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.

K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:
>
> Quite a bit more expensive, aren't they?

The cheapest flyable ones will definitely cost you more than a TT 150. The
fabric is not a problem if the paint was properly chosen and applied, but you
never know if that's the case.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

George Patterson > writes:

> K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:
> > Quite a bit more expensive, aren't they?
>
> The cheapest flyable ones will definitely cost you more than a TT
> 150. The fabric is not a problem if the paint was properly chosen and
> applied, but you never know if that's the case.

I'm buying my first airplane, so bear with me. Where I live, hangar
space is tough to come by (SF Bay area). I was under the impression
that it's not a good idea to keep a fabric airplane outside, so I
figured an all-metal TT would work better.

Also, I've never flown a Maule. Is anybody in NorCal willing to give
me a ride if I pay for gas?

Ari.

> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to

....fish and you'll be hearing about non-renewable resources for the
rest of your life.

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

K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:
>
> I was under the impression
> that it's not a good idea to keep a fabric airplane outside, so I
> figured an all-metal TT would work better.

Aircraft used to be covered with linen or cotton. That would be painted with
"dope" to keep air from passing through the weave. Both of these fabrics will
last a long time if hangared and rot if left outside. The rot time varies
depending on ambient weather conditions. I personally know of one J-3 Piper
still flying with an immaculate 30-year-old cotton skin. Been hangared since the
cover job.

Modern fabric-covered aircraft use synthetics such as Ceconite (AKA Polyfiber)
or Razorback. Ceconite will deteriorate when exposed to UV rays, so the aircraft
are carefully painted to prevent this. Two methods work. With both, you paint
the aircraft with primer coats of nitrate and butyrate dope. You can either
follow this with color coats of butyrate dope, or use color coats of
polyurethane. An aircraft covered in Ceconite and painted with either of these
methods can be kept outside. If the color coats are butyrate dope, the paint
must be "rejuvenated" about every 10 years, but this supposedly is true even if
the aircraft is hangared.

The problem with Maules is that, prior to 1996, the factory used enamel as the
color coat over a dope primer. Parts of the aircraft are fiberglass, some parts
are metal, and some are fabric. Dope doesn't last on bare metal and cracks on
fiberglass. Enamel shrinks and produces cracks and other problems in the fabric.
Most have been recovered, but who knows (I know of one '95 model that hasn't
been). The only real cure is to strip and recover and repaint the aircraft,
though some people have had success sanding the finish coat off and repainting.

Anyway. If you get a fabric aircraft that has a Ceconite or Polyfiber skin with
polyurethane applied over a dope base coat, you shouldn't have problems with
the fabric.

Corrosion is a different issue, but metal aircraft also have problems with this.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

George Patterson > wrote:
: Anyway. If you get a fabric aircraft that has a Ceconite or Polyfiber skin with
: polyurethane applied over a dope base coat, you shouldn't have problems with
: the fabric.

: Corrosion is a different issue, but metal aircraft also have problems with this.

Just out of curiosity, if one were to learn the art of recovering so as to do
it oneself, what would a reasonable expense be to recover a bird like that? It seems
that so long as you know how to work on it, fabric planes aren't a big deal. In a lot
of ways, they're better than metal, since you can reasonable take the lid off and look
inside for corrosion.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

George Patterson wrote:

> K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:
>
>>
>> Quite a bit more expensive, aren't they?
>
>
> The cheapest flyable ones will definitely cost you more than a TT 150.
> The fabric is not a problem if the paint was properly chosen and
> applied, but you never know if that's the case.

If the Aviation Consumer reviews of Maule planes are any indication,
odss are good that it wasn't painted properly. That has been
consistently cited as a problem with Maules.

wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity, if one were to learn the art of recovering so as to do
> it oneself, what would a reasonable expense be to recover a bird like that?

I spoke with a fellow who redid his Champ. IIRC, his cost was a bit over $2,000.
A lot depends on whether you use bolts of fabric and glue the stuff directly to
the frame or buy pre-sewn envelopes. Maule glues the fabric onto the frame.

Maule Flight will charge you $12,000 for a strip and recover.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

xyzzy wrote:
>
> If the Aviation Consumer reviews of Maule planes are any indication,
> odss are good that it wasn't painted properly. That has been
> consistently cited as a problem with Maules.

