I'm thinking the best choice of plane might now be a C-140 or a C-150 tailwheel conversion. I'd prefer an O-200 to keep the initial and maintenance/running costs down, and I don't need to get out of any short strips ( I live in eastern Massachusetts).

It seems there are three types of conversion: Bush conversion, Lowe TD, and Texas Taildragger. The Lowe TD uses C140 gear, and I think the other two relocate the C150 gear. Any experience out there with any of these: ones specifically to avoid, or things I need to look for?

My flight mission will be putting around, an occasional long flight, and grass or gravel strips, nothing super short. I'm looking to build some TW time, and don't need a hardcore bush plane at the moment.

I just can't take renting anymore. Me and the wife are skinny, and this is a realistic way for me to get in the air on a regular basis. Also, if any of you are serious about a partnership in eastern Mass with something like this (or another low cost tailwheel), I'm very open to that idea.

Thanks!

Jesse

Jesse,
My only experience was Texas Taildragger 150 with rod gear.
Sat very flat on the ground and required 20 degrees of flaps to get
off the ground, no angle of attack. Rod gear moved up and down and fore and aft
making constant toe-in, toe-out changes. That swept vertical
fin didn't carry a big enough rudder either. Really poor airplane overall.
C-140's are a lot better idea, IMHO.
Dave

Why go with a TW 150 when you could get into a 120/140, Luscombe, T-craft, etc? Just wondering what your thinking is. I can't think of any benefit a TW150 offers aside from shoulder room.

I'm not opposed to a 140.

I know I can put my dog in the baggage compartment of a C150. Is the baggage area of a C140 similar? Hangars are not an option around here, so an all metal or mostly metal plane is preferable. If I were going fabric, a recent fabric job would be a must.

I noticed the flat deck angle of the texas taildraggers. The Lowe TDs have the 140 gear so are a bit better. I noticed a lot of upgraded C140s have O-290s, which I'm not interested in. I've seen some great C140s, but they all seem to be in Washington state. An older C150 with a straight tail would be better as well if I were to go that route.

Part of this is to gauge response to C140 vs C150. The fact that the C150s are a bit newer may not win against the benefits of C140s.

whee wrote:Why go with a TW 150 when you could get into a 120/140, Luscombe, T-craft, etc? Just wondering what your thinking is. I can't think of any benefit a TW150 offers aside from shoulder room.

A little newer
All metal so you don't need a hangar
Parts a little easier to find

Just a few that I could think of. Not that I would go that route myself as I own a C-140.

If you do go with a 140, look for one with the O-200 conversion for best performance. There is other engine options out there that use the bigger Lycomings but be sure to do a weight and balance to figure out whether it'll fit your mission...read nose heavy, and higher GPH. Don't think gas is getting cheaper anytime soon...

The 140 is definately not a "bushplane", but its a good honest flyer and fairly cheap to operate if you find a good one. As with any plane purchase, do you homework!!!

Here's a pic of mine with some new shoes...



On edit: I see you've done a little homework already...Depending on the size of your dog you could carry it in the baggage, just not with much else back there. There is an 80 lb weight restriction. Getting the dog back there might be a chore too as the 140 seat back is one piece...it does pivot forward but would be awkward putting a dog back there that you can't lift easily. Soem 140's have 150 seats installed, which I think improves access to the baggage compartment but I'm not sure. Heres what I have for a pic of the 140 baggage comp.

I had a texas tailwheel c-150 with the o-200. If flew it for ten years and put a thousand hours on it. It was a great plane and a great tailwheel trainer. I had spring gear that had been re-arched which made it look good and gave it a good angle of attack. If you can find a good deal I would do it. The nice thing about the 150 is more room and the big flaps. They will land really short, but you will need close to twice the room to take off. Light and low elevation your off in 400 to 500 ft.
Chad

bart wrote:

That is sweet looking!!!

Don't some 140s have metal wings? I don't care about age but I can see some would feel that's important. Good point about parts.

