The Cessna 150/152 Texas Taildragger [Archive]

Chuck Ellsworth

24th Nov 2007, 17:44

That airplane was converted by moving the main gear forward, the gear is not long enough to raise the attitude to the stalled attitude on the ground....

..therefore it is not possible to three point it in the full stalled attitude....so wheel landings will give you better results.

The people who did that STC changed to the higher gear just prior to their not offering the STC...as far as I know the STC is no longer available for new conversions.

Go back and look at the nose attitude on the one I converted versus that one and it is self explanatory why there is a difference when attempting to three point them.

Contacttower

24th Nov 2007, 18:00

That airplane was converted by moving the main gear forward, the gear is not long enough to raise the attitude to the stalled attitude on the ground....

..therefore it is not possible to three point it in the full stalled attitude....so wheel landings will give you better results.

That's one of the reasons I asked the question. Having said that I was still taught to land it with the stick fully back and most of the time that produces good landings. As well as the attitude issue when you sit in it the 'driving position' feels rather strange so low to the ground.

I have to say I think your one looks a lot neater Chuck.

Chuck Ellsworth

24th Nov 2007, 18:16

I have to say I think your one looks a lot neater Chuck.

Looks are great when choosing what you are going to hump Contact tower, however if the airplane is not in the fully stalled attitude on touch down it can still fly...especially with full aft elevator.

Is it possible to just get the longer main gear for that airplane and solve the problem?

Contacttower

24th Nov 2007, 18:29

however if the airplane is not in the fully stalled attitude on touch down it can still fly...especially with full aft elevator.

I haven't come across a tendency for it to try and fly again- but I see the potential for a problem.

Is it possible to just get the longer main gear for that airplane and solve the problem?

I'd have to ask the club. But having said that while I'm in two minds about whether the conversion was a good one or not the attitude problem doesn't seem to be causing a problem. Next time it's in the circuit I'll watch it land a few times and see what others are doing.

Tony Hirst

24th Nov 2007, 18:44

CT,

I've about 9 or 10 hours in G-DRAG, one of my favourites and the wide gear track helps on the stability side. It'll cruise in the 95-100 kts region. Lovely :ok:

I think Chuck has a point about the attitude, but in reality is it lands fine in a three point attitude. I don't recall any specific landing issues at except that it can be a bit bouncy, especially if you don't bring the tail up far enough on the takeoff run, the land-o-matic legs don't seem to be best suited to the tricycle gear variant though. Something that becomes quite apparent with a flapless touch and go...one bounce on R06 and you're up again!

Quite happy to demonstrate.

Contacttower

24th Nov 2007, 18:55

I don't recall any specific landing issues at except that it can be a bit bouncy

Certainly on take off above 40kts it does start to bounce at bit I find. I find what Chuck was saying interesting though- I suppose I've always wondered whether its low nose attitude was a flaw or not. Like you say though in practice it doesn't seem too bad. Funnily enough the first time I flew it (after several hours in the Cub) my landings where awful, I think I was flaring too high or something, went back to the Cub for a while and then tried G-DRAG again and the landings were a lot better.

Regarding wheeler vs. three point despite the attitude issue I'd stick to three pointing it; reason being is that on rough grass those springy 152 legs bounce a lot and in that plane the bouncing seems to get worse with only two wheels on the ground.

Tony Hirst

24th Nov 2007, 19:14

CT,

It has been a few years since I have flown the PA18, but I seem to recall that it is like the PA17, where you just bring the stick back for a three pointer, but G-DRAG is definitely good for good habits in that you have to positively set the landing attitude visually, it is easy land tailwheel first.

I haven't done a wheeler in G-DRAG, they weren't recommended by DS for one.

Perhaps it is the photo angle, but Chuck's piccie seems to show different legs?

Contacttower

24th Nov 2007, 19:51

Perhaps it is the photo angle, but Chuck's piccie seems to show different legs?

That was Chuck's point, his C150 TT is a later (I think) conversion which uses new legs rather than the original ones repositioned like on G-DRAG. The reason for having new longer legs added is that it makes the aircraft naturally sit in the stalled attitude which will make its three point landings better...because a true three pointer landing should involve the aircraft stalling as it touches the ground. Like you said it is easy to land tailwheel first in it because of its flat attitude- whereas Chuck's C150 would behave more like a Cub which sits with a much higher nose attitude.