Any Maule older than 1996 will not have been painted properly and any Maule made
in 1997 or '98 may not have been (Belford had odd ideas on the matter and the
factory used up old stocks of paint after he died in '95). The only question is
whether an older Maule has been repainted and, if so, how good that job was.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

George Patterson > wrote:

: I spoke with a fellow who redid his Champ. IIRC, his cost was a bit over $2,000.
: A lot depends on whether you use bolts of fabric and glue the stuff directly to
: the frame or buy pre-sewn envelopes. Maule glues the fabric onto the frame.

: Maule Flight will charge you $12,000 for a strip and recover.

... but then it must be painted as well, right Depending on how much of *that*
you do yourself, it could cost considerably more than the recovering.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

George Patterson > writes:

> xyzzy wrote:
> > If the Aviation Consumer reviews of Maule planes are any indication,
> > odss are good that it wasn't painted properly. That has been
> > consistently cited as a problem with Maules.
>
> Any Maule older than 1996 will not have been painted properly and any
> Maule made in 1997 or '98 may not have been (Belford had odd ideas on
> the matter and the factory used up old stocks of paint after he died
> in '95). The only question is whether an older Maule has been
> repainted and, if so, how good that job was.

I was going to spend <= $30k on a taildragger. Looking around, I don't
think a Maule of any vintage, repainted or not, would fit that budget,
unless I wanted to buy a project. A partnership could work, if I'd be
able to find a share for sale locally.

Ari.

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

George Patterson wrote:
> Maule Flight will charge you $12,000 for a strip and recover.

Is that without paint?

By the way, I have a '96 "we have them on sale" MX7180a model (actually
built in '95). Not the good paint (still doing it against the hangar
wall). Not the really bad (auto)paint. IOTW, it chips off slowly.

I love the damn thing if only I had the good paint

> I was going to spend <= $30k on a taildragger.

Your realistic options, if you want to stick to metal (and lacking a
hangar, I certainly would) are a C-120 or C-140 (many are now
all-metal), a Luscombe, a metallized short wing Piper (Pacer, Clipper,
etc - there are a few out there), and the oddball conversions. There
are C-150's and Yankees converted to tailwheel. There are also some
experimental options.

Other than just flying around (which all of them will do) what is your
actual mission profile?

Rough/short strips? Long trips? What made you choose the Texas
Taildragger to begin with?

Michael

wrote:
> George Patterson > wrote:
>
> : I spoke with a fellow who redid his Champ. IIRC, his cost was a bit over $2,000.
> : A lot depends on whether you use bolts of fabric and glue the stuff directly to
> : the frame or buy pre-sewn envelopes. Maule glues the fabric onto the frame.
>
> : Maule Flight will charge you $12,000 for a strip and recover.
>
> ... but then it must be painted as well, right Depending on how much of *that*
> you do yourself, it could cost considerably more than the recovering.

Both costs I quoted include painting. In the case of the Maule, $12,000 included
stripping paint from metal and fiberglass parts, removing the fabric, replacing
and silver-coating the fabric, priming the other parts of the aircraft, and
shooting with polyurethane color coats in a Maule standard paint scheme. That
cost was obtained from Rautgunde Maule at the AOPA Expo in Philadelphia some
years back, though. It might be higher today.

The guy that redid his Champ painted it with the not-so-accurate blue/yellow
military scheme. I don't remember what type of color coats he used. The gun he
was using appeared to me to be an older design (not HVLP).

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Maule Driver wrote:
>
> Is that without paint?

That's the whole job, paint and all. I got that price from Rautgunde several
years ago, though. It may have gone up. They also had a price of ~$15,000 for a
complete renovation.

> By the way, I have a '96 "we have them on sale" MX7180a model (actually
> built in '95). Not the good paint (still doing it against the hangar
> wall). Not the really bad (auto)paint. IOTW, it chips off slowly.

If I'd bought the 180, I might still have mine. On the other hand, the loan
would've been larger and I might have lost it all.

I found out what the paint scheme was from a Randolph representative at Oshkosh
several years ago. He said that Maule used the Ceconite process, which specifies
a coat of nitrate dope, followed by silver butyrate. He said they would add a
coat of white butyrate over the silver as a primer and then spray the enamel
over that. He said it was possible to sand off the color coats (the enamel) down
to the white dope primer or even down to the silver. Don't go into the silver
coat at all -- if you see it, stop. Once you get the enamel off of the fabric,
spray with butyrate rejuvenator. After that, you can apply either polyurethane
or butyrate top coats.

