Skycather's not TOO ugly, just needs tailwheel

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.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote in
:

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.

OK, not that I didn;t believe you, BTW, all sorts of strange things happen
when you start shifting things around.

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.

Mmmm. surprises me. A large CG change could do it, though.


Bertie

On Jan 9, 5:34*pm, Ricky wrote:
On Jan 9, 3:52*pm, William Hung wrote:

How does it make the 150 " - Required less hangar space"? *Please
explain.
Wil

What Bertie said...you can tuck the backside in under other airplanes
and the whole aircraft was a bit shorter with moving the mains forward
and adding the tailwheel.
When I got into flying I used to wonder how it took less hangar space,
too.

Ricky

OK, that certainly explains it.

Wil

On Jan 8, 6:53 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

We did a Glastar in the taildragger configuration. It has a
steel-tube frame inside it, to which the wings, gear, engine mount all
attach. Converting it from a trike, say, involves taking the nosegear
strut out of its socket in that frame and turfing it, and moving the
mains forward into another set of sockets already there. The tailwheel
bolts through hard points in the aft tailcone.

Dan

On Jan 9, 6:35 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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.

We have a 7ECA (no flaps) and a 7GCBC (flaps). Give me the flapped
airplane every time. The landing speeds are considerably lower, even
lower than the POH claims, while the unflapped Citabria lands pretty
fast. But that flapped airplane is more of a handful in crosswinds.

Dan

wrote in news:5d010219-865f-4d06-a28e-
:

We did a Glastar in the taildragger configuration. It has a
steel-tube frame inside it, to which the wings, gear, engine mount all
attach. Converting it from a trike, say, involves taking the nosegear
strut out of its socket in that frame and turfing it, and moving the
mains forward into another set of sockets already there. The tailwheel
bolts through hard points in the aft tailcone.


Is the glass at all structural, or does the steel tubing extend to the
tail?

Bertie

wrote in news:554bed84-80e6-4826-9402-
:

On Jan 9, 6:35 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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.

We have a 7ECA (no flaps) and a 7GCBC (flaps). Give me the flapped
airplane every time. The landing speeds are considerably lower, even
lower than the POH claims, while the unflapped Citabria lands pretty
fast. But that flapped airplane is more of a handful in crosswinds.

Yeah, I do remember the Citabrias I've flown in the past as floaters. It
wasn't an issue anwhere I've flown them before, but the new field is about
1360 feet long, so we'll have to be fairly sharp..


Bertie

On Jan 9, 8:46*pm, John Smith wrote:
Ricky, are there any photos/drawings/diagrams that show the landing gear
relocation?
Is there an existing second gear box forward of the original location on
which to mount the new gear?
I have seen the mod on aircraft, but I have never seen how it is
accomplished.

I have lots of photos, especially of the 1959 C-150 (immaculately
restored to showroom cond by my dad) with the tailwheel, 180 horses &
long range tanks that I sold after my dad passed away. His special
tail # was 59150 to desgnate the first year Cessna rolled the 150 off
the lines. This beautiful airplane was regretfully sold because mom
needed the money. It was the 3rd or 4th 150 ever made, too. The photos
are for Trade-A-Plane but I can't get them to the web right now.
I found a few on the web. Here's one that made a world speed record!
http://www.cessna150-152.com/figuli.htm This particular 150 is with
the Tx. Taildragger and shows the gear location change really well.

I also have lots of plans & drawings that went along with the kits,
including marketing material.

Yes, a new gearbox was constructed along with an additional bulkhead
at the new gear location. A gearbox was also built for the tailwheel.
My dad liked to brag on the simplicity of his kits compared to others.
Once the new boxes were installed conversion to taildragger & back to
nosegear took only a few hours for an A&P.

If the above photo is not enough let me know & I'll hunt for some
more. I have lot's of pictures of various 150s, 152s & 172s with all
the mods but my scanner is inop at the moment.

http://www.cessna150-152.com/figuli.htm

Ricky

Is the glass at all structural, or does the steel tubing extend to the
tail?

Bertie

I think all the way to the tail. Met a glastar rep on the ramp once.
He gave me their promo DVD for the Sportsman. II found the plane very
appealing because it was about a hour (2 max) of work to go from trike
to tail dragger with two people. The DVD shows the operation -- it is
really cleverly engineered.

It's a pretty fast bugger, too, for being able to land all over the
place. Tundra tires!

Does cost a lot though. Another dream not happening

wrote in news:4b4b1971-e454-4d56-957a-
:

Is the glass at all structural, or does the steel tubing extend to the
tail?

Bertie

I think all the way to the tail. Met a glastar rep on the ramp once.
He gave me their promo DVD for the Sportsman. II found the plane very
appealing because it was about a hour (2 max) of work to go from trike
to tail dragger with two people. The DVD shows the operation -- it is
really cleverly engineered.

It's a pretty fast bugger, too, for being able to land all over the
place. Tundra tires!


Yeah, I remember seeing pics of it on tundra tires. They were appearing
like mad in SA for a while. Saw one at an airshow a little while back. Til
prefer a ragbag though!


Does cost a lot though. Another dream not happening

Well, that's the other thing about an airplane like that..

Bertie