Looking at purchasing a 172D. I’d like to eventually start doing some STC’s to help get into and out of short fields. Obviously building more time with good training is my priority. What’s the best bang for buck on making STOL mods on an early 172? Wing cuff? micro VG’s? 8042 climb/seaplane prop? Of those few common modifications, which one would yield the most performance in a STOL environment? Thanks all, looking forward to hearing some real experience.

0.5 Fly the airplane a lot, practice.
1. Weight loss
2. big prop
3. Sportsman STOL


Edit: Forgot the best one, inserted it first.

.

Learn to fly it to it's maximum potential. This takes many hours. You'll be surprised at what the old bird will do!

Having said that, a prop repitch will help as will a Sportsmans leading edge cuff. Not sure if you can put the 80'42 on a 172 with getting the Landes/Airglass fork. I'm sure it has been done, wether legal or not, I don't know. These 3 mods will cost $10K+ unless you can do it yourself. I have looked into all of these and guess what? I am still flying my 172A in stock form. Have flown it all over the country while I understand and know it's limitations.

Sportsman kit, more HP. Skip the VG’s

Kurt

Order of bang for buck

1. Rig airplane straight
2. Weight loss
3. Seaplane prop
4. STOL cuff
5. Bigger motor

Order of Bang regardless of buck

1. Seaplane prop or bigger motor
2. STOL Cuff
3. Weight Loss
4. Rig Airplane straight

Buy an already 0-360 converted 172 or an early 182.....or as said, learn to fly the 172 in stock trim well.

Great advice from the others. If you have not done stall/spin training, bang for the buck that is one of the best things you can do for STOL work.
DENNY

convert it to a tailwheel ... come on you know someone was gonna say it

Having a ‘56 172, here’s my vote:

1. Repitch your current prop go as flat as you are comfortable with. I went to 51” pitch

2. Do whatever is necessary to get your cg back in the mid to aft range. This is hands down the biggest performance enhancer i have seen on my airplane. It’s a constant battle of moving weight to baggage or re arranging the kids seating options cc pocock’s book has some great information about this.

3. Sportsman STOL kit. Can’t argue the numbers and testimonials of this one. I will be removing my Horton to install a sportsman.

4. Take very piece of shit narco radio and worthless nav equipment out of it and use them for house decorations. Get rid of every bit of weight you can, one ounce at a time. Consider lighter battery, starter, alternator, this will help the cg issue as well.

5. Nose fork and desser 8.50s. There’s an article in the knowlege base that I wrote about doing this on mine. It includes weight and cg changes.

https://backcountrypilot.org/knowledge- ... -nosewheel

Good luck!

So a stock 172-D has a 145 hp Continental. Is this the motor on the plane?

Most airplanes, when loaded to some usable capacity, can land shorter than they can take off. Watch low power trainer planes practice short field stop and goes. Landings can usually be plopped down and the plane stopped reasonably short. Then they drag ass down the runway and takeoff in distances three times the length of the landing. Also, many off-airport runway surfaces such as soft dirt, snow, sand, and grass shorten landings and lengthen takeoffs. Yes, some surfaces such as slippery grass or ice can create the reverse problem. But mostly, consider that landing short is only half the battle. You still need to get out of there.

Therefore for STOL operations, I typically focus on those things that will help me on the departure. Yes, wing mods are great, but you can have two 172s wing-modded to the hilt, except that one has a larger motor. They will approach at nearly the exact same speed and land equally short. But the one with the bigger motor will definitely take off shorter. And if takeoff in your plane is the limiting factor, then landing short doesn't matter, and the power to produce the acceleration needed to achieve flying speed on the takeoff becomes important, especially when off-airport on soft surfaces. The engine is the only thing that helps accelerate the plane.

For a 172 with 145 HP, you can buy a lot of mods, but not many things will beat reducing weight and more power (bigger engine and climb prop).

If STOL is your jam, I would first look for planes with low weight to HP ratios.

