hotrod150 wrote:..................
Not counting any parts (which you may or may not supply), what kind of price are you considering for the STC & associated paperwork? I forget what Lowe charges but it's pretty reasonable as I recall.

FWIW David Lowe was charging $500 for his similar-to-yours paperwork only STC as of the end of last year.

If you take a 172 and then convert it using 170 parts, the plane should be called a 171.

There was a 150 I was flying in Alaska. In it's past it had been wrecked and the whole back end was replaced with a 152's rear. We called it the Bacardi 151

EZ Flap,

Read your posts on the C-170 website. Man the administrators are not the most helpful folks. They just want your money. Funny thing is after asking for a few items I needed to purchase and getting the same response I quit paying them too.

Hope your venture pays off, I always have liked the idea of owning a converted 171 with a 180 ponies.

Apples to Oranges,

Can you include the C-175 into this conversion as well?

Yep, I have a C175B, swept tail with 180 horse CS. I think vortex generators on the stabs would make this work out ok. I'll be watching this very closely.
Dave

As many of you know already, the early 172 and 175 (up to certain serial numbers) were essentially identical airframes down to most of the part numbers. Definitely identical in the landing gear department. Adding the 175 is something that I DO plan to do, however it may not happen immediately. I have to figure out how much time/effort/money it will cost and how many potential customers there are. But in fairness I must say that there is already an FAA approved conversion STC that is available for the 175, from Stoots Aviation in fairbanks, AK.

Your assessment is correct, I had no takers on my offer to borrow certain parts to make patterns (Matter of fact it took a lot for me to even go back and ask, there's some bad blood from an unrelated previous incident). Hotrod 150 predicted it... indeed I had to go to the underground NORAD vault, distract Emory's Doberman guard dog (with a picture of a sexy little Poodle), shoo away the moths and cobwebs, locate my wallet, and invoke the thirty seven digit secret emergency code to open it... and eventually bit the f****ng bullet to purchase some rather expensive f****ng parts from a salvage yard in Canada.

Another thing that you and WWHunter may be interested in... I have it on reasonable authority that the 56 thru 59 straight tail fin and rudder can be bolted right on to the same rear rudderpost casting and fuselage supports... creating a "backwards compatible" straight-tail aircraft. If this turns out to be true, I might get that approved and include it in the STC.

Ahhh... I can see the advertisement now... one of the EZ Flap models standing in front of an old tired 1960 swept tail airplane and a shiny sexy 1956 straight tail airplane, saying "Do you have a limp vertical? Is it not standing up straight like it should? If you really want to get into the bush... or the back-country... you and I know damn well it needs to stick straight up like the big boys' toys. You don't have to live with this shame and embarrassment any longer... when you have the new EZ Vertical upgrade. And we mean UP-grade!"

I'm such a great salesman I could even sell an Obama bumper sticker to Rob Burson

Keep in mind that the type certificate for the 172 and the 175 are not the same--the 175 is the same type certificate as the XP. I've run into multiple multiple issues, modifying my P172D (the immediate successor to the 175, but with "omni-vision"--and also on the 175 type certificate), because it seems as if everyone gets their paperwork done for STCs for 172s but forgets the 175 and P172D, thinking that they're just a variant of the 172. My mechanic is such a whiz at getting 337s through the FAA, largely I think because he's had to do so many for my airplane.

Cary

Yes you're right, of course. I have a little experience with that very issue of different TC's; my first STC product was certified on several different Cessna type certificates at once, including the 172 and 175, but I actually forgot to include the P172D even though I remembered to include the 175. When I had a P172D customer who wanted the product, he had to do a field approval (easily successful, thankfully) only because I forgot about that one specific airplane when I listed all the models I wanted to be certified on.

So I'm getting ready to make a decision here... and I would like to solicit some feedback from all y'all.

Although the actual certification and availability of the parts would still be quite some time away... how many BCP'ers and their ilk would truthfully be interested in upgrading their early 172/175/182 to an STC approved tailwheel configuration and buying the parts at the same time if parts were available?

I believe that I will be able to manufacture, certify, and produce the parts for significantly less than the currently available alternatives. But as with all airplane-related production, the issue of quantity rears its ugly head immediately.

