Skycather's not TOO ugly, just needs tailwheel

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

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 would make
it much harder to convert. No hard points and difficult to retrofit
them.
Not many folks building "real" airplanes any more.

Dan

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 would 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.

Wil

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

On Jan 8, 8:53*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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's the one. It had aluminum wings and 2+1 seating.

Wing.

William Hung wrote in news:bb1c9f98-c895-407d-8670-
:

Sounds like the Glastar.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's the one. It had aluminum wings and 2+1 seating.

Was supposed to be a pretty good airplane, too. Not cheap though.


Bertie

On Jan 8, 9:54*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:bb1c9f98-c895-407d-8670-
:



Sounds like the Glastar.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's the one. *It had aluminum wings and 2+1 seating.

Was supposed to be a pretty good airplane, too. Not cheap though.

Bertie

Great article on it in PM's Cotober '07 issue.

Wil

William Hung wrote in news:be77d163-9a42-40ce-a12d-
:

On Jan 8, 9:54*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:bb1c9f98-c895-407d-8670-
:



Sounds like the Glastar.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's the one. *It had aluminum wings and 2+1 seating.

Was supposed to be a pretty good airplane, too. Not cheap though.

Bertie

Great article on it in PM's Cotober '07 issue.

PM? Practical mechanics?

Not my cup of tea, though If I wanted a good solid airplane to get around
in I wouldn't throw it out of bed for eating crackers.



Bertie

On Jan 8, 10:04*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:be77d163-9a42-40ce-a12d-
:





On Jan 8, 9:54*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:bb1c9f98-c895-407d-8670-
:

Sounds like the Glastar.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's the one. *It had aluminum wings and 2+1 seating.

Was supposed to be a pretty good airplane, too. Not cheap though.

Bertie

Great article on it in PM's Cotober '07 issue.

PM? Practical mechanics?

Not my cup of tea, though If I wanted a good solid airplane to get around
in I wouldn't throw it out of bed for eating crackers.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Popular Mechanics. The author helped a buyer build his Glastar at the
factory finishing center. Then they went camping with it.

Wil

William Hung wrote in
:

On Jan 8, 10:04*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in
news:be77d163-9a42-40ce-a12d-
:





On Jan 8, 9:54*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in
news:bb1c9f98-c895-407d-8670-

:

Sounds like the Glastar.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's the one. *It had aluminum wings and 2+1 seating.

Was supposed to be a pretty good airplane, too. Not cheap though.

Bertie

Great article on it in PM's Cotober '07 issue.

PM? Practical mechanics?

Not my cup of tea, though If I wanted a good solid airplane to get
around in I wouldn't throw it out of bed for eating crackers.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Popular Mechanics. The author helped a buyer build his Glastar at the
factory finishing center. Then they went camping with it.


Nice. I think if I were to go for an airplane for that mission it would
be a bearhawk or even just an old Pacer.
I like rags.

Bertie