banner graphic
Airport Webcams
Who's Online
32 registered (oilwell1415, jim1941, vettdvr, Mike__, VanDy, JD Casteel, Don Tedrow, theboys3, facefixer, Willie, farnk, patyancey, AESpecialists, California Flyer, Teg916, Nintendo Pilot, Ward Holbrook, Henry M., KSP_530, TOOLMAKER, Whealy, Shifty, Pilot110, TxHawk, Bognostroclom, Genetk44, Joe K, lantajohn, Captain Sam, Cessna Guy, twiggle, RocketPilotHD), 134 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
facefixer, VanDy, rap, Ben Stout, sunchaser
6401 Registered Users
Top Posters
Bargain Bob 96984
Cessna Dude 6628
vettdvr 5612
Rusty Rudder 5036
California Flyer 4759
Clyde Cessna 3311
wrecksum 2704
Willie 2643
Ward Holbrook 2166
XP Driver 2120
Don Tedrow 2004
Nightowl 1826
ytodd 1824
RodneyHooverCFI 1642
Nintendo Pilot 1632
oilwell1415 1631
Lee T. Hargic 1629
Glenn Darr 1622
November X-ray 1589
Bigdoggh 1440
Pilawt 1394
Peedie Montgomery 1268
Jim_1 1216
EdW 1186
Propduster 1063
Showboatsix 1018
Awkward Bird 1014
Shuswap 955
OldCrow 881
Renegade 9 877
Top Posters (30 Days)
Bargain Bob 3269
vettdvr 171
Joeman434 163
Willie 55
Rusty Rudder 40
Desert Hawk 40
Peedie Montgomery 37
Shuswap 37
Ward Holbrook 36
oilwell1415 33
Luvrv8 32
Wayne R 32
Rikochet 22
California Flyer 22
Showboatsix 21
JD Casteel 20
N5479R 19
Pilot110 19
Kinhop 18
Teg916 17
BNB-SP 16
farnk 15
Dave W 15
Birdman 15
KSP_530 13
Don Tedrow 13
IN2FLYING 13
Henry M. 12
cadcap 12
MrOutdoorsie 11
Topic Options
#145173 - 09/10/13 10:37 AM Straight Tail vs.Swept Tail
Sky 21 Offline
Safety Pilot

Registered: 11/22/11
Posts: 26
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: 124
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 Online   content
Gold Pilot

Registered: 09/20/12
Posts: 1631
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: 64
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: 93
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: 59
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
Danny, FredD, Pilawt, tricycle
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