Texas Taildraggers

I'm looking to buy one. They are around, but the market is small
enough tat determining market value is difficult. Compared to a
similarly equipped, same-year unmodified 150, what should the price
difference be?

Ari.

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

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote in message
...
I'm looking to buy one. They are around, but the market is small
enough tat determining market value is difficult. Compared to a
similarly equipped, same-year unmodified 150, what should the price
difference be?

Ari.



Here's a link to several for sale.

http://www.taildraggerclub.org/tdc/ttd/ttdlinks.html

Personally, I like the Cessna 140 better.

"Robert M. Gary" writes:

Personally, I like the Cessna 140 better.

Why's that?

Ari.

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

Since the 150 was never intended to be a conventional gear airplane,
the rudder is a little small.

That's why the 140 is probably a better tailwheel airplane.

Bill Hale

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

That's why the 140 is probably a better tailwheel airplane.

Bill Hale

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.. Then again, why
buy a fake when one can buy the original. Many 120 and 140s have had O-200s
installed and they quite handily out perform a 150 nose wheel or otherwise.

"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.