Texas Taildraggers

"Dave Stadt" writes:

wrote in message
oups.com...
Since the 150 was never intended to be a conventional gear airplane,
the rudder is a little small.

And the TT looks really goofey with those short gear legs and short prop.
An early 150 converted to a tail dragger with 140 gear legs looks much
better and gets the prop up in the air where it belongs..

I hear that straight-tail 150's do better as taildraggers than
swept-tail ones. Is that true?

Ari.

--
Elections only count as free and trials as fair if you can lose money
betting on the outcome.

The TT's gear is the original gear moved forward, so that its
deck angle on the ground is shallow; that raises takeoff and landing
speeds since you can't get the nose higher. Besides, I've flown several
aircraft that use O-200s and I still can't figure out where all that
power goes in a 150. The other airplanes perform much better. Old
straight-tail, no-back-window 150s were faster, lighter and better
overall performers; I think the sharp profile change needed when they
stuck that window in must have hurt the airplane.
Find a real taildragger.

Dan

Try a Maule - you can drag tail and carry stuff too!

wrote:
The TT's gear is the original gear moved forward, so that its
deck angle on the ground is shallow; that raises takeoff and landing
speeds since you can't get the nose higher. Besides, I've flown several
aircraft that use O-200s and I still can't figure out where all that
power goes in a 150. The other airplanes perform much better. Old
straight-tail, no-back-window 150s were faster, lighter and better
overall performers; I think the sharp profile change needed when they
stuck that window in must have hurt the airplane.
Find a real taildragger.

Dan

Maule Driver writes:

Try a Maule - you can drag tail and carry stuff too!

Quite a bit more expensive, aren't they? Plus you have to deal with
fabric... It would be nice to have the gross weight, but I don't
really need it in 85% of my flying.

Ari.

--
Elections only count as free and trials as fair if you can lose money
betting on the outcome.

K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:

Quite a bit more expensive, aren't they?

The cheapest flyable ones will definitely cost you more than a TT 150. The
fabric is not a problem if the paint was properly chosen and applied, but you
never know if that's the case.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

George Patterson writes:

K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:
Quite a bit more expensive, aren't they?

The cheapest flyable ones will definitely cost you more than a TT
150. The fabric is not a problem if the paint was properly chosen and
applied, but you never know if that's the case.

I'm buying my first airplane, so bear with me. Where I live, hangar
space is tough to come by (SF Bay area). I was under the impression
that it's not a good idea to keep a fabric airplane outside, so I
figured an all-metal TT would work better.

Also, I've never flown a Maule. Is anybody in NorCal willing to give
me a ride if I pay for gas?

Ari.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to

....fish and you'll be hearing about non-renewable resources for the
rest of your life.

--
Elections only count as free and trials as fair if you can lose money
betting on the outcome.

K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:

I was under the impression
that it's not a good idea to keep a fabric airplane outside, so I
figured an all-metal TT would work better.

Aircraft used to be covered with linen or cotton. That would be painted with
"dope" to keep air from passing through the weave. Both of these fabrics will
last a long time if hangared and rot if left outside. The rot time varies
depending on ambient weather conditions. I personally know of one J-3 Piper
still flying with an immaculate 30-year-old cotton skin. Been hangared since the
cover job.

Modern fabric-covered aircraft use synthetics such as Ceconite (AKA Polyfiber)
or Razorback. Ceconite will deteriorate when exposed to UV rays, so the aircraft
are carefully painted to prevent this. Two methods work. With both, you paint
the aircraft with primer coats of nitrate and butyrate dope. You can either
follow this with color coats of butyrate dope, or use color coats of
polyurethane. An aircraft covered in Ceconite and painted with either of these
methods can be kept outside. If the color coats are butyrate dope, the paint
must be "rejuvenated" about every 10 years, but this supposedly is true even if
the aircraft is hangared.

The problem with Maules is that, prior to 1996, the factory used enamel as the
color coat over a dope primer. Parts of the aircraft are fiberglass, some parts
are metal, and some are fabric. Dope doesn't last on bare metal and cracks on
fiberglass. Enamel shrinks and produces cracks and other problems in the fabric.
Most have been recovered, but who knows (I know of one '95 model that hasn't
been). The only real cure is to strip and recover and repaint the aircraft,
though some people have had success sanding the finish coat off and repainting.

Anyway. If you get a fabric aircraft that has a Ceconite or Polyfiber skin with
polyurethane applied over a dope base coat, you shouldn't have problems with
the fabric.

Corrosion is a different issue, but metal aircraft also have problems with this.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

George Patterson wrote:

K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:


Quite a bit more expensive, aren't they?


The cheapest flyable ones will definitely cost you more than a TT 150.
The fabric is not a problem if the paint was properly chosen and
applied, but you never know if that's the case.

If the Aviation Consumer reviews of Maule planes are any indication,
odss are good that it wasn't painted properly. That has been
consistently cited as a problem with Maules.

xyzzy wrote:

If the Aviation Consumer reviews of Maule planes are any indication,
odss are good that it wasn't painted properly. That has been
consistently cited as a problem with Maules.

Any Maule older than 1996 will not have been painted properly and any Maule made
in 1997 or '98 may not have been (Belford had odd ideas on the matter and the
factory used up old stocks of paint after he died in '95). The only question is
whether an older Maule has been repainted and, if so, how good that job was.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.