172 Tailwheel Conversion

M

Mtns2Skies

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
5,631
Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies
About a year ago I spent some time flying a 172TW conversion as a rental until the plane was crashed (not by me) - N6303E.

I've looked around for some time and I haven't been able to find a current company that has any STC for the tailwheel conversion. Does anyone know if they still exist or is it no longer possible to convert 172's?
 
Last edited:
I'm missing something. Isn't the tailwheel version of the 172 called a "170?" Why would you want to convert to something that already exists?
 
MAKG1 said:
I'm missing something. Isn't the tailwheel version of the 172 called a "170?" Why would you want to convert to something that already exists?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't personally, but there are a lot more 172's floating around than 170's. I do, however, suspect a 170 makes a better tailwheel plane than a converted 172.
 
MAKG1 said:
I'm missing something. Isn't the tailwheel version of the 172 called a "170?" Why would you want to convert to something that already exists?
Click to expand...

Not exactly. The very early 172's were (correct me if I'm wrong) tricycle gear versions of 170's. The purpose is to convert a modern 172 to tailwheel with the larger engine, and larger cabin.

Admittedly, the one I flew was a real blast to fly. I'm just curious if it can still be done.
 
I've seen early straight-tail 172s that were converted to tailwheels, but that is the first swept tail conversion I've seen.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Not exactly. The very early 172's were (correct me if I'm wrong) tricycle gear versions of 170's. The purpose is to convert a modern 172 to tailwheel with the larger engine, and larger cabin.
Click to expand...
The early 172s had the same engine and wing as the 170B. I'm pretty sure cabin size was the same as well. Tail and nose wheel were the main differences.
 
172s never had jacksrew trim. To me that's important for tail draggers. I wouldn't spend the time conerting a 172 to conventional configuration.
 
Looks like there are 3 STC's:

Fravel
Bolen
and the famous Texas Taildragger

The recommendations that I'm finding are that you should be very cautious if you attempt the Bolen version, the Fravel is the most common, the Texas Taildragger is the most fun and it's best to use a late 50's square tail. This is because the square tail was not originally designed as a trike but an improved 170C with better rudder and elevator authority.

Didn't Cessna do the same thing with the 140a converting it to a trike 150? Everyone ended up just converting the 150's back into TW. Go figure!

Some say that a square-tail 172 makes a FANTASTIC tailwheel plane. Others say it has elevator issues and is just not worth it. Some say to just go by a 180, because it will end up costing you the same, but you'll get more airplane with the 180.

 
Last edited:
Archammer said:
Looks like there are 3 STC's:

Fravel
Bolen
and the famous Texas Taildragger

...

Some say that a square-tail 172 makes a FANTASTIC tailwheel plane. Others say it has elevator issues and is just not worth it. Some say to just go by a 180, because it will end up costing you the same, but you'll get more airplane with the 180.
Click to expand...

How would you go about obtaining one of those three STC's?

I agree with the sentiment about a 180 unless you already purchased a 172 converted.
 
Last edited:
Mtns2Skies said:
About a year ago I spent some time flying a 172TW conversion as a rental until the plane was crashed (not by me) - N6303E - The plane in my avatar.

I've looked around for some time and I haven't been able to find a current company that has any STC for the tailwheel conversion. Does anyone know if they still exist or is it no longer possible to convert 172's?
Click to expand...

Good question, if you do it, pay attention to the gear alignment. I picked one up for a guy who just bought it and needed it modded with some more tanks, harness, and a handle, for use fish spotting. The first landing was squirrley as hell, almost lost it around on touch down. When I checked the alignment it had 1/4" toe in, conventional gear needs toe out to self stabilize a swing. Toe in accelerates any swing. When we were done with the plane it was great though with an 11 hr mission range and 13hrs total fuel.
 
Archammer said:
Some say to just go by a 180, because it will end up costing you the same, but you'll get more airplane with the 180.
Click to expand...
I think that is true. The prices on 170s for example are low enough that I don't think it is worth it to spend the money to convert a 172. If you need more airplane than a 170, go for the 180.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
How would you go about obtaining one of those three STC's?

I agree with the sentiment about a 180 unless you already purchased a 172 converted. I myself would take a Maule.
Click to expand...

The owner of the STC is on record with the FAA, contact them and ask what's up. If you cannot reach them, then there may be something else in play or under consideration that I was reading about concerning the data going into public domain by default.
 
Henning said:
The owner of the STC is on record with the FAA, contact them and ask what's up. If you cannot reach them, then there may be something else in play or under consideration that I was reading about concerning the data going into public domain by default.
Click to expand...

If the STC holder is out of business/deceased...etc and the STC was not officially acquired by anyone else, the it is technically considered released to the public domain. BUT that doesn't mean the DATA is released. The FAA has long considered that to be proprietary and wont release it from their archives (even when the owner no longer exists), so unless you are able to get the paperwork from someone else, you may have a hard time replicating.
 