This example/inquiry is based on ME supplying:
New steel approved gear legs
Gear boxes inboard and outboard brackets
Bulkhead reinforcements
Sheet and/or machined angle reinforcements
Sheet metal parts, skins
Tailwheel attach brackets and doublers
Tailwheel springs
All fasteners, rivets Hi-Lok's and small hardware
STC authority and very high quality nearly idiot-proof instructions

And YOU already having;
Wheels and brakes and brake line fittings from your aircraft
Tailwheel unit (Scott 3200 or approved replacement) and hardware
Optional PPonk gear beef-up block if you desire

There is a high quality full STC and parts kit offered currently, but some people have told me they cannot justify the cost... they could sell their nosewheel airplane and spend the extra money to buy an equivalent tailwheel airplane, for less than the cost of upgrading their nosewheel airplane to tailwheel with an STC. So my questions for the group are:

1) What is the dollar amount that would make an STC/parts package worthwhile to upgrade your early nosewheel airplane? (Yeah I know you all would be real happy if it was $2995 but that's not do-able) In THIS economy, how many of you would buy the kit if it was $12,000...$9,000...$7,500?

2) How many of you would be seriously interested (at any real-world price), when the time comes to open up the wallet?

3) How many of you would be more interested if the installation/upgrade was available for an additional $2500...$5000...$7500 instead of having your shop do it? How many would bite if there was a "package deal" discount of STC/Parts/Install/IA Signoff for $9,995...$12,000...$15,000?

4) How many of you would buy the STC but would not want to buy the parts, preferring to go dumpster-diving and junkyard-crawling yourself... or (gasp) prefer to buy new parts from Wichita?

I appreciate all discussion and realistic responses to this query. Although my interest in this is definitely, admittedly commercial in nature (gotta make that "small fortune in aviation"), I'm hoping that this discussion will be allowed by the admin. since it is directly related to creating more back country airplanes out of trainers, which would create more back country pilots, who would buy more back country pilot T-shirts from the admin

I am out of the running because I currently have a 180, but I will throw in my two cents

If you could get an accurate price for the conversion, I think there would be lots of interest. We looked at buying a 182 and converting it before we bought our 180. We gave up on it because there was to many questions, both regarding the cost and the time to convert. There are lots of nice low time 182's out there that would make wonderful conversion units. If you could provide the parts, with a couple of options on the landing gear and tailwheel, I think there would be significant interest.

If you could provide a complete conversion for less than 20k, or whatever the current spread between a 180-182 is, I think many people looking for a 180 would be happy to buy a 1500-2000 NDH 182 instead of a well used and groundlooped 180 with 5000+ hours.

Just my opinion, But I think you are on the right track.

Maybe the different gearleg options, and the AK bushwheel tailwheel would be good options--if possible. A tailwheel for a 180 is crazy expensive!!

Keep up the good work!!

I know most think it would be fugly, but I thought the omni 182 taildragger I saw as a kid wasn't bad looking. Does anyone have an idea what the structural problems that might be encountered are? There's a lot of differences, but could there be a reasonable path forward?

I wish I knew how to answer the question. I'm probably one of your prime candidates. I do indeed like the 172, I had a partnership in a 1960 (first tilt tail) with a 220 Franklin. It made me want a 182. So an ersatz 180 would be my way to airplane bliss. So then I would check the market for 172s with engine upgrades, a 180 Lyc would be fine, I only want a roomy two seater anyway.Then I have to see how all that pencils out against a 180 etc. etc. It depends too, on the new proposal for medical self certification. I think I know where there is a 180 that has been involved for many years in illegal air taxi work. NOT DRUGS! But the problem is the guy who owns it doesn't exist in a federal sort of a way. And there have been no annuals for 20 years or more. I could get that cheap. Hehhehhehhehheh. I've been advised against it. Can you imagine the nightmare getting it registered. Maybe I'll call him and get the tail number and see what the feds think happened to it. If it's still registered to a guy that exists, in a dead sort of a way.....rambling.

