William Hung wrote in
:

On Jan 9, 2:45*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote
innews:7df719fa5e00f@uwe:





Ricky wrote:

My dad was responsible for the "Texas Taildragger" C-150, 152, 172
conversions and I think the Skycatcher would look GREAT with a
tailwheel.

* I flew a club Texas Taildragger 150hp C-150 many moons ago. *It
wa
s
* loads
of fun, but without an increase in fuel capacity, it's range was
pretty limited.

Skycatcher looks fine, just needs a tailwheel.

* *I'm one of those folks that need a good reason for a tailwheel
* *(looks
don't quite cut it). *If I were planning on flying a Skycatcher
into unimproved strips, I might go for it.

Well, two other good reasons are a decrease in weight and drag and
improve
d
ground handling capability.

and no, I'm not kidding about the latter.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Does the bigger engine throw off the CG by much on the c150s? Is the
change in CG what made you make that comment about ground handling?


Well, actually, I mis-spoke a bit there. Most taildraggers are more
capable than an equivelant milk stool in a crosswind, but a late model
150 or 172 with the dinky relatively ineffective rudder would probably
be a bit worse. Never flown a 150 with a big engine on it, but it would
more than likely give greater stability and less manueverability than
one with an 0-200 in it.
I do feel more comfortable in a taildragger in a crosswind than a trike,
though.
The performance thing is obvious, though. You've got 1/3rd of a retract
with no weight penalty!

Bertie