Tony Hirst

24th Nov 2007, 20:38

I see, missed that line of Chuck's. Well, whatever the theory, it doesn't seem to be born out in practice.

On another tangent, I'm amazed at how under utilised G-DRAG is, maybe because it is just a C152 and not as 'glamourous' as the Cub. Oh well, their loss :) Nice piccie of G-DRAG, transferred to desktop.

Contacttower

24th Nov 2007, 20:57

Oh well, their loss :)

Indeed. :ok:

Mike Cross

24th Nov 2007, 21:21

Main things I found with DRAG:-

Undamped u/c (standard Cessna) means it can bounce you into the air before it's ready to fly.

If you rotate too early the tailwheel hits the ground. This is at a lower AoA than you can achieve with the standard 152 due to 1) main gear being further forward and 2) tailwheel dangling below the tail. If this happens you will just slow down unless you raise the tail again and wait for more speed before trying a second time.

a/c is more slippery with no noseleg so you need to start slowing it down earlier in the circuit.

Nice aeroplane and I enjoyed flying it.

CaptAirProx

24th Nov 2007, 21:51

From my experience of DRAG, wheeler landings are a doddle. That springy undercarriage takes all the energy out of a slightly mis-judged RoD, resulting in less pitch up tendancies. Nice aircraft though.

Chuck Ellsworth

24th Nov 2007, 22:42

I see, missed that line of Chuck's. Well, whatever the theory, it doesn't seem to be born out in practice.

What I was pointing out is if you are trying to full stall that airplane and touch down on all three wheels at once and the touch down occurs before the wing stalls there is still lift being produced because the angle of attack with all three wheels on the ground is not sufficient to stall the wing....

..but I could be wrong and won't lose any sleep over it..by the way..no I have not flown the C150 with the early conversion using the main gear that came with the airplane.

EchoMike

25th Nov 2007, 00:26

Flat-gear (older) 150 models converted to taildragger tend to be somewhat less "bouncy" than tube gear (later) 150 taildraggers.

I've also seen the spring steel gear (flat-gear) legs re-arced to get the ground clearance up a bit for the prop. The oldest conversions sometimes used 140 gear legs, because all the early 150s were essentially based on the 140.

Makes a very pretty little airplane, top speed increases slightly, rate of climb does too, but remember the terms "top speed" and "rate of climb" are very relative when we are talking about the mighty Cessna 150 and 152.

The conversion takes 40 to 50 hours of sheetmetal work - it is not a trivial job, and if you want one, you are much better off buying one that someone else has done all the work to!

The taildragger conversion STC is sporadically available from a company with the same name (and from the same state) as the current president of the US. Must be something in the water out there - all of them are essentially impossible to deal with.

Further information on the Cessna 150/152 club website, which is an invaluable resource for the type.

I'm going to get the air speed indicator in my 150 recalibrated in furlongs, I'll then have the fastest 150 in the known universe: I'll be blasting along at 900 furlongs an hour - yeeehaaaa!

Best Regards,

Echo Mike (happy 150 driver)

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Nov 2007, 01:34

The gear on the 150 Aerobat I converted was the flat steel spring type and the company that held the STC had made the gear by welding an extention to the gear making it longer...they did not make many before they ceased selling the STC.

Tinstaafl

25th Nov 2007, 02:20

I did my tailwheel endorsement in Oz in a C150 conversion. I claim *very* little t/wheel experience, but a number of times I was able to do 3 pointers & have have the tailwheel touch an instant before the mains. I wonder what gear it had? Extended? Is that even available in Oz? I know I enjoyed going for yippee flights in it!:ok:

Mike Cross

25th Nov 2007, 21:44

Tony Hirst

26th Nov 2007, 08:37

Mike,

Interestingly, after my test, the examiner suggested that going for a slightly tailwheel first touchdown on G-DRAG may reduce it's tendency to bounce.

DBisDogOne

26th Nov 2007, 12:37

Is G-DRAG still at Old Sarum? I was thinking of doing a taildragger course there but heard they were selling it. (Keeping their Cub). Is this still the case or did I get the wrong end of the stick?

