Skycather's not TOO ugly, just needs tailwheel

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 was
* 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 improved
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?

Wil

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in
news: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 was
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 improved
ground handling capability.


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


Bertie


Not in every case. The Zenith 601XL is a couple of knots slower in the
tail dragger configuration and about the same weight.

With a composite like the Skycatcher what it takes to beef up the tail
to handle the stress of being part of the landing gear might increase
overall weight. It's not like you are going to be able to weaken the
nose area for practical and fiscal reasons.

On Jan 9, 1:39*pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote:

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

They didn't buy the tank kit!

One of my dad's STCd conversion kits sold out of the same company
(Custom Aircraft Conversions; home of Tx. Taildragger) was the long
range fuel tank. The kit added 7 gallons to each tank of a 150 or 152
for a 40 gal. total. To exchange your old tanks the complete kit was
only $1250. There was no wiring or plumbing involved in the rather
simple installation.

Ricky

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

Gig 601XL Builder wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in
news: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
was 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
improved ground handling capability.


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


Bertie


Not in every case. The Zenith 601XL is a couple of knots slower in the
tail dragger configuration and about the same weight.

Really? How?


With a composite like the Skycatcher what it takes to beef up the tail
to handle the stress of being part of the landing gear might increase
overall weight. It's not like you are going to be able to weaken the
nose area for practical and fiscal reasons.

True, but it;s tupperware.

Bertie

On Jan 9, 1:45*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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

Bertie-

Benefits of the Tx. Taildragger included;

- More prop clearance
- Nose wheel shimmey eliminated
- Easier to check & fill tanks
- Quick change gear in case of damage
- Easier and quicker inspections
- Tri gear to tailwheel within hours (after initial installation)
- Accepted ski and pontoon installations
- Required less hangar space
- Lower maintenance costs
- More training opportunities
- Less drag so more fuel effecient
- Increased resale value
- Fewer parts than any 150, 152, 172 tailwheel mod.
- No spin restrictions
- Speed increase of 10 mph
- Rate of climb increase of 65 fpm
- Useful load increase of 10 lbs.
- Higher service ceiling
- Improved rough field handling
- Shorter takeoff distance

Adding a 150 or 180 hp Lycoming with long range tanks to this made an
incredible little aircraft.

Ricky

On Jan 9, 4:45*pm, Ricky wrote:
On Jan 9, 1:45*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, two other good reasons are a decrease in weight and drag and improved
ground handling capability.
Bertie-

Benefits of the Tx. Taildragger included;

- More prop clearance
- Nose wheel shimmey eliminated
- Easier to check & fill tanks
- Quick change gear in case of damage
- Easier and quicker inspections
- Tri gear to tailwheel within hours (after initial installation)
- Accepted ski and pontoon installations
- Required less hangar space
- Lower maintenance costs
- More training opportunities
- Less drag so more fuel effecient
- Increased resale value
- Fewer parts than any 150, 152, 172 tailwheel mod.
- No spin restrictions
- Speed increase of 10 mph
- Rate of climb increase of 65 fpm
- Useful load increase of 10 lbs.
- Higher service ceiling
- Improved rough field handling
- Shorter takeoff distance

Adding a 150 or 180 hp Lycoming with long range tanks to this made an
incredible little aircraft.

Ricky

How does it make the 150 " - Required less hangar space"? Please
explain.

Wil

Ricky wrote in
:

On Jan 9, 1:45*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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

Bertie-

Benefits of the Tx. Taildragger included;

- More prop clearance
- Nose wheel shimmey eliminated
- Easier to check & fill tanks
- Quick change gear in case of damage
- Easier and quicker inspections
- Tri gear to tailwheel within hours (after initial installation)
- Accepted ski and pontoon installations
- Required less hangar space
- Lower maintenance costs
- More training opportunities
- Less drag so more fuel effecient
- Increased resale value
- Fewer parts than any 150, 152, 172 tailwheel mod.
- No spin restrictions
- Speed increase of 10 mph
- Rate of climb increase of 65 fpm
- Useful load increase of 10 lbs.
- Higher service ceiling
- Improved rough field handling
- Shorter takeoff distance

Adding a 150 or 180 hp Lycoming with long range tanks to this made an
incredible little aircraft.


MM, agreed. It's pretty much just going back the original C140A

Bertie

William Hung wrote in
:

On Jan 9, 4:45*pm, Ricky wrote:
On Jan 9, 1:45*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, two other good reasons are a decrease in weight and drag and
impro
ved
ground handling capability.
Bertie-

Benefits of the Tx. Taildragger included;

- More prop clearance
- Nose wheel shimmey eliminated
- Easier to check & fill tanks
- Quick change gear in case of damage
- Easier and quicker inspections
- Tri gear to tailwheel within hours (after initial installation)
- Accepted ski and pontoon installations
- Required less hangar space
- Lower maintenance costs
- More training opportunities
- Less drag so more fuel effecient
- Increased resale value
- Fewer parts than any 150, 152, 172 tailwheel mod.
- No spin restrictions
- Speed increase of 10 mph
- Rate of climb increase of 65 fpm
- Useful load increase of 10 lbs.
- Higher service ceiling
- Improved rough field handling
- Shorter takeoff distance

Adding a 150 or 180 hp Lycoming with long range tanks to this made an
incredible little aircraft.

Ricky

How does it make the 150 " - Required less hangar space"? Please
explain.

Well, it is a bit easier to get a taildragger into a tight spot for
several reasons. You can manuever them a little easier.
You can tuck them in a bit tighter since stabs and such fit a little
more easily under other aircraft's wings and the total height of th
eairplane is a little lower, so if you've got a height problem with your
hangar, you can lop a foot or so off the height requirement.

Bertie

On Jan 9, 3:52*pm, William Hung wrote:

How does it make the 150 " - Required less hangar space"? *Please
explain.

Wil

What Bertie said...you can tuck the backside in under other airplanes
and the whole aircraft was a bit shorter with moving the mains forward
and adding the tailwheel.
When I got into flying I used to wonder how it took less hangar space,
too.

Ricky