Tail wheel 150....
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
From: EGTR
Tail wheel 150....
Hi Guys,
I'm after some general information, I may have the opportunity to buy a 50% share in a Cessna 150 tail wheel, on N numbers.
I mainly fly PA28 and have never been in a 150, it's a project aircraft for sensible money hence my interest, and I have the ability and means to rebuild it but I'd like to know what people think of them.
Do they have enough power to lift the tail or does it take an age?
Any other advice or comments appreciated.
Thanks
I'm after some general information, I may have the opportunity to buy a 50% share in a Cessna 150 tail wheel, on N numbers.
I mainly fly PA28 and have never been in a 150, it's a project aircraft for sensible money hence my interest, and I have the ability and means to rebuild it but I'd like to know what people think of them.
Do they have enough power to lift the tail or does it take an age?
Any other advice or comments appreciated.
Thanks
Joined: Jan 2008
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 650
Likes: 45
From: Canada
A tailwheel 150 is a presentable aircraft, and well worth the investment for what it is. It is not a PA-28, but will offer you some simple flying pleasures which a PA 28 cannot! Being an owner/part owner in anything which gets you more involved, and into the sky more, is always good!
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,658
Likes: 501
From: Canada
Big issue with the tailwheel C 150 is the type of landing gear legs installed. Some conversions just reuse the tube gear by turning it around and installing it in a new more forward gear box. These conversion have terrible ground handling because the three point attitude is too flat and the tube gear allows the wheels to toe out if you touch down with any drift, and toe out equals very directionally unstable. I would stay away from these unless you were an experienced tail wheel pilot.
The best ones use the flat spring style gear that is either re arced to make the airplane stand higher or use C 170 gear legs.
The best C 150 tail draggers are conversions of the early fast back square tail models, the post 1965 models with the back windows and swept tail lack adequate rudder authority.
Personally I would buy a C 120 or C 140 before a converted C150 anyway. They were purpose built taildraggers and have wonderful flying characteristics and relatively docile ground handling.
The best ones use the flat spring style gear that is either re arced to make the airplane stand higher or use C 170 gear legs.
The best C 150 tail draggers are conversions of the early fast back square tail models, the post 1965 models with the back windows and swept tail lack adequate rudder authority.
Personally I would buy a C 120 or C 140 before a converted C150 anyway. They were purpose built taildraggers and have wonderful flying characteristics and relatively docile ground handling.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
From: EGTR
I'm only interested as it's there, I'm not out looking for an Aircraft..
I believe it's on the standard mlg legs, simply had the nose assembly removed and tail conversion carried out.
Thanks for the reply.
Yodi
I believe it's on the standard mlg legs, simply had the nose assembly removed and tail conversion carried out.
Thanks for the reply.
Yodi
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver Island
I converted a Cessna Aerobat to a Texas Tail Dragger.
That conversion supplied a longer flat spring main gear and the company no longer sells that kit and STC.
However if you can find their conversion it makes for a delightful little tail wheel airplane that is about half way between a Cessna 140 and a Pitts Special in its runway handling characteristics.
P.S...
I did about half of my PPL training on the Cessna 140A in 1953 which is why I used the Cessna 140 in my comparison.
I sold it to a good friend of mine who just loves it and keeps it in his hangar in Pitt Meadows.
That conversion supplied a longer flat spring main gear and the company no longer sells that kit and STC.
However if you can find their conversion it makes for a delightful little tail wheel airplane that is about half way between a Cessna 140 and a Pitts Special in its runway handling characteristics.
P.S...
I did about half of my PPL training on the Cessna 140A in 1953 which is why I used the Cessna 140 in my comparison.
I sold it to a good friend of mine who just loves it and keeps it in his hangar in Pitt Meadows.
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 111
Likes: 1
From: with bosun Blue Sky and the jenny haniver "Hot Stuff"
I did my tail wheel endorsement with a Texas 152.
It had the late-152 bubble canopy and swept tail, but flat spring gear swiped from a C150.
With mounting horror I read the tales of woe. I heard the Texas 152 was a frankenplane, neither one thing nor the other. It was a bridge too far. Without the nose wheel it squatted like a toad, it waddled like one too, it couldn't do wheelers without mashing the prop... The list went on.
I mourned the demise of the Super Cub I was supposed to use.
But when I actually flew the Texas 152, the old wives were completely wrong. It wasn't an incapable pig at all - it was sweet as. Many happy bounces later, I even mastered wheel landings. I enjoyed every minute in that aeroplane, and I still miss it today.
It handled just like a factory 152, except take-off and landing, so - if you can't find a Texas 152 to try - I'd fly one of those first before you commit.
P.S. I used to lift the tail after counting three seconds.
It had the late-152 bubble canopy and swept tail, but flat spring gear swiped from a C150.
With mounting horror I read the tales of woe. I heard the Texas 152 was a frankenplane, neither one thing nor the other. It was a bridge too far. Without the nose wheel it squatted like a toad, it waddled like one too, it couldn't do wheelers without mashing the prop... The list went on.
I mourned the demise of the Super Cub I was supposed to use.
But when I actually flew the Texas 152, the old wives were completely wrong. It wasn't an incapable pig at all - it was sweet as. Many happy bounces later, I even mastered wheel landings. I enjoyed every minute in that aeroplane, and I still miss it today.
It handled just like a factory 152, except take-off and landing, so - if you can't find a Texas 152 to try - I'd fly one of those first before you commit.
P.S. I used to lift the tail after counting three seconds.
Last edited by Capn Bug Smasher; 1st September 2015 at 14:35.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,288
Likes: 1
From: Enzed
I believe you do need to be wary of the aft C of G limit on a tail dragger C150/2.
The removal of the nose wheel and the extra weight of the tailwheel and the mounting hardware moves the C of g aft and can, in some situations, take you behind the aft limit where you would not be with the nose wheel variant.
Check the C of G especially if you ever plan to spin it or do anything that could result in a spin.
The removal of the nose wheel and the extra weight of the tailwheel and the mounting hardware moves the C of g aft and can, in some situations, take you behind the aft limit where you would not be with the nose wheel variant.
Check the C of G especially if you ever plan to spin it or do anything that could result in a spin.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,290
Likes: 289
From: Poplar Grove, IL, USA
I have some friends/neighbors that did a C150 conversion:
Taildragger Aviation - N180EF Conversion and Restoration
The earliest C150's still had C140 gearboxes in them, as well as the new mounts for the nosewheel mains. I don't think the 150's had a nose heavy problem though. I would think the difference in CG between a nosewheel and tailwheel 150/2 would not be huge. The parts are not super heavy and the lever arms are small.
The main advantage the converted 150 has over the 140 is real flaps!
Taildragger Aviation - N180EF Conversion and Restoration
The earliest C150's still had C140 gearboxes in them, as well as the new mounts for the nosewheel mains. I don't think the 150's had a nose heavy problem though. I would think the difference in CG between a nosewheel and tailwheel 150/2 would not be huge. The parts are not super heavy and the lever arms are small.
The main advantage the converted 150 has over the 140 is real flaps!
