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
>

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

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

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.

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

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

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
>

On Jan 9, 1:45*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Well, two other good reasons are a decrease in weight and drag and improved
> ground handling capability.

> Bertie-

Benefits of the Tx. Taildragger included;

- More prop clearance
- Nose wheel shimmey eliminated
- Easier to check & fill tanks
- Quick change gear in case of damage
- Easier and quicker inspections
- Tri gear to tailwheel within hours (after initial installation)
- Accepted ski and pontoon installations
- Required less hangar space
- Lower maintenance costs
- More training opportunities
- Less drag so more fuel effecient
- Increased resale value
- Fewer parts than any 150, 152, 172 tailwheel mod.
- No spin restrictions
- Speed increase of 10 mph
- Rate of climb increase of 65 fpm
- Useful load increase of 10 lbs.
- Higher service ceiling
- Improved rough field handling
- Shorter takeoff distance

Adding a 150 or 180 hp Lycoming with long range tanks to this made an
incredible little aircraft.

Ricky

On Jan 9, 4:45*pm, Ricky > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 1:45*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > Well, two other good reasons are a decrease in weight and drag and improved
> > ground handling capability.
> > Bertie-
>
> Benefits of the Tx. Taildragger included;
>
> - More prop clearance
> - Nose wheel shimmey eliminated
> - Easier to check & fill tanks
> - Quick change gear in case of damage
> - Easier and quicker inspections
> - Tri gear to tailwheel within hours (after initial installation)
> - Accepted ski and pontoon installations
> - Required less hangar space
> - Lower maintenance costs
> - More training opportunities
> - Less drag so more fuel effecient
> - Increased resale value
> - Fewer parts than any 150, 152, 172 tailwheel mod.
> - No spin restrictions
> - Speed increase of 10 mph
> - Rate of climb increase of 65 fpm
> - Useful load increase of 10 lbs.
> - Higher service ceiling
> - Improved rough field handling
> - Shorter takeoff distance
>
> Adding a 150 or 180 hp Lycoming with long range tanks to this made an
> incredible little aircraft.
>
> Ricky

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

Wil

Ricky > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 1:45*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Well, two other good reasons are a decrease in weight and drag and
>> improve
> d
>> ground handling capability.
>
>> Bertie-
>
> Benefits of the Tx. Taildragger included;
>
> - More prop clearance
> - Nose wheel shimmey eliminated
> - Easier to check & fill tanks
> - Quick change gear in case of damage
> - Easier and quicker inspections
> - Tri gear to tailwheel within hours (after initial installation)
> - Accepted ski and pontoon installations
> - Required less hangar space
> - Lower maintenance costs
> - More training opportunities
> - Less drag so more fuel effecient
> - Increased resale value
> - Fewer parts than any 150, 152, 172 tailwheel mod.
> - No spin restrictions
> - Speed increase of 10 mph
> - Rate of climb increase of 65 fpm
> - Useful load increase of 10 lbs.
> - Higher service ceiling
> - Improved rough field handling
> - Shorter takeoff distance
>
> Adding a 150 or 180 hp Lycoming with long range tanks to this made an
> incredible little aircraft.


MM, agreed. It's pretty much just going back the original C140A

Bertie

William Hung > wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 4:45*pm, Ricky > wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 1:45*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > Well, two other good reasons are a decrease in weight and drag and
>> > impro
> ved
>> > ground handling capability.
>> > Bertie-
>>
>> Benefits of the Tx. Taildragger included;
>>
>> - More prop clearance
>> - Nose wheel shimmey eliminated
>> - Easier to check & fill tanks
>> - Quick change gear in case of damage
>> - Easier and quicker inspections
>> - Tri gear to tailwheel within hours (after initial installation)
>> - Accepted ski and pontoon installations
>> - Required less hangar space
>> - Lower maintenance costs
>> - More training opportunities
>> - Less drag so more fuel effecient
>> - Increased resale value
>> - Fewer parts than any 150, 152, 172 tailwheel mod.
>> - No spin restrictions
>> - Speed increase of 10 mph
>> - Rate of climb increase of 65 fpm
>> - Useful load increase of 10 lbs.
>> - Higher service ceiling
>> - Improved rough field handling
>> - Shorter takeoff distance
>>
>> Adding a 150 or 180 hp Lycoming with long range tanks to this made an
>> incredible little aircraft.
>>
>> Ricky
>
> How does it make the 150 "> - Required less hangar space"? Please
> explain.