Regardless, it's interesting to hear the comments made here as I'd been told that the C150 T/D was not nice to fly (probably another repeated urban myth).

BroomstickPilot

26th Nov 2007, 14:49

Old Sarum did put G-DRAG up for sale, but it would seem it did not sell.

My understanding is that they intend to re-engine this A/C and then keep it in use.

Broomstick.

Contacttower

26th Nov 2007, 15:02

My understanding is that they intend to re-engine this A/C and then keep it in use.

Are they going to just put a replacement of the same type back in, or is it going to get a bigger engine? I saw it for sale as well, but unless it's sold within the last four weeks it's still at Old Sarum.

Tony Hirst

26th Nov 2007, 15:02

Old Sarum did put G-DRAG up for sale, but it would seem it did not sell.My understanding is/was that one of the share holders wanted to sell. I think that OFSC decided to buy his share. So in a sense it was snapped up. But realistically, a month or two on the market is not very long.
Regardless, it's interesting to hear the comments made here as I'd been told that the C150 T/D was not nice to fly (probably another repeated urban myth).If that's the case, the other aircraft I use must be truly dreadful :ok:

BroomstickPilot

26th Nov 2007, 18:00

Contacttower,

I do not know what engine they intend to install: I've only heard this second hand, but from a reliable source. I should be surprised if it was anything other than just a direct replacement because even that is going to be expensive. Anything bigger would cost a lot more sheckles and it is difficult to know how this could be justified in such an old aeroplane. And yes, she is still at Old Sarum. I suspect that if a buyer came along now, they would still be interested in selling her as she is. Once the new engine goes in, however, I think they will want to hold onto her and get their money's worth.

Tony Hirst,

G-DRAG is definitely a 152 and not a 150. She performs well by 152 standards. She is a little bit faster than a tricycle 152 and differs only in her ground handling characteristics. I have the impression that G-DRAG has always been well maintained in terms of her airframe and engine, but her interior is, shall we say, tired. The glove compartment door, for example, has a broken catch and has to be secured with a dab of blue-tac, and one of the wing root ventilators looks as though it would like to fall out. Everything else is just faded and shabby. 'Definitely not a bird puller.

Best regards,

Broomstick.

Contacttower

26th Nov 2007, 18:28

'Definitely not a bird puller.

I'm not sure I completely agree...sure she's old but (this isn't saying much) I've actually yet to see a C152 in better condition.

A bigger engine would be nice....just think, put a 200hp engine in something that light and you'd have a rocket! I mean if you're going to spend 50hrs on sheet metalwork why stop there? ;)

hobbit1983

26th Nov 2007, 21:02

I've seen worse 152s....I trained in Florida! :E

(no offence to the Americans on this thread - but it was at a certain Floridian training provider, and some of them were interesting!)

Tony Hirst

26th Nov 2007, 21:03

Broomstick,

Errr, yeh :confused: Twas a comparison :) The interior is fine but any club standard. You should see the 152 I went solo in, just a hollow slot where the xpndr should have been!

hobbit1983

26th Nov 2007, 21:15

Always thought DRAG was quite well done - although I didn't realise it had DME until Tony told me where it was hidden...!

DBisDogOne

26th Nov 2007, 21:25

I've seen worse 152s....I trained in Florida!

mmmmmm, me too Hobbit, takes me back, reckon we probably went to the same place, the name that shalt not be spoken on Pprune maybe.....:rolleyes:

IO-Lots

9th Jan 2008, 09:46

Hi Chuck

I have a 152 converted to tail dragger by ACT some years ago. I bought the plane in the US and shipped it to South Africa recently.

Do you perhaps know off hand what tail leaf spring is used as I need to replace mine? I cant seem to find the correct part. All I have is that it is a 3 leaf, approx 18 inches long and 1-1/2 inches wide.

If you perhaps have the drawings from STC SA2846SW it should tell you the part number for me to search for?

Is yours the same?

Thanks for what ever help you can give me.

