I know some of this has been discussed before, but...I am looking at a square tail 1959 flat back 150 with the tw mod. This is the mod with the original maingear "reflaired" and turned around. Is this setup ok or a poor mod? Also, the 150 wasn't certified for floats until '63 or '64...is there anyway this older 150 can be approved for floats? Any insight would be appreciated.

littlewheelinback wrote:I know some of this has been discussed before, but...I am looking at a square tail 1959 flat back 150 with the tw mod. This is the mod with the original maingear "reflaired" and turned around. Is this setup ok or a poor mod? Also, the 150 wasn't certified for floats until '63 or '64...is there anyway this older 150 can be approved for floats? Any insight would be appreciated.

If the 150 tailwheel mod your airplane used just "re-bent" the main gear to make it a little taller, then it will be a little narrower too. This means the airplane will not be quite as easy to handle as the equivalent 140.

Assuming the 140A has are longer legs, I believe you might do a lot better with a set of 140A landing gear installed using a field approval. It would be a relatively easy field approval in my opinion, since you already have a tailwheel conversion approved on the airplane. You would write a letter to the FAA FSDO office to say that the original re-bent 150 gear (as originally approved) is not giving you safe propeller clearance, that you have had minor prop abrasion issues operating on unpaved strips, and you wish to simply substitute an already type certified FAA approved taller 140A landing gear leg... to bring the 150 up to the safe prop clearance dimension as the nearly identical 140A.

If my assumptions above are correct (re: gear lengths), I would be happy to help you write that letter if you need any help. I have pretty good success with those kinds of things with the FAA.

Another critically important point is that if there happened to be a set of slightly longer 140A legs on the airplane when it is sitting in the tiedown, and since it would "look right" more so than the short 150 legs, the most any FAA inspector is likely to do is ask to see whether you have a tailwheel conversion STC. I kinda think their inquisition would more than likely end when you hand the STC paper to them.

Float approvals without an STC or floats on the TCDS are pretty much a non starter these days. There may have been a time you could field approve floats, but i seriously doubt you'd get there these days.

Why not look for a good 140, or?? Lots of really nice ones out there, actually.

MTV

I'm not sure that 140A gear is any longer than stock 140 gear; however, it does sit slightly more forward so it's harder to put it on it's nose.

Also if you want a nice 140 there is one with a 135hp lycoming and VG's for $26,900 on barnstormers that looks nice.

Thanks for the info and the offer to help. This air craft looks really good in many ways, but as was pointed out there are many great deals out there right now and I am not looking for a project and I would like at least the possibility of installing floats. I guess I am going to pass on buying it. Thanks again.

littlewheelinback wrote:.....I am looking at a square tail 1959 flat back 150 with the tw mod. This is the mod with the original maingear "reflaired" and turned around. ......

Don't know much about float approval, other than the type certificate doesn't mention anything about seaplanes before the 1967 G model, but I do know a little bit about C150 taildragger conversions. There are at least 3 for that vintage C150- the "texas" (aka CAC, then ACT, now owned by DelAir), the Bush, & the Lowe. The Lowe actually uses C140 parts including gear legs. The "texas" uses either stock legs, re-arched stock legs, or the custom legs available with the kