Skycather's not TOO ugly, just needs tailwheel

On Jan 8, 10:11*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote :





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



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

CH701 or 801 would be good also, but they're not rags. Surprised you
didn't include the SuperCub or any Cubs.

Wil

William Hung wrote in
:

On Jan 8, 10:11*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote
innews:98018895-9e63-4c81-bf3d-bca4
:





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



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

CH701 or 801 would be good also, but they're not rags. Surprised you
didn't include the SuperCub or any Cubs.

Also Good, but very expensive these days. Also was comparing like with
like. You can camp in a Bearhawk. Sport aviation has an article in a
recent issue about one. Nice airplane. Pacers are cheap and under rated.
Anyhow, got a Citabria and that will do me for a while.

Bertie

Not Many...
Husky
Cub Crafters
Legend Cub

BT

wrote in message
...
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, 10:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote :





On Jan 8, 10:11*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote
innews:98018895-9e63-4c81-bf3d-bca4
:

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

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

CH701 or 801 would be good also, but they're not rags. *Surprised you
didn't include the SuperCub or any Cubs.

Also Good, but very expensive these days. Also was comparing like with
like. You can camp in a Bearhawk. Sport aviation has an article in a
recent issue about one. Nice airplane. Pacers are cheap and under rated.
Anyhow, got a Citabria and that will do me for a while.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Citabrias are almost Cubs but better from what I have read. Have you
flown the Husky? That's supposed to be a better Cub too.

Bearhawks are $100k+ to complete aren't they?

Wil

On Jan 8, 9:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Anyhow, got a Citabria and that will do me for a while.

Bertie-

Citabria!
That's where I got my original tailwheel checkout at Le Tourneau
University. What a fantastic airplane! I had never had a stick in my
hand or flown a rag. I remember for a few seconds after my first
rotation I literally didn't have much control over the Citabria! The
stick was so strange, and I was already a commercial/instrument with
about 300 hrs at the time.
The school allowed no aerobatics but the Citabria was used for
tailwheel training. I loved that airplane so much, it was so much fun
to fly! I don't know why, though. It seemed ultra-responsive and the
stick was just way too cool. It was gentle & simple and within a few
touch & gos I was doing it all be myself. Within an hour I was doing
wheel landings and 3 pointers as well.
I've had a hunger to get back into a tailwheel rag for a while & it
started with this Citabria.

Ricky

William Hung wrote in
:

On Jan 8, 10:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote
innews:cceba3d5-e93a-4f53-ac95-5bd8
:





On Jan 8, 10:11*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote
innews:98018895-9e63-4c81-bf3d-bca4
:

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

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

CH701 or 801 would be good also, but they're not rags. *Surprised
you didn't include the SuperCub or any Cubs.

Also Good, but very expensive these days. Also was comparing like
with like. You can camp in a Bearhawk. Sport aviation has an article
in a recent issue about one. Nice airplane. Pacers are cheap and
under rated. Anyhow, got a Citabria and that will do me for a while.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Citabrias are almost Cubs but better from what I have read. Have you
flown the Husky? That's supposed to be a better Cub too.

Well, a Citabria won't fly as slowly or take off and land shorter than a
Super Cub with the same engine. On the other hand it is mildly
aerobatic. It's also a good bit roomier inside and is a little bit
faster. I've never flown a Citabria with flaps, but they're not supposed
to do much at all.

Bearhawks are $100k+ to complete aren't they?

Dunno, I won't be buidling one anyytime soon , but I would think you
could build one for about 30-40 from scratch.. Probably a lot less if
you are a good scrounger.


Bertie

Ricky wrote in news:f4a71a43-c210-46bb-90c2-
:

On Jan 8, 9:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Anyhow, got a Citabria and that will do me for a while.

Bertie-

Citabria!
That's where I got my original tailwheel checkout at Le Tourneau
University. What a fantastic airplane! I had never had a stick in my
hand or flown a rag. I remember for a few seconds after my first
rotation I literally didn't have much control over the Citabria! The
stick was so strange, and I was already a commercial/instrument with
about 300 hrs at the time.
The school allowed no aerobatics but the Citabria was used for
tailwheel training. I loved that airplane so much, it was so much fun
to fly! I don't know why, though. It seemed ultra-responsive and the
stick was just way too cool. It was gentle & simple and within a few
touch & gos I was doing it all be myself. Within an hour I was doing
wheel landings and 3 pointers as well.
I've had a hunger to get back into a tailwheel rag for a while & it
started with this Citabria.


Yeah. They're nice airplanes. Probably the most docile taildragger going
and you can go upside down as well!


Bertie

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.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

"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 oter god reasons are a decrease in weight and drag and improved
ground handling capability.


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


Bertie

"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