Hello to all BCP folks. I'm buying up a '62 172 flying project, and I've got plans for it. I'm looking for any good suggestions, comments, concerns, etc.

The Rules:

1. It's not about the money. I have my own reasons for this build, and I know it will not make sense financially. I'm not rich, but I don't care.
2. I do all my own work, if it's outside of something I know how to do, I will learn. If it's a tool I don't have, I'll beg borrow or steal it (ok, maybe not steal.)

The project:
1. Straight Tail conversion. From what I've read, this is pretty straight forward. Same attach points, etc. Finding parts may or may not be an issue.
2. Tail wheel Conversion. This is bigger, already talked to EZFlap, have to talk to Stoots as well as some point.
3. More Fuel, I'm thinking Flint tanks, pretty reasonable costs, tons of extra fuel. No loss of cargo space
4. Folding rear seat
5. Late style cabin doors, and refit doors (They don't stay shut right now)
6. Big engine, I haven't decided which one yet. Money is on IO-360-M1B with Stoots STC. Could still be swayed by an IO-360 Continental or a IO-390 if I win the lottery.
7. Complete panel retrofit, simple IFR.
8. Strip and polish

I expect this to be done slowly over the next 10 years or so. The order may or may not go as listed.

Just a few quick thoughts off the top of my head.

BAS shoulder harness's

Replace all the glass, you are going this far might as well do it, nothing makes an airplane feel "new" like new glass.

Think long and hard about polishing. Polishing looks great but LOTS of work! There are guys here that have beautiful polished airplanes, ask them their thoughts. It is something you need to know about going in.

Go with a factory paint/polish scheme, they look great, many attempts at custom schemes can be disappointing.

Those air vents Sporty's sells are fantastic! Expensive, yes but well worth it.

I like the Lycoming over the IO-360 Continental, not quite as smooth but much more robust. Put a 2 blade MT prop on it and it will be very smooth and perform well. No RPM restrictions with the MT. Operate it over square and you will go further on your gallon of gas. Not having the restricted RPM range the Hartzell has will allow you to do this with more power setting options. Remember, better MPG means less gass needed which means less weight carried.

If you put any leading edge kit on it put the Sportsman kit on it ONLY. The others are not worth the cost, labor and weight compared to the Sportsman. Have someone who knows what they are doing help you or give you advice on how to install it and what to watch out for.

Enjoy stripping the paint off of it! That is the funnest job! Well... not really. If it were me, I would hire that job out, I HATE stripping!

Those are just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

Have fun! Keep us posted.

Kurt

First, congrats on endeavoring to keep these great old machines flying fresh. Nothing more rewarding than getting to fly a project that you had a hand in. This is a great community and should provide some great support.

That said, I might as well give the straight skinny... You plans sound totally fun, but IMHO not the best idea. Although all doable, it sounds like your endeavoring to make something into a thing that it is not. Even if you do get the bigger motor in there, you will forever be limited to short legs and a too-small gross weight. The realistic math has you over $100k plus in the blink of an eye above the purchase price, and at that point, you are in 180 or Maule territory.

Not really sure what the motivation is for wanting the flying project, but Im sure that I'm not alone in airing this word of caution. Simple fact is, that at the end of the day, no matter what you do, it will still be a 172. (a.k.a. never get your money out)

If it were me, I would start looking for a bone stock 170B, or even a 175 to go to town on. If not that, perhaps an early 180. I wish I was wrong, but time and time again this has proven to be gospel.

Then again... if you fully understand this, don't care about the cash, and are fully eyes open, then by all means damn the torpedoes and dive in.

Please let if I can be helpful in any way. Glad to help!

