I have found a well priced C175 for sale and would like to find out if anyone has any knowledge of tail wheel conversions for the aircraft?
This particular C175 has a Lycoming 180HP engine in. Appologies about this question on the site but I have been struggling to find a C170 for sale in Africa, hence the reason for wanting to convert a C175. Any extra pros and cons about the C175 will be welcome. Many thanks.
There's a guy at my airport that recently converted a C175 to a tailwheel and changed to the lycoming 180 hp engine. He loves it and flys it about 4 to 6 hours per week. He did all this in the last 4 years. I'll leave a note on his hangar with your e-mail address if you want me to and maybe he'll be willing to converse with you on the matter. He did all the work himself, including the engine rebuild. It may take a couple of weeks for me to contact this guy so please be patient.
The 175 is of course essentially the same airframe except for the straight tail (if it's a '59 or earlier) and it allready has the large fuel tanks. With the 180 and converted to the tailwheel you'd have a great airplane. Plus you could fly it for a while turned around in your seat so it would feel right.
Eric
I thought I saw Bills 180 at BLI the other day then he told me later it was probably the 172 conversion. When I went back it was indeed a 172 but looked so big and 180 like with the Tundra tires! Stol kit, O-300, skylights, observation window in the right door, bubble window pilots side, and beater red paint. I'm sure you've probably seen the plane.
Dave: Yeah,that 172TD's based at Eastsound. At first glance it does look like a 180,especially with the big tires,etc. Easy to mistake for Bill's airplane if you don't look too hard.
Gooney: Too bad you're having trouble finding a 170. A 172 or 175 taildragger would be a good substitute,basically a 170 airframe with square tailfeathers. The Lycoming conversion & bigger tanks would be nice extras too. I don't know who's currently selling a tailwheel conversion STC &/or kit for the 172/175 series. Dave converted a straight-tail 182 to conventional gear a few years ago,maybe he can shed some light on the subject. Hopefully Mike can put you in touch with his neighbor who did one of these conversions.It wouldn't be easy or cheap,especially if you hire it done,but you might end up with a hell of an airplane for a reasonable price if the base price of the airplane was right.
An engine-converted 175 ought to make a great alternative to a 170 with a 180. Not only would you have larger fuel tanks (which gets rid of the 175 wing on a 170 approval requirement) but you'd also have more tail-feathers for crosswinds due to that square tail (which I'd prefer to the swept tail), a better-looking cowl, and you'd already have a better baggage door than most conversions of that sort! It ought to be an easier approval than the 170 conversions necessary to achieve the same airplane, not to mention a lot less work. Sounds like a good mod to me!
(I haven't confirmed this, but I've been told by one of the ol-timer mechanics around here that when Cessna committed to building airplanes with the landing gear screwd on backwards that they also lightened up the fuselage with smaller-gauge (thinner) sheet metal tail cone, which makes the swept-tail airplanes less robust for tail-wheel conversions. Landing a nose-gear airplane puts the stresses betwixt the doorposts, gear box, and engine mount/firewall which removed the stresses from the doorposts, gearbox, and tail-cone. I haven't followed up to see if this anecdote is true or not.)
I know of one conversion that was a really good looking job. He may kick my ____ for mentioning his name here (hope not), but Tom Benedict (New Mexico member) did the conversion on his '58 C-175. Used a Bolen conversion, which is what was used on my '56 C-172, and a Lyc 180. That plane now belongs to another assoc. member. I don't know if the Bolen conversion is still available or not. It was purchased by some company in Kansas some time ago. It sure made a good airplane.
If interested I suggest you give Tom a call and I'll bet he will be glad to
share some of his thoughts about the conversion process, etc.
First I've heard that about the lighter tailcones in the nosewheel airplanes. Somehow I'm really skeptical it is true and it does bring up some interesting questions like would they have done it from 172 #1 because we know a few fuselages in the early 172s were also set up for a 170 gearbox. Would they have changed with the swept tail maybe? Boy this would be a neat thing to prove or disprove but to do so might require factory drawings. The tail skins part numbers could be different between the 170 and 172 but the parts could be the same also.
When Ole Pokey got converted (it must have been a religious experience)they added a stringer to either side of the aft fuselage, presumably to stiffen it. The addition of the stringers is based on the fact that the orginals were not zinc chromated and the ones I believe to have been added are.
How about some more info on the conversion of Ol Pokey? STC or field approval, use of 170 parts vs conversion kit parts,etc. Even if the mod was done before you owned the airplane,hopefully your aircraft records have some of this information.
I'm sure Gooney's not the only one interested,I for one would like to know more about the tailwheel conversion(s) available or formerly available for the 172.
Thanks,
zero.one.victor wrote:How about some more info on the conversion of Ol Pokey? STC or field approval, use of 170 parts vs conversion kit parts,etc. Even if the mod was done before you owned the airplane,hopefully your aircraft records have some of this information.
I'm sure Gooney's not the only one interested,I for one would like to know more about the tailwheel conversion(s) available or formerly available for the 172.
