On Jan 8, 6:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:c53d5aba-e8fb-4897-b245-
:





On Jan 8, 6:48 pm, wrote:
On Jan 8, 3:40 pm, Ricky wrote:

After looking at Skycatcher quite a bit I decided it looks fine,
nice,
not great, just o.k.

My dad was responsible for the "Texas Taildragger" C-150, 152, 172
conversions and I think the Skycatcher would look GREAT with a
tailwheel.
Then again, almost anything looks better with a tailwheel. Those
C-172s had quite a bit of sex appeal with the conventional gear, so
did the 150s-172s.
Then putting the 150 or 180 horses on the nose of the 150s-172s
(another of my dad's conversions & STCs) made them an altogether
different aircraft, a beast akmost...

Skycatcher looks fine, just needs a tailwheel.

Ricky

I would expect that the composite construction woul
d make
it much harder to convert. No hard points and difficult to retrofit
them.
Not many folks building "real" airplanes any more.

Dan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I seem to remember a very nice composit highwing kitplane that had the
option of trike or conventional gear that could be converted in a
matter of hours.

Sounds like the Glastar.

Bertie

We did a Glastar in the taildragger configuration. It has a
steel-tube frame inside it, to which the wings, gear, engine mount all
attach. Converting it from a trike, say, involves taking the nosegear
strut out of its socket in that frame and turfing it, and moving the
mains forward into another set of sockets already there. The tailwheel
bolts through hard points in the aft tailcone.

Dan