The stc. for the T/W conversion is still available for the C-175. I have a friend converting one as we speek. He has the early model(straight tail) with a 220 Franklin. He will also be puting on the Sportsman kit. I expect some pretty good performance from this plane.

I think the name of the owner of the stc. is Bob Williams. Nice guy to tallk with. Makes a real nice kit, and pretty reasonably priced. Delivery of the kit was pretty drawn out.

shortfielder wrote:.............
I think the name of the owner of the stc. is Bob Williams. Nice guy to tallk with. .......... Delivery of the kit was pretty drawn out.

I've never met or talked with the man, but I've heard just the opposite about him. What I heard about delivery times jibes, though "pretty drawn out" might be putting it mildly.

Eric

Well.I've talked with him, and enjoyed it. I don't know how long my buddy waited for the kit. I would say well over a year. Got most everything but the gear legs awhile back, Then had to call the Atty, General for that state to finally get some action.

Now he has all the parts, and is making the conversion. Everything looks very high quality. Fits are goin well. Seem to be good plans for the most part.

If anyone is interested in the kit, one thing that I noticed as that the main gear looked awfully stiff for that plane. Ya might want to check into that and see if there are any options.

shortfielder wrote:.......... I don't know how long my buddy waited for the kit. I would say well over a year. Got most everything but the gear legs awhile back, Then had to call the Atty, General for that state to finally get some action. .....

"Delivery of the kit was pretty drawn out"-- no shit! No offense but your first post is kinda misleading. The litmus test is, would you recommend to someone you know that they purchase a kit from this guy? Or to take it closer to home, would you do business with him?
I know there's (at least) 2 sides to every story, but IMHO anybody who has to have the attorney general sicced on him to deliver the goods he promised doesn't deserve anything that even comes close to sounding like a recommendation-- in fact, quite the opposite. By not getting the word out on this sort of thing, we make it possible for other people to get stung too. Remember, the person whose money (and sanity) you save just might be me!

Eric

I guess I figured people might be able to draw their own conclusion from what I wrote. I don't really want to bad mouth anyone on this. I think anyone reading this, gets the idea.

I don't know how many choices there are for the conversion. If this is the only one, then you have to decide whether you are willing to wait or not.

My suggestion to my buddy was, don't start the project until you have all the parts. Otherwise your plane will be down with no parts, can't fly at all, and then you'll really be pissed. He ended up thanking me for that. And now he is happy with the kit.

The 172 is a great airplane, the 182 especially the strait tail early models are superb airplanes. Run auto gas in an early 182 and they are more affordable than a 180 hp 172, and far more capable.

bang for the buck?... a Stinson 108 with 165 hp auto gasable Frank is probably the best back country machine available on the used market. MHO

TwinPOS wrote:The 172 is a great airplane, the 182 especially the strait tail early models are superb airplanes. Run auto gas in an early 182 and they are more affordable than a 180 hp 172, and far more capable.

bang for the buck?... a Stinson 108 with 165 hp auto gasable Frank is probably the best back country machine available on the used market. MHO

+2 Stinsons rock!

As for the 172, they are great for teaching people how to fly with little risk (as they are overly stable and resilient to student mistakes), however as a back country machine they are a poor choice and building from a poor (non-purpose built) platform seems like a great way to waste money that could be spent on the correct tool for the job.

Interesting....a guy posts a question..what mods would you put on a 172 to make it a better back country airplane.

And, more than half the responses are "buy a 182 or Stinson".

Now, I've flown all three, and they're all great airplanes. But, you're going to have a REALLY tough time finding an all around cheaper/better flying/safer/more economical back country airplane than a 172, frankly.

Consider that the 172 has precisely the same wing as the early 182, but less power. It also doesn't have a CS prop. Price to overhaul a C/S prop?? Try on around $7 to 8 grand, folks. And, if that wasn't done RIGHT before you bought that old 182 you MAY be the lucky one who has to shovel out that amount of cash right after you bought your "bargain" airplane.

Stinsons? Great airplanes, but a very different airplane than a Cessna. Parts availability is very different, though there are a lot of them around, but not nearly as many as a 172. The Stinsons that are decent back country airplanes also have a modified/bigger engine. Same logic applies to a 172, except if you hang a bigger engine on a 172, the airplane has some value in the used market. A Stinson with a big engine still isn't worth much on the used market. Good airplane, still, but.....

