banner graphic
Airport Webcams
Who's Online
23 registered (Ross Muir, Skyhawk28F, Nintendo Pilot, Joeman434, Opee, 40Flaps, IDontFly, multisync, AWinkeler, Macpug, Dave Kagey, rlove2908, FatFoot, Pilot5107F, Prosper Todd, Frank Biniewicz, Ward Holbrook, Barnett, Blue sky, Kinhop, Blayne, Rusty Rudder, flicker), 86 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
wannafly, okulist, Markus Meuten D-EFOP, AZchip, DustinNwind
9618 Registered Users
Top Posters
Bargain Bob 178838
vettdvr 7724
Rusty Rudder 6993
Cessna Dude 6628
California Flyer 5675
Willie 4702
Joeman434 4232
Clyde Cessna 3880
Don Tedrow 3342
Peedie Montgomery 3047
wrecksum 2704
Ward Holbrook 2436
XP Driver 2395
November X-ray 2272
ytodd 1982
Jim_1 1937
oilwell1415 1906
Nightowl 1826
Nintendo Pilot 1737
Bigdoggh 1710
Glenn Darr 1708
Pilawt 1692
RodneyHooverCFI 1646
KevinMcP 1639
Pilot110 1482
Showboatsix 1460
EdW 1446
Shuswap 1304
Henry M. 1289
N5479R 1261
Top Posters (30 Days)
Bargain Bob 3329
Pilot5107F 252
Joeman434 102
C420sailor 58
cyendrey 47
Sky 21 47
N5479R 46
jpoppinmoneyunit 45
Rusty Rudder 42
Skyhawk28F 37
40Flaps 35
Don Tedrow 34
Showboatsix 31
California Flyer 28
Henry M. 25
TexasAviator 22
Viper_96 21
Dave Kagey 21
Newpilotoldplane 17
Flubber4.0 17
Wayne R 16
Clyde Cessna 14
BettyWhite 13
Peedie Montgomery 12
JPTFlying 11
combahee 11
magman 10
Flyboy712 10
Kentucky Captain 9
IDontFly 9
Topic Options
#145173 - 09/10/13 10:37 AM Straight Tail vs.Swept Tail
Sky 21 Offline
Second in Command

Registered: 11/22/11
Posts: 212
Loc: Georgia
It has been my experience that the 1956 - 1959 straight tails (especially the 57 model) take less ground roll (as much as 400 feet) than the early 60's models when they first introduced the swept tail. All have the 0300 engines.

Other than the swept tail the main difference is that in 1958 the landing gear was moved aft by three inches. Any one else experience this or is it just the particular planes that I happen to fly. Engine time has been about the same on each plane.

Top
#145185 - 09/10/13 01:50 PM Re: Straight Tail vs.Swept Tail [Re: Sky 21]
Bryan Demurat Offline
Second in Command

Registered: 01/19/12
Posts: 151
Loc: Florida, USA
I do not know about the ground roll but the cruise speed seems faster for the straight tail planes then the early swept tail models.

Bryan

Top
#145190 - 09/10/13 02:11 PM Re: Straight Tail vs.Swept Tail [Re: Bryan Demurat]
oilwell1415 Offline
Gold Pilot

Registered: 09/20/12
Posts: 1906
Loc: Tulsa, OK
I suspect the A model gained a little weight. The early planes are only about 1300lbs empty and the newest ones are nearly 1700. The A is somewhere between.
_________________________
1947 North American Navion N8747H. It isn't the fastest, doesn't have the biggest payload, burns gas almost as fast as I can pour it in the tank and requires lots of TLC, but it's cool as hell and that's why we play the game.

Top
#145247 - 09/10/13 09:10 PM Re: Straight Tail vs.Swept Tail [Re: oilwell1415]
combahee Offline
Pilot in Command

Registered: 07/29/12
Posts: 254
Loc: Lowcountry, SC
Straight tails are just cooler! :-)
_________________________
1959 172 straight tail

Top
#155860 - 11/19/13 11:15 PM Re: Straight Tail vs.Swept Tail [Re: combahee]
TracyA Offline
Safety Pilot

Registered: 03/02/12
Posts: 42
Loc: Bristow, Va.
The straight tails are lighter so they take off and climb a little quicker, typically.
My 1961 fastback is faster than the straight tails Ive flown in for the following reasons:
smaller [shorter] landing gear
streamlined fuselage and windshield
has vacuum pump [no venturis]
strut cuffs
fuel tank vent behind wing strut
brake lines behind gear legs

Top
#156086 - 11/21/13 08:39 AM Re: Straight Tail vs.Swept Tail [Re: combahee]
ces6508 Offline
Second in Command

Registered: 04/06/10
Posts: 109
Loc: S. Indiana
Originally Posted By: combahee
Straight tails are just cooler! :-)


Could not have said it better!
_________________________
1956 172 straight tail

Top
#156278 - 11/22/13 06:24 AM Re: Straight Tail vs.Swept Tail [Re: ces6508]
Bush Pilot Offline
Safety Pilot

Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 64
Loc: Arizona, Alaska, Various Place...
Take off, climb and cruise performance are subjective - as ya'll know, a plane with a cruise prop will cruise faster than the same plane with a climb or cruise/climb prop. Then, things such as parasitic & induced drag, engine condition, prop type/pitch, etc. need to be factored in. I've flown a nice 172 with a 180 hp conversion that was a real dud due to it being heavy (full instruments, leather interior, etc.) with no fairings and having a cruise prop. It's performance overall, even in cruise, was disappointing. I like my straight tail much better. The early models sit higher which has saved my head on numerous occasions. Plus, as Combahee said, straight tails are just cooler!


Edited by Bush Pilot (11/22/13 06:28 AM)
_________________________
You Have To Be Alive To Spend It

Top


Cessna172 Tribute
THIS MONTH'S SPONSOR
Special thanks to:
You!
Thank you for making this site great
Today's Birthdays
kbaxter26, Marc Whisman, Termdisc
Member Map
Where in the world are the Cessna 172 Club Members?

View the map

Helpful Links
100LL Price Finder
AD Directory
Aging GA Aircraft
Aircraft Directory
Airplane Report
AirNav
Airport Facilities Directory
AOPA
Aviation Weather
Barnstormers
BaseOps
C172 History
Cessna
Controller
Crash Records
DUAT Voyager Planner
DUATS
FAA
FltPlan
Flight Aware
Flying Tools (Files)
Google Earth
Ground Speed Records
National METAR Map
Sky Vector
Trade-A-Plane
Uvalde Flight Ctr
All the Webcams
Shout Box

AOPA
AOPA
Weather Lookup
Airport code:
(separate multiple codes with spaces)

List of stations