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?

Mike

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.

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).

G-DRAG
 

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.

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.

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.
If that's the case, the other aircraft I use must be truly dreadful :ok:

G-DRAG
 

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.

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? ;)

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!)

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!

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

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:

Tail Wheel Leaf Spring
 

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

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....

TT Performance?
 

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

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

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........

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.

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.

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.