Yeah, the pilot and the nose cowl both call it a Centurion. Seems like a real beefy version of a 150 or 172 conversion, but that may be over-simplifying. Dunno.
It does have "experimental" on both sides of the fuselage. I have several other pictures I took, but I only uploaded the two.

1SeventyZ wrote:According to the FAA, it's a T206H.

It's N285BH, a 1962 Cessna 210B
http://texas.aircraftdata.net/record/28 ... s-inc.aspx

A T206H does not have a split windscreen, and must also have 12" N numbers. Among other things

Kenny wrote:

1SeventyZ wrote:According to the FAA, it's a T206H.

It's N285BH, a 1962 Cessna 210B
http://texas.aircraftdata.net/record/28 ... s-inc.aspx

A T206H does not have a split windscreen, and must also have 12" N numbers. Among other things

Nice detective work. I tried 2858H, but never considered that the 8 could be a B.

Looking at the traling edge of the wings.... doesn't a 206 have wider-span flaps & narrower-span ailerons than the 210? Or is it the other way around? The flaps & ailerons on this airplane look "normal".

Eric

Pretty...shame it won't have enough rudder in a cross-wind. I'd still rather have a 180, 185, 206.....anything but a trike cessna made into a tailwheel if it has the swept back tail. Been there....done that.....won't again.

Despite a lot of harsh criticism here, it's a great looking airplane and I sure wouldn't be ashamed to own it. Just because someone can't understand "why" projects like this one are undertaken doesn't mean it wasn't worth while and successful. I admire this kind of of creativity. As for "any Cessna with a swept tail" converted to a taildragger having a lack of rudder authority...maybe it's more of a piloting issue. I've never had any complaints with my conversion that way, and I've battled some pretty strong xwind conditions over the years.

I have a friend who had a Cessna 150/150 for a while. After putting in full fuel, which frankly ain't that much for 150 HP, she had something like 15o pounds left over. Basically the very definition of a useless airplane. Does yours have better numbers than that? Another problem they had was because of all the power and therefore much more airspeed than the Cessna 150 was ever designed for the rudder trim wasn't nearly enough and a lot of time had to be spent trying to get it to fly straight in cruise. They were never able to succeed there. Does yours do OK in cruise flight at high power settings?

There is a 150 out there with rudder trim?

Bendable tab. They about bent it over 50-60 degrees and it still wouldn't fly straight.

Bonanza Man wrote:I have a friend who had a Cessna 150/150 for a while. After putting in full fuel, which frankly ain't that much for 150 HP, she had something like 15o pounds left over. Basically the very definition of a useless airplane. Does yours have better numbers than that? Another problem they had was because of all the power and therefore much more airspeed than the Cessna 150 was ever designed for the rudder trim wasn't nearly enough and a lot of time had to be spent trying to get it to fly straight in cruise. They were never able to succeed there. Does yours do OK in cruise flight at high power settings?

I put whatever I want in the airplane (as do many 150/150 owners) and it handles it easily. High cruise is about 140 mph and it tracks as straight as most other small airplanes I've flown. It has taken me all over the country, including many of the Idaho back strips, for over 14 years and has never disappointed me. I'll see you at JC if you're going this weekend.

I will be at Meadow Creek, hopefully by Friday night, for the work party and then at Ryan Field for the dinner there on Saturday afternoon. Plan to hit JC third weekend of July on a different trip.

Just because someone can't understand "why" projects like this one are undertaken doesn't mean it wasn't worth while and successful.

Fortunately, those attitudes didn't faze folks like the Wright brothers and the various other "kooks" who thought flying machines would be a neat idea.

Bonanza Man wrote:I have a friend who had a Cessna 150/150 for a while. After putting in full fuel, which frankly ain't that much for 150 HP, she had something like 15o pounds left over. Basically the very definition of a useless airplane...........

My 150/150 weighs 1240, gross is 1760. With full fuel (40 gallons) and me, I have 100 pounds of useful load left over. I usually start off with about 30 gallons on board, that leaves about 160 for a companion and stuff. A dainty companion & enough gear for a weekend campout about maxes it out. But it only burns about 8-1/2 gph, cruises at 125-130 mph, and is sporty to fly. It fits all my needs- why would I want anything else?

Eric

I personally like the look of the straight tails, or even the round ones, over the swept tail. It's the only reason I suggested the square tail in my last post, I see no reason for this bird to suffer from directional control issues where any other 206/210 wouldn't... Think about it, a "tail wheel low" wheel landing is not a whole lot lower in the tail, than a slowed up trike on approach... What's more, this bird is experimental, and stretching the chord of the existing swept rudder would probably be one tenth of the work that just swapping the gear location was... even easier would be lengthening the actuator arm and increasing the deflection...
While I personally have no use for a 150/150, I wouldn't call it useless. Few of us really, really need our airplanes. Look hard enough and not too many are justifiable, like the man said, different strokes for different folks

Thank you for posting those photos. I always wondered what my U206s would look like as tail draggers. I think the empennage skin is too thin .022 and not capable of handling real tail dragger abuse. Loosing the 50lbs of Nose gear assy and the aerodynamic drag of that mess hanging in the propeller slipstream would increase climb and cruise performance of a 210-5. If you are going to go through that much work, Use a U206C or newer, floatplane rudder, reskin the empennage with thicker skins, and a Cont IO-550N 310hp turning a 88 inch Mac 401. It would be a very useful plane for the right operator. Show stopper!! Ill just have to put on bigger tires if I need to spend time in the slop and rocks. I have had to load and unload full 55 gal drums by my self from the U206 and the aft cargo door and level floor made it easy. Would have hated to do it with a 185. The only tail dragger I’ve slept in is a DC-3 and ended up at the bottom, its easy to sleep on the floor of a 206. I’ve had 8 people sleep (passed out) on the floor of my Twin Otter. Van

The straight tail 172 conversions are great....esentially a poorman's 180 (cept enuf $ is put to to just buy a 180). As for the swept back tail and rudder authority, my opinion stands, and it isn't just my opinion, by the opinion of many others with 1,000's of tailwheel hours in the bush. Dagwood, I won't go where you started to go by attacking experience. Just be patient, you'll find yourself in a situation where you wish you had a real rudder on that conversion rather than the swept tail. Hope you walk away from it or it isn't bent too bad.

