Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

The Cessna 150/152 Texas Taildragger

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

The Cessna 150/152 Texas Taildragger

Old 1st Sep 2009, 03:43
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
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/e3...h/P1010783.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...h/P1010788.jpg
Chuck Ellsworth is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2009, 04:00
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
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.
Chuck Ellsworth is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2009, 07:49
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Herts
Posts: 76
G-OPAM

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.
gaxan is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2010, 18:46
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Juneau, AK
Age: 74
Posts: 1
Leaf Spring Part Number

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.
WHL4606 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2012, 23:28
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 49
Posts: 1,631
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
AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2012, 00:19
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
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.
Chuck Ellsworth is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2012, 13:29
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Essex
Age: 71
Posts: 76
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.
lotusexige is offline  
Old 23rd May 2018, 00:26
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Mojave, CA
Posts: 10
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.

Last edited by AWC Jeff; 29th May 2018 at 02:56.
AWC Jeff is offline  
Old 29th May 2018, 02:49
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Mojave, CA
Posts: 10
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.
AWC Jeff is offline  
Old 29th May 2018, 15:02
  #50 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 60
Posts: 4,846
They are great planes....
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 29th May 2018, 15:32
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 1,838
Rather than extending the gear (expensive, paperwork etc. why not just put some bushwheels on it?
Sam Rutherford is offline  
Old 30th May 2018, 01:33
  #52 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 60
Posts: 4,846
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.
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 30th May 2018, 13:33
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 11 GROUP
Age: 74
Posts: 1,115
Why change it

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.
POBJOY is offline  
Old 30th May 2018, 14:41
  #54 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 60
Posts: 4,846
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.
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2018, 02:48
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Mojave, CA
Posts: 10
C1580J, 150 HP Modified with a E vertical tail

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 is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2018, 11:46
  #56 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 60
Posts: 4,846
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!
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2018, 23:56
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Mojave, CA
Posts: 10
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.
AWC Jeff is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2018, 12:42
  #58 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 60
Posts: 4,846
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.
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2018, 04:27
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Mojave, CA
Posts: 10
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
AWC Jeff is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2018, 08:43
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 1,838
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!
Sam Rutherford is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.