C150 taildragger conversions
Thread Starter
C150 taildragger conversions
Ok guys, I am after the collective wisdom contained in this forum, 20 odd years ago I had a Cessna 150 VH-DFB that I converted to a taildragger using a Bush conversions kit. It was my first foray into conversion/building, I then built an RV7 (VH-UER) and sold it. I am now thinking of buying another C150 that I have seen in the "Trader". Now the thing is I would like to convert it to a taidragger (conventional undercarriage) and would like to get a kit to do the job. Ok this is where you guys come in, I cant find anybody on the net that supplies kits anymore, either Bush conversions (what I used on DFB) or Texas Traildragger conversions. Can anybody supply me with a contact to get a C150 conversion kit? I would be grateful for a contact.
Gday Arnold,
Don’t know if you’ve looked here but the link lists STCs for aircraft. Maybe a look through those will uncover someone.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...e?OpenFrameSet
cheers
Don’t know if you’ve looked here but the link lists STCs for aircraft. Maybe a look through those will uncover someone.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...e?OpenFrameSet
cheers
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
Air Atlantique in the UK had a converted 152 G-Hart, I have looked up the Airworthiness approval note as it has details in case they help, see
https://cwsprduksumbraco.blob.core.w...1616000000.pdf
https://cwsprduksumbraco.blob.core.w...1616000000.pdf
Not really, but why mess up the handling of a nice little aeroplane that is, as built, quite pleasant to fly.
Cast your minds back, folks ---- all the very early aeroplanes sat with the fuselage more or less parallel with the ground, and when accelerated to flying speed, rotated to the flying attitude, not through the flying attitude and back again to actually fly.
Then the various hostilities leading up the WWI produced major advances in motor engines, including for aeroplane engines, all of a sudden engines became available with HP in three figures, and bigger props were needed to convert this mighty 100+ HP into thrust, which meant bigger diameters. Now, these bigger diameters had to be kept out of the dirt, but long spindly and draggy undercarriages were not an attractive proposition.
Low and behold, some bright spark invented the tailwheel (or skid) undercarriage, and much more room for a prop, as long as you didn't raise the tail too high on takeoff. And, of course, introduced a whole raft physical/aerodynamic effects, none of which improved the "air safety outcomes".
Somehow, despite the history, this "tail down" arrangement became a "conventional undercart" and so matters proceeded. Indeed, the greater part of ab nitio flying training was devoted to learning to master the adverse flying characteristics NOT present in the original aeroplanes. Come to think of it, many of those very early aircraft even had contra-rotating props, ergo no swing.
By the time you got to the late 1930s, there was some re-thinking going on ---- Consolidated produced the B-24, (and the amphib Catalina) but Boeing persisted with tail wheels. There were far more B-24s produced than B-17s, I have often wondered if part of the reason the B-17 is so much better know is the much more film footage of B-17s getting it spectacularly badly wrong on takeoff and landing exists for Hollywood exploitation.
The DC-4 and the Lockheed Constellation are both late 1930s aeroplanes, but the poms persisted long after WWII with tailwheels , think Vickers Viking, Avro Ashton and that flying abortion, the Handley-Page Hastings. The later Hermes did have a nose wheel, but that is about all it had going for it.
Cessna sales really only took off after WWII with the C-172. Likewise Piper sales with the Colt and Tri-Pacer. Not all developments of nose-wheel versions of earlier designs worked out, think the Beagle Ordeal --- sorry, Airdale.
Some of the taildrager twins I have flown have had handling characteristic that were semi-lethal (think DH Dragon Rapide or any DH bi-plane with tapered wings) and the history of the DH 86A & B are too well known to need repeating. The Beech 18 is a lovely old aeroplane, but the Volpar nosewheel version is far more relaxing at low speed. Like a DC-3/C-47, an original Beech 18 can really bite. About the only little taildrager twin I have flown, that didn't give the impression it was waiting to bite was the Miles Gemini. All the above from personal experience, not just theory.
So, despite all the reasons to the contrary, a tailwheel/skid aeroplane is regarded as a higher form of aeronautical life, why??
I ask again, why bother??
Tootle pip!!
I ask again, why bother??
For my money I would get a Cub, Scout, Decathlon, Maule etc. That said, for the 150 though
You get a higher cruise speed, about 5 knots
You get a shorter ground roll albeit the distance to 50 feet remains the same
You get a stronger aeroplane more suited to bush airstrips
You shave around 3 kg off the BEW
You get an ideal aeroplane to offer tailwheel endorsements in and one in my opinion that will bite the careless more so than some others
As someone else said, if you get an old straight tail you will end up with a remarkably good looking aeroplane that looks like a mini 185 but even the slant atil models get vastly improved looks. (I know this is not a great reason)
In my neighborhood there is one of these conversions with a 150 hp O320 up front. The owner regularly flies it into airstrips that would be all but impossible in its original guise.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I trained a student to his PPL in a "Texas Tail Dragger.
At around 2,000 ft density altitude on a summer day, this took a very long time to get airborne
and, took around 5 miles to get to circuit height.
It had to be leaned out for take off and go arounds.
While it was a fun aeroplane to fly, it was definitely not suited to high density altitude or hot days.
There are not very many of these around.
I would much prefer a Citabria or Super Decathlon.
At around 2,000 ft density altitude on a summer day, this took a very long time to get airborne
and, took around 5 miles to get to circuit height.
It had to be leaned out for take off and go arounds.
While it was a fun aeroplane to fly, it was definitely not suited to high density altitude or hot days.
There are not very many of these around.
I would much prefer a Citabria or Super Decathlon.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pmsl 😂
texan tail kits are still about you just need to find one, as i recal its better on a areobat and it much better for areos as apposed to having a nose gear.
but im gussing what would i know
tootie toot tootie pie