Richard

tigerbatics

9th Jan 2008, 10:42

Chuck, you make a very interesting point about the 'stalled attitude' on the ground. Are you sure that your conversion produces this? If so I would think it a most unusual tailwheel design. The only ones I have heard of were a couple of obscure pre-war designs which were speedily junked. Every conventional gear machine which I can think of has less than this angle of attack on touchdown. After all most aeroplanes drop the nose at the stall....

Ace243

29th Aug 2009, 18:08

Hi all, I am looking into inexpensive tailwheel airplanes, with pretty decent STOL performance. (for a 500ft slightly uphill strip at my house) I am looking at the Cessna 152 Texas Taildraggers because they are in my pricerange -$25,000. And I know that the 152's are good airplanes. I have most of my 160 hrs in them. Any thoughts or experiences on the STOL performance of these buggers? Or any input on other airplanes that might fit my envelope? Any input is much appreciated!

~160hrs
Private Pilot License
Instrument Rating
Tailwheel Endorsement

-Cody

kevmusic

29th Aug 2009, 20:41

Very pretty little aeroplane - a great improvment. Now all it needs is a joystick! :}

ChampChump

29th Aug 2009, 21:20

Aeronca Champ

This is where we all chip in with our favourites, of course.

Actually, if you do a search, you'll probably find some well-worn arguments for all the favourite affordable classics. Based where you are, there's even a chance of finding a decent choice when you're hunting!

Enjoy........

rotorfossil

30th Aug 2009, 17:30

When I flew a taildragger 150 in New Zealand, it was explained to me that if the original legs were used, when the u/c spread on landing the wheels were no longer parallel. This accounted partially for the tendency to bounce and some minor heading control issues on hard surfaces.

Monocock

31st Aug 2009, 07:46

Not sure I have a clear understanding of Chuck's point.

With the standard main gear (as opposed to the extended version) the mains are less extended and it is more likely that the tailwheel could touch first. The mains would hten come down and the effect would be to reduce AoA and hence lift so the mains would stay down.

With the extended main gear I would expect there to be a greater possibility of the mains touching first and the tailwheel continuing to descend. This would increase AoA and hence lift and make it more likely you'd fly again.

Or am I missing something?

I see your point Mike. However, the other way of looking at it is that with the shorter legs, a three point attitude can be achieved on landing at a higher airspeed, therefore increasuing the chances of a small increase in headwind sending the a/c skyward again.

With longer main legs, by the time the pilot has flared long enough to be getting near to the three point attitude his AOA is such that he is well below potential flying speed and remains well clear of a any small gusts lifting him airborne again.

Either way, the 150/152 TT has always been on my "if I could have 5 aircraft in a hangar" list and will stay there too.

Big Pistons Forever

31st Aug 2009, 17:11

If you want a small Cessna taildragger why not get a Cessna 120/140? With the O200 engine mod (i.e. the same engine as the C 150) it will out perform the taildragger C 150 in every way, handles better in the air and since it was designed at the outset as a taildragger, does not have any of the landing gear issues of the C 150 taildragger.

Chuck Ellsworth

1st Sep 2009, 03:43

Choices of airplanes will vary from pilot to pilot.

I learned to fly in Cessna 140's and Fleet Canucks in 1953.

Personally I prefer the Fleet Canuck over the Cessnas. Especially for training with despite the lack of brakes on the right side which is a non issue once you get used to instructing on them.

I also prefer the Cessna Aerobat with the long gear over the Cessna 140.

Here is a picture of the one I converted.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/ChuckEllsworth/P1010783.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/ChuckEllsworth/P1010788.jpg

Chuck Ellsworth

1st Sep 2009, 04:00

With regard to the questions about the long gear legs that Texas Taildragger supplied with their later conversions here is why they are easier to three point.

With all three wheels on the ground they are sitting at a higher angle of attack than the conversions with the original gear moved forward.

Therefore when you three point them you will be at a lower airspeed because you can increase the angle of attack more than with the short legs.....lower speed equals less chance of the f.cker going flying again once on the ground...

It is really quite simple. :ok:

gaxan

1st Sep 2009, 07:49

I flew this beast some years ago and found its bouncy undercarriage a real pain ! Landing was ok but take off was horrible . Glad to see its back to its proper configuration now.