Well, it is a bit easier to get a taildragger into a tight spot for
several reasons. You can manuever them a little easier.
You can tuck them in a bit tighter since stabs and such fit a little
more easily under other aircraft's wings and the total height of th
eairplane is a little lower, so if you've got a height problem with your
hangar, you can lop a foot or so off the height requirement.

Bertie

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

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
>

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:40:44 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> 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?

The glass is structural. The tubing is a sort of "cage" around just the cabin
area...it includes the wing and strut attach points, the pickup points for the
engine mount, the seat mounting, and the main and nose gear attach points.

http://www.wanttaja.com/glastar.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

On Jan 9, 6:40 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> 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

The steel structure ends immediately aft of the seats, with a
couple of struts running to the tailcone above the rear windows where
the compositie structure is a bit light.

Dan

On Jan 9, 8:44 pm, wrote:
> > 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.

Pictures here:
http://www.glasairaviation.com/kitcontentglastar.html

You can see the structure ending immediately aft of the forward
cabin. There are a couple of brackets attached to the composite shell,
just aft of the windows, where the struts from the cagewill go. The
struts aren't installed in the picture.

Dan

"BT" > wrote in message
...
> Not Many...
> Husky
> Cub Crafters
> Legend Cub
>

All crap airplanes fjukkwit. Real pilots wouldnt touch them

Bertie
> 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
>
>

"Ricky" > wrote in message
...
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.

And I am always right.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
:

>
> "Ricky" > wrote in message
> ...
> 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.
>
> And I am always right.
>
>
> Bertie
>

True.


Bertie


Hey, I might take the rest of the day off!

Bertie

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

>
> The glass is structural. *The tubing is a sort of "cage" around just the cabin
> area...it includes the wing and strut attach points, the pickup points for the
> engine mount, the seat mounting, and the main and nose gear attach points.
>
> http://www.wanttaja.com/glastar.jpg
>
> Ron Wanttaja

That's right, I forgot!

Doh!

> * * You can see the structure ending immediately aft of the forward
> cabin. There are a couple of brackets attached to the composite shell,
> just aft of the windows, where the struts from the cagewill go. The
> struts aren't installed in the picture.
>
> * * * * * Dan

So, what happens to these composites when they crash? There are a lot
of composites these days, and a bunch of LSA composites.

I imagine that stuff shattering on hard impact cutting the passengers
into tiny shreads. Or at least cutting them up really bad.

But maybe they do really well. Anyone got some facts on it?

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

wrote in news:9a6dc13d-0a34-4154-84ba-
:

>> * * You can see the structure ending immediately aft of the forward
>> cabin. There are a couple of brackets attached to the composite shell,
>> just aft of the windows, where the struts from the cagewill go. The
>> struts aren't installed in the picture.
>>
>> * * * * * Dan
>
> So, what happens to these composites when they crash? There are a lot
> of composites these days, and a bunch of LSA composites.
>
> I imagine that stuff shattering on hard impact cutting the passengers
> into tiny shreads. Or at least cutting them up really bad.
>
> But maybe they do really well. Anyone got some facts on it?
>
>
>
>

FRom what I've read, they're not so good in a crash. Wood is supposed to be
even worse, with aluminum considerably better and all bested by good old
fashioned steel tubing.


Bertie

"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
>

On 2008-01-11, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:9a6dc13d-0a34-4154-84ba-
> :
>> I imagine that stuff shattering on hard impact cutting the passengers
>> into tiny shreads. Or at least cutting them up really bad.
> FRom what I've read, they're not so good in a crash. Wood is supposed to be
> even worse, with aluminum considerably better and all bested by good old
> fashioned steel tubing.

I dunno how they are in general, but my roommate's dad crashed his Quickie,
and said that it looked like one of those styrofoam beer coolers that had
been hit ont he freeway: lots and lots of tiny little pieces.