Greg-

a few thoughts on polishing
Nothing matches the shine from Nuvite, also nothing costs as much as Nuvite, or takes as much work to get polished as Nuvite. If you go that route check out the videos on their web site, or perfect polish.com, or the globe swift society will sell you a DVD of instructions.
My 172 took over 200 hours for the first polish after it was stripped, then about 15-20 hours each spring to keep it that way.
If you will acept 90% of the shine from Nuvite for 25% of the work, try Rolite or Metall, other people will have other opinions, listen to all of them.
Polish that works fine on painted cars or chrome is usually NOT a good choice for aluminum.
Owning a polished airplane is one of the known causes of AIDS, (Aviation Induced Divorce Syndrome). Get your significant other involved in the project if possible.
You can get very interesting reactions at a flyin when you tell someone "paint makes airplanes fly slower".

G44 wrote:Just a few quick thoughts off the top of my head.

BAS shoulder harness's

The airplane already has fixed shoulder harnesses in it. I may upgrade them to locking inertial reels eventually, current setup works.

Replace all the glass, you are going this far might as well do it, nothing makes an airplane feel "new" like new glass.

Good call! I'll have to work that into the list somewhere, probably when the panel gets done.

Think long and hard about polishing. Polishing looks great but LOTS of work! There are guys here that have beautiful polished airplanes, ask them their thoughts. It is something you need to know about going in.

Go with a factory paint/polish scheme, they look great, many attempts at custom schemes can be disappointing.

True, this will be the realm of the fiancé. I expect the exterior to be the last thing on the list, so lots of time to decide on that.

Those air vents Sporty's sells are fantastic! Expensive, yes but well worth it.

I like the Lycoming over the IO-360 Continental, not quite as smooth but much more robust. Put a 2 blade MT prop on it and it will be very smooth and perform well. No RPM restrictions with the MT. Operate it over square and you will go further on your gallon of gas. Not having the restricted RPM range the Hartzell has will allow you to do this with more power setting options. Remember, better MPG means less gass needed which means less weight carried.

Not a huge MT fan here, but planning on the Carbon Harzell, so similar concept.

If you put any leading edge kit on it put the Sportsman kit on it ONLY. The others are not worth the cost, labor and weight compared to the Sportsman. Have someone who knows what they are doing help you or give you advice on how to install it and what to watch out for.

Enjoy stripping the paint off of it! That is the funnest job! Well... not really. If it were me, I would hire that job out, I HATE stripping!

Those are just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

Have fun! Keep us posted.

Kurt

Thanks!

bigrenna wrote:First, congrats on endeavoring to keep these great old machines flying fresh. Nothing more rewarding than getting to fly a project that you had a hand in. This is a great community and should provide some great support.

That said, I might as well give the straight skinny... You plans sound totally fun, but IMHO not the best idea. Although all doable, it sounds like your endeavoring to make something into a thing that it is not. Even if you do get the bigger motor in there, you will forever be limited to short legs and a too-small gross weight. The realistic math has you over $100k plus in the blink of an eye above the purchase price, and at that point, you are in 180 or Maule territory.

Not really sure what the motivation is for wanting the flying project, but Im sure that I'm not alone in airing this word of caution. Simple fact is, that at the end of the day, no matter what you do, it will STILL be a 172. (a.k.a. never get your money out)

If it were me, I would start looking for a bone stock 170B, or even a 175 to go to town on. If not that, perhaps an early 180. I wish I was wrong, but time and time again this has proven to be gospel.

Then again... if you fully understand this, don't care about the cash, and are fully eyes open to the foolsiness, then by all means damn the torpedoes and dive in.

Please let if I can be helpful in any way. Glad to help!

Greg-

All fully understood. This will be my 4th airplane. This particular airplane has sentimental value is all I need to say. If I was looking for practicality, I would definitely be in the market for a 180. Realistically, we will be a 2-3 airplane family for the foreseeable future. I've got some 170B time, don't see any advantage there, other than it's already tailwheel. 175 fixes the fuel problem, but not much else.

Hard to know what to suggest without knowing what the mission is, but here's what I use and enjoy or am glad I have every time I fly my 170.

In no particular order:

Extended baggage.
Rossin sun visors.
Bas pull handles.
Bas inertia reel harnesses
Bubble side windows.
Four-probe engine analyzer.
Fuel flow meter.
Shock-type door holders.
Double-puck brakes.
Solid wheel axils.
Stol kit.


