1957 172 tail wheel converted

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
setting in a dry hangar at BVS and has been there a long time. I'll get it ready for a ferry permit free of charge to help a friend get rid of it.

Yes,, it is cheap and a project.
 
Tom-D said:
setting in a dry hangar at BVS and has been there a long time. I'll get it ready for a ferry permit free of charge to help a friend get rid of it.

Yes,, it is cheap and a project.
Click to expand...

That's a straight tail right? Interest is stirring...
 
Wish it was closer. Hmm... How many Skymiles to get to SeaTac??
 
This is a fast back 172 no rear window, manual flaps that extend 40 degrees, C-145 A, I do not know times, it has 4 year old tires, I did the last annual in 2010, it had not flown for a long time prior to that, and has not flown since then, I did have the owner put on a external filter, but the engine has not been run since then.

A sad case of the owner is not a pilot but wanted to be, and has kept this old aircraft for a very long time, in hopes his dream would come true.

The radios are pure junk an old King 90 channel. I forget the number but you can either talk or nav not both at the same time. no intercom, seats need recovered. glass is usable but not great. paint is awful.

Corrosion is minimal, I'd get in this aircraft and fly it but I don't like the tail wheel conversion. but that is just me.
 
Do you recall what the toe is set at on the main gear? One 172 t/w conversion I flew was squirrelly as all hell, I measured the toe and it had 1/8" toe in. Once that was rectified to 1/8" toe out, it handled much better.
 
Fearless Tower said:
C-145 and O-300 A are the same engine.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh...I just never heard an O-300 referred to as a C-145 before.

But now that I look it up it actually appears as if the evolution was:

C145
O-300
O-300-A
O-300-B
O-300-C
O-300-D
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
Ahhhh...I just never heard an O-300 referred to as a C-145 before.

But now that I look it up it actually appears as if the evolution was:

C145
O-300
O-300-A
O-300-B
O-300-C
O-300-D
Click to expand...

Actually they are the same engine with subtle difference.
all have a dampened crank, all take the same cylinders, all take the same bearing set, all use the same rods.

starter placement and the addition of the vac pad on the -D is the biggest of the changes.

There is also a -H (hydraulic) engine that will run a two speed prop.
 
timwinters said:
That's what my '57 172 had in it.
Click to expand...
Then it did not have the original engine, 0-300-a designation did not occur until much later when the new method of identifying engines came about.

This on has the original data tag type for the Continental 145.

The 300 equals the cubic inch size of the engine.
the C-145 equals the horse power of the engine

the method of indicating is the difference
 
Let me know when you have some particulars on what it'll take to pick it up.
 
I found 5
 

Attachments

  • HPIM0064.jpg
    HPIM0064.jpg
    202.2 KB · Views: 102
  • HPIM0065.jpg
    HPIM0065.jpg
    207.1 KB · Views: 98
  • HPIM0066.jpg
    HPIM0066.jpg
    204.5 KB · Views: 99
  • HPIM0067.jpg
    HPIM0067.jpg
    205.5 KB · Views: 89
  • HPIM0068.jpg
    HPIM0068.jpg
    208.8 KB · Views: 133
timwinters said:
You sure it's not an o300a.

That's what my '57 172 had in it.
Click to expand...

Tom-D said:
Then it did not have the original engine, 0-300-a designation did not occur until much later when the new method of identifying engines came about.

This on has the original data tag type for the Continental 145.

The 300 equals the cubic inch size of the engine.
the C-145 equals the horse power of the engine

the method of indicating is the difference
Click to expand...

From Continental's website:

1954 – O300A, successor to the C-145 powered many aircraft including Cessna, Taylorcraft and Aeronca.

If this bird has a C-145 then maybe it's the one that doesn't have the original engine in it.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
From Continental's website:

1954 – O300A, successor to the C-145 powered many aircraft including Cessna, Taylorcraft and Aeronca.

If this bird has a C-145 then maybe it's the one that doesn't have the original engine in it.
Click to expand...

The type certificates also have been updated to reflect the new designation. Plus if the engine was a factory overhaul the data tag would have been changed too.
When we find an old barn find like this one it will have the original data tag saying C-145.

The old photo etched brass and black data tags are very hard to find they make great belt buckles.
 
Henning said:
Do you recall what the toe is set at on the main gear? One 172 t/w conversion I flew was squirrelly as all hell, I measured the toe and it had 1/8" toe in. Once that was rectified to 1/8" toe out, it handled much better.
Click to expand...

Toe out really?
 
$10 ? :) Am I the high bidder still? I guess it's 'name your price' day at Pilots of America! haha!
 
CRAZEDpilot said:
$10 ? :) Am I the high bidder still? I guess it's 'name your price' day at Pilots of America! haha!
Click to expand...

So far. :)

I would wager that 7500 would fly this away.

That is about what the crank is worth.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yeah, believe it or not. Well, unless someone tells me I am wrong.

Tom?
Click to expand...

The Cessna's like about .5 to 1.0 degrees of tow out, when in a level condition and loaded to gross weight.
 
ChrisK said:
Toe out really?
Click to expand...


Different taildraggers have different needs as far as wheel alignment goes. Whatever works. Toe-out can tame an airplane that's squirrely, since as the weight transfers to the outside wheel in an incipient groundloop, that wheel, being toed out, will want to steer back the other way.

Others sometimes need toe-in, as the weight and rolling resistance cause some toeing out. Main gear, especially the leaf-type, can twist quite a bit under load and change the alignment of the wheels.

Dan
 
Toe out causes swings to self correct, toe in causes swings to accelerate.
 
I used to work in the factory wheel alignment industry. I understood the mechanics more than the science. I do know that passenger cars are usually toe in and heavy trucks are usually toe out. I was surprised to hear that these aircraft are toe out.

Thanks for the comments and explanation!
 
I've never seen observation doors in a Cessna like that.

Now I want them in the skywagon damn you.....;):D
 
ChrisK said:
I used to work in the factory wheel alignment industry. I understood the mechanics more than the science. I do know that passenger cars are usually toe in and heavy trucks are usually toe out. I was surprised to hear that these aircraft are toe out.

Thanks for the comments and explanation!
Click to expand...

Some front wheel drive cars are toe-out, too. When the wheels pull the car forward, they toe in some. So as it accelerates and decelerates the wheels are going back and forth between toe-out and toe-in. And if the road surface doesn't have consistent traction across it, you get torque steer.

Why anyone thought front wheel drive was so much better is beyond me. I think it's just simpler to build, meaning cheaper, meaning more profit for the car companies.

Dan
 
Part it out and gimme them doors if they'll fit a skywagon.

I'll give you a hundred bucks and pay freight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top