-point or tail low landing.

I have heard the same issue on the swept-back tail, i have never had the opportunity to fly one to compare. I can say that i had way more rudder authority with the 0300 version than i do with the 0360. I find that if i am carring power into the flair with a crosswind coming from my right, i run out of rudder much quicker because of the amount of torqe/p-factor with the larger engine. So, i did have to change my short-field technique, but that is a minor thing.

Over-all i have really enjoyed both planes, but the increased horsepower has made a world of difference.

One other thing i need to pass along; on the bolen conversion, you need to carefully check the mounting plates where the tailspring leaves the airframe, apparently they are famous for developing cracks there. Met a guy at an airshow recently and he was showing me on his plane where he had had major cracks and how his A&P had fixed them. Went back to my plane, scraped some paint and shure enough, had one starting. When i get it all fixed i plan to post the before and after photos for anyone who's interested.

Chris

WWhunter wrote:I think one of the posters on this site had/has a '60 model 172 TW. Hopefully he wil chime in with his experiences.

That's probably me. 7598T now lives in Calgary after I groundlooped the crap out of it 2 years ago. It was a 60 172A almost groundup rebuild, Bolens tailwheel conversion with the 180 like gear legs, Horton STOL, aileron gap seals, 30 gals extended in the wings legal(Harry Delliker used my wings to upgrade his stc from 7.5 to 15 ea side.), 180 hp lyc, b&c alt, Odyssey battery, 8.50's, double puck clevelands, BAS tail pulls, BAS harnesses, and A SWEPT BACK TAIL!!! Look at the black bird in my photo gallery called "The Buzzard". Okie bushman saw it about the time I was finishing the interior when he came up for the tradeshow in Anchorage. The bird hauled butt and cruised at about 130, got off quick and rock solid stable through ground effect with lift off just a sec ot two before the airspeed indicator became alive, didn't want to stall, tried to sail on landing, and squirrely as hell in a crosswind with scant rudder authority. The rudder authority of the slant tail (or lack thereof) was a real problem.

We were going to put a 175 square tail on it when I looped it...best thing that ever happened to me too even though I collapsed the right main and ripped it out of the box. I didn't realize that the bird was not fun to fly because I was determined to conquer it at the end of the 11 yr project. My stubborn nature wouldn't let me ackowledge that I was dealing with a bird that WAS going to try to roll up in a ball, strike like a snake, and maybe kill me on every landing....wanted to go left on almost every wheel landing but tracked straight when the tail dropped into 3 point.

I'm glad I did it because I got both the project and the groundloop out of my system ( I hope). Would I do it again? No way, unless it was a square tail as they are docile as can be. It worked out for the best though as I now have a good 182J that is just a poorman's 206 in some ways. I also don't miss flying a snake that will try to bite me hard every time I land it.

EZFlap wrote:Does anyone have experience with VG's on the lower part of the stabilizer, to be able to get more tail authority for three-point landings? I believe the Cub VG kits do this, but do the Cessna kits do it too?

I also have a 56 172, and with just my fat ass in front and nobody in back I also run out of elevator authority for full flap landings. The old 172 will slow down and land short very well, as mentioned. At the local municipal airport, the 172 when light will land and get off the runway almost as short as my old Taylorcraft. That surprised me big time.

The same principle that was mentioned about the VG's on the fin would probably come into play with the stab as well. Paperwork notwithstanding, some of the quick and dirty glue-on clear plastic VG's might help a little. Of course having a case of oil or a few gallons of drinking water in the rear of the baggage compartment will help a lot too.

An experimental spoiler on the top of the stab could possibly make this situation better, but that's probably way too freaky-deaky for most "normal airplane" people to try out

EZ, I can't speak about a 172 as the only one I've owned was a stock '75 model. I can tell you though that with the 180 series Cessna's, I have had the VG kit. Both Micro and Boundary Layer, before and after, wing cuffs and no wing cuffs. I don't proclaim to be an expert, but my opinion on them is that if you already have a STOL kit, the VG's don't really help much. I would say that you may possibly gain a very slight amount of aileron authority at slow speed which is certainly not wasted, but it's been my experience that the Cessna wing (without extensions) really doesn't lack aileron anyway. Just my experience after 3 of them, others will no doubt have other experiences. Now put them on a cub wing, and it's a whole different animal, again in my experience.