Unless you're going to be on floats or know that you specifically need them, I wouldn't spend the money on extended tanks. I fly all over the least inhabited part of the lower 48 with a O-360 and 39 gallons, and I wouldn't pay $100 for flint tanks. I think they are a detriment to a backcountry bird with low horsepower.

I have the Atlee-Dodge folding rear seats and don't like them one bit...wouldn't pay 10% of what they cost to buy and install if it were up to me. I'd look for a sling-type seat, or just get used to taking the stock seat in and out as the need arises.

If you've never had a polished airplane, don't start now. A proper polish job can easily go 300~500 hours, and a couple dozen hours a year just to keep the rate of decay consistent. People with really good polish jobs put in a hundred hours a year to keep them that way, in a hangar, away from the coast, without letting anyone touch them. It's dirty, unrewarding work. No matter how good it is, it could always be better. If you just LOVE the polishing process, go for it. If you'd rather fly or picnic or sleep in, go with paint.

Personally I'd rather hike to Hawaii than take on what you've got lined up, but then I really don't like working on airplanes very much. Good luck!

I am going to claim that not all airplanes can be polished. If the prep job for the last paint job involved a whole lot of Scotchbrite and filler, you're screwed. I own a polished 120. It is a filthy job, but I am addicted to the final outcome.

Add to your list....
Extended baggage
BAS rear seats
AvGas. Lots and lots of AvGas. Don't make this a project that is partially assembled for the next 10+ years.

Hammer wrote:Hard to know what to suggest without knowing what the mission is, but here's what I use and enjoy or am glad I have every time I fly my 170.

In no particular order:

Extended baggage.
Rossin sun visors.
Bas pull handles.
Bas inertia reel harnesses
Bubble side windows.
Four-probe engine analyzer.
Fuel flow meter.
Shock-type door holders.
Double-puck brakes.
Solid wheel axils.
Stol kit.

Extended baggage, another good one. It already has Rosin's (YEssss). Will have a full engine monitor, probably a JPI930 or CGR30. I put double puck brakes on my Citab, and wasn't that happy with the results, do we need those? Other opinions? As mentioned, already going with Sportsman STOL.

Unless you're going to be on floats or know that you specifically need them, I wouldn't spend the money on extended tanks. I fly all over the least inhabited part of the lower 48 with a O-360 and 39 gallons, and I wouldn't pay $100 for flint tanks. I think they are a detriment to a backcountry bird with low horsepower.

Other than installed weight, what other reason would I have to not install those? I could do 175 tanks instead. I know 38gal isn't enough for me with over 180HP. I don't like to land if I'm going somewhere.

I have the Atlee-Dodge folding rear seats and don't like them one bit...wouldn't pay 10% of what they cost to buy and install if it were up to me. I'd look for a sling-type seat, or just get used to taking the stock seat in and out as the need arises.

What specifically don't you like? I see BAS makes a set as well. I do not want to deal with the bench seat, I've got plenty of experience with that, but having to pull the fronts out to do it is a deal breaker for me. What is a sling style seat?

If you've never had a polished airplane, don't start now. A proper polish job can easily go 300~500 hours, and a couple dozen hours a year just to keep the rate of decay consistent. People with really good polish jobs put in a hundred hours a year to keep them that way, in a hangar, away from the coast, without letting anyone touch them. It's dirty, unrewarding work. No matter how good it is, it could always be better. If you just LOVE the polishing process, go for it. If you'd rather fly or picnic or sleep in, go with paint.

I have a Swift, a box of Nuvite and a Cyclo.

Personally I'd rather hike to Hawaii than take on what you've got lined up, but then I really don't like working on airplanes very much. Good luck!

Everyone is different, I like making airplanes better, it's what I do instead of paying for therapy.

Sounds like an interesting project, and considering your up front caveats, I'd say go for it, and hopefully keep it flyable between projects so you can also enjoy it.