WHL4606

2nd Jun 2010, 18:46

My company owns a Cessna 150 with the Texas Taildragger modification under STC SA2846 SW. The leaf spring, according to my paperwork is part number CC150-001. That suggests that the part was specially fabricated from plans produced by the type certificate holder rather than being an off the shelf part. I could not find a drawing of the part with the paperwork. The one on our aircraft is shorter than one on another aircraft based here. I suspect this is the source of the problem with the tailwheel steering.

AdamFrisch

24th Sep 2012, 23:28

I just wanted to add for posterity that Lowe make a tailwheel conversion that sits much higher than the Texas version. They use 120/140 gears instead if Texas who uses the 150's and just move it forward.

Lowe Aviation - C150 Taildragger Conversion (http://www.taildraggeraviation.com/lowe.html)

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Sep 2012, 00:19

The Texas Taildragger conversion uses a main gear that they manufactured, it is considerably longer than the 150 main gear than is on the nose wheel 150.

I ended up giving my main gear away as I had no use for it.

lotusexige

28th Sep 2012, 13:29

There was a story that there were in fact two main gear types made by Cessna for the 150. The earlier one was a leaf and the later one tubular. The leaf version was said to be much better than the tubular one for a tailwheel conversion.

AWC Jeff

23rd May 2018, 00:26

I have a Taildragger C150J/150 (O320 E2B) N5835, which was converted in 1969. Used the original leaf MLG legs. Getting ready to fly it after taking care of various minor issues, upgrading to ADS-B (transponder failed biannual last year, 2020 coming up, installing a NAV/COM and VOR head). Ferry pilot lost ALL his GPS nav over Arizona at night, sunspots took it all down. If I find there is a attitude problem, is re-arcing the gear a possible corrective action.

AWC Jeff

29th May 2018, 02:49

Got N50835, a C150/150 conversion in the air yesterday, IP flying solo for insurance requirements. Added power, less then 500' later rotated. With 38 gallons, at the gross weight of 1700#. Climbed to 13,500. Hot day at Mojave, Density Altitude 5000'.

Cruise prop. Plane climbs like a Homesick Angel still, compared to any 150/152 I've flown, even at 10 degrees OAT while I was in Maine. Went to 13500 feet too.

Pilot DAR

29th May 2018, 15:02

They are great planes....

Sam Rutherford

29th May 2018, 15:32

Rather than extending the gear (expensive, paperwork etc. why not just put some bushwheels on it? :)

Pilot DAR

30th May 2018, 01:33

The C 150M was the last of Cessna's design changes to widen the cabin. The original 150 was 6" less wide, with a 3" widening in the '60's. Yes, you'll get to know your passenger. But, if the passenger is so large that you can't avoid them, perhaps they are larger than the 150 design was intended for. Though not the most racy taildragger, there's a lot to like about a 150M as a taildragger. In particular, it's one of the most common planes made, so repairing it, and finding parts is easy. The 150 seems to be below the threshold of some rather burdensome inspections which are being mandated. Maybe it's time is coming, but not as fast, nor as expensively as other larger Cessnas. The taildragger conversion is pricey, but if that's what you want, why not!

Larger wheels are okay, though they really do bit into the paved runway, and increase the risk of groundloop. The one I used to fly succumbed to that.

POBJOY

30th May 2018, 13:33

I think the 150/152 TW conversion came about after machines were 'reborn' after a nose landing job.
Compared with the 120/140 they are not a classic machine for several reasons some already alluded to here.
We had one at my local flying club and it sat around not being used.
Those that did a 'TW conversion' (on grass) were then surprised when presented with a crosswind landing on tarmac, as it was not ideal.
Interestingly the real classic Cessna TW machine is the 180/185 model, especially with the larger wheels. Here you have a very controllable aircraft that is also a classic workhorse. The main reason is because the aircraft was built as a TW machine and had a suitably sized straight tail. They also had a proper tail plane trim system which meant you could trim properly for any requirement and especially landing. These machines really do what they say on the tin and are also a huge amount of fun to operate.

