banner graphic
Airport Webcams
Who's Online
23 registered (Don Tedrow, magman, Hans Obrecht, Flyboy712, JD Casteel, Rjusten, Ward Holbrook, Al Cunningham, theboys3, Steve N8809B, Hangar18KAZE, garygates, multisync, Pilawt, Bryan Demurat, Jpod, Bio2, Pksa, Shuswap, Redbeard, Rikochet, California Flyer, CJpilot316), 186 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Kelmar, satellite7391, Kme, Brandon Spain, DR1
8037 Registered Users
Top Posters
Bargain Bob 135315
vettdvr 7201
Cessna Dude 6628
Rusty Rudder 6061
California Flyer 5265
Willie 4178
Clyde Cessna 3500
Joeman434 2894
Don Tedrow 2740
wrecksum 2704
Peedie Montgomery 2551
Ward Holbrook 2393
XP Driver 2382
oilwell1415 1906
ytodd 1902
November X-ray 1832
Nightowl 1826
Nintendo Pilot 1722
Glenn Darr 1708
RodneyHooverCFI 1645
Jim_1 1638
Fred R Ali 1633
Bigdoggh 1589
Pilawt 1576
EdW 1370
Shuswap 1247
Pilot110 1195
Showboatsix 1173
Propduster 1105
Henry M. 1059
Top Posters (30 Days)
Bargain Bob 2336
Joeman434 115
Peedie Montgomery 95
November X-ray 78
Don Tedrow 69
Willie 68
Skyblazer 57
vettdvr 57
California Flyer 53
Ward Holbrook 49
Flubber4.0 49
N5479R 48
Rusty Rudder 46
Mike492 31
BettyWhite 29
Kinhop 27
Luvrv8 27
magman 26
cadcap 20
JD Casteel 20
Rjusten 19
combahee 18
Flyboy712 18
Newpilotoldplane 18
XP Driver 16
IDontFly 13
Jim_1 13
Wayne R 13
Clyde Cessna 13
Topic Options
#145173 - 09/10/13 10:37 AM Straight Tail vs.Swept Tail
Sky 21 Offline
Safety Pilot

Registered: 11/22/11
Posts: 50
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.

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

Registered: 01/19/12
Posts: 144
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.


#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.

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

Registered: 07/29/12
Posts: 141
Loc: Lowcountry, SC
Straight tails are just cooler! :-)
1959 172 straight tail

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

Registered: 03/02/12
Posts: 28
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

#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: 104
Loc: S. Indiana
Originally Posted By: combahee
Straight tails are just cooler! :-)

Could not have said it better!
1956 172 straight tail

#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


Cessna172 Tribute
Special thanks to:
Thank you for making this site great
Fredericksburg TX '15 Countdown
September 25-27, 2015 T82
Today's Birthdays
edthehead, Felina
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
Airport Facilities Directory
Aviation Weather
C172 History
Crash Records
DUAT Voyager Planner
Flight Aware
Flying Tools (Files)
Google Earth
Ground Speed Records
National METAR Map
Sky Vector
Uvalde Flight Ctr
All the Webcams
Shout Box

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

List of stations