If you are running out of elevator, there is an old bush pilot trick. It is uncomfortable and is a departure from what the 200 hour instructor teaches, but it works. Roll the trim all the way forward and hang on to it. You'll be amazed at the amount of elevator you gain. Your suggestion of carrying some water in the rear baggage is also a good one. You can always dump it out once on the ground if you need to get rid of it.

gb

EZFlap wrote: Does anyone have experience with VG's on the lower part of the stabilizer, to be able to get more tail authority for three-point landings? I believe the Cub VG kits do this, but do the Cessna kits do it too? ..............

I just surfed the Micro-Aero website-- their kit for swept-tail 172's has VG's on the wings, up the vertical, and under the horizontal. Ditto for their kit for the straight-tail 172, and for the 175. $1450 for these kits. They have a 172/175 vertical tail upgrade kit fir $150, so apparently the early 172/175 kits didn't have them on the vertical.
The kits for the C150 & 152 ($695) have VG's on the wings & vertical, but not on the horizontal. The 170 kits have VG's on the wings & the bottom of the horizontal, but not on the vertical. Interestingly the kit price for the 170A&B is $1450, just like the 172/175 kits, but the price for the ragwing 170 kit is only $950.

Eric

Just finished a 4 yr restoration/conversion/ upgrade/soup up project.......lots of man hours.
'56 172....taildragger, 180 Lyc, Sportsman stol..................so far 68 hours on floats.....performance is
GREAT...........I'm sitting on the ground , skis are rigged, ready to install,waiting for ice on the lake.
Should have some performance numbers in a few weeks

From Hotrod150

The kits for the C150 & 152 ($695) have VG's on the wings & vertical, but not on the horizontal. The 170 kits have VG's on the wings & the bottom of the horizontal, but not on the vertical. Interestingly the kit price for the 170A&B is $1450, just like the 172/175 kits, but the price for the ragwing 170 kit is only $950.

I reported this earlier but it may have been on the 170 site.

It is possible to get the VGs on the vertical for the round tails.
How do I know? because I managed to do it with a lower 48 Field Approval a couple of years ago.
Gotta know some real old Fahrtz like Harry Delicker at Delair in Porterville Calif. who knows an elder FSDO person who is still rational and reasonable.

I first called Micro and asked them why not the round tails? Answer was the market was too small.
The lady did agree that it should not be a problem and should be just as effective.
I got her, Harry, and the Fresno FSDO all on the phone. All agreed it should not be a problem.

The instructions fit the round tail 170 almost identically.
Only difference is that you give up one or two VGs top and bottom.
I vaguely remember one off the bottom and two off the top.

The big difference seems to that one of the C-170 traits seems to have gone away.
It will no longer tuck over when doing hard slips with full flaps.
It still wobbles and tries to nose over but does not do so.

Am about to have my annual done this month so may run across the 337 in case anyone is interested.

Chris C

bump

the old elevator trim all the forward seems to work very well on a Maule also.
GT

wannabe wrote:....
It is possible to get the VGs on the vertical for the round tails.........
I first called Micro and asked them why not the round tails? Answer was the market was too small.
The lady did agree that it should not be a problem and should be just as effective.
I got her, Harry, and the Fresno FSDO all on the phone. All agreed it should not be a problem.
..........

I flew my ragwing 170 for close to 1700 hours & never saw any need for more rudder. Elevator power was OK, but coulda used more. Where it was sadly lacking was in the aileron department. Compare the ailerons on a rag 170 to those on a 170A or later & you will see why- they're alot smaller. Same size as the 120/140, which had a lot shorter wing. They didn't have VG's STC'd for the rag 170 until fairly recently, I believe that was due to lack of demand as there aren't very many of these airplanes (only built in 1948).

From Hotrod

I flew my ragwing 170 for close to 1700 hours & never saw any need for more rudder. Elevator power was OK, but coulda used more. Where it was sadly lacking was in the aileron department. Compare the ailerons on a rag 170 to those on a 170A or later & you will see why- they're alot smaller. Same size as the 120/140, which had a lot shorter wing. They didn't have VG's STC'd for the rag 170 until fairly recently, I believe that was due to lack of demand as there aren't very many of these airplanes (only built in 1948).


Well, if you had a new 180ph Lyc. with an 80" seaplane prop pulling a 170B with "cargo" interior, (light), with 26" AB slicks on wet grass, you will most likely need more rudder. Somer instructors were rudely awakened when they thought I did not know how to push the right peddle, so, I said - Show Me!
Flat pitch, full throttle, lift the tail with full right rudder and it would still slide to the left. Would often have to lightly tap the right brake. Sometimes even start an "early" turn. YES, tires were aligned.

Not sure that the VGs on the vertical helped since I fixed that problem before I got the VGs on the Vertical. PM me if interested in the fix.

Chris C

Chris, just guessing, but how many washers did it take?
GT