banner graphic
Airport Webcams
Who's Online
18 registered (michaelj, Viper_96, Marcos Diaz, Jake@Bevan, Karlj, Lyle, JMartin, Joeman434, Flubber4.0, Henry M., jsk, Flflyguy, Cessna005, Doc Dairy, Wayne R, C420sailor, RickG, 1 invisible), 344 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
DutchyMontana907, ANOMALY, george o, Blackhawk275, Mario Tinajero
10622 Registered Users
Top Posters
Bargain Bob 208906
vettdvr 7724
Rusty Rudder 7476
Cessna Dude 6628
California Flyer 5890
Joeman434 5279
Willie 4728
Clyde Cessna 4374
Don Tedrow 3641
Peedie Montgomery 3272
wrecksum 2704
Ward Holbrook 2436
XP Driver 2406
November X-ray 2303
ytodd 2240
Jim_1 2096
oilwell1415 1906
Nightowl 1826
Bigdoggh 1821
Pilawt 1796
Nintendo Pilot 1738
Showboatsix 1715
Glenn Darr 1708
KevinMcP 1654
RodneyHooverCFI 1646
N5479R 1611
Pilot110 1571
EdW 1525
Henry M. 1513
Wayne R 1318
Top Posters (30 Days)
Bargain Bob 2134
Joeman434 62
Wayne R 52
Viper_96 43
Challenger1 43
ytodd 42
N5479R 39
Kentucky Captain 38
C420sailor 36
Flubber4.0 33
Clyde Cessna 32
Rusty Rudder 31
jnpjohnson 27
Don Tedrow 27
Peedie Montgomery 25
California Flyer 23
Showboatsix 22
Curious1 19
Henry M. 18
BettyWhite 15
multisync 14
CaptPenner 14
skyhawk3 14
propizza 13
bpost58 12
Jim_1 11
iiAtlas 11
Hawk25U 10
polo 10
michaelj 10
Topic Options
#145173 - 09/10/13 10:37 AM Straight Tail vs.Swept Tail
Sky 21 Offline
Silver Pilot

Registered: 11/22/11
Posts: 820
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: 155
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
Pilot in Command

Registered: 07/29/12
Posts: 376
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: 110
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
Today's Birthdays
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