He wasn't hurt too badly, however; biggest problems were fractures to the
left kneecap and heel.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-01-11, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:9a6dc13d-0a34-4154-84ba-
>> :
>>> I imagine that stuff shattering on hard impact cutting the
>>> passengers into tiny shreads. Or at least cutting them up really
>>> bad.
>> FRom what I've read, they're not so good in a crash. Wood is supposed
>> to be even worse, with aluminum considerably better and all bested by
>> good old fashioned steel tubing.
>
> I dunno how they are in general, but my roommate's dad crashed his
> Quickie, and said that it looked like one of those styrofoam beer
> coolers that had been hit ont he freeway: lots and lots of tiny little
> pieces.
>
> He wasn't hurt too badly, however; biggest problems were fractures to
> the left kneecap and heel.

I only know what I've read in Sport Aviation and such about this. Some guys
in RAH would know for sure abou tthe statistics, though. I know someone who
had a bad one in a Long Eze and wlaked away from it. Engine failure and an
off runway landing. He skipped along the ground like a sled shedding pieces
of airplane as he went. He was bruised but OK. Anectdotal stuff doesn't
tell you much though, you have to look at like vs like. Steel tube is way
ahead of everything else, though. It absorbs energy better than
anything.Wood is supposed to be the worst.


Bertie

John Smith > wrote in news:jsmith-78B0CD.20190210012008
@news-server.columbus.rr.com:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Al Mooney designed everything "all of a piece" and
>> moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare.
>
> Why move just the landing gear when you can move the whole, one-piece
> Mooney wing?
>

Oh yeah, that'd solve the problem!
And bring up several hundred others!


Bertie

John Smith > wrote in news:jsmith-C04ACE.20235210012008
@news-server.columbus.rr.com:

>> 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.
>
> What I would like to see is the belly skin removed and a before and
> after image of the gear relocation.

I think therfe was a nice article of a straight tail 172 Texas taildragger
conversion in a recent Sport Aviation. The owner did it himself, I think .
Put a big engine in it, some STOL mods and had a poor man's 180. looked
pretty cool and he did a real nice job on it.


Bertie

On Jan 10, 5:19*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> In article >,
> *Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > Al Mooney designed everything "all of a piece" and
> > moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare.
>
> Why move just the landing gear when you can move the whole, one-piece
> Mooney wing?

I'm still trying to locate the picture. Perhaps he move thed tail
assembly back enough to set the CG aft of the mains?
Unlike a 172, the CG is not close to the mains normally though, its
pretty far forward. In a 172 you have to be careful if a couple big
guys climb in the back that the tail doesn't hit the ground before the
pilot gets in. I"ve never seen this tendancy in my Mooney.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:962c9f34-b1c0-4b4c-8a3d-
:

> On Jan 10, 5:19*pm, John Smith > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> *Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > Al Mooney designed everything "all of a piece" and
>> > moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare.
>>
>> Why move just the landing gear when you can move the whole, one-piece
>> Mooney wing?
>
> I'm still trying to locate the picture. Perhaps he move thed tail
> assembly back enough to set the CG aft of the mains?
> Unlike a 172, the CG is not close to the mains normally though, its
> pretty far forward. In a 172 you have to be careful if a couple big
> guys climb in the back that the tail doesn't hit the ground before the
> pilot gets in. I"ve never seen this tendancy in my Mooney.

You've got to give me some clues to finding pics of this thing. So far I've
only found mooneys for sale at soeme site called tailwheel.com and a lot of
irrelevent stuff.
Strangely, no porn sites, though. Guess there aren't any porn stars named
Mooney. You'd have thought the tailwheel bit might have hit a few, though.

Bertie

On Jan 10, 6:48 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jan 10, 5:19 pm, John Smith > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > Al Mooney designed everything "all of a piece" and
> > > moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare.
>
> > Why move just the landing gear when you can move the whole, one-piece
> > Mooney wing?
>
> I'm still trying to locate the picture. Perhaps he move thed tail
> assembly back enough to set the CG aft of the mains?
> Unlike a 172, the CG is not close to the mains normally though, its
> pretty far forward. In a 172 you have to be careful if a couple big
> guys climb in the back that the tail doesn't hit the ground before the
> pilot gets in. I"ve never seen this tendancy in my Mooney.
>
> -Robert

Shifting the CG by lengthening the tail or adding weight
will put the airplane's balance in a lethal condition. Main gear
wheels are located with reference to the CG, not the other way 'round.
A taildragger will have its mains roughly 15° ahead of the CG (which,
of course, requires that you know the vertical CG as well as the
longitudinal) in the level flight attitude. The axles will normally be
very close to being directly under the leading edge of the wing, a
long way ahead of the mains on a kiddy-plane--oops, I mean a trike.

