Heya guys -- shopping around for a potential first plane. So far most roads lead back to Cessnas. One thing I notice is that everyone seems to insist on the old straight tail models. What does the straight tail provide that's worth seeking out over a rear window or other later changes to the type?

Manual flaps, simple systems, and cheapish immediately come to mind. Often lighter (though lower gross) and maybe slightly faster. The panel is smaller so visibility is better, but the layout feels random. Some argument about if it is more stable with a straight tail. The early 172s all had the O-300. Very smooth, but gutless and ours always seemed to need cylinders. I was much happier with a 180 HP T-41B, and even happier with our 205 now.

I don't think there's anything magic about a straight back 150, 172, or 182. They are all narrower, lighter, and a tiny bit faster than their back window brethren. As I recall, the straight back 182s also had the 180's adjustable horizontal stabilizer for trim adjustment rather than trim tabs--if I'm wrong, someone will correct me, I'm sure.

There's no real difference in the way that they fly. At least, I'm not a good enough pilot to notice any difference, other than the newer 182s seem more nose-heavy to me. The 150s, 152s, and 172s fly pretty much the same, regardless of year, from my observation.

The manual flaps were carried over through the E model 172s. I don't know when the 150s began to have electric flaps, but every one I've flown had electric, and I think the oldest 150 I flew was a 65 model. Likewise, the earlier window back 182s also retained manual flaps, I think through about 1964.

According to my IA, the earlier ones also used thicker aluminum for the fuselage, but again when they went to thinner metal was sometime after the back windows were incorporated into it.

All of the earlier models had spring steel gear, and the earliest stood taller, sort of milk stoolish. That might give a little more prop clearance, but not so much that it really counts. Later models of all of them have tubular steel landing gear and sit a bit lower.

There are engine conversions galore for the 150s/152s and 172s. I've flown a 152 with a 125hp conversion--makes it climb better and handle higher DAs better, but it's no faster. I've seen a few 150s with 150hp conversions, but I haven't flown any. I've flown 172s with 180hp through 210hp conversions. My own P172D has a 180hp Lycoming with a CS prop, which is a really nice mid-range conversion. Mine climbs a bit better and is a tiny bit faster than a stock 180hp 172, and of course is much better in both climb rate and speed than any of the lower hp 172s. One of the guys here has a 210hp Franklin powered 172, I think an E model, with a CS prop, and his will run past mine in all respects.

Cary

If you aren't planning on converting it to a TW, the first couple of years with the swept tail are essentially the same as the straight tailed 172's. Manual flaps, and fuselage the same. I've had a 1960 172A (first year of swept tail) for 31+ years! It has flown me all over the lower 48 with barely a problem. Super smooth and reliable, cheap to own and maintain. Very good all around plane. I have owned other planes at the same time as the 172, but always kept the 172 because of the comments I stated. It's the one I can pack up and go somewhere without a worry. There is a reason why there are so many of them around.

Having said this, it is going up for sale...soon.

On my long suffering '56 172, two things I really like compared to the later ones: the low panel makes for a lot better visibility out front, as has been mentioned, but one other advantage that the straight back planes have is that if they are left outside for an extended period, there are no back windows to let damaging UV destroy the Royalite panels found in the later planes.The older craft have very little plastic inside. Lycoming powered planes come at a premium, and are frequently priced as "working airplanes" for flight instruction. As far as 150's, the straight tail ones seem to just fly better than the swept tail variety, but my experience here is limited.

Thanks guys. Useful info as I continue to appraise when to buy!

zackbrand -- what made yours "long suffering"?

Also, any tips for evaluating whether one was beat to hell as a trainer for decades or not?

PM sent