I don't know how the baggage is arranged in the 140 so don't know if a dog will fit but I totally get where you are coming from:


A 140 with a stroked C-85 would be a sweet setup if your not wanting a bigger engine than the O-200. I love the stroked C-85 in my Luscombe.

whee wrote:
That is sweet looking!!!

eDon't some 140s have metal wings? I don't care about age but I can see some would feel that's important. Good point about parts.

I don't know how the baggage is arranged in the 140 so don't know if a dog will fit but I totally get where you are coming from:


A 140 with a stroked C-85 would be a sweet setup if your not wanting a bigger engine than the O-200. I love the stroked C-85 in my Luscombe.

Thanks! I have the "stroked" C-85 as well...can't really compare to other engine'd 140's as I've never flown another. I did recently fly next to a 120 with an O-200 and I kept right up with him though. (Your pic didn't show up BTW, red X)

The 140A's have the stock metal double taper wing, same as early 150's

Thanks a lot. Great looking dog. I have a 57 Lb lab/pit mix. I want a plane I can take him everywhere in. There's dog hair in my pizza I'm eating right now, and I don't even mind!

A C140 in great shape with an O-200 would be my preference. I just heard there is a C150 TD in Maine to rent. I'll have to give that a try so I can see what they are actually like. I might consider an O-235, but I don't want an O-290 due to weight&balance and parts issues.

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 227701.htm

I found the C150 above this morning and it got me really motivated.

PilotRPI wrote:Thanks a lot. Great looking dog. I have a 57 Lb lab/pit mix. I want a plane I can take him everywhere in. There's dog hair in my pizza I'm eating right now, and I don't even mind!

Thanks! My dog Wilson is about 75 lbs. He takes up a bit of room in the plane! I remove the pax side seat bottom and replace with a small foam pad, it gives him a little more room and stability. I plan on making up a little platform of sorts that would cover the seat/foot area to give him a more even surface to lay down on. He can't quite get comfortable the way it is now. This platform would also double as a more stable platform for cargo..


The expression on his face makes him look scared, but he's normally not like that! I think I startled him when I yelled his name to get him to look my way for the picture

whee wrote:
Don't some 140s have metal wings? I don't care about age but I can see some would feel that's important. Good point about parts.

The only 140 that came from the factory was the 140A. Although there has been many 120/140s that have had there wings metalized over the years.

Can you swap wings around on the 140s? Luscombe had 3 different wings, any set can be used on any model 8; is the 140/120 the same way? Thanks for straightening me out about the metal wings.

bart wrote:Your pic didn't show up BTW, red X

hmm, works for me.

I love dog pics, especially flying dog pics.

I actually thought about buying an inexpensive early straightback/tail 150 and doing the Lowe conversion myself. If you google the conversion, the STC holder will do the mod for you including parts for $7,500. Might need a little belly painting after that, but not too horrible. It would come out to be around the same price as some of the converted 150's I've seen. The fabric wings on a 140 don't bother me. I'd probably just get custom covers for them. I don't need flaps, as the Citabria I rent doesn't have them and I am comfortable slipping the plane to land short.

Thanks for all your responses.

Jesse

PilotRPI wrote:Hangars are not an option around here, so an all metal or mostly metal plane is preferable. If I were going fabric, a recent fabric job would be a must.

I'd highly suggest attending a fabric covering workshop or fabric systems seminar prior to making sweeping determinations on the viability of fabric systems used on aircraft.

I had a 120 with an o200 in it and it was a great little plane and fairly fast one of the reasons I sold it was the fabric wings and no hangar though.

Delair has a taildragger converson also, but he is not pushing it because it uses 150 gear and he was having trouble with corosion under the steps. this makes me wonder if most 150s have corosion there and nowone knows because they never remove the steps.

fastback 150 taildragers with 170 gear look the coolest, like a mini 180, but i have never flown one so I have no idea how they fly.

