I was curious what the general consensus is on swept tail 150’s, specifically 150/150’s, that have been converted to tailwheel. Enough rudder authority? Do they make a decent tailwheel plane? Trainer? Would love some info from people with first hand knowledge.

Thanks,
Asa

I owned a C150/150TD for about 6 years and put about 800 hours on it.
It was a 1964 D model, the first year with omnivision but still had the square tail and manual flaps.
150TD's have a rep for being squirrelly, but mine handled great.
IMHO the swept tail is ugly on a taildragger.
I've heard the swept tail has less authority but can't verify it.
I also prefer the manual flaps to the electric flaps of the swept tail models.
The bigger issue though is the gear legs.
I would be very careful if buying one with the later, tubular-spring gear legs.
There are axle-mounting shims available for the leaf spring gear to adjust toe-in and camber,
but the axle is built into the tubular gear and there is no provision for adjusting anything..
So if the toe-in is not correct when the gear leg is installed into the gearbox, you're pretty much fucked.
I believe that at least one of the taildragger conversion kits offered an option to convert the later models to leaf spring gear,
but since it involved adding to an already expensive and/or time consuming mod, not too many people went for it.

The aesthetic crime alone should answer this question for you. Swept tails are beautiful on a trike. Goofy on a taildragger. It'd be like having a butterface girlfriend, but her personality can't make up for it.

Zzz wrote:It'd be like having a butterface girlfriend, but her personality can't make up for it.

I actually spit out my coffee laughing at this one [emoji23]

The C150/150 lacks elevator authority at slow airspeed an high AOA. I fixed this on one by adding VGs on the tail. No this is not available as part of the Micro KIT
As for rudder, there is very little difference in the surface area from the swept tail to the straight tail 150s. They both have about the same directional stability. And yes, the swept tail does not look very good if you use the old squaty 150 gear legs. The 140 style legs on the other hand change the look of the whole plane. Both a great flying planes, and will get in and out fairly short equipped properly. Oh, by the way, I would rather have a butterfaced girl that loved flying than a high maintenance princess that bitched all the time. Or, an ugly capable/dependable plane, than a pretty one that was always broke down! But, I'm not in it for the show!
My .02

Should look like this...



Mine has the Del Air STC, handling is not great but a challenge is fun, I could probably spend some time on wheel alignment. Makes a 180/85 or 195 feel 'soft' and forgiving on the seal

If you get a swept tail at the right $$, why not, you'll have a heap of fun. 150's are great regardless of the configuration, they always put a smile on my face

Be sure to look at the weight and balance and calculate a real life loading, like two folks and gas......

MTV

buck_justice wrote: The C150/150 lacks elevator authority at slow airspeed an high AOA. .....

I never experienced this with mine.
No trouble touching down tailwheel first if desired.
FWIW the CG on mine was on the aft side, in spite of the bigger engine.
A forward CG might make a lot of difference and result in not enough elevator.

While I don't have any experience in 150s with the swept tail, I have extensively flown (50+ hours) in a Texas Taildragger 172 N6303E (FNL) as well as 50+ hours in a Bolen 172 N737TD (BJC), both N models with swept tails. I actually really love these airplanes. I found that when I was in them there was no such thing as "over controlling" the rudder, but that being said I didn't find it to have any less rudder authority than any other light taildragger. I'm rather short but found the visibility over the nose almost as good as a Citabria.

I found the STOL performance to be worse in the 172 taildragger vs a nosewheel plane, but both I flew had some older engines and I believe had cruise props, which isn't ideal at altitude.

Compared to the 180, I preferred the visibility, control lightness and simplicity to the 172's, but of course they lack power, space and STOL compared to the 180... that being said a 150/150 will only be short on space. It's like any other taildragger really, it has its quirks but really no issues with authority. I've flown the Skywagon in gusting 35 30 degrees off the nose in CYS, and 20 knots direct in WI and it was pushing the limits. Any lighter taildragger those limits are going to be lower, I'm not sure I'd want to go over 12-15 direct in the 172s but YMMV.

FWIW If you were interested in a 172 instead of a 150, 737TD I believe would be for sale if you called Western at BJC and asked about it. Insurance made them take it off of the rental fleet. I really love that airplane and if I didn't buy a gem of a 180, I'd own it by now. You may have seen pictures of 7TD on my facebook page.

- Austin

1968 150/150TD was a great little hot rod. It’s since been sold off to make room for other planes.

Tanks were small for the O-320, and the weight on the tailwheel was quite heavy. If you’re a competent tailwheel pilot and kept it straight on the ground, it was no factor. Let it get even a little bit crooked and things got very exciting.

The spring steel main gear looks so much better than the tubular gear conversions IMO.