As somebody already mentioned, there seems to be some kind of issue with the trim.
You might want to search the forum at backcountrypilot.org , there are quite a few guys over there who have experience with this kind of modification.
If I remember these discussions correctly, the consensus was that 182s are a lot more suitable for such conversions.
 
I used to fly the sr20 they had too until someone totalled it. They're sure hard on planes.
 
PeeGee said:
I used to fly the sr20 they had too until someone totalled it. They're sure hard on planes.
Click to expand...

Yeah... poor 407ND. I fly next door now. More expensive but much nicer planes. I like their citabria.
 
7nd was a bargain at 150ish an hour, but the 45 minute checkout was probably a sign of things to come... Too bad was a nice plane, I really enjoyed it.
 
Go fly a real tailwheel and come back.

This isn't like doing the old 182 to 180 conversion.

A modern 172 has ZERO tailwheel in it.

I'd just buy a plane thst was built to be a tailwheel.
 
Fearless Tower said:
If the STC holder is out of business/deceased...etc and the STC was not officially acquired by anyone else, the it is technically considered released to the public domain. BUT that doesn't mean the DATA is released. The FAA has long considered that to be proprietary and wont release it from their archives (even when the owner no longer exists), so unless you are able to get the paperwork from someone else, you may have a hard time replicating.
Click to expand...
There are ways around that paper chase.
 
Stewartb said:
You guys seem content with low performance tail draggers. I'll excuse myself from your conversation.
Click to expand...

Do you suffer from 180 superiority syndrome?

I'm bigger, I'm faster, So I must be better?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Sometimes. But a lot of folks have been having a helluva time getting any kind of documentation for many of the Skycraft early Cessna mods.
Click to expand...

There is a quirk in that company, called a lawyer.

The Field approval method of gaining approval, says there should be a cover letter to explain what and why this modification is being requested. In that letter you explain what is being done, why it is being done, and what engineering has be researched. When you use the STC as the engineering, there was some one who did that research. Find them, and buy the engineering.

AC 43-210 is the guidance
 
MAKG1 said:
I'm missing something. Isn't the tailwheel version of the 172 called a "170?" Why would you want to convert to something that already exists?
Click to expand...

The 172 after 58 is not a 170, the first year of the 172 the fuselage was the same, they had the gear boxes in both positions and could be converted easily. Not so after that.

I would never do a 172 to taildragger conversion. Yes I know there are some out there, but it is cost prohibitive. The entire forward fuselage must be altered to bring the gear boxes up to the forward door post. then the 172 gear boxes must be removed and the fuselage panels replaced to cover the removal. That requires about 80 to 100 hours of shop time. when that is done the rear fuselage must be made ready to except the tailwheel structure. gear legs to buy, tailwheel assembly to buy. then you can deal with the weight and balance issues, flight manual rewrite issues, and the list goes on.
 
Hey lucky me! I found another one in my area to rent!
N737TD-940x350-300x112.jpg

http://www.westernairflightacademy.com/our-fleet/
 
Yeah thinking I might covert my new C172 from the raffle to a TW when they announce I am the winner.
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
Yeah thinking I might my C172 from the raffle to a TW when they announce I am the winner.
Click to expand...
They're not a great taildragger... not much rudder authority, but it makes for a fun challenge. And they look good!
 
Sac Arrow said:
I wouldn't personally, but there are a lot more 172's floating around than 170's. I do, however, suspect a 170 makes a better tailwheel plane than a converted 172.
Click to expand...
I've never flown a conversion that handles as well as a factory 170. The gear geometry is not the same.
 
Tom-D said:
I've never flown a conversion that handles as well as a factory 170. The gear geometry is not the same.
Click to expand...
And the swept tail doesnt help either. BUT if your goal was an IFR taildragger, there's a whole lot more IFR 172's than IFR 170s.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
And the swept tail doesnt help either. BUT if your goal was an IFR taildragger, there's a whole lot more IFR 172's than IFR 170s.
Click to expand...
the instrument panel on a 170 is too small to put a proper 6 pack of instruments for real IFR work.
 
Instrument panel on my last 170 -- 34V
 

Attachments

  • 20140227_132525.jpg
    20140227_132525.jpg
    197.1 KB · Views: 36
170s are pretty airplanes. I love the round fin. I don't want one, but I enjoy seeing them around.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
And the swept tail doesnt help either. BUT if your goal was an IFR taildragger, there's a whole lot more IFR 172's than IFR 170s.
Click to expand...
There's a fellow on the Cessna 172 Club forum who claims to have a '61 C-172B that in 1990 was converted to taildragger, STOL kit, and from swept tail to straight tail.

Sounds like a lot of money -- maybe more than just buying a C-180 to start with?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top