Thanks,
Eric
I have the good fortune of getting to fly often with Frank and when we park the planes Ol Pokey always gets LOTS of attention. Not only does the plane look great, people seem to be interested in the potential of finding a good buy on a 172 and then converting it, hoping to come out with less invested than it most often takes to get in to a 170.
Eric, that sure is a good article in the 170 News that you wrote - Wait And Balance.
You would be better served to communicate with some of the people who actually were involved in the conversion process itself. I am only an end user. However I will say that I have been completely satisfied with the conversion of Ole Pokey. Again the conversion was done in California in 1981(as I recall) and the STC was owned by Ralph Bolen who subsequently sold that STC to someone or some company in Kansas. I have been unable to determine exactly who or how to make contact with them. If anyone is able to do so I would be most appreciative if they would pass that info on to me. The only problem I have had in the almost 14 yrs I have had the plane was one of the shims on the right gear leg cracked resulting in having to be replaced. I believe the replacement shim came from Cessna, but would have to check records to be sure. It was an inexpensive part (may even be the same a on a 170). No problems since doing the repair 3-4 yr ago. I would like data regarding the proper alignment of the wheels as I have never attempted to check proper settings. The gear legs themselves are not C-172's, C-170's, C-180's not do I think they are L-19's. I am told they were specifically made per Bolen specifications. I cannot confirm this. They appear to be stout, and give a wide wheel base (width between mains). The spindle itself has a large bolt that goes through the gear leg with a large nut holding it to the leg. As I mentioned earlier I believe the tailcone had a stringer added to both sides at conversion. There is nothing in my logs to support or deny this, but due to two stringers being zinc chromated and two not being I just have feeling they have been added. (I really need to look inside a 55 or 56 170 tailcone and see what is in there and compare it to the tailcone of a 56-59 172 to be certain.) Plane is equipped with a Scott 3200 tailwheel. Of the 3-4 172/175 conversions I have seen all have had a bracket on either side of the rudder that went from the lower rudder to the tailwheel steering mechanism. I don't know the purpose of this and my plane doesn't have it. This is one of the questions I have of the STC owner. (Basically my logs just say the conversion was done in accordance with the Bolen STC). I do not have wheel pants--I operate off a grass strip, but at times wish I had them to prevent wet grass and or sloppy muddy stuff from slinging up under my wings. Also would like the drag reduction they would provide. Overall I think it is a great conversion. I have seen numerous C-150's, 152's & some later model C-172's & 172XP's with the Texas Tail Dragger conversions and I don't particularily like them, especially the slanted tail models. My plane also has the Horton STOL conversion. (Leading edge cuff, stall fences fiberglass wingtips & aileron gap seals--no flap gap seals. Wing tips are not the gaudy owl type that stick down 6-8 inches or more). I tend to think the slow speed control is good, some say it helps, some say it is just something to sell airplane owners & that if you have the guts to fly a 170/172/175 at the slower speed you don't need the STOL kit. I'll leave that argument up to someone willing to take two identical planes, one with and one without the STOL kit and do an honest comparison. With the straight tail (yea, I agree, its not as classie as the curved 120/140 170/195/L-19 tail). The one misnomer I see is I have always heard that putting the nose wheel on the tail will increase the speed. Well, that may be true in some cases and I didn't own 6888A prior to the conversion, but if it added any speed to her she sure was a "slow" bird prior to conversion. Ole Pokey is an honest 115 mph bird in a no wind situation at 2450/2500 rpm. Most 170's I fly with are faster--by how much I don't know, but definitely somewhat faster. Some say the leading edge cuff slows her down. Could be, however I have been told by at least one 170 owner who added the cuff it did not make any difference. So who knows? At 4500 feet, one person aboard (me) & light fuel, full rpm (2700 rpm) on a 4 way speed check using my gps she averaged 126 mph. Sorry to be so long winded, but thats my story and I am sticking to it!
OLE POKEY (now you know where the name comes from)
Joe,thanks for the compliment on my "wait & balance" article. I mailed it in a couple months ago,haven't yet received my newest 170 News so I didn't know they'd published it already.
Frank,what is the STC number? You mention that you think the Bolen STC was sold to someone in Kansas--that might be Bob Williams of Bush Conversions/Avcon Conversions fame,in Udall KS. If you had the STC number we could do a search on the FAA's STC website. It sounds like you don't have a copy of the STC itself,how about the 337 for the mod?
What steers the tailwheel on your airplane? You may have steering like on the 55 & 56 170's-- the rudder cables connect to a bellcrank inside the tailcone,from which separate cables go to the rudder & the tailwheel.
What exactly is the spindle? As I understand it,that would be where the wheel attaches. Do you not have the standard Cessna axles,which attach to the gear leg with 4 bolts?
I've flown with several other 170's,from what I've seen 115 mph cruise is about average. I run a 76-51 prop,and cruise at around 115 myself. I wouldn't want any more pitch just for higher cruise speed--I'd rather be a few minutes late getting somewhere than a few feet too low taking off from that short strip!