I had an O-360 in a 170B with Flint tanks. I'm with you....I want range when I want range. Frequent availability of gas isn't always what counts. That said, in retrospect, I'd probably fit long range 172 or 175 tanks instead of the Flints. A few reasons:

1. Less weight for the tanks. It looks to me that you're building a hot rod...so lighter is better.
2. Simpler. The Flints require pumps out near the tanks, switches, and some monkey motion to transfer fuel. Also, more monkey motion to fill them....move ladders (and a ladder WILL be required), hoses, etc, etc. Sometimes, it's nice to pump gas and get gone. Especially if there's a big wind, or..... I replaced one fuel pump in about 1000 hours, so the system is pretty reliable, but more complexity is, well, more stuff to fail.
3. All your fuel is close to the center of the plane. Those Flint tanks are waaaay out there. You'll watch your wings flex as you taxi, even on fairly smooth stuff. I always tried to ensure that the tip tanks were empty prior to any landing.....not required, but.
4. I found that I rarely really needed (or even wanted) the full 60 gallons of fuel that the Flint tanks and my 38 gallon mains provided. In almost every case the fifty gallon 175 tanks would have been almost perfect. And I flew this airplane in Alaska most of the time I owned it, where gas stations aren't.

That said, I had no complaints about the Flint tanks. Learn to manage the fuel in them (first time you pump a full Flint tip into your main on one side you'll learn that lesson) and they work fine. I really don't know which setup would be cheaper or easier, though the Flint tanks are pretty easy to install.

BAS harnesses are a must in Cessna airplanes. Likewise, get the Cessna alternate seat stop reels that mount under the seats. Lifesavers. I understand that the pilot side is still free from Cessna till September.

I think the basic IO 360 engine is a good choice, as is the O-360. Mostly $$$$ differences there.

Extended baggage is key, lightweight battery, mounted on the firewall equally so.

Interior.....Every time you get in the thing to go fly, that's ALL you see. I like leather, and I LOVE Oregon Aero seats. If you can't afford their seats, buy some confor foam and do a little research on how to build a great seat. That's what I did with my 170, and bought seat covers from Air Tech.....leather and were discounted, great price and super product. I'd previously worn out a cloth upholstery set in a few hundred hours. The leather had 400 plus hours on it when I sold it, and it still looked new.

Landing gear and tires. Get your landing gear magna fluxed prior to converting to tailwheel. All this stuff is old, and metal can fatigue.... Tires can make a statement, or they can be very utilitarian. Lots of time to figure out what you want there.

Avionics.....start looking now, but wait as long as you can. The FAA is starting to lighten up on installation of non TSOd avionics in certified airplanes. I think in a few years, there will be some REALLY shit hot stuff available for much more reasonable prices.

Really sounds like a fun project, though it'll be a lot of work and $$....but you're aware of that....good luck, and keep us posted.

MTV

RE Flint tanks:
Yes, it's the installed weight (along with the increase in unusable fuel weight) and wasted money I don't like. In nine years of flying my 170 I've never wished I had them. My arse wears out before my fuel does...I'm fantastically uninterested in sitting in an airplane for five or six straight hours. On the rare occasions I need extra fuel I put one or two fuel bladders in the back and add it on the ground. Cheaper, lighter, more versatile. Some people don't like carrying fuel in the cabin, and I get that. But those tanks on either side of your head aren't anything close to crash-proof, either. A steel Jerry can lashed inside the cabin is probably more crash-worthy than the wing tanks, for those fixated on such things.

Literally all my backcountry flying is with a load. I don't go out and land at airstrips just to do it...if I land there, I'm camping there or using it as a trailhead for backpacking or packrafting. 180hp with two people and gear means being very careful with fuel load. With a lot of strips, a lot of the year, even 20 gallons is too much.

If fuel endurance vs weight becomes an issue, I can go into a more reasonable strip and drop off my extra fuel, then come back and get it later. You can't do that with Flint tanks. If regular backcountry flying isn't your mission, or up north where fuel stops are less common and density altitude is a fraction of what it is down here, more fuel makes sense.

