As a low-time pilot, I was wondering what mods would make a 172 a somewhat useful backcountry plane? I'm not looking for the most expensive Skyhawk in the world, with every available option. Just the most bang for the buck. I am looking at using the plane as a 2 person, lightly loaded unit and being very conservative on where I would take this plane, at least until I gained a lot of hours.
I was thinking that the 180 hp upgrade was a bare minimum. What's next? Is there a way to upgrade/strengthen the nosegear? What STOL options are available? Gimme some ideas. Thanks, Wes

Just get a Maule.... Problem solved.

180HP A Borer Prop and VG's Airglas nosefork w/850x6 and 26" or 29" Mains......

.............. Well he asked..... Did I say 180 HP, just incase I didn't 180 HP

It's a bit like sex change surgery for an airplane, it's that radical:

Bush Conversions
tailwheel conversion for 172
800 752-0748

Hottshot wrote:180HP A Borer Prop and VG's Airglas nosefork w/850x6 and 26" or 29" Mains......

.............. Well he asked..... Did I say 180 HP, just incase I didn't 180 HP

LOL! I think I saw a 172 set up with a set of tires like that for sale in Alaska in a recent TAP. It looked... umm... different Keep them ideas comin'

Wes wrote:

Hottshot wrote:180HP A Borer Prop and VG's Airglas nosefork w/850x6 and 26" or 29" Mains......

.............. Well he asked..... Did I say 180 HP, just incase I didn't 180 HP

LOL! I think I saw a 172 set up with a set of tires like that for sale in Alaska in a recent TAP. It looked... umm... different Keep them ideas comin'

Wes--

A properly set up tricycle airplane will spank a taildragger in short field T/O Performance and they may look a little different but that is what works

The Horton STOL I installed on my old 56 172 made it into a complete different aircraft. The trick is to have both sided exactly the same.
Lots of people get in a hurry and a mismatch will not give you as good of results.

I think the pilot should be a little more “Bush Worthy” than the plane. I do however understand you need the proper plane.

Now I am really going to stir the pot!!!!

Being a tail wheel pilot makes you a better pilot. Anybody can land with training wheels. I find it a little hard to believe if you have two equal planes, HP, STOL Kits, Ect. One a tail wheel and one with training wheels. That the training plane will do better??????????? Maybe I am talking out of place but I think the tail wheel plane was designed for back country, grass, dirt strips. The training gear was designed for pavement.

I might be missing the point here, but it seems to me that by the time you make these upgrades (especially the 180hp engine) you're well into the cost of a 182 but without the performance, though with lower operating costs.

For a low time pilot who is going to be using the more maintained backcountry strips I'd recommend leaving the small tires and wheel pants on (less weight, less drag). Then tear out everything you don't absolutely need, including instruments of dubious value (vor's) and the back seats.

Lastly, flatten the prop pitch, maybe install VG's, and get real good at calculating fuel burn so you know how much you need to carry.

Past that, learn to pack light. I have gone three weeks with nothing but what I could carry on my back (except water, of course). A comfortable camp for two can easily weigh in at less than forty pounds, sixty if you want to drink beer.

I believe Hotshot that a set-up nosedragger will out perform a equal taildragger in t/o performance because the main gear is further back in a nosedragger so you can get higher AOA (aka deck angle) on the takeoff ground run.

But if the area is truly unimproved the taildragger's gear is stronger.

-Todd Giencke

I was under the impression that all else equal, a tail dragger would leave the ground sooner because the wing reaches a high angle of attack without having to waste energy lifting the nose.

I'm under the impression that an increased angle of attack (such as given by a pumped up strut, normal tailwheel plane etc. ) on the ground roll portion of the takeoff gives such a minuscule improvement as to be insignificant as compared to other factors, such as the additional drag presented by such a setup. Does keep your prop out of the dirt though.

Landes/Airglas now has their oversized nosefork STC'd for the 172. I believe it will accept up to a 8.50x6 tire. Putting that size tire on a 172 requires an additional basis of approval though.

Think about it. The 172 and the average 170 in many ways are identical airplanes, except for that disgusting appendage hanging out front for all to see Any fixed gear Cessna makes a good decent backcountry plane, in the summer. Depends on your definition of backcountry. Put me in a supercub and put some pilots I know in a 172 with a climb prop and we would both be flying in and out of the same places Best advice I saw above is to get your prop pitch changed and to stay light, IMHO.

