So I'm curious if anyone has any info or experience with the stoots tailwheel stc on a 172?. After saving my pennies, I am seriously contemplating either trying to purchase a hanger or doing the stoots tailwheel conversion on my '56 172. I'm curious as to expense, what the kit comes with, and the quality. The labor and install do not concern me as I'm an a&p/ia with alot of structures experiance. My thought is to do the conversion then and bushwheels and the seaplane prop. Don't tell me to buy a 170/180, I love my plane for sentimental reasons and will not be getting rid of it ever!

My limited understanding is that the Stoots conversion comes with brand new OEM Cessna parts, right down to the gear legs.

My Fravel 172 conversion STC and parts kit (that has stolen almost 3 years of my life), will come with newly designed, improved PMA replacement parts that will offer certain advantages over OEM parts. My conversion will also offer a much more streamlined installation process.

However, the Stoots kit is available now, and mine is not. My "day job" changed into a huge drain on time, long commute, etc. which has slowed down my kit progress.

Call Dave Stoots in Fairbanks and ask him the info on his kit. He'll tell you everything you want to know about.....and a lot more

It's a good kit. Just be prepared for a long phone conversation.

MTV

I emailed Stoots about the kit. Here is his reply:

"Cessna 180 gear box parts are required for the conversion. You need not supply any parts. All parts required for the conversion are included in the STC kit. $14,800.00 plus shipping.

The tail wheel STC covers the installation of landing gear parts for the conversion to conventional gear.

Tires are approved with STC from the tire manufacture.

80/42 seaplane prop would be approved with a engine/ prop STC."

You may not be able to put the 80/42 prop on your 172 even after the tailwheel a conversion. Not with the STC anyways, the STC is for a Cessna 170. I believe Gump ran into the same problem with his 172TD. You might be able to get it done via field approval. Good luck with the project if you decide to do it!

Yeah... Good luck with that. And field approval??? Ha Ha. It took over two years to get my single airplane STC to install the GarAero tailwheel. A 337 wasn't good enough, and neither were the data provided by GarAero when we submitted everything.

The direct quotes from the Fed were, "I'm not sure how we can do this. I don't know how I can allow a tailwheel on a Cessna 172. If this was Alaska, it'd be easy." At the point they wanted "our" engineer to submit blueprints and our "testing program" to their engineer, I told my IA to tell 'em to stick it up their asses and forget it. Which I did. And then out of the blue, almost a year later, here comes the paperwork.

The prop is the same issue. Kennmore has the STC, for C170's only. And no matter what you do to your '56 172, it's still a 172 on paper.

Gump

It would be interesting to know the changes in C/G and weight etc for a converted 172.
Available for Reims?

If you use the right DER/DAR, and word it correctly on the documentation, it is a lot more possible than less possible.

I'm not saying it's as easy as it was in 1975, I'm saying that something like an upgraded tailwheel on a 172 conversion like Gump's is do-able. You just have to understand who DER/DAR's are, what their relationship with the FAA is, and what makes the FAA 's job easier.

If you or your IA just walks in the front door of a FSDO, and simply asks them for help, in 2014 you are playing roulette.

sell the 172 and buy a 170.

patrol guy wrote:sell the 172 and buy a 170.

I completely understand that that is the most practical choice, however, this was my grandpas airplane and I spent my childhood flying it with him. I soloed in it on my 16th birthday and hope for my boys to be able to do the same. It is part of the family and will never be sold.

One of the biggest reasons for tailwheel conversion would be to run the seaplane prop and avoid a $40k lycoming upgrade. Maybe this isn't realistic??? I considered going with the airglas nose fork but that does absolutley nothing for performance.

You can always take my route. I was in exactly your same situation. So I now have a '56 172 and a 170. My wife now flys the 172 more often than I do, but its nice to have an extra to fly during annuals. Less trouble than the conversion, I got two airplanes, AND my wife is happy!

Brent