PilotRPI wrote:........ If you google the conversion, the STC holder will do the mod for you including parts for $7,500. .....

I hadn't heard that David Lowe did more than sell the STC/parts list, but googled it & found that you were correct.
www.taildraggeraviation.com/lowe.html
Someone on my airport did one of these conversions last year & there is quite a lot of work involved-- $7500 is a bargain if that's a turn-key (fly it in-- fly it out) price. There is the matter of getting the airplane/fuselage to Lowe's shop in Kentucky though. BTW this STC is only applicable to 1959-1963 "fastback" models (through the 150C).
I fly a 1964 150D converted using the "texas taildragger" STC. It has the optional gear legs which were offered with the kit & sits up pretty good. Stock leaf spring gear also works well if it was re-arched as offered as an option. It has a pretty good AOA, esp with 850's & a shortened tailspring.
The 150-D & E models have a square tail & manual flaps along with a rear window. A little different looks but I like it & the omnivision models provide a bit larger baggage area as well as a higher gross weight, essential if upgraded to 150hp. Mine has the "long ranger" 40 gallon tanks, nice for trips, along with the O-320.
The advantage of a 150TD over a 140 is the metal wings & the bigger flaps. The 140A had factory metal wings but still had the small hinged flaps of the earlier ragwings. The 140's & 140A's also have less effective ailerons IMHO. If I wanted to stick with the O-200, I'd go for a fastback. Good looks & lighter empty weight-- should perform well if an effort is made to keep the weight down.
I don't care for the swept tail TD conversions, and those with the squatty tubular gear do indeed sit too flat and would probably need 40* of flaps to take off in a reasonable distance. Also they often seem to have toe-in/toe-out issues with the resultant handling problems.

Hotrod,

I don't know if that price is current, but sounded like a good deal to me as well, even if you have to pay to paint the belly after.

Could you tell me a bit about the Texas TD gear option? You mentioned an option with the STC, tubular gear (which seems to be with the planes with too shallow a deck angle), and then re-arching the gear.

Thanks!

Jesse

smutny wrote:

PilotRPI wrote:Hangars are not an option around here, so an all metal or mostly metal plane is preferable. If I were going fabric, a recent fabric job would be a must.

I'd highly suggest attending a fabric covering workshop or fabric systems seminar prior to making sweeping determinations on the viability of fabric systems used on aircraft.

I agree

The EAA has a fabric workshop that is reasonably priced. I don't remember which covering system they use, but it is one of the popular ones. They had one in Boston last year that I missed, but plan on doing something like that eventually.

PilotRPI wrote:Hotrod,
I don't know if that price is current, but sounded like a good deal to me as well, even if you have to pay to paint the belly after.
Could you tell me a bit about the Texas TD gear option? You mentioned an option with the STC, tubular gear (which seems to be with the planes with too shallow a deck angle), and then re-arching the gear. ....

That $7500 price (parts & labor) seems to be current as per Lowe's website, which is a sub-site of Ken & Lorraine Morris's taildraggeraviation site. They are big in the 120/140 club, & have done at least one (if not more) 150TD conversions using the Lowe STC. Like I said, that would seem to be a bargain, esp if it's a turn-key deal with a flying airplane (on which the work is more difficult)-- if it only applies to a stripped-down fuselage, not so much.
I have an old brochure from ACT, who owned the 3 texas taildragger stc's back in the 1990's. They indicate that you could use your stock 150 leaf spring gear as is, have them re-arch it, or buy their special gear. Using their special leaf spring gear on the later model 150's (1970 K model & up) which used the tubular gear was also an option. Unfortunately a lot of people scrimped & just stuck with the tubular gear, which results in a squatty 3-point attitude. As far as I know, there was no re-arching available for the tubular gear. There is also no means to adjust the castor (toe-in) on this gear, like there is with the earlier spring gear, so if the wheels are misaligned you're stuck with it.