I think if I flew the airplane to you, and could fly it away with the third wheel moved to the tail for under $10K I'd be in pretty good shape. But I would want to remove the rear seats and strengthen the floor to allow legal packing of dogs, camping gear, pistols, blow up dolls, old expired sectionals, dead animals, and single malt loosely in the rear cabin area.

Emory Bored wrote:.......I think I know where there is a 180 that has been involved for many years in illegal air taxi work. NOT DRUGS! But the problem is the guy who owns it doesn't exist in a federal sort of a way. And there have been no annuals for 20 years or more. I could get that cheap. Hehhehhehhehheh. I've been advised against it. Can you imagine the nightmare getting it registered...........

Two separate issues here that I see:
1) Ownership- if you can produce a bill of sale signed by the registered owner, or by his widow/next of kin/estate executor, should be no problem. Oklahoma City could give you further info if the owner's signature is unavailable.
2) No annuals for 20 years- might be a nightmare of unaddressed AD's, deferred maintenance, etc. or might not be. Just because nobody signed off annuals doesn't necesarily mean that no maintenance was done. Even if that's the case, a thorough annual inspection including a complete servicing should get the thing up to snuff. I've seen logbooks with a gap of many years between annuals. Depending on what all has to be done, it might more than make up for the "I could get that cheap" aspect of things.
I think the bootleg charter work is a non-issue, at least for someone buying the airplane.

FWIW, I'm currently converting my '56 C-182 to conventional gear. I'm buying the parts now and expect the cost (parts only) to be around $8,000. I'm giving myself four months to complete the project, but understand that may be optimistic. I'm doing the work myself under the direct supervision of an A&P/IA, so will save quite a bit on labor. I expect the project to increase the market value of the airplane by around $20K, though what actually happens in the market remains to be seen. The STC I'm working under is reasonably complete, but was approved by the FAA back in the late '70's and could be better. Working under this STC is not for the faint of heart and I think the time is right for someone to create an modern, updated, less expensive STC for this conversion. As someone stated, there are lots of nice straight-tail 182's that would be perfect for this conversion and I think the market is there. I heartily applaud EZFlap's efforts in this regard. I'm going to take detailed photos of the entire project and will certainly share my experiences, documents and photos with anyone who might be interested. Cheers. P.S. I'm going to have a number of C-182 parts for sale, including a complete nose gear assembly w/Landes HD nose fork and Cleveland wheel & axel. Just saying.

dprathe wrote:FWIW, I'm currently converting my '56 C-182 to conventional gear. I'm buying the parts now and expect the cost (parts only) to be around $8,000. I'm giving myself four months to complete the project, but understand that may be optimistic. I'm doing the work myself under the direct supervision of an A&P/IA, so will save quite a bit on labor. I expect the project to increase the market value of the airplane by around $20K, though what actually happens in the market remains to be seen. The STC I'm working under is reasonably complete, but was approved by the FAA back in the late '70's and could be better. Working under this STC is not for the faint of heart and I think the time is right for someone to create an modern, updated, less expensive STC for this conversion. As someone stated, there are lots of nice straight-tail 182's that would be perfect for this conversion and I think the market is there. I heartily applaud EZFlap's efforts in this regard. I'm going to take detailed photos of the entire project and will certainly share my experiences, documents and photos with anyone who might be interested. Cheers. P.S. I'm going to have a number of C-182 parts for sale, including a complete nose gear assembly w/Landes HD nose fork and Cleveland wheel & axel. Just saying.

Not that I have money for anything right now. But what about the old gear legs your taking off? Does the 56 have taller gear legs than a 58?

The '56 has the tallest main gear legs of the C182's. In 1957, they were lowered 4" and widened 5.4" and the spring steel increased from 11/16" to 3/4". When I installed the HD Landes nose fork and 8.50's, I switched to '57 gear legs. No loss in prop clearance. If memory serves, the main gear legs were lowered again by 4" in 1961,though I'm not positive.

dprathe wrote:The '56 has the tallest main gear legs of the C182's. In 1957, they were lowered 4" and widened 5.4" and the spring steel increased from 11/16" to 3/4". When I installed the HD Landes nose fork and 8.50's, I switched to '57 gear legs. No loss in prop clearance. If memory serves, the main gear legs were lowered again by 4" in 1961,though I'm not positive.

