Curious if a 63 175 could be converted back to a straight tail for possible tail wheel conversion in the future? Has it been done before? On a 172?

Marc

I've seen a slant tail fastback 175 and a 172 converted back to straight tail before. The 63 175 should be an omni-vision plane with the rear window, I've never seen one of them with a straight tail... Maybe it's possible?

Never seen a omni-vision 175. Thought they went for five years of fast back 58/62. I have seen the fast back swept tail done. Shortfielder on this site and barnstormers had a verticle and rudder for sale for a straight tail.

maulewaco wrote:Never seen a omni-vision 175. Thought they went for five years of fast back 58/62. I have seen the fast back swept tail done. Shortfielder on this site and barnstormers had a verticle and rudder for sale for a straight tail.

I guess I was confused, a 1963 Cessna 172/182 would be an omni-vision plane. I couldn't remember the last year the 175 was produced.

Hey Guys the 63 175 still has the fastback. So it seems its been done before. Is there an STC for this change? If so any idea where I find it?

Marc

58 &59 had the straight tail, 60 &61 had slanted tail, 62 had constant speed prop and cowl flaps, fastback and slanted tail , 63 had constant speed and cowl flaps, slanted tail and Omni vision.
Check with Stoots Aviation in Alaska or the 175 club.
I am converting my 60 175 to a straight tail, it is very easy actually. You need the vertical stab and rudder from a straight tail as well as the large forging at the end of the airframe. I am registered in the homebuilt so I do not have to worry about the STC.

Marc I was told by Tim Q. that the straight fin will bolt on to the same tail casting a the swept tail came off of. I have not verified that personally. If it does happen to be true, I have a friend who has a straight-tail fin and rudder.

The Stoots Aviation STC tailwheel conversion for the 175 already exists and is available for purchase.

There may be other options presented to you, if you happen to be driving around your local airport and poke your nose into various hangars....

175 magnum wrote:58 &59 had the straight tail, 60 &61 had slanted tail, 62 had constant speed prop and cowl flaps, fastback and slanted tail , 63 had constant speed and cowl flaps, slanted tail and Omni vision.
Check with Stoots Aviation in Alaska or the 175 club.
I am converting my 60 175 to a straight tail, it is very easy actually. You need the vertical stab and rudder from a straight tail as well as the large forging at the end of the airframe. I am registered in the homebuilt so I do not have to worry about the STC.

Hmm..registration from N number search says it was mfg in 63. Maybe early 63 and it was one of the last fastbacks.. Dont know..

Good to know it can be done. My guess in the USA we cant go the homebuilt route with just a tail change.

Marc

I am registered in the homebuilt so I do not have to worry about the STC.

Now how did you do that? Don't think that's possible. I too, am considering putting my C175b on conventional gear, but will be testing the current slant tail first, before swapping it out with a straight. I wonder just how much rudder authority is really lost on the fastback airframe? While I know the conventional wisdom, I like to see for myself.
Dave
C175b O-360 C/S

Some confusion here. I own a 1963 P172D, which was built in October 1962. It has the Omni-vision rear window and cowl flaps. Originally it had a 175hp 300 series Continental with a constant speed prop. Mine has been converted to a 360 Lycoming with a constant speed prop. There were 58 P172Ds made in 1962-63. They are on the same type certificate as the 175. None of them had a straight back; all of them have a slanted tail.

All 175s came with a geared 175hp 300 series Continental and straight backs. I don't know when they switched from a straight tail to a slanted tail.

The marketing department of Cessna called the P172D the Powermatic. It was their idea that a more powerful, slightly faster version of the 172 would sell better than the 175, which had developed a bad reputation for engine problems, especially involving the gearbox, and was not selling. Largely that reputation was due to pilots who improperly ran the engine at lower rpms and jockeyed the throttle too much, so that it damaged the gearbox. However, the marketeers were wrong, and the Powermatic didn't sell well, either, while the ordinary 172 of the era, which had a 145hp 300 series Continental, not geared, not constant speed, continued to sell well.