I've also seen the Flint tank instillation, and "cheesy" doesn't even come close to describing it. If you can put in a couple 25 gallon wing tanks that would be MUCH better...about the same weight and another 90 minutes of flight time if you choose to fill them all the way up.

If you go with the Flint tanks I'd also pony up for Oregon Aero seats and drill holes for a relief tube.

RE Atlee-Dodge seats:
They came with the airplane. What I don't like about them is they aren't that light, they still take up a lot of room when you fold them away, and they aren't very comfortable. The whole fold-away thing might make sense for a commercial operator who constantly juggles between hauling people and cargo, but it doesn't do a thing for me. I know if I'm taking someone else along...the seat is either in our out, but never folded away.

In the rare instance that I cary a passenger it's nice to be able to put one in, but if I was carrying a third person with any regularity I'd figure out something else. I don't know what else is out there, but I'm not very impressed with them.

RE double puck brakes:
You NEED them if you go to anything larger than 8.50's. Single-puck brakes will not hold for a run-up on Goodyear 26's, and all the STC's from Bushwheels mandate double-puck brakes. Even with 8.50's I've had single-puck brakes fail while taxing in heavy cross winds. Aside from cost I can't see a single downside to double-puck brakes on a four-seat airplane.

One other thing when it comes to hanging a larger engine...while the firewall battery is a no-brainer, the battery box makes accessing anything on the back of the engine almost impossible. The SBS J16 battery is much thinner, can be mounted in any orientation, and doesn't require a box or vent, just a bracket. Do whatever it takes to avoid that big battery box and you'll be glad you did.

Hammer,

FYI, there is no unusable fuel in Flint tanks, so yes there is the additional weight of the tanks and pumps, but.... As to the installation being "cheesey" I'd have to call BS on that. I've worked a couple of airplanes with the Flint tanks, and I owned one, and operated it for over 1000 hours. As I noted earlier, the ONLY maintenance ever needed on any of those was to replace one transfer pump. That's not "typical" for airplane stuff, and I never saw anything I'd call cheesey on any of the Flint installations I've flown.

The Atlee seats or the BAS seats (which are now sold by someone else) aren't very comfortable, no doubt. That said, the stock bench seat is HUGE, HEAVY and not much more comfortable. The discomfort comes mostly from being cramped up back there. Putting some Confor Foam on those folding seats really helps, comfortwise.

But removing that monster back seat more than once is purely a PITA. I had a sling seat in my 170, and it was pretty much useless. Yes, you could take three people, but the seat, like a stock seat, occupied a large portion of the cabin and that part of the seat wasn't being used. And, by the way, there's only one sling seat I've ever seen approved for Cessnas and Fairbanks Aero Services has been out of business for decades. You might be able to make one and call it "owner produced parts", but you'll need to find one to copy. In any case, sling seats pretty much cut off circulation to passenger's lower legs in about fifteen minutes.

I operated a few airplanes with Atlee seats in back and I loved them. Most flights were a couple hours, but I had a few that were substantially longer-like all day sitting in one of those seats, and never heard complaints about discomfort. I'd install a set in a heartbeat......if for no reason other than the fact that I am not going to sit back there, but I WILL be loading/unloading that airplane regularly, and the folding seats make that a LOT easier. Also, folding one seat allows you to carry one person in the back but keep heavy stuff up forward where the other seat would normally be. That can really help keep you out of the aft CG range, a very real consideration when you're loading the plane up.

A couple other things I failed to mention earlier:

If the plane doesn't have a baggage door, install one.

First thing I'd install is a fuel flow computer, actually. If you are eventually going to install an engine monitor, you might want to do that up front, and include the fuel flow computer in that system.

Install a 406 ELT.

Install abrasion boots on your horizontal stabilizer.

If your plane doesn't have them, consider the Monarch caps for fuel fillers. Before I installed the Monarch caps, I always had some water in gas when plane sat outside in rain. After the Monarch caps were installed........never got a drop of water again.

