Hello all, I am a new member, and although not a coveted 170 owner I hope that I will not be shunned. I looked for a very long time for the 170 I really wanted (with a 180hp conversion) but could not find the one I wanted. Alas I spoke to a guy in Fairbanks, AK that said I should look around for a 172 that has been converted. Anyway, long story, but I found a BEAUTIFUL airplane that I fell in love with, and she is mine! But when a guy like myself (cub driver) took her out for a ride with my 180 owner friend we found that the handling qualities on the ground were not very desirable. It seems to require alot of differential braking to get the airplane to track where you want it to.
My cub had done a similar thing when I replaced the tailwheel, so I took out 2 of the five springs that are in the Scott 3200 (that really helped the cub) but did not seem to help the converted 172. The springs are strong, and I am just wondering if this is going to be how she is on the ground. It's not un-bearable, but just not very nice. The conversion is a "bushmaster" and it has about every conceivable option, I really like the airplane, it handles well in wheel landings, althought a bit forward for three points when it is empty. Any ideas or inpuit would be greatly appreciated.
cv580
Cessna 172 Tailwheel ground handling qualities.
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
One of the first things to check is the alignment of the mains.
http://cessna170.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 67&start=0
It is quite possible that your installation wasn't done by a tailwheel mechanic who understood the dynamics and importance of getting the shims right.
Also, you can expect to need a little input from the brakes...probably a bit more than on many taildraggers. I'll let others expound on that topic.
Scott
http://cessna170.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 67&start=0
It is quite possible that your installation wasn't done by a tailwheel mechanic who understood the dynamics and importance of getting the shims right.
Also, you can expect to need a little input from the brakes...probably a bit more than on many taildraggers. I'll let others expound on that topic.
Scott
I've got a '56 172 converted with Bolens gear. Handles perfect on the ground. Very little braking needed - 3 point or wheel landings.
But I did have an old taildragger before this one that used to like zig-zagging all over the runway 'til it slowed down. What I did may not be approved, but... I LIGHTLY clamped a 6' piece of STRAIGHT angle iron to the inside of both wheels horizontal to the ground above the axle so I could eye-ball it. What I saw was not what I expected! One wheel was pointing outward a good 15 - 20 degrees!
I bought a couple of tapered shims and put them behind the axle. Made a world of differance!!! Kind of "hick" I know, but it fixed it!
But I did have an old taildragger before this one that used to like zig-zagging all over the runway 'til it slowed down. What I did may not be approved, but... I LIGHTLY clamped a 6' piece of STRAIGHT angle iron to the inside of both wheels horizontal to the ground above the axle so I could eye-ball it. What I saw was not what I expected! One wheel was pointing outward a good 15 - 20 degrees!
I bought a couple of tapered shims and put them behind the axle. Made a world of differance!!! Kind of "hick" I know, but it fixed it!
Joe Craig
'56 C172 Taildragger N6915A
'46 Aeronca Champ N65HM
'56 C172 Taildragger N6915A
'46 Aeronca Champ N65HM
C-172 Tailwheel Ground Handling
I too have a '56 C-172 with a Bolen tailwheel conversion and find that ground handling, except in strong crosswinds which affects all conventional geared planes, to be very desirable. I think, as others have and will tell you, that you main gear alignment may be the culprit.
OLE POKEY
170C
Director:
2012-2018
170C
Director:
2012-2018
I've got a 58 172 with the Fravel gear conversion. All of the previous posts are correct in that correct axle alignment is critical to good handling.
Most of my tailwheel time prior to converting the 172 was in a Super Cub. The tail of the 172 is much heavier and taxis nothing like the Cub. You'll get used to it. I've got about 50 hours on my conversion and find myself using the brakes much less than I initially did.
The airplane is definitely nose heavy with no rear seat passengers or baggage. I find that I can land much shorter with a full flap wheel landing than with any configuration of a three point.
I think with correct axle alignment and a little time in the airplane you'll grow quite fond of it!
Most of my tailwheel time prior to converting the 172 was in a Super Cub. The tail of the 172 is much heavier and taxis nothing like the Cub. You'll get used to it. I've got about 50 hours on my conversion and find myself using the brakes much less than I initially did.
The airplane is definitely nose heavy with no rear seat passengers or baggage. I find that I can land much shorter with a full flap wheel landing than with any configuration of a three point.
I think with correct axle alignment and a little time in the airplane you'll grow quite fond of it!
Happy Flying,
Mark
1958 Cessna 172 N9153B
Mark
1958 Cessna 172 N9153B
Not a problem at all!
It's just back in '55 someone had the dumb idea to put a training wheel under the motor...
It's just back in '55 someone had the dumb idea to put a training wheel under the motor...
Last edited by 15A on Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Joe Craig
'56 C172 Taildragger N6915A
'46 Aeronca Champ N65HM
'56 C172 Taildragger N6915A
'46 Aeronca Champ N65HM
I pm'd you about this, but would like to see what others think.
I was speculating that with your '61 year model the swept tail may have less rudder authority on the ground in the propwash, especially compared to your cub or your friends 180.
depending on how bad it is, it might just be one of those things...
JR
I was speculating that with your '61 year model the swept tail may have less rudder authority on the ground in the propwash, especially compared to your cub or your friends 180.
depending on how bad it is, it might just be one of those things...
JR
'56 C-172 180hp Tailwheel Converted
N171Q,
That is exactly what several people have told me about the swept tail conversion also. Less rudder authority. Not sure who I had talked to years ago about the conversion on mine but I do rememmber them telling me to not waste my time on the conversion if the plane is the swept tail (1960 and newer) They told me to find an older model and it makes a good plane.
Keith
That is exactly what several people have told me about the swept tail conversion also. Less rudder authority. Not sure who I had talked to years ago about the conversion on mine but I do rememmber them telling me to not waste my time on the conversion if the plane is the swept tail (1960 and newer) They told me to find an older model and it makes a good plane.
Keith
When Frank lands in his 56 172TD, people start coming towards it, and admiring it. It really draws a crowd.blueldr wrote:As I see it, the principal problem in tailwheeling a Cessna with a swept tail is the god awful looking airplane you end up with.
The 172TD swept tail that use to be parked in the junk airplane area of the Arlington airport would make people run away, crying. It was ONE UGLY flying contraption. Thank God it's not there anymore.
Joe
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
Missing the mark
While I appreciate all the input, and will overlook all the trash talk about swept tails and such, the main gear is not the problem. The aircraft tracks very well on the ground, once there. The problem I am having is directional control on the ground at relatively low taxi speeds. I fear it may be a function of the conversion. The tail wheel seems to have limited controlability on the ground. The springs are strong, it just seems that it is very hard to get it to turn at all, requiring differential braking in some cases. Thanks for all the input, if anyone has any other ideas or knowledge about this conversion, please feel free to add your two cents.
