banner graphic
Airport Webcams
Who's Online
16 registered (EdW, Ranz Alami, Skyhawk28F, mhrivnak, Wingingit, thomas koch, Showboatsix, California Flyer, xcfire, sjp, Sky 21, 40Flaps, Henry M., Joeman434, 120br, claytargethntr), 322 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
172SimEng, glbtrottr, Flea, Frank44, DrewP
9534 Registered Users
Top Posters
Bargain Bob 175674
vettdvr 7724
Rusty Rudder 6953
Cessna Dude 6628
California Flyer 5651
Willie 4699
Joeman434 4139
Clyde Cessna 3868
Don Tedrow 3310
Peedie Montgomery 3036
wrecksum 2704
Ward Holbrook 2436
XP Driver 2395
November X-ray 2272
ytodd 1974
Jim_1 1932
oilwell1415 1906
Nightowl 1826
Nintendo Pilot 1737
Bigdoggh 1710
Glenn Darr 1708
Pilawt 1691
RodneyHooverCFI 1646
KevinMcP 1639
Pilot110 1482
EdW 1443
Showboatsix 1430
Shuswap 1304
Henry M. 1265
JD Casteel 1240
Top Posters (30 Days)
Bargain Bob 2728
Pilot5107F 134
Joeman434 69
Rusty Rudder 47
Flubber4.0 40
Don Tedrow 38
C420sailor 37
N5479R 30
Cherokeedriver 29
Showboatsix 27
cyendrey 22
Sky 21 22
Wayne R 20
California Flyer 20
Viper_96 19
Skyhawk28F 18
Ernani 18
Dave W 17
Willie 17
cadcap 16
Peedie Montgomery 15
November X-ray 14
Henry M. 13
combahee 13
BettyWhite 13
Bubba 2 12
6alfabravo 12
Newpilotoldplane 12
bnt1983 10
Steven Sun 8
Topic Options
#145173 - 09/10/13 10:37 AM Straight Tail vs.Swept Tail
Sky 21 Online   content
Second in Command

Registered: 11/22/11
Posts: 168
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
Second in Command

Registered: 07/29/12
Posts: 243
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
Donboy, Garry, jeremypuhal, kevin johnson, mx757, rmarcelino79, weals
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