Pilot DAR

30th May 2018, 14:41

My experience with pilot difficulties in crosswinds in taildraggers suggests that the rudder is available and effective, but the pilot does not use it enough/quickly enough. The 150M has a 6" taller fin and rudder than previous 150 models, a change made to improve spin recovery. I have not experienced inadequate rudder for crosswind operations. No tailwheel aircraft is ideal on a hard surface, hence the popularity of tricycles. But off hard surface, taildraggers do have advantages. In particular, operation on skis. The 150 tricycle is a disappointment as a ski plane. a 150 taildragger does just what you need as a two seat skiplane. An advantage of a smaller (150 series vs 180 series) is that if you're only going by yourself or plus one anyway, it's a lot less weight of plane to get unstuck if you venture onto a soft surface. If you sink a 18x, you'll need help. if you sink a 150/152, you might get it out by yourself. And then there's the operating cost. the 180x will be more than twice that of the 150/152. If you have to haul to load, of course, use the right plane. But, if you're just out for solo fun, why the extra cost?

The only Cessna with which I have experienced inadequate pitch control and trim was a highly modified 182 amphibian - it was just too nose heavy. Some changes to the arrangement corrected the problem. Otherwise, I have never felt that pitch control was a problem on a Cessna. The 180/185 moving tailplane is nice, though it is prone to wear, which is in the range of $12,000 to repair (we're doing one now). Repairing a 150/152/172/182 trim system would cost a fraction of that, if there were even a problem.

It just comes down to knowing what you need for the job, and choosing the right aircraft.

AWC Jeff

9th Jun 2018, 02:48

I have a taildragger C150J/150 (O320 E2B) N5835, which was converted in 1969. Used the original leaf MLG legs. Getting ready to fly it after taking care of various minor issues, upgrading to ADS-B (transponder failed biannual last year, 2020 coming up, installing a NAV/COM and VOR head). Ferry pilot lost ALL his GPS nav over Arizona at night, sunspots took it all down. If I find there is a attitude problem, is re-arcing the gear a possible corrective action?.

Pilot DAR

9th Jun 2018, 11:46

Jeff, Unless there is a specific instruction approved to re arc the gear legs, that no, you can't. If their arc is not correct, they are damaged, and not airworthy. If their arc is correct, but not to your liking, that's just the way the planes was approved. There are detailed dimensions for landing gear, arrangement, particularly propeller clearance, which would have been demonstrated during certification (for the STC), so although the plane might look low, if the gear legs are not damaged, they're probably okay. I had problems with my taildraggers loosing the arc of their tail springs, and there are no replacement parts. I would re arc them by pressing cold, but the arc would not stay. I eventually made new spring leaves in accordance with the drawings, and they seem to be fine. The heat treating followed by NDT inspection was detailed and costly, but has produced the desired result. I doubt you'll want to get involved in trying to reproduce Cessna gear legs, if they're damaged, there should be other used airworthy parts available for purchase.

If you suspect a gear leg is bent (which can happen) the first check would be to roll the aircraft onto greased plates, as described in the maintenance manual. Using sting and squares measure the toe in and camber. Though Cessna does not provide values for the 150 (as they never made it as a taildragger), either the STC instructions should give you values, or you could refer to the values for a Cessna 140A, or a Cessna 170, which should be suitable. At the very least, the toe in and camber angles should be the same left and right. I have flown planes (C 180) where one gear leg was bent, and those angles wrong, and it was miserable on the runway, until corrected. If the error is minot, Cessna does sell shims for the axles.

Yup, GPS fails every now and then, it's happened to me (panel mounted and two handhelds would not get a fix for over an hour). Never abandon good old pilotage when flying VFR!

AWC Jeff

9th Jun 2018, 23:56

Lots of hours under my belt, most in the Navy S-2, C-1 and P-3's. Multiple systems for navigation.

The tailcone is parallel to the ground as it is. Anyone who has flown the airplane does not recommend wheel landings. 3 point is fine. I guess the added forward weight of a O320 with a C172 propeller might be the reason for that. Empty CG is at forward limit.

I'll be flying it shortly. Need to rerig the elevator trim. IP flew it for 3 hours for insurance reasons last weekend. Out of Mojave Air and Space Port (KMHV). Loaded to max gross, 1700#, Field elevation 2800; DA over 5000'. Never saw a C150 climb like that, ever. And the Service Ceiling is 13500 feet. Important here with MEA'S running 8.5 to 10.5 feet within 20 miles. And, the airconditioning kicks in around 80500 feet as a rule.