Dan

On Jan 10, 6:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jay Maynard > wrote om:
>
>
>
> > On 2008-01-11, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in news:9a6dc13d-0a34-4154-84ba-
> >> :
> >>> I imagine that stuff shattering on hard impact cutting the
> >>> passengers into tiny shreads. Or at least cutting them up really
> >>> bad.
> >> FRom what I've read, they're not so good in a crash. Wood is supposed
> >> to be even worse, with aluminum considerably better and all bested by
> >> good old fashioned steel tubing.
>
> > I dunno how they are in general, but my roommate's dad crashed his
> > Quickie, and said that it looked like one of those styrofoam beer
> > coolers that had been hit ont he freeway: lots and lots of tiny little
> > pieces.
>
> > He wasn't hurt too badly, however; biggest problems were fractures to
> > the left kneecap and heel.
>
> I only know what I've read in Sport Aviation and such about this. Some guys
> in RAH would know for sure abou tthe statistics, though. I know someone who
> had a bad one in a Long Eze and wlaked away from it. Engine failure and an
> off runway landing. He skipped along the ground like a sled shedding pieces
> of airplane as he went. He was bruised but OK. Anectdotal stuff doesn't
> tell you much though, you have to look at like vs like. Steel tube is way
> ahead of everything else, though. It absorbs energy better than
> anything.Wood is supposed to be the worst.
>
> Bertie
I've read of at least one guy who crashed his tube-and-rag affair
while doing an aerobatic routine at an airshow, and the medics had to
hacksaw him out of the wreck. He'd been pierced by a few chunks of
busted tubing.
I don't think there's any ideal construction. They all have
their shortcomings. Best not to crash them at all:-)

Dan

wrote in
:

> On Jan 10, 6:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jay Maynard > wrote
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 2008-01-11, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote in news:9a6dc13d-0a34-4154-84ba-
>> >> :
>> >>> I imagine that stuff shattering on hard impact cutting the
>> >>> passengers into tiny shreads. Or at least cutting them up really
>> >>> bad.
>> >> FRom what I've read, they're not so good in a crash. Wood is
>> >> supposed to be even worse, with aluminum considerably better and
>> >> all bested by good old fashioned steel tubing.
>>
>> > I dunno how they are in general, but my roommate's dad crashed his
>> > Quickie, and said that it looked like one of those styrofoam beer
>> > coolers that had been hit ont he freeway: lots and lots of tiny
>> > little pieces.
>>
>> > He wasn't hurt too badly, however; biggest problems were fractures
>> > to the left kneecap and heel.
>>
>> I only know what I've read in Sport Aviation and such about this.
>> Some guys in RAH would know for sure abou tthe statistics, though. I
>> know someone who had a bad one in a Long Eze and wlaked away from it.
>> Engine failure and an off runway landing. He skipped along the ground
>> like a sled shedding pieces of airplane as he went. He was bruised
>> but OK. Anectdotal stuff doesn't tell you much though, you have to
>> look at like vs like. Steel tube is way ahead of everything else,
>> though. It absorbs energy better than anything.Wood is supposed to be
>> the worst.
>>
>> Bertie
> I've read of at least one guy who crashed his tube-and-rag affair
> while doing an aerobatic routine at an airshow, and the medics had to
> hacksaw him out of the wreck. He'd been pierced by a few chunks of
> busted tubing.
> I don't think there's any ideal construction. They all have
> their shortcomings. Best not to crash them at all:-)

Oh definitely. But tube structures absorb the impact as near perfectly
as is. That accident probably would have been even harder on the guys
body had he been in a wood airplane. I know of a few ( Stampes, for
instance) that are notorious for collapsing around the pits.
As i said, anectdotal stuff is next to useless. I thnk I have figures
somewhere, probably in an EAA publication. I'll keep an eye out for it
next time I'm rummaging