I’ve had the pleasure to fly a 172 with an o-360, constant speed, sportsman and wing extensions installed. I’m surprised no one has mentioned the wing extensions. While there’s no doubt rigging, lowering weight and more than anything practice gives you better bang for your buck. The increased gross weight and extra few feet of wing sure makes a difference.

Practice all you can though. A stock 172 will go most places I’ve ever needed

Wing-X extensions are not STC’d for a 172 in the US. That’s probably why no one brought them up.

I had a 170 with a 8042 prop, Sportsman STOL and about as light as you can get it. It was a great combo. As someone else mentioned, getting approval for an 8042 prop on a 172 would be tough. Re-pitch the original to a 7651 climb prop and you’ll gain some extra RPM for takeoff and climb. As far as cuffs go, the Sportsman is the only way.

Squash said it perfectly!

Kurt

I second jeredp!
Also, trash the champion plugs and replace w/ tempest. Put finewire’s on the bottom. Make sure the throttle cable is set up to give you full travel of the throttle plate. Have someone that knows what they’re doing check the mag. timing. Have to squeeze every last h.p. out of that O-300. I miss my E model almost every day.

Squash wrote:So a stock 172-D has a 145 hp Continental. Is this the motor on the plane?

Most airplanes, when loaded to some usable capacity, can land shorter than they can take off. Watch low power trainer planes practice short field stop and goes. Landings can usually be plopped down and the plane stopped reasonably short. Then they drag ass down the runway and takeoff in distances three times the length of the landing. Also, many off-airport runway surfaces such as soft dirt, snow, sand, and grass shorten landings and lengthen takeoffs. Yes, some surfaces such as slippery grass or ice can create the reverse problem. But mostly, consider that landing short is only half the battle. You still need to get out of there.

Therefore for STOL operations, I typically focus on those things that will help me on the departure. Yes, wing mods are great, but you can have two 172s wing-modded to the hilt, except that one has a larger motor. They will approach at nearly the exact same speed and land equally short. But the one with the bigger motor will definitely take off shorter. And if takeoff in your plane is the limiting factor, then landing short doesn't matter, and the power to produce the acceleration needed to achieve flying speed on the takeoff becomes important, especially when off-airport on soft surfaces. The engine is the only thing that helps accelerate the plane.

For a 172 with 145 HP, you can buy a lot of mods, but not many things will beat reducing weight and more power (bigger engine and climb prop).

If STOL is your jam, I would first look for planes with low weight to HP ratios.

Well, sorta...... An effective STOL kit (in this case, the one I'd consider is the Sportsman) effectively does one thing: It lowers stall speed. Reduced stall speed shortens BOTH landing and takeoff runs.

The other thing I see regularly is pilots NOT using flaps for takeoff. Ask them why not and they respond that the POH calls for zero flaps for takeoff. Read the short/soft field data......

BUT, otherwise, I agree with Squash. Power pretty much rules when it comes to takeoff. But, hang an O-360 on that 172 and try a short takeoff with flaps at zero, and you won't do much better than the O-300 powered plane that's USING flaps for takeoff.

Use all the tools you have.

MTV

I love how a guy asks about some STOL mods on a fairly affordable airplane and the recommendations flood in to spend about $60K and hang a 180hp motor on it.

akaviator wrote:I love how a guy asks about some STOL mods on a fairly affordable airplane and the recommendations flood in to spend about $60K and hang a 180hp motor on it.

Interesting conclusion and summary of the posts.

Squash wrote:

akaviator wrote:I love how a guy asks about some STOL mods on a fairly affordable airplane and the recommendations flood in to spend about $60K and hang a 180hp motor on it.

Interesting conclusion and summary of the posts.

Yep! Except for my first sentence, but then that even costs money for fuel.

Squash wrote:

akaviator wrote:I love how a guy asks about some STOL mods on a fairly affordable airplane and the recommendations flood in to spend about $60K and hang a 180hp motor on it.

Interesting conclusion and summary of the posts.

Just buy a 180