I think the Aerobat rudder authority isn't enough to support a tailwheel conversion
All Cessna 150's are approved by STC to be taildragger modified. Across the C 150 model range, there are three different rudders, with the Aerobat's having the latter two, and all 152's having the latest. I have flown several of the earliest versions of the 150 straight tail as a taildragger, both as a wheel plane, and ski plane. I've done the cross wind tests for wheel ski certification. It passes with excess rudder effectiveness available. I cannot speak to the swept tail as a tail dragger, but there are lots of them around, they must work!
The two versions of the 150 with a swept tail have different heights, with the (M) model (1975, 1976, 1977), and all 152's having a rudder 6 inches taller than the earlier models (E through L). This was said to have been changed to improve the spin revovery of the Aerobat A150M, based upon comments form the aerobatic use of the A150L. Prior to the L model, 150s were spin approved, but perhaps no one ever went at spinning the non Aerobat versions of the 150 with the gusto to show up a deficiency in rudder effecivness during spin recovery.
This is well discussed in the book "Cessna, Wings for the World".
This book also mentions that the 150 HP versions of the 150 do not spin as well as the originals. Chaged location of mass in the fuselage being the stated reason. I have spun several 150 HP 150's, and did not detect a difference, though those were just one turn spins, so I am opened to the fact that the differences probably show themselves after the first turn.
I do not consider the expendature of the tailwheel mod, or engine change on a 150 worthwhile, unless it's being done as a whim, while repairing one after damage. By the time you've modded the 150, you've spent more than the cost of a good Citabria, Cub, PA 18, or excellent Champ or Luscome.