Bertie

On Jan 10, 6:17*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 10, 6:48 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 5:19 pm, John Smith > wrote:
>
> > > In article >,
> > > *Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > > Al Mooney designed everything "all of a piece" and
> > > > moving retracts forward in one would be a nightmare.
>
> > > Why move just the landing gear when you can move the whole, one-piece
> > > Mooney wing?
>
> > I'm still trying to locate the picture. Perhaps he move thed tail
> > assembly back enough to set the CG aft of the mains?
> > Unlike a 172, the CG is not close to the mains normally though, its
> > pretty far forward. In a 172 you have to be careful if a couple big
> > guys climb in the back that the tail doesn't hit the ground before the
> > pilot gets in. I"ve never seen this tendancy in my Mooney.
>
> > -Robert
>
> * * * * * *Shifting the CG by lengthening the tail or adding weight
> will put the airplane's balance in a lethal condition. Main gear
> wheels are located with reference to the CG, not the other way 'round.
> A taildragger will have its mains roughly 15° ahead of the CG (which,
> of course, requires that you know the vertical CG as well as the
> longitudinal) in the level flight attitude. The axles will normally be
> very close to being directly under the leading edge of the wing, a
> long way ahead of the mains on a kiddy-plane--oops, I mean a trike.

Its not clear if the individual in question put as much thought into
the design you have or not. The only claim is that it flew and flew at
least regularly enough to appear at some Mooney events. There is no
claim that it flew well or necessarily even safely.

-Robert

On Jan 10, 7:27*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> John Smith > wrote in news:jsmith-C04ACE.20235210012008
> @news-server.columbus.rr.com:
>
> >> 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.
>
> > What I would like to see is the belly skin removed and a before and
> > after image of the gear relocation.
>
> I think therfe was a nice article of a straight tail 172 Texas taildragger
> conversion in a recent Sport Aviation. The owner did it himself, I think .
> Put a big engine in it, some STOL mods and had a poor man's 180. looked
> pretty cool and he did a real nice job on it.
>
> Bertie

If you can tell me the issue of Sport Aviation this is in I would be
very interested in obtaining it.

Thanks,

Ricky

Ricky > wrote in
:

> On Jan 10, 7:27*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> John Smith > wrote in
>> news:jsmith-C04ACE.20235210012008 @news-server.columbus.rr.com:
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> > What I would like to see is the belly skin removed and a before and
>> > after image of the gear relocation.
>>
>> I think therfe was a nice article of a straight tail 172 Texas
>> taildragger
>
>> conversion in a recent Sport Aviation. The owner did it himself, I
>> think .
>
>> Put a big engine in it, some STOL mods and had a poor man's 180.
>> looked pretty cool and he did a real nice job on it.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> If you can tell me the issue of Sport Aviation this is in I would be
> very interested in obtaining it.

Last couple of months. Dec or Nov, I think. I have this months (jan) next
to me and it's not in there. I'll have a look.


Bertie

On 2008-01-09, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
[back country camping]
> 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.

An Auster Autocrat upgraded to 160 hp works really well for that too :-)
With no glider in tow, ours gets airborne using very, very little
runway. If the Atlantic wasn't in the way I'd take ours to Idaho for a
bit.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On Jan 11, 4:39 am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-01-09, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> [back country camping]
>
> > 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.
>
> An Auster Autocrat upgraded to 160 hp works really well for that too :-)
> With no glider in tow, ours gets airborne using very, very little
> runway. If the Atlantic wasn't in the way I'd take ours to Idaho for a
> bit.
>
> --
> From the sunny Isle of Man.
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

I once owned an Auster AOP VI. Fantastic short-field
performance. I miss that airplane.

Dan

I'm still looking for that 172 article! It wasn't the Nov issue anyway...

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:48:33 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

> I would expect that the composite construction would make
>it much harder to convert. No hard points and difficult to retrofit
>them.

What composite construction. The Skycatcher is an aluminum airplane,
except for the composite engine cowling.

Really, it's a warmed over C-150 (which is itself a warmed over C-140)
with reduced gross weight to meet the LSA restrictions. I can't
imagine spending over 100 big ones on it.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never entertain wicked thoughts...Wicked thoughts entertain me.

On 2008-01-19, Dana M Hague <> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:48:33 -0800 (PST),
> What composite construction. The Skycatcher is an aluminum airplane,
> except for the composite engine cowling.

Indeed.

> Really, it's a warmed over C-150 (which is itself a warmed over C-140)
> with reduced gross weight to meet the LSA restrictions. I can't
> imagine spending over 100 big ones on it.

Not to mention waiting till 2011, as the Cessna sales rep told me today...
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390