C172 Tail Dragger

[MauleOne]

In order to have an airplane that I can afford and meets my mission (flying for fun) I am interested in buying a C172 and converting it to a tail dragger. (I love flying tail draggers).

My question is which model of C172 is easier to convert to tail dragger and which models have STC's available.

Of course finding one with the work already done is the best idea if I can find one I can afford.

Thanks

[pif_sonic]

I have been told to only convert 172's that have a straight tail. I have heard the swept tails do not have enough rudder for a tail dragger. I guess it works on a swept tail but makes cross wind landings very tricky and you run out of rudder.

[Zzz]

I have been told to only convert 172's that have a straight tail. I have heard the swept tails do not have enough rudder for a tail dragger. I guess it works on a swept tail but makes cross wind landings very tricky and you run out of rudder.

Plus the straight tail looks 10x better, if you're into that sort of thing.

[WWhunter]

Mauleone,

PM EZ-flap or better yet do a search on this site for what you desire...LOTS of discussion on this subject. EZ is currently making progress on his STC for the Cessna's. I have met him and had a few conversations with EZ (Bill) and he is a stand up guy in my book. He is always willing to talk and I highly doubt he would steer you wrong.

I truly hope to do it one day myself but I have two strikes against me. Money and more money......oh yeah, lack of time also.
My 172 is a 1960 which is the first year of the swept-tail and as has been said, they are not the best candidate for this conversion. So what you are looking for is a 1959 and older. I have been told I could possibly change my tail to a straight tail but then that is more money and work.
CALLING EZ-FLAP!!! Buzz Buzz...Bill are you out there? Someone is asking for your expertise!!
Keith

[cessnaford]

Sir,
Search this site for "Fravel STC." Also you will never convert a C-172 for the price of a C-170. Even if you have to get the engine topped. OR just purchace one converted out of barnstormers. I also know a gentleman in southern Idaho who wants to sell his 1957 C-172 with a Bolen (I believe) STC & a aux fuel tank for the mid $20K range. He is not listing currently.

Best of luck. Read read & read some more

Byebill

[maules.com]

Mauleone, did you sell the Maule. It'll cost more to convert a C172 than get another Maule or similar size taildragger I would think.

[Scouter]

Call Twitchells Airport in Turner ME. They have done quite a few tailwheel conversions on various models. Also quite a few field installs of float kits in C172. Ask for Mike or Dale. Seems like the last time we talked, the parts prices to do either one is now out of sight $$$

Jim

[born2flyak]

I have been told to only convert 172's that have a straight tail. I have heard the swept tails do not have enough rudder for a tail dragger. I guess it works on a swept tail but makes cross wind landings very tricky and you run out of rudder.

I learned to fly as a kid in my uncle's C150 Texas taildragger (swept tail). It was the most ill-conceived flying contraption I've ever come across. I won't fly the 180 or 185 at work unless the windsock looks like it's hanging in a vacuum, that's how much that damn 150 scared me. I flew Part 135 in a PA-12 and for fun in a J-5 and Champ alot in my early 20's, but I'm pretty content to let the real pros fly the taildraggers while I stick to stuffing 206's and 207's into places where they probably shouldn't be going...

[bloomah]

Call Twitchells Airport in Turner ME. They have done quite a few tailwheel conversions on various models. Also quite a few field installs of float kits in C172. Ask for Mike or Dale. Seems like the last time we talked, the parts prices to do either one is now out of sight $$$

I would also reccomend calling Twitchels Talk to Dale. I beleieve they have one for sale right now 207-225 3490

[senior]

If you buy & convert a 172 to a taildragger, would you not then call it a 170

[c172tw]

I fly a '66 172 tailwheel. I love my plane. it has bolen tailwheel conversion STC #1. The swept tail vs. straight tail i think is overrated. a lot of guys want the straight tail for the look of a 180 imo. I have had several mechanics and old timers tell me my conversion is one of the best they have seen. The airplane lands in typical crosswind with no issues. Ground handling is pretty easy as well. However, it IS NOT a 180, and I understand it's performance limitations.

I put 8.50s on mine and everywhere I go people ask is that a 180, or 170. I say no, it is a 172 and they are always surprised. The only reason I would sell my bird is to build an experimental. If interested, pm offline. I just dropped about 13k worth of avionics into a couple weeks ago. It makes a low time clean TW cessna, with nice IFR capabilities that I intend to fly more than likely for a long time.

[hotrod150]

Like most conversions, it makes more sense financially to buy one already converted. I've owned a C150/150TD for about 4 years now, and there's no way I could have bought a flying condition 150, done the (freshly overhauled) engine & landing gear upgrades, and painted it, for what I paid. Unless someone's gonna give you a project-starter airplane, I'd look for one already converted, or for a good C170B.

[EZFlap]

The Fravel TundraHawk Conversion is moving along well. The paper-only STC is currently available, for anyone who wants to use OEM Cessna parts. I have made one sale to a man who had collected the Cessna parts.

This morning I was at the water jet cutter, making a final adjustment to the CNC files for the inboard gearbox bracket, and to the upper "spar cap" for the forward gearbox bulkhead. I'm really proud of the clever-ass way that part turned out... mucho less money, 20% stronger part, mucho easier installation.