Pilot DAR

10th Jun 2018, 12:42

The battery might have been relocated to the tailboom for C of G reasons. If so, there may be an AD for corrosion, it's worth a review. Though I accept that three point landings are preferable on some types for the reasons you suggest, I think you'l find that wheel landings are also okay. The plane would not have been certified if they could not be safely flown. I prefer wheel landings as often as I can. A good wheel landing will give you more control, less chance of a bounce, and a better view over the nose. You can still fly a tail low wheel landing, and once the mains are on, lift the tail a little. Doing that will pretty well assure a no bounce landing. I like to keep the tailwheel from enduring high speed contact with the ground, and possible shimmy. When the innards of the tailwheel break, they're expensive to repair. It's worth assuring that the three shimmy damper plate pins have not sheared, its a common latent failure in Scott tailwheels. The tailwheel does little to control direction until you're rolling slower than 15 MPH or so, it's the rudder doing the steering, even with the tailwheel on the ground, when you're rolling faster than 15 MPH or so. If you're nervous about striking the prop in a wheel landing - wise of you. Sit in the plane, and have someone lift up the tail to the point where they see the prop is close to the ground, set that pitch attitude view in your mind as your limit.

AWC Jeff

22nd Jun 2018, 04:27

I need to get some posts so I can show off N50835 here. Started as a C150J, owner used it for pipeline patrol in Oklahoma. Had an OOPS, ran out of fuel on short final. It was rebuilt with Extended Range (35 gallon tanks) wings, with a E vertical tail and rudder, plus a dorsal fin. Did the Taildragger Conversion, hung the O-320 off the front with a 74" C172 prop. Right after it was done, the Owner and his Wife made a trip to Alaska. Part of the STC documation. Next owner is based near St Louis, MO. 20 years hangared. Flew it to Florida once. Owned it for 20 years.

I'm the THIRD owner. At Mojave, CA. With a hanger.

Low hours, and NEVER a Trainer.

Max certified Gross Weight is 1700#. Legal is 25 gallons with 2 onboard.

Normal Cat, No Spins, etc.

And, how many people, and schools, sent out Instructors and Students with full tanks.

Just a Bit OVER GROSS, too.

Only problem I have with N50835 is Deferred Maintenance.

I'm Retired USN, Maintenance and Flying Background. With an Airframe Mech Cert I earned in 1970.

I've spent a bit of money bringing N50835 up to my Standards. And the best part of a year.

My Standards are simple. If it isn't correct fix it, so it doesn't bite you in the ass.

Long term Owners, don't view things that way, or so I've found.

I'M PROUD OF THIS LITTLE BIRD. It had issues when I got it, except for replacing the elevator trim tab, regging the elevator trim, and servicing the actuator, It's Ready.

Per Insurance my CFI had a 3 hour Solo in N50835. It ISN'T your typical C150. Take Off from MHV at well over 5000' DA, HOMESICK ANGEL AT 1700#. Determined the Service Ceiling is 13.500'. Fuel burn right at 8 GPH.

Quote "Sweet Flying little airplane".

CFI also mentioned the elevator trim is out. Couldn't trim enough Nose Up for a 3 point landing. He is also an A&P, so we took a close look at it. I made the decision it would be fixed before it flew again. +10, -9.7 degrees. Should be +10, -20 degrees. + - 1 degree.

Tried to adjust at the trim wheel, Nope. So took a close look at the trim tab and actuator.

Decided a new trim tab, linkinge is required. Just waiting for tools and Cherry Rivets right now. New (used) trim tab on hand.

More deferred Maintenance. Should of been corrected years ago.

I Know why the Elevator Trim has been deferred.

And, now I get to make it right.

And DAMM Cessna for using Phillips Head Screws to secure the Elevator Trim Actuator. After 40+ years, they don't want to budge.

Lets see if I can post a picture of N50835.