If you're plane is like mine was when I sold it, you can see patches of the
white butyrate where the color coats have flaked off of the horizontal stabilizer.

We did not discuss redoing the paint on the metal or fiberglass sections (unless
maybe he was recommending that technique for those sections too). I know that
the upper surfaces of my wings were badly peeled by the time I sold it, so
something would have to be done there. Since chemical paint strippers will melt
Ceconite in a heartbeat, I would consider something like bead-blasting.

Randolph made the paints Maule was using back then.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Michael" > writes:

> > I was going to spend <= $30k on a taildragger.
>
> Your realistic options, if you want to stick to metal (and lacking a
> hangar, I certainly would) are a C-120 or C-140 (many are now
> all-metal), a Luscombe, a metallized short wing Piper (Pacer, Clipper,
> etc - there are a few out there), and the oddball conversions. There
> are C-150's and Yankees converted to tailwheel. There are also some
> experimental options.
>
> Other than just flying around (which all of them will do) what is your
> actual mission profile?
>
> Rough/short strips? Long trips? What made you choose the Texas
> Taildragger to begin with?

I was going through my logbook, and I realized that 2/3 of my PIC time
over the last year was taking friends on tours of the SF Bay. I want a
taildragger because I want to up keep proficiency my, and because
they are more fun (e.i. fewer people have them). My thinking is that
anything I can rent, I'm better off renting than owning. That includes
1X2 Cessnas, Cherokee-derived Pipers and Citabrias.

I'm buying my first airplane; I want to make sure I don't bite off
more than I can chew in terms of TCO. I've never had to deal with
aircraft maintenance, and even though I wan to learn, my experience
right now is limited to clearing fouled plugs. As far as certified
taildraggers go, TTs are about the least demanding in maintenance,
parts and mechanics AFAICT, followed closely by 120/140. I also like
the side-by-side seating - nice when you're flying with a friend you
want to talk to, though not an absolute requirement. I should also
mention that I'm 6'5" (though skinny so I weigh the FAA-legal 170lbs)

I'm not set on a TT, it just seemed to fit the bill. I've heard of
tailwheel Yankees, but have never see one. A TT is a C-150/152
converted to TW, right? I've never flown a Luscombe, but it would
probably work if I find one in good shape within the budget. You also
mention experimentals. My anecdotal experience with them suggests
that the high-quality ones are priced at least as expensively as
certified airplanes, and the affordable examples often show average
workmanship. (I've been an EAA member since 1993 but never got serious
enough about buy an experimental to make a statement here)

Ari.

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

>A TT is a C-150/152
>converted to TW, right?

Yup.

>I should also
>mention that I'm 6'5" (though skinny so I weigh the FAA-legal 170lbs).

You'd better see if you can get into a 150. The bottom of the panel
will be banging your legs and your head will be close to the ceiling.
We had 150s as trainers and tall guys didn't like them.

Dan

writes:

> >I should also
> >mention that I'm 6'5" (though skinny so I weigh the FAA-legal 170lbs).
>
> You'd better see if you can get into a 150. The bottom of the panel
> will be banging your legs and your head will be close to the ceiling.
> We had 150s as trainers and tall guys didn't like them.

I appreciate your concern. My first ever dual hours were in 152s, and
I've since logged PIC time in 150s. I've never flown a Luscombe, so I
mentioned /*that*/ as a concern.

Ari.

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

That's what I seem to have. I bought some Randolph paint to touch-up
but never did. I have chipping on the stab as you described. Wings are
fine except for fairings. In fact, every surface facing the prop blast
as been chipped to primer due to flying in the rain. Oh well.

I would love to get it redone. With 900 to go to TBO, I'll probably fly
it out while doing some homebuilding. Except for the chipping paint,
it's been a (cheap) joy. Simplicity is good.

BTW, I didn't buy new - 3rd owner at 35 hours.

Thanks!