Interesting fact, there are a few other swept tail tailwheel Cessnas on Merrill -- 150's and 172's.....they are either just sitting there after years of no use or for sale.....wonder why? Yet all the square tail conversions are getting the pants flown off of them. Again....been there, done that, won't again.

AKGrouch wrote:The straight tail 172 conversions are great....esentially a poorman's 180 (cept enuf $ is put to to just buy a 180). As for the swept back tail and rudder authority, my opinion stands, and it isn't just my opinion, by the opinion of many others with 1,000's of tailwheel hours in the bush. Dagwood, I won't go where you started to go by attacking experience. Just be patient, you'll find yourself in a situation where you wish you had a real rudder on that conversion rather than the swept tail. Hope you walk away from it or it isn't bent too bad.

Interesting fact, there are a few other swept tail tailwheel Cessnas on Merrill -- 150's and 172's.....they are either just sitting there after years of no use or for sale.....wonder why? Yet all the square tail conversions are getting the pants flown off of them. Again....been there, done that, won't again.

Read Sparky Imesons book it describes where SLANT tail vs Straight Tail it's all about CONTROL. I LOVE my Old Straight Tail Cessna 1956 182 - "Stinger 93 " will do the job for me ! Don't want any tail wheel with big wheels and double puck Cleveland's ! Sparky flew my old bird and wanted to Swap for his 180 -Better control -the highest form
of complement from a Man who knows performance !

Fellows-

It cannot be a Cessna 206 as it is missing the lower cowl "chin" needed for engine clearance on a model with a pointed elevator counter balance ...the Cessna 210 had a strutted wing AND a lower cowl chin prior to 1967, but the chin allowed gear retraction room on the nose and was not needed for engine clearance. In 1962 Cessna removed the fastback and added the rear windows. In 1963 Cessna went with a single piece windscreen and up until 1964 the elevator counter balance was pointed. In 1967 Cessna went to the cantilever wing, but the chin remained until 1969. The 210 also had 3 side windows and spring gear until 1970. In 1970 they did away with the 3rd window and changed the gear to tubular. Since this aircraft has a strutted wing, no need for a cowl chin, pointed elevator counter weight tips, and a split windscreen it must be a 1962 model Cessna 210.

That is of course if my memory of 210 model changes is serving me correctly today.

Clear skies & tailwinds

AKGrouch wrote:The straight tail 172 conversions are great....esentially a poorman's 180 (cept enuf $ is put to to just buy a 180). As for the swept back tail and rudder authority, my opinion stands, and it isn't just my opinion, by the opinion of many others with 1,000's of tailwheel hours in the bush. Dagwood, I won't go where you started to go by attacking experience. Just be patient, you'll find yourself in a situation where you wish you had a real rudder on that conversion rather than the swept tail. Hope you walk away from it or it isn't bent too bad.

Interesting fact, there are a few other swept tail tailwheel Cessnas on Merrill -- 150's and 172's.....they are either just sitting there after years of no use or for sale.....wonder why? Yet all the square tail conversions are getting the pants flown off of them. Again....been there, done that, won't again.

Much of your post is nonsense. Raising the valid question that if someone can't handle a swept tail taildragger it just might be a piloting issue isn't an attack, it's just a reasonable possibility. As to these conversions sitting around not being flown because the tail isn't straight...good God...that doesn't even merit analysis. People fly, or don't fly whatever they own for lots of reasons, but THAT isn't one of them. I never said the straight tail couldn't be better, I have only implied the swept tail is perfectly capable with a decent pilot.

The asinine prediction that it's inevitable that I'll bend the airplane because it's not a straight tail sounds like hopeful thinking to support a theory. It's been my observation that no pilot is immune to having an accident. Anything can happen to anyone at any time. That includes me. If I wad up the airplane it's highly unlikely it'll be due to the swept tail after this many years of experience with it.

Is this what this forum is all about? Beating up on the new guy? If it's vitally important that you have the last word in this pissing contest...go ahead. I'm not wasting anymore time on the issue.

A buddy of mine has a 150/150 tail dragger. It's got a sloped tail, not sure which conversion it is, it has the short tubular main gear. It is a real rocket, a blast to fly and really hauls ass in cruise. That said, it can be a bit of a handful on the ground when compared to the 180 series Cessnas, or even a 140 for that matter. Got to be ready to tap a brake as the rudder alone will not do it much of the time. As long as you're ready for it, and understand your personal limitations, I don't see why it should be too much of a problem. The guy that owns it is a multi - thousand hour retired ag pilot and he taught his daughter how to fly it from primary when she was 17. The only real problem I can see with it is the same every 150 has. There is not much shoulder room for 2 of today's "average" sized adults. It is an awesome toy, though.

I'm not sure how the 206 would handle, but I do know that it would be hard to beef the fuselage enough without adding a bunch of extra structural weight to take it seriously off road. With the 150, pretty light to start with. I would think it would be great, especially if you had manual flaps.

gb