A 172 is definitely NOT just a good training airplane. As others have said, given a driver who's learned the airplane, they can be a great and economical back country airplane.

Nothing wrong with a 182 or a Stinson, mind you, but both are likely going to cost you more in maintenance down the road a bit. Try recovering a Stinson and see what THAT little item costs.

FWIW.

MTV

mtv wrote:............. Try recovering a Stinson and see what THAT little item costs.

A few years ago, I was thinking about buying a Pacer. Decided instead on my C150/150TD, although I still like Pacers. One of the reasons for not buying a Pacer was that all the ones I saw for sale were either freshly recovered (with the owner looking to recoup that high cost) or had old fabric -- maybe servicable, but with an expensive time-consuming recover job in sight in the future.

mtv wrote:There were a small number of C 175s that were converted to O-470's. I've flown one on wheels and floats a good bit. It is a beast in takeoff and climb. A VERY far forward CG airplane, however, so be careful. Loaded, there's no comparison. Empty, you'd best get some weight in the back. The tailwheel conversion would help some with this.

They are pretty rare. I heard that the STC was rescinded after a certain number were converted, but don't know if that's true. I don't think the STC is out there any more.

MTV

I had (partnership) a 1960 (slanty tail) 172 with a Franklin 220. It was nose heavy but manageable. I was taught way back to land trikes on the mains. This required full aft trim in our airplane to be done well. Never took it BC, but had a lot of fun slipping it on final rather than flaps. MTV's responses as usual cover pretty much all you need to know in order to decide. In my opinion anyway.

I have a buddy that has an immaculate good looking low time 1958 or 59 Cessna 175. It has the straight tail, tall gear, manual flaps, and even higher prop clearance because of the geared engine, and it is 175 hp.

It has always been hangared and needs two cylinders. I think $3500 would have it running in top shape and he only wants $8,000 as is. He is tired of looking at it. That’s $11,500 for a 4 place airship. in Ohio.

patrol guy wrote:I have a buddy that has an immaculate good looking low time 1958 or 59 Cessna 175. It has the straight tail, tall gear, manual flaps, and even higher prop clearance because of the geared engine, and it is 175 hp.

It has always been hangared and needs two cylinders. I think $3500 would have it running in top shape and he only wants $8,000 as is. He is tired of looking at it. That’s $11,500 for a 4 place airship. in Ohio.

Wow.

I'm pretty happy with my 172B. Love the manual 40 degree flaps. I did get an Airglas fork and tire upgrade. That's a good mod though spendy. Definitely helps with the rougher stuff and adds a bit of safety should I ever need to make a landing in a field. Also rolls a bit better on the ground.

A shoulder harness is another must have. It's next on my list of major upgrades.

STOL kit? Not sure. They're great for getting in slow but, if I understand right, they don't really do anything for getting out. Right now, at sea level with temps around 60 with half tanks, I was able to get in and out of an 800' strip (about 600' needed both ways. 6 foot obstacles). Yeah a 180 or 182 would be nice for the extra power but for one person and gear or a couple of people it's pretty good when kept light.

If I was flying in places with a lot of altitude or hot days, some extra ponies would be sure nice to have.

A fuel flow meter would add a lot of comfort on knowing how much is still in the tanks. I know I'd feel more comfortable flying with less fuel to keep the weight down.

Corrosion - all of these old 172's are going to have some. A good mechanic should be able to spot anything that's bad. If you see mouse or rat droppings, that's a bad sign as the urine will eat through the metal. I had mine corrosion proofed, which helps prevent further damage. The stuff does seep out so that adds to cleaning. Firewall and wing spars are good places to check for what looks like excessive corrosion.

Emory Bored wrote:

patrol guy wrote:I have a buddy that has an immaculate good looking low time 1958 or 59 Cessna 175. It has the straight tail, tall gear, manual flaps, and even higher prop clearance because of the geared engine, and it is 175 hp.

It has always been hangared and needs two cylinders. I think $3500 would have it running in top shape and he only wants $8,000 as is. He is tired of looking at it. That’s $11,500 for a 4 place airship. in Ohio.

