banner graphic
Airport Webcams
Who's Online
15 registered (howardflyer, Aerodon, Rick L., Ed_Clayton, lconn, Teg916, claytargethntr, David R, Ward Holbrook, KCDean, Cessna Guy, rwbristol, Dave W, Joeman434, xcfire), 102 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
RHT, skum, Maks, rk4, trake8
6653 Registered Users
Top Posters
Bargain Bob 102694
Cessna Dude 6628
vettdvr 5885
Rusty Rudder 5143
California Flyer 4820
Clyde Cessna 3325
Willie 2797
wrecksum 2704
Ward Holbrook 2214
XP Driver 2127
Don Tedrow 2084
ytodd 1831
Nightowl 1826
Glenn Darr 1661
Nintendo Pilot 1660
oilwell1415 1649
RodneyHooverCFI 1645
Lee T. Hargic 1631
November X-ray 1589
Bigdoggh 1440
Pilawt 1427
Peedie Montgomery 1359
Jim_1 1277
EdW 1218
Propduster 1070
Showboatsix 1033
Awkward Bird 1019
Shuswap 989
Joeman434 973
Renegade 9 914
Top Posters (30 Days)
Bargain Bob 1900
Joeman434 205
vettdvr 128
Willie 85
Rusty Rudder 55
Don Tedrow 53
Peedie Montgomery 50
JD Casteel 42
Pilot110 38
Glenn Darr 31
California Flyer 31
Jim_1 29
Pilawt 28
N5479R 28
Curious1 26
flyhayes 25
cadcap 24
MrOutdoorsie 24
Shuswap 24
Nintendo Pilot 22
Luvrv8 20
BNB-SP 20
Desert Hawk 20
Ward Holbrook 19
Kansas Zephyr 19
Renegade 9 16
NightHawk XP 15
Tommygun53 15
Kinhop 15
Float Pilot 14
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: 129
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: 1649
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: 67
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: 20
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: 95
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: 60
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
Strother '15 Countdown
June 18-21, 2015 KWLD
Today's Birthdays
Allen Maxwell, MrOutdoorsie, oracle1, slandreth
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