The “adequate” question really depends on your definition of “family”.

The 170 gross weight was restricted to 2107 pounds on EDO 2000s. That’s limiting. Exceed that weight, and the plane is, in fact, seriously under floated.

AT that weight, the plane is slightly underfloated.

What weight were you thinking you’d operated that 172?

Two place and a LITTLE stuff airplane. You’re talking kids? They grow, remarkably fast.

MTV

Got it!
Called the outfit in AK, and he didn't have the STC, but pointed me to the man who does, who is down in Kodiak.
He's got the STC for the Aerocet 2200's, and was super helpful.
Turns out it's much easier (and cheaper) to convert a straight tail 172, because the parts are the same as on a 170.

Ball is rolling.
Thanks again for all the help!

56172 wrote:Got it!
Called the outfit in AK, and he didn't have the STC, but pointed me to the man who does, who is down in Kodiak.
He's got the STC for the Aerocet 2200's, and was super helpful.
Turns out it's much easier (and cheaper) to convert a straight tail 172, because the parts are the same as on a 170.

Ball is rolling.
Thanks again for all the help!

You have me curious with the "parts are the same" reference. Unless your 56 straight tail has the "mythical" double gearboxes from what I know the parts are not the same.

Mapleflt wrote:

56172 wrote:Got it!
Called the outfit in AK, and he didn't have the STC, but pointed me to the man who does, who is down in Kodiak.
He's got the STC for the Aerocet 2200's, and was super helpful.
Turns out it's much easier (and cheaper) to convert a straight tail 172, because the parts are the same as on a 170.

Ball is rolling.
Thanks again for all the help!

You have me curious with the "parts are the same" reference. Unless your 56 straight tail has the "mythical" double gearboxes from what I know the parts are not the same.

I think he’s referencing a tailwheel converted early 172, where gearbox has already been changed. Same fuselage dimension as 170s, whereas later 172 fuselage shape was different.

Maybe.

MTV

I wish mine came factory with both gear boxes, but I had to have the forward (170) gear box installed.
I've heard tell of the mythical '56 model 172 with both gear boxes, but I've actually got 2 '56 models, and neither has both boxes (I've never seen one).
The story I heard; When piper came out with their tricycle configuration, Cessna was losing major market share to the newfangled machines, so they took the 170, threw a tricycle gear on it and that became the first (1956) 172 (flat firewall).
Since they were using 170 fuselages to make the 172, some of them already had the 170 gear box installed, so they ended up going out the door with both boxes.
Whether or not this is true, I have no idea.

I am still curious abut the SA650CE STC for "Fleet 2500" floats.
I can't find a thing about Fleet floats online.
Looks like the Aerocet 2200 floats will run $55k, and that doesn't cover the work to the airplane to install the float kit.
Is what it is, but if anyone knows anything about the Fleet floats, let me know.
About to pull the trigger on the Aerocet, but they're a year out for delivery at this point...

I was refered to Eddy Peck when I had an odd float question many years ago.Unfortunately, a lot of the guys that were the float experts, have flown west.

56172 wrote:I am still curious abut the SA650CE STC for "Fleet 2500" floats.
I can't find a thing about Fleet floats online.
Looks like the Aerocet 2200 floats will run $55k, and that doesn't cover the work to the airplane to install the float kit.
Is what it is, but if anyone knows anything about the Fleet floats, let me know.
About to pull the trigger on the Aerocet, but they're a year out for delivery at this point...

I’m pretty sure that Fleet was a Canadian company. I’ve seen a lot of floats, but never a set of those. Good luck.

MTV

Fleet Industries located in Ft. Erie, Ontario Canada manufactured the Fleet Canuck, it was offered with wheels, skis and floats. The floats where fabricated from corrugated aluminum. They used the gear legs as the forward struts, the axles where clamped in saddles on the deck with additional aft struts and spreader bars as required. Occasionally you see a set come up for sale, usually as part of a complete airplane sale. They had a volume of approximately 1500 lbs. and I’ve never heard or seen any larger than that. In most case they have been replaced thru STC or other means with one of the more “traditional” brands.

Thank you for the information on those floats. No wonder I couldn't find any info on the web about them. I pulled the trigger this week on a pair of Aerocet 2200's. I'm on a waiting list for the next year. Hope to be flying on them by mid summer 2023. Thank you all for the help!

I’m afraid it’s all but guaranteed to go over the moon on cost. I’ve yet to meet a plane project that hasn’t! Mine all sure have, and all started with minimal budgets.

I realize it’s likely not in the cards, but MTV is right you’re better off to just buy a floatplane done, even if it takes many years of saving, and it will without a doubt be cheaper in the end if you look at what you get back when you sell it one day.

The path of building yours likely means years delay as well, with likely a very unsatisfying conclusion.

https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/0-30 ... oats-23740

A very different sentiment.

The struggles you’re going to run into are several admittedly, your early 172 is going to present a challenge in finding and collecting the parts. And once you’ve found them all and assembled it, which from my experience always takes roughly the cube of the time you hoped and sometimes the dollars to match, the O-300 172 would be about my last choice of certified planes to build a floatplane on.

I say this having got my float rating in a 172 with a Lycoming 360 at sea level. That’s one of the desirable 172 floatplanes, and it was marginal on the best of days. All I’m saying is it will be more headaches than expected, and likely not the end product you hoped performance wise.

Got all the parts assembled already. Found the 4 mounting blocks, and the bottom brace at a salvage yard. Have the Cessna drawings for the doubling panels to trace and cut out. Moving right along. Hope to be done in a week : ) (yeah right!). She won't rip, true, but I'll fly faster than my neighbor in his floated t-craft

Well I wish you luck in your build, and as alluded have certainly done similar projects at significant personal stress. I’ve lost the gumption to power through them, and good on you for keeping the sense of adventure hope it goes smooth for you and provides lots of smiles.

One thing I’d highly recommend if you don’t already have it, is installing an 80 inch “Borer” prop on that O-300. You’ll need all the thrust that motor can muster.

MTV

I think you're right on the Borer, and it's on my list. After going this far with my dads old 172, I may swap out the engine, once the dust settles a bit. Be a good winter project.

Thought I would add to this thread for research purposes. Wipaire has a float kit for the straight firewall 172. I have confirmed that with them on the phone. The front fittings are expensive but apparently available on order. . https://www.wipaire.com/aircraft_page/c ... 5-skyhawk/