There are some slight differences (in addition to the type certificate, the more powerful engine, and the constant speed prop) between the 172D and the P172D. I doubt they are important for the issue of converting to a tail wheel, as many of the parts are interchangeable. The biggest issue from my standpoint has always been that after market providers often fail to put the P172D on their AMLs, so that often my IA has had to do a 337 to install something that fits exactly because it fits 175s and 172s, but just wasn't listed.

Hope this clarifies some of the confusion.

Cary

"Marc I was told by Tim Q. that the straight fin will bolt on to the same tail casting a the swept tail came off of. I have not verified that personally. If it does happen to be true, I have a friend who has a straight-tail fin and rudder"
There is a difference in that casting. The straight tail unit has a bearing boss to take the extra lower bearing of the straight tail rudder. The slant tail unit has that boss mostly ground off, otherwise they are identical. If you use the slant tail casting with the straight tail rudder there will be no lower bearing support for the straight tail rudder. It may work just fine without that lower support but I chose to change the casting to the straight tail casting on my project.

I had my project approved under the amateur built program prior to them brining out this new rule of not using certified parts. My project was inspected and approved under the 51% rule. You would not be able to do that these days here in Canada or the USA.

In Canada, don't you also have the "owner maintenance category" option for experimentalizing certificated airplanes, and using whatever parts (home-made, certified, or ?) you want?

I kind of doubt that you will find an STC for switching swept-tail to square-tail. I would check into whether that switch is an approved repair, which would then be documented by a 337 & needing only an IA's returned-to-service sign-off. FWIW I would stress use of the word "repair" instead of "modification" or "alteration".

hotrod180 wrote:In Canada, don't you also have the "owner maintenance category" option for experimentalizing certificated airplanes, and using whatever parts (home-made, certified, or ?) you want?

We do have this in Canada, but it is somewhat restrictive. For example, you can't put a plane with a CS prop in the homeowners category. So a 175 can go in, as long as you keep it to a fixed pitch prop.

The swept tail is a different aerodynamic design than the straight tail, and would cause a problem if you tried to just slide it through as a repair. A repair would be to replace the swept tail with another swept tail from the same model aircraft.

Applying for a full STC or one-time STC, you could make a reasonable case that since both tails were on the same TC, and that both versions had identical flight characteristics (as evidenced by no changes to the approved flight manual), then there is little risk associated with the change and that there would be no flight test required.

Then you could make a fairly easy case that the vertical fin ASSEMBLY (to include the rear bulkhead casting) would fit into the later model fuselage without any significant modifications, simple sheet metal and riveting stuff.

You would still need a DER to look at this, and get their signoff as part of the STC application.

Now once all this is done, and the "weight of the paperwork..." stuff is all done, THEN you have the problem that the rivet holes in the rear fuselage skins of the (former swept tail) airplane may not match the holes in the transplanted (straight tail) fun assembly. These were not jig drilled, I believe they were hand drilled with slight variances like the rest of the skin fasteners.

So THAT brings up the idea that you might want to find a brand new un-drilled bulkhead casting from a Cessna parts dealer (cha-CHING!), or that you might want to cast or machine a new "owner manufactured part" (sound of oppressive "Anvil Chorus" Russian factory worker music).

I have a very nice straight tail verticle fin and rudder for the 175/172 if anyone is looking.
gary

I'm pretty sure stoots has that STC.

In closer inspection they have it listed as "pending approval" still worth talking to them I'd say.

A local has a 175 straight tail converted to tail wheel and also has an O470. Really a nose heavy plane. No such thing as slow flight even with the new Sportsman STOL.

There is an urge in all of us to take a plane and reconfigure it into something is was never designed to be. If you buy a decent 175 and convert to tail wheel and install an engine upgrade you will have more invested than if you just buy a 180. In 1959 they made 150's, 172's, 175's, 180's and 182's all with strait tails.

Tim