George Patterson wrote:
> I found out what the paint scheme was from a Randolph representative at
> Oshkosh several years ago. He said that Maule used the Ceconite process,
> which specifies a coat of nitrate dope, followed by silver butyrate. He
> said they would add a coat of white butyrate over the silver as a primer
> and then spray the enamel over that. He said it was possible to sand off
> the color coats (the enamel) down to the white dope primer or even down
> to the silver. Don't go into the silver coat at all -- if you see it,
> stop. Once you get the enamel off of the fabric, spray with butyrate
> rejuvenator. After that, you can apply either polyurethane or butyrate
> top coats.
>
> If you're plane is like mine was when I sold it, you can see patches of
> the white butyrate where the color coats have flaked off of the
> horizontal stabilizer.
>
> Randolph made the paints Maule was using back then.
>

Maule Driver wrote:
>
> I would love to get it redone.

One thing you might consider is to fly it down to Moultrie for an annual
inspection and have the work done at that time. Of course, Maule Flight isn't
the cheapest place for an annual, but they do the best work on Maules of any
place I know of.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

A question for you "dopers" out there.

I have seen a Citabria fabric aircraft sitting in a shop with the floor
covered in big paint pieces that I was told had been stripped by using shop
air and a small air nozzle on a blow gun. I had flown the aircraft
previously and while it's dope (could be paint?) wasn't great it was
flyable. I was told that the surface coat had come off surprisingly easily
and the silver primer that was left looked like it would not require much
further preperation for paint. I was told it only took a couple of hours.
If I remember correctly the wings and control surfaces were removed and
finished separately. Is it common to be able to remove paint or dope in
this manner?

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:9j9Ne.10281$Yb.7100@trndny06...
> Maule Driver wrote:
> >
> > Is that without paint?
>
> That's the whole job, paint and all. I got that price from Rautgunde
several
> years ago, though. It may have gone up. They also had a price of ~$15,000
for a
> complete renovation.
>
> > By the way, I have a '96 "we have them on sale" MX7180a model (actually
> > built in '95). Not the good paint (still doing it against the hangar
> > wall). Not the really bad (auto)paint. IOTW, it chips off slowly.
>
> If I'd bought the 180, I might still have mine. On the other hand, the
loan
> would've been larger and I might have lost it all.
>
> I found out what the paint scheme was from a Randolph representative at
Oshkosh
> several years ago. He said that Maule used the Ceconite process, which
specifies
> a coat of nitrate dope, followed by silver butyrate. He said they would
add a
> coat of white butyrate over the silver as a primer and then spray the
enamel
> over that. He said it was possible to sand off the color coats (the
enamel) down
> to the white dope primer or even down to the silver. Don't go into the
silver
> coat at all -- if you see it, stop. Once you get the enamel off of the
fabric,
> spray with butyrate rejuvenator. After that, you can apply either
polyurethane
> or butyrate top coats.
>
> If you're plane is like mine was when I sold it, you can see patches of
the
> white butyrate where the color coats have flaked off of the horizontal
stabilizer.
>
> We did not discuss redoing the paint on the metal or fiberglass sections
(unless
> maybe he was recommending that technique for those sections too). I know
that
> the upper surfaces of my wings were badly peeled by the time I sold it, so
> something would have to be done there. Since chemical paint strippers will
melt
> Ceconite in a heartbeat, I would consider something like bead-blasting.
>
> Randolph made the paints Maule was using back then.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

private wrote:
>
> Is it common to be able to remove paint or dope in
> this manner?

The Randolph paint rep to whom I spoke said that it is not unusual for an enamel
top-coat to peel off of dope this way; in fact, he said I might try using a
pressure washer on my Maule to see if I could avoid sanding the enamel off. I've
never seen dope top-coats separate from dope undercoats, but perhaps it's
possible if the undercoat was not prepared properly. I do not know how well
polyurethane bonds to dope.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

The aircraft I saw striped certainly could have been enamel over dope, I
will have to ask the previous owner next time I see them.

Happy landings

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:FtvNe.160$IG2.112@trndny01...
> private wrote:
> >
> > Is it common to be able to remove paint or dope in
> > this manner?
>
> The Randolph paint rep to whom I spoke said that it is not unusual for an
enamel
> top-coat to peel off of dope this way; in fact, he said I might try using
a
> pressure washer on my Maule to see if I could avoid sanding the enamel
off. I've
> never seen dope top-coats separate from dope undercoats, but perhaps it's
> possible if the undercoat was not prepared properly. I do not know how
well
> polyurethane bonds to dope.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.