If you're going to be doing any off airport or even back country strips, consider installing a windshield V-Brace. That windshield moves around more than you can believe on uneven ground.

MTV

Perhaps if you were to look at other planes you might find one that has had some of the modifications you wish to make and have a more realistic and affordable punch list.

I purchased a tailwheel converted 172 K. It has a STOL kit and climb prop. Periodically you can find one that someone has invested time and money in and get it for no increase in market price. I paid $43,000 for my plane and it had a factory remanufactured Lycoming with 400 hrs., new glass and a great paint job and IFR.

Finding a great straight tail with a 180 hp upgrade is a good place to start looking and maybe doing a tailwheel conversion.

I've purchased two very cool airplanes from guys who had the same idea as you have. They spent their free time and hard earned cash for years and eventually got too old or unhealthy to fly and sold them for pennies on the invested dollar.

For everyone that ends up as described above there are 10 that never get reassembled and are sold as basket cases for next to nothing.

Regardless, if that's what makes you happy (starting from scratch) then that is what you should do. There are no rules.

I am converting my 1960 c 175 to a straight tail and I needed to get the rear forging for the straight tail. The slant tail is almost identical but it has the lower pivot point removed. This pivot point is required for the straight tail conversion. Talk to Mauleguy about different brake pad materials.
KenW

How would you ever get approval in Canada to convert a slant to a straight tail? Your also converting to taildragger I imagine?

Back from the dead, for now anyway. I have an O-360-A1A sitting in the hangar now... things are getting real.

For clarity, this is a SPECIFIC airframe I'm buying, not a random 172. It was a Seaplane before (zinc'd), but more importantly, my Fiancé learned to fly in it, and we like it. It needs everything, but I have the capability of doing that, so I'm choosing to.

That said, anyone looking for a very functional, not so pretty 7GCBC with a pretty fresh motor?

WorkingWarbirds wrote:Back from the dead, for now anyway. I have an O-360-A1A sitting in the hangar now... things are getting real.

For clarity, this is a SPECIFIC airframe I'm buying, not a random 172. It was a Seaplane before (zinc'd), but more importantly, my Fiancé learned to fly in it, and we like it. It needs everything, but I have the capability of doing that, so I'm choosing to.

That said, anyone looking for a very functional, not so pretty 7GCBC with a pretty fresh motor?

$$. I'm more looking for a good fuselage, but for the right price I'd take an entire plane...

mtv wrote:The Atlee seats or the BAS seats (which are now sold by someone else) aren't very comfortable, no doubt. That said, the stock bench seat is HUGE, HEAVY and not much more comfortable. The discomfort comes mostly from being cramped up back there. Putting some Confor Foam on those folding seats really helps, comfortwise.

But removing that monster back seat more than once is purely a PITA. I had a sling seat in my 170, and it was pretty much useless. Yes, you could take three people, but the seat, like a stock seat, occupied a large portion of the cabin and that part of the seat wasn't being used.

The backseat of my 172 weighs 20lbs, measured on a scale in the mechanics garage. Four bolts hold it in. Takes 10 minutes to install or remove it.

I don't have the back seat in my 170 but do have the desire to haul a third person from time to time.


If anything I would like to take a front seat and mount it on seat rails in the middle behind the two front seats. It would balance the plane a little better with a third person and give the back seat passenger more comfort and ability to look out both sides. It would also be easier to communicate between the front and back.

SkyLarkin wrote:I don't have the back seat in my 170 but do have the desire to haul a third person from time to time.


If anything I would like to take a front seat and mount it on seat rails in the middle behind the two front seats. It would balance the plane a little better with a third person and give the back seat passenger more comfort and ability to look out both sides. It would also be easier to communicate between the front and back.

Front to back communication is easiest with a good intercom and everyone wearing headsets. I kind of like the idea of a center-mounted rear seat, though, since I rarely carry 4 people, and when I do, it's strictly a local sight-seeing flight with partial tanks.

Cary