banner graphic
Airport Webcams
Who's Online
27 registered (NightHawk XP, Viper_96, Mike492, Desert Hawk, DHC8pilot, Dave W, ettsn, cessnawingspar, weko, rans7, ytodd, Craigripley, Willie, Kentucky Captain, MDB, RickG, magman, Rudy H, Cutlass RG, Bradley P, Cbray, Blue springs, Pilawt, Comfail, Witzulu, Mikebrad, Joeman434), 117 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Proppilot51, Michael A Hill, SkyHo, OlavL, guge78
7380 Registered Users
Top Posters
Bargain Bob 122172
vettdvr 6847
Cessna Dude 6628
Rusty Rudder 5779
California Flyer 4996
Willie 3750
Clyde Cessna 3409
wrecksum 2704
Don Tedrow 2425
Joeman434 2335
XP Driver 2280
Ward Holbrook 2269
Peedie Montgomery 2167
oilwell1415 1906
ytodd 1882
Nightowl 1826
Nintendo Pilot 1711
Glenn Darr 1708
RodneyHooverCFI 1645
Lee T. Hargic 1633
November X-ray 1617
Jim_1 1574
Pilawt 1538
Bigdoggh 1532
EdW 1312
Shuswap 1208
Showboatsix 1121
Propduster 1102
Pilot110 1054
Awkward Bird 1048
Top Posters (30 Days)
Bargain Bob 2320
Willie 141
Joeman434 127
Peedie Montgomery 96
Mike492 61
R Chisler 57
vettdvr 52
Rusty Rudder 40
Flubber4.0 39
N5479R 39
Viper_96 36
Jim_1 34
JD Casteel 33
SunDog 33
Pilot110 29
November X-ray 28
Teg916 27
Kentucky Captain 27
3hawks 26
EdW 26
NightHawk XP 25
Curious1 25
Desert Hawk 22
IDontFly 21
Luvrv8 19
Donboy 19
Don Tedrow 18
Kinhop 17
GreenSky 16
Renegade 9 16
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: 133
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
Safety Pilot

Registered: 07/29/12
Posts: 96
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
Goose77, jnoone, tag0191
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