Please upload the original photograph to PPRuNe, links to facebook are not welcome

Sam Rutherford

22nd Jun 2018, 08:43

We had one at our STOL competition last weekend - interestingly it's tail stuck into the sand MUCH more than any of the other tailwheels. It was a complete pig to move (particularly considering how small it is).

Even the Stearman was much, much easier!

Pilot DAR

22nd Jun 2018, 15:21

Some taildraggers have more weight on the tailwheel than others. One of my taildraggers (with a 2300 pound gross weight) imposes 475 pounds weight on the tailwheel, that's just the way it was designed. I carry an aluminum (ex VW Jetta) jack in the plane just in case, and when parked, I jack the tailwheel off the ground with a modified floor jack, to relax the springs.

To loosen a stuck phillips screw: get penetrating oil in anywhere you can, then warm the area up a little with a heat gun. Buy a diamond tipped phillips bit of the right size for the screw, or use "screw grab" on the screwdriver tip. If you can't find either of those, mix up a tiny bit of engine valve grinding compound, and light grease, and dab the screwdriver tip with that, where it engages the screw. Then, (with a wrench driving the screwdriver, if possible) tighten the screw a tiny bit, just so it moves, then back it out. If that does not work, you're authorized to curse, while you plan to drill and use a screw extractor - but that's really a pain up in the trim actuator area of a 150 tail!

AWC Jeff

9th Aug 2018, 01:44

AWC Jeff

29th Aug 2018, 02:19

Did a short XC with the IP to break up the routine of flying in the pattern. Landed, went to the fuel pump, then the idea was to taxi to a tie down, get something to eat. OOPS. Battery dead. Glad the IP was aboard, it was Sunday and NOONE was at the airport. IP (Dave) propped the O320, he's heavier than I am, and it has good compression. RTB, put the bird in the hanger. I took the battery home, charged it and had a load test done. Not the battery. Did a maintenance turn, no charge, 3 to 4 amp discharge. Regulator is attempting to energise the alternator Field. OHKAY, check the alternator Field to Ground. 23 ohms, should not be any more then 3 ohms. Brushes. Ancient Cessna alternator, got a Plane Power alternator which just arrived. Over the weekend, install it, maintenance turn, button up the airplane. Go FLY.

Oh, this started because a non TSO'd 60 amp GEN CB failed, but didn't pop until after I removed the battery. Wouldn't reset. Did the first maintenance turn after replacing it.

Glad this happened close to home, not 500 miles away.

Colomboflyer

29th Mar 2021, 01:27

I am interested to convert a 152 , is this STC and kit yet available for conversion?

Pilot DAR

29th Mar 2021, 02:26

You can search for Del-Air STC SA2846SW.

I've flown them, and liked them, but the conversion is a big job, not just the tailcone, but moving the main landing gear boxes forward in the fuselage. The 152, though STC'd is a less desirable candidate, like the later 150's. You'd rather have a 150 with leaf spring (rather than tubular) gear legs. The leaf spring gear legs allow shimming the axles for toe (in/out) and camber, the tubular gear legs do not offer any adjustment. Also, prop clearance is a factor with some mods.

N707ZS

29th Mar 2021, 07:09

How about just buying a Cessna 140, how would that compare.

Pilot DAR

29th Mar 2021, 11:42

A Cessna 140 is quite a different airplane to a 152. A Cessna 140A (rare plane) is close to a first generation 150, which is still different from a late 150/152. The later 150/152 has a longer, and wider cabin, comfort and utility improvements, and will be a (relatively) newer plane.

Keith Wolfe

2nd Nov 2021, 16:52

I’m having the same issue with my Texas taildragger conversion. The leaf spring needs re-arching and I fear cold bending would damage the springs or crack them. Not to mention the FAA interpretation of allowing this type of repair.

The leaf springs parts are not available so I’m looking at having a set of springs made.

Problem being obtaining FAA approval and obtaining the data / specs. Drawings only give the STC part number and according to the STC holder they have proprietary rights to the data. The STC holder gave little encouragement that future leaf springs would be made. So the dilemma. Need to restore but parts available. Would like to have made but no data and I need FAA approval. I would hope a owner supervised manufactured spring according to the current part would be allowed, but only approved for my specific aircraft. Any and all suggestions will be greatly appreciated.