Wow.

Cessna and Continental do not support the geared engine I understand. So although when operated correctly it is a much better engine than it's reputation would later become, the sad fact is you will have a lot of trouble or expense or headache when overhauling it. Also, if my memory serves, an A&P/IA cannot overhaul it in the field because there is a rule that a geared engine has to go to an engine shop. Can any of the more experienced engine guys here confirm or refute this?

The 180/220 Franklin conversions, and the Cont. IO-360 conversion, and the Lyc. O-360 conversion... makes an incredible airplane out of the old Skylark. Metal tanks, and supposedly a slightly stronger structure.

Emory, love the new avatar... are congratulations in order?

EZFlap wrote:
Emory, love the new avatar... are congratulations in order?

She's a rescue girl. Honest to Pete they want more documentation to make her ours than adopting a member of Croatia's Royal Family. The home visit is next. We don't foresee any problems. So yeah, at some point right quick she'll be coming to her new forever home. For some inexplicable reason she's named Pamela. That's a good name for a turtle I think. Not a Doberman Pincer. Maybe we'll call her Pratt. When we find a male he'll be Whitney.

macdon221 wrote:OK, I know the aircraft is not the best for unimproved High Altitude strips, but if you were on a "poorer man's budget" and had to buy/reasonably modify a 172, what attributes would you look for. i.e. model year for W and B, engine, tires, tanks, etc. Also, what "snags" would you look for in this model, i.e. corrosion prone areas, easily damaged areas, etc.

Cheers

Macdon221

Having had several pre 1960 182's -get that and You'll go home happy .

STOL kit? Not sure. They're great for getting in slow but, if I understand right, they don't really do anything for getting out. Right now, at sea level with temps around 60 with half tanks,

GroundLooper,
just some things to think about with the Stol kit,(I have the Sportsman because my conclusion from studying them, it was the best, and the difference in cost wasn't that much, and it didn't need the fences). And, occasionally there is an uninstalled, one for sale someone has bought and didn't install, so always a cheaper option if you aren't in any hurry.

If it will let you fly slower, only makes sense that you could take of slower which would mean taking off sooner/shorter.

Landing and taking off shorter means less abuse to the plane on rougher strips.

Obviously you are concerned about forced landings, consider the possability that the STOL kit will allow you to extend your glide giving you a better safety margin and possably more options for a safe place to land, and at a slower speed.

These are just some of the reasons I used to justify the purchase of somethng that I could have gotten by without, but am glad that I did go ahead and do.

Gary

GroundLooper wrote:.......A fuel flow meter would add a lot of comfort on knowing how much is still in the tanks. I know I'd feel more comfortable flying with less fuel to keep the weight down......

I use a poor man's fuel totalizer -- when I gas up, I dip the tanks & write down the tach time & fuel quantity on a piece of tape & stick it on the panel. I know my overall fuel burn, so I can check tach time while flying & calculate how much fuel remaining. When I fill up again, I'm always within a gallon or so, so I feel pretty confident in this method. A roll of tape & a paint stick is way cheaper than a fuel flow gauge, and way more foolproof. Of course, I can't see my fuel burn at that exact second, but who cares -- what matters is how much you have left.

hotrod150 wrote:

GroundLooper wrote:.......A fuel flow meter would add a lot of comfort on knowing how much is still in the tanks. I know I'd feel more comfortable flying with less fuel to keep the weight down......

I use a poor man's fuel totalizer -- when I gas up, I dip the tanks & write down the tach time & fuel quantity on a piece of tape & stick it on the panel. I know my overall fuel burn, so I can check tach time while flying & calculate how much fuel remaining. When I fill up again, I'm always within a gallon or so, so I feel pretty confident in this method. A roll of tape & a paint stick is way cheaper than a fuel flow gauge, and way more foolproof. Of course, I can't see my fuel burn at that exact second, but who cares -- what matters is how much you have left.

I love my JPI 450. The fact that it calculates MPG at any power setting has enabled me to get home without stopping for fuel, without it I would have stopped in route.
The mogas I get home is more affordable! I don't trust it enough to not dip my tanks before takeoff though.