Straight tail 172 tail wheel.
Technical and practical discussion about specific aircraft types such as Cessna 180, Maule M7, et al. Please read and search carefully before posting, as many popular topics have already been discussed.
What is the cost of a decent strait tail 172 + tail wheel conversion + 180 Hp compared to a decent 180 with a low time engine. I guess the advantage of the 172 in this equation is that it has not been ground looped yet.
Tim
-
qmdv offline

-
Posts:
3633
- Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:22 pm
- Location: Payette
- FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... I5tqEOk0rc
- Aircraft: Cessna 182
-
Ive flown both and really determines what you want to do with it. 172 flies like a typical 172 and 180 has a lot more power. More power means better performance when at gross but you have to pay for it... plus elevator authority on 172 like most people have said, feels like a boat. Really boils down to how deep your pockets are, I could compare a carbon cub to my Taylorcraft, but I get more bang for my buck and I just have to be careful with weather, how much i carry and know my limits, but all in all I have just as much fun as I would have in any tailwheel.
If I didn't need the performance and wanted something fun to fly, C172 TW would float my boat IMO.
-
Akproto offline

-
Posts:
3
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:53 am
- Location: Fairbanks, AK
- Aircraft: Taylorcraft BCS12-65, Winter 1850 Federal Skis, Summer 29 Airstreaks.
-
Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:12 pm
I converted a '59 172 to tailwheel/180HP/CS prop. The discussion is interesting. I has been a couple decades since the days I was flying it so just thinking back. On approach at idle with the elevator fully up it would gently porpoise as the stabilizer went between stalled and flying. As a note, when I did the conversion I moved the battery back behind the rear baggage compartment to help offset some of the extra engine/prop weight up front. When operating off airport or short field the power off approach was too fast. Using the technique of higher angle of attack with power for the approach would allow slowing right to stall with a tailwheel first contact if you needed it though. The engine/prop on this did bring the takeoff/landing distances in balance.
One other bit to consider. The horizontal on a converted 172 is maybe 3" lower set than a 170, so not as much ground clearance in that department.
This particular conversion stood tall on the mains, we had a 180 on the same tires and the ground clearance at the gear attach points was a couple inches higher on the 172 than the 180. But even so a somewhat power on stall at touchdown did contact the tailwhell first.
-
7Trains offline

-
Posts:
1
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:18 pm
- Location: Anchorage
- Aircraft: Cessna 170B
-
Ah, a Cessna 170C. Cessna only built one of them.
-
C180_guy offline
-
Posts:
488
- Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:56 pm
- Location: Norcal
-
DISPLAY OPTIONS
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest