banner graphic
Airport Webcams
Who's Online
20 registered (Peedie Montgomery, Andy Karmy, Wayne R, xcfire, Henry M., Flubber4.0, TxHawk, Kansas Zephyr, oilwell1415, Barnett, Don Tedrow, Rikochet, JD Casteel, flynhi, Cotsboe, theboys3, jlf, OldCrow, J31528, Desert Hawk), 159 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
BWalden, Skyboltt, leszczyfon, leon del Rosario, aircraftsalesbook
7621 Registered Users
Top Posters
Bargain Bob 126808
vettdvr 7028
Cessna Dude 6628
Rusty Rudder 5881
California Flyer 5075
Willie 3925
Clyde Cessna 3445
wrecksum 2704
Joeman434 2546
Don Tedrow 2536
XP Driver 2333
Peedie Montgomery 2292
Ward Holbrook 2269
oilwell1415 1906
ytodd 1884
Nightowl 1826
Nintendo Pilot 1718
Glenn Darr 1708
November X-ray 1690
RodneyHooverCFI 1645
Lee T. Hargic 1633
Jim_1 1592
Pilawt 1553
Bigdoggh 1538
EdW 1347
Shuswap 1224
Showboatsix 1139
Pilot110 1113
Propduster 1103
Awkward Bird 1049
Top Posters (30 Days)
Bargain Bob 1974
Joeman434 101
vettdvr 86
Willie 69
Don Tedrow 62
Desert Hawk 55
Peedie Montgomery 51
Rusty Rudder 49
Curious1 48
3hawks 45
N5479R 44
California Flyer 41
XP Driver 40
Pilot110 34
SunDog 31
Newpilotoldplane 28
JD Casteel 26
Viper_96 26
Flyboy712 25
magman 24
Flubber4.0 22
Jim_1 15
Kentucky Captain 15
EdW 13
Pilawt 13
milo100 13
Kinhop 13
Wayne R 13
Teg916 12
IDontFly 12
Topic Options
#145173 - 09/10/13 10:37 AM Straight Tail vs.Swept Tail
Sky 21 Offline
Safety Pilot

Registered: 11/22/11
Posts: 33
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: 138
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 Online   content
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
Second in Command

Registered: 07/29/12
Posts: 105
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: 25
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: 99
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
havenccb, Lee T. Hargic, Terry Sullivan, wdriggers
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