How much of an undertaking was the process of changing out the gear legs? Is there an STC or Field Approval involved?

Pat I think it would actually be a very easy field approval for you to swap out the taller gear legs. But if you make the main gear taller, you would have to find a way to make the nose gear taller by the same amount.

Emory Bored wrote: I'm probably one of your prime candidates. ...... So an ersatz 180 would be my way to airplane bliss.
.

Step right up

Today I met with a metallurgist/old-school metal structures engineer to discuss steel landing gear alloys, and improving on what is essentially a "metal fatigue generation machine" that Cessna calls landing gear boxes. We'll be doing a destructive lab test next week on a bent gear leg to positively ID the steel alloy. My carbon fiber expert said the proposed carbon gear legs would have to be a lot thicker, and yet the heat from excess braking would still melt the resin... carbon would save 40 pounds on the airplane (6 fuel gallons plus!!!)but it will be hard to sell to the feds on, and probably not a zero-maintenance thing for customers in remote areas... so it's back to steel legs. Last night was spent studying records of steel leaf spring gear failures to prepare for today's meeting. Met with the foundry guy last Tue. about casting the steel molds for hydroforming or stamping the various 3D Ssheet metal parts yesterday. Not cheap, but definitely yields as good or better of a part as they make in Wichita.

So I'm making good progress on the research and mfg. infrastructure aspect, but in fairness your money is still safe in your pocket for at least a few months.

Emory Bored wrote:But I would want to remove the rear seats and strengthen the floor to allow legal packing of dogs, camping gear, pistols, blow up dolls, old expired sectionals, dead animals, and single malt loosely in the rear cabin area.

Shameful... just shameful. Having a bottle of single malt LOOSE in the cabin... shameful. I'll have to invent an automotive style cup holder.

And, well, for only three easy payments of $9.99 I'll install the blow up doll compartment with our proprietary new high speed inflation system, powered by the engine exhaust... like the brochure says, "she'll be hot for you!".

As for the ballistic nylon restraint system to keep the dogs off her leg... now that'll cost you !

EZ Flap:
The way I see it, it is not just a question of:

.....when the time comes to open up the wallet?

Lets look at a couple of things that relate to your project.
When I go to Puyallup for the aviation conference, I see a LOT of gray hair, and I look around and find that the majority of pleasure pilots (GA) attending are older than I am, and I am 62. Maybe only us old farts like to go to this conference, or have time for it, or this is just happening in the PNW, or whatever, but I am pretty confident the majority of private pilots are at an age where passing medicals is a problem, as is just plain old morbidity and mortality. The FAA undoubtedly has stats and graphs etc. available on this, but, off the top of my head, I believe this is nationwide.
I remember the glut of small aircraft that came on the market in the late 70s when the interest rates were WAY up and the economy down, and bankers were MAKING the small/medium size farmers sell their airplanes as a requirement to get their next year's farm operating loans. That caused a LOT of used planes come to market and a large used aircraft price drop that makes our current slump in aircraft value seem quite tolerable.
Well, I am afraid the same thing is going to slowly happen to aircraft values over the next decade+. This economy is bad and gaining nothing and there is no political will to solve the problem since the problem is viewed so differently by the political polar extremes. I see no 'boost' to the small GA world there.
The pilot pool is shrinking due to plain old AGE. Significantly, the way I see it. I see slow 'bust' there.
If another IDIOT pulls an 'Austin' somewhere, and another bad pilot idiot does a 'Cory Lidle' (and his flight instructor??) in a very large city, there could be mandated restrictions placed on small GA flying that would essentially end 'pleasure' flying. These days the 'IDIOT' assembly lines seems to be working overtime.
If a suicide terrorist uses a small plane or ag plane loaded to the max with high explosives to their malicious end.....well, our rights as pilots and the value of our aircraft could become.......almost non existent-overnight.

Flap, my point being that you are investing into a 'strong and gusty' headwind'. Do what you will/want. I applaud your vigor and ideas, and what you are heading into (idea wise) pleases guys like us. Bravo!

Invest with both eyes wide open.....
lc