banner graphic
Airport Webcams
Who's Online
18 registered (Viper_96, michaelj, Joeman434, Steve N8809B, Jfernandez, Bubba 2, Macsym, flynal, WillieJ, jnpjohnson, Ross Muir, rusty1964, Flflyguy, Shiner, Henry M., Rusty Rudder, Wayne R, 1 invisible), 260 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
icebandithockey, clee2010, VConnor, Ecbellamy, cowcabob
9145 Registered Users
Top Posters
Bargain Bob 163371
vettdvr 7712
Rusty Rudder 6738
Cessna Dude 6628
California Flyer 5574
Willie 4582
Joeman434 3884
Clyde Cessna 3832
Don Tedrow 3202
Peedie Montgomery 2968
wrecksum 2704
Ward Holbrook 2436
XP Driver 2395
November X-ray 2230
ytodd 1960
oilwell1415 1906
Jim_1 1884
Nightowl 1826
Nintendo Pilot 1730
Bigdoggh 1710
Glenn Darr 1708
Pilawt 1669
RodneyHooverCFI 1645
KevinMcP 1637
EdW 1435
Pilot110 1415
Showboatsix 1339
Shuswap 1304
JD Casteel 1228
Henry M. 1214
Top Posters (30 Days)
Bargain Bob 2540
Joeman434 62
Kentucky Captain 53
Rusty Rudder 46
Viper_96 38
Skyhawk28F 37
Willie 33
Don Tedrow 33
cyendrey 27
Pilot110 24
N5479R 24
vettdvr 20
cadcap 19
California Flyer 18
Peedie Montgomery 18
Clyde Cessna 17
Kinhop 17
turninggrey 16
Showboatsix 16
DeputydogK9 16
Red.00 15
Curious1 14
Nothwoods 13
Newpilotoldplane 12
Kejidog 11
Kansas Zephyr 10
Jason1070 10
windsock 10
phillipny 9
JD Casteel 9
Topic Options
#145173 - 09/10/13 10:37 AM Straight Tail vs.Swept Tail
Sky 21 Offline
Safety Pilot

Registered: 11/22/11
Posts: 91
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 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.


#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: 199
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: 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

#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: 108
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
barney levengood, Roger, Steve in Maine
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