banner graphic
Airport Webcams
Who's Online
22 registered (ytodd, Rusty Rudder, Willie, cadcap, RVator, xcfire, Aerodon, Desert Hawk, Cherokeedriver, Joeman434, N46594, magman, Luvrv8, Ed M2, Jason1070, California Flyer, Randy Crosby, Mark Y., Bigdoggh, Kinhop, flamer, Ward Holbrook), 120 Guests and 7 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Luuk, N46594, Piloto Grande, Stonebraker, Dave172G
7088 Registered Users
Top Posters
Bargain Bob 114519
vettdvr 6664
Cessna Dude 6628
Rusty Rudder 5587
California Flyer 4944
Clyde Cessna 3379
Willie 3312
wrecksum 2704
Don Tedrow 2334
Ward Holbrook 2269
XP Driver 2223
Peedie Montgomery 1956
Joeman434 1914
ytodd 1866
Nightowl 1826
oilwell1415 1810
Glenn Darr 1704
Nintendo Pilot 1700
RodneyHooverCFI 1645
Lee T. Hargic 1632
November X-ray 1589
Pilawt 1500
Bigdoggh 1482
Jim_1 1463
EdW 1259
Shuswap 1159
Showboatsix 1102
Propduster 1094
Awkward Bird 1037
Renegade 9 998
Top Posters (30 Days)
Bargain Bob 3173
Joeman434 252
vettdvr 216
Rusty Rudder 160
Peedie Montgomery 136
Willie 125
Donboy 86
Kentucky Captain 76
XP Driver 68
JD Casteel 63
cadcap 58
oilwell1415 56
Don Tedrow 54
Mike492 53
N5479R 50
Jim_1 49
Luvrv8 48
California Flyer 48
SunDog 43
Bigdoggh 40
Henry M. 38
milo100 36
Newpilotoldplane 35
3hawks 34
IDontFly 33
Pilot110 31
Jason1070 31
NightHawk XP 30
Kinhop 28
magman 27
Topic Options
#145173 - 09/10/13 10:37 AM Straight Tail vs.Swept Tail
Sky 21 Offline
Safety Pilot

Registered: 11/22/11
Posts: 28
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: 130
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: 1810
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
Safety Pilot

Registered: 07/29/12
Posts: 76
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: 24
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
Safety Pilot

Registered: 04/06/10
Posts: 97
Loc: S. Indiana
Originally Posted By: combahee
Straight tails are just cooler! :-)


Could not have said it better!

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
Fredericksburg TX '15 Countdown
September 25-27, 2015 T82
Today's Birthdays
TechnoMayor
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