Tricycle C170

[susang777]

Yes, I'd be happy to make a web page (or more likely, a set of pages) about vintage/nostalgia 170 things. Again, and as always, with the qualifier that I am doing this only to supplement what TIC170A is doing. If they decide to do this in entirety, I'll be happy to let them.

Since I am already at my quota for my personal web page, I'll probably add it to the c170pics.org site.
http://www.c170pics.org
http://susang777.home.mindspring.com/C170pics/

Send 'em on!

[doug8082a]

Thanks Susan! I'll round up my scans and start sending them to you shortly.

[dkalwishky]

It's interesting looking, I'll say that much

Wonder what my '56 C172 will look like as a "real airplane, i.e. tail wheeled"?

Dave

[doug8082a]

Wonder what my '56 C172 will look like as a "real airplane, i.e. tail wheeled"?

Dave

Very nice!

[Alterfede]

Some days ago i saw in internet a pa28 180 tailwheeled, realy really, nice. Do you know if tailwheeling a nosedragger is a lot of work? It would be nice to start doing that here in argentina. And 172 taildraggers deserve to be called (as i´ve seen here in the forum) 170 C!!!!! Because they´re pretty planes without the nose gear.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Some days ago i saw in internet a pa28 180 tailwheeled, realy really, nice. Do you know if tailwheeling a nosedragger is a lot of work? It would be nice to start doing that here in argentina. And 172 taildraggers deserve to be called (as i´ve seen here in the forum) 170 C!!!!! Because they´re pretty planes without the nose gear.

I havn't done it but a friend is converting a early 150 right now and he says it's more than you think cause you end up fixing other things.
Doing a Cherokee is really difficult cause the front gear needs to be moved forward and the gear support is internal to the wing. There are a few but not many.
PA22 TriPacers are probably done the most and prabably the easiest cause they are tube and fabric

[Alterfede]

Think you´re right bruce, those low wings may be hard to convert. Luckily cessnas seem to be easier, and are prettier. But apart from 172 and 182 dont know if other single cessna worth the convertion.

[flyguy]

Probably should let this topic die but just saw the picture here on one of our members web site - -

http://www.c170.com/gallery/view_album. ... me=album11

and in digging a little deeper- - -

N-number : N9202A
Aircraft Serial Number : 18963
Aircraft Manufacturer : CESSNA
Model : 170A
Engine Manufacturer : CONT MOTOR
Model : C145 SERIES
Aircraft Year : 1949
Registration Date : 17-May-2000
Airworthiness Certificate Type : Standard
Approved Operations : Not Specified

Don't know if it is still in this configuration or not. The registered owner is one of our members.

[doug8082a]

Yup, that's the one. I posted that a while back when folks were looking to see what it looked like. I'll be forwrding it and others on to Susan for a "Vintage/Nostalgia" webpage.
The owner posted on this thread a while back and has the aircraft back to its proper configuration.

[susang777]

If you'd like to see the photo the new owner of N9202A sent for the picture database, look here:
http://susang777.home.mindspring.com/C1 ... nsort.html
or here:
http://susang777.home.mindspring.com/C1 ... N9202A.jpg

[AWilson]

The airplane the OP mentioned is my airplane! The thread started in 2003! I have owned her for a little over 2 years. Still looks great! Below is a current picture and what’s probably the picture posted by the OP.
If possible I would really like to find out what the magazine and issue the OP saw it in.

[GAHorn]

There was a childhood fairy-tale about an Ugly-Duckling….. which grew up into a Beautiful Swan!

Wilson…. you’ve got a Beautiful Swan.

(I’m convinced the reason Cessna gave the 172 squared-off tail-feathers was due to that horrible look round tails have when sitting on tricycles.)

Edit: The only round-tails … (I can think of off-hand) …that look good on tricycle gear …are Lockheed P-38’s

[AWilson]

Thanks!