To answer the most common question, related to the 172TW versus 170B selection question... I cannot yet accurately guess the price for my proposed parts kit. I know the cost of the materials and processes... far less than OEM parts... but I do not yet know how many banks and liquor stores I will have to rob to get it through STC and PMA approval. Unless some extinction-level event happens, I WILL win this battle sooner or later, the kit WILL be approved, and I WILL offer a parts kit. It WILL be far less expensive than OEM parts, because if it is not then the entire effort won't have been worth starting.

It may indeed be more money to convert a 172 than it would be to buy a B model 170... even with my dedicated slashing of the upgrade costs. But it also may be reasonably close. But the number of low time, un-broken, not bent, not abused 170B's out there is far less than the number of reasonably good old straight tail 172's.

Everyone is always quick to point out that a 170 or 172TW will not ever be a 180, with the moveable tail. They are correct... a 172 TW will NEVER be able to match the macho fuel flow, insurance cost, maintenance cost, acquisition cost, and heavier feel of a 180

In response to previous comments about how big and expensive of a project the conversion is... I will be making VERY significant reductions in the amount of disassembly and surgery required. This will have a very large effect on the costs if you have to take it to a shop to do.

At the discretion of the forum admin, I will be glad to address any specific questions or flaming arrows here, or on the previous Fravel thread, as directed.

[qmdv]

The Fravel TundraHawk Conversion is moving along well. The paper-only STC is currently available, for anyone who wants to use OEM Cessna parts. I have made one sale to a man who had collected the Cessna parts.

This morning I was at the water jet cutter, making a final adjustment to the CNC files for the inboard gearbox bracket, and to the upper "spar cap" for the forward gearbox bulkhead. I'm really proud of the clever-ass way that part turned out... mucho less money, 20% stronger part, mucho easier installation.

To answer the most common question, related to the 172TW versus 170B selection question... I cannot yet accurately guess the price for my proposed parts kit. I know the cost of the materials and processes... far less than OEM parts... but I do not yet know how many banks and liquor stores I will have to rob to get it through STC and PMA approval. Unless some extinction-level event happens, I WILL win this battle sooner or later, the kit WILL be approved, and I WILL offer a parts kit. It WILL be far less expensive than OEM parts, because if it is not then the entire effort won't have been worth starting.

It may indeed be more money to convert a 172 than it would be to buy a B model 170... even with my dedicated slashing of the upgrade costs. But it also may be reasonably close. But the number of low time, un-broken, not bent, not abused 170B's out there is far less than the number of reasonably good old straight tail 172's.

Everyone is always quick to point out that a 170 or 172TW will not ever be a 180, with the moveable tail. They are correct... a 172 TW will NEVER be able to match the macho fuel flow, insurance cost, maintenance cost, acquisition cost, and heavier feel of a 180

In response to previous comments about how big and expensive of a project the conversion is... I will be making VERY significant reductions in the amount of disassembly and surgery required. This will have a very large effect on the costs if you have to take it to a shop to do.

At the discretion of the forum admin, I will be glad to address any specific questions or flaming arrows here, or on the previous Fravel thread, as directed.

Bill, will the 172 TW STC also work on a 175.

Tim

[EZFlap]

Yes, but I will have to add the 175 separately. The 172 parts and procedures will all be identical, all the holes should line up, all the new parts are plenty strong enough... but I still have to go through the hoops and formally add it (certain serial numbers of 175) to the STC.

That will happen very soon after the 172 is done, but I have to sell a few 172 kits first, in order to put the money back in the piggy bank and glue it back together before the wife can reload the Mossberg.

The 182 >180 conversion is a little different, it will require a little extra engineering and a couple of new parts. That will take a couple of months on its own.

[whee]

Yes, but I will have to add the 175 separately

Very cool. I've been thinking that the 175 would be about right for what I want to do.

[EZFlap]

Get 'em while they're cheap... if this 180HP medical thing happens, a 175 will be a pretty desirable machine, probably the baddest 4 seat bushplane you can get within that new rule.

[obxbushpilot]

I fly a 1969 K model C172 with the Bolen TW conversion. I have had it for about 3 years now and I love it. I originally set out to by a 180 and I felt at first as though I had settled for this aircraft to some extent. Its reliable (its a 172), economical (it burns a lot less fuel than the 180, no prop ADs, a higher TBO, two less cylinders to o/h), and its a lot of fun.

The swept tail does not look as nice as the proud straight tail and lots of folks argue that there is a lack of rudder control. I have had no issues at all with control at low speed (Mine has the Horton STOL kit) or crosswinds. I live in the Outer Banks of NC where wind is a part of life (the Wright Bros chose the NC OBX because of the constant wind). All aircraft have operational limitations and thw 172 TW is by no means handicapped. If anything, it takes a good plane and makes it better.

I can foresee a lot of folks turning toward this type of conversion. I think it will be as popular a conversion as a PA 22/20 in the years to come.

[wingman172]

Stoots Aviation also has a 172TW stc . It looks like a good kit . I have not seen it in person but they have some good pictures on their website .

[Francis]

Consider the cost of a 180 compared, I think it might be similar by the time you do the conversion.

If it's the operating cost, a 170 is a good deal these days.

I met a guy from my old home that did a Straight Tail 172 conversion, and in the end he could have had one sweet 180 for the cost, and more performance and useful load.

$.02