The question was "With a 172" not hey I'm gunna go buy a new airplane...

A High HP nose gear airplane will performe very well, The pilot has a ton to do with how the airplane performs. A tail dragger is built a litte better suited for off airport ops but don't discount the 172's 182's and 206's

If you want a better explanation give me a call I hate to type that much!!

After thinking about it some more I'm standing by my higher AOA theory because...

-The "arm" of the elevator is so far back from the CG that it really doesn't take that much force to raise the nose.

-The wing is going to fly at the lowest speed just a few degrees below the stall AOA. A nosedragger can get to a higher AOA then a taildragger on the ground. I think this is one reason Maules do so well, they have a short tail so they can get to a higher AOA on the ground.

I know in my Musketeer I can rotate during T/O to a AOA that the stall warning starts going off. And when I'm doing a nice soft field greaser landing the stall warning is going off during the flare. My co-workers call it my carrier landing. because of the slow speed and how low the tail is (high AOA) not how hard I hit. It really is a greaser.

My question to you TW pilots is can you get the stall warning to go off during ground run or landing flare to a three point landing? I would guess no.

Don't take this as a nosedragger is better than a taildragger because during the ground run if a nose/tailwheel hits a big rut/rock the tailwheel will do better.

I kind of wonder (but don't want to test) how my tailing link nosegear would take a big rut/rock? I think better than a 172's

-Todd Giencke

I love stirring things up.

To be truthful I like both planes. I would rather fly a tail wheel, but that’s me. I truly believe it is more the pilot, planning, knowing your airplane than anything else. I just wanted to get a few people riled up.

tgiencke wrote:My question to you TW pilots is can you get the stall warning to go off during ground run or landing flare to a three point landing? I would guess no.

No, because we are already in the air or on the ground by then, while you are still stalling her in/out

Wup's pretty much hit the nail on the head, methinks.

Long story to it, but a well known backcountry 135 operator got rid of their 185's because the pilots weren't flying them into the tough places, only to airports. Boss asked why, and the chief pilot asked him, "If you were taking a big load of stuff into xxxx mine, which would you take--the 185 or the 206? The boss replied "That's a really nasty strip--I'd probably take the 206." They put the 185 on the market next week.

I own a tailwheel airplane. I'd trade it for a nosewheel airplane of relatively equal capability any day. I don't need any more sport in my life than I really have to have. Went into an airport (paved) the other day with 16, gusting to 24 at about 80 degrees to the runway. I'd take a nosewheel for one of those any day. My ugliest landing in a couple years.

MTV

Now, back to the question at hand:

1) do you currently own the 172, or are you shopping? If shopping, DO NOT purchase one with a 150 or 145 hp engine. You can't afford to do the conversion to the 180 unless you're willing to put a lot of money into it, as in more than it's worth at the end. A 160 hp 172 doesn't do too bad, if you keep it light and pay attention to density altitude.

2) I'd put the big fork on it, put a 7.00 or 8.00 tire on the nose, and 8.00's or 8.50's on the mains. Gopher holes can ruin your day.

3) Stay away from the VG's, don't bother with the Bush or Horton STOL cuffs. Either do the Sportsman leading edge, or wait till the Wing X STOL kit is approved in the US (currently approved in Canada). Lengthens the wing by total of 3 feet. Does wonders for all the other Cessnas. The Sportsman is a much better kit than the Horton or Bush STOL. It gives more cuff, for the same amount of money and labor.

4) Lighten it up any way you can. Pull the back seat, put in a lightweight starter, a small battery, a lightweight alternator, etc. Strip the insulation out of it. Get ANR headsets.

5) start easy, learn the plane, and most of all

6) Have fun with it.

MTV

mtv wrote:Now, back to the question at hand:

.

2) I'd put the big fork on it, put a 7.00 or 8.00 tire on the nose, and 8.00's or 8.50's on the mains. Gopher holes can ruin your day.


5) start easy, learn the plane, and most of all

6) Have fun with it.

MTV

MTV the only problem is the STC's all require "Same size" tire EXcept ours.... Landes is working on this as we speek though!

pif_sonic wrote:I think the tail wheel plane was designed for back country, grass, dirt strips. The training gear was designed for pavement.

You think wrong.