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

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

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.

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

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


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?


It's very anecdotal because with EX-HBs it's hard to know that they were
built the same. But there is one out there that started life as a trike
and was later converted to a conventional and it was slower.

In no case has any tail wheel 601XL owner reported speed faster than a
same engined tri-gear. It may be something with the 601XL but it's out
there. Nobody really thought there would be a speed boost with the tail
wheel but a reduction in speed surprised many.

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

On Jan 8, 2:40*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

There is one Mooney (F model I believe) out there that has a
tailwheel. Its a very interesting airplane. There is a picture of it
on the web somewhere but I'm not able to find it right now.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:96e9e0f1-48cc-4383-bbb0-
:

On Jan 8, 2:40*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

There is one Mooney (F model I believe) out there that has a
tailwheel. Its a very interesting airplane. There is a picture of it
on the web somewhere but I'm not able to find it right now.

Sounds pretty unlikely. Al Mooney designed everything "all of a piece" and
moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare. It's not a Cherokee!
He did design plenty of taildraggers, though, And retractable ones. all the
way back to the Alexander Bullet.
Maybe someone with a strong engineering bent modified one but it would have
been unbelievably time consuming.

Bertie

On Jan 10, 12:06*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Sounds pretty unlikely. Al Mooney designed everything "all of a piece" and
moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare. It's not a Cherokee!
He did design plenty of taildraggers, though, And retractable ones. all the
way back to the Alexander Bullet.
Maybe someone with a strong engineering bent modified one but it would have
been unbelievably time consuming.

The owner reported that it took him 300 hours to do the conversion. I
believe he lives in Napa. He may have taken the picture off his
website but it was a hot topic on the Mooney list. The owner later
sold the plane, I'm not sure who owns it now.
-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 10, 12:06*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Sounds pretty unlikely. Al Mooney designed everything "all of a
piece" and

moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare. It's not a
Cherokee! He did design plenty of taildraggers, though, And
retractable ones. all th
e
way back to the Alexander Bullet.
Maybe someone with a strong engineering bent modified one but it
would hav
e
been unbelievably time consuming.

The owner reported that it took him 300 hours to do the conversion. I
believe he lives in Napa. He may have taken the picture off his
website but it was a hot topic on the Mooney list. The owner later
sold the plane, I'm not sure who owns it now.


Jesus. It still had retracts? I don't think that's an airplane I'd like to
own... Kind of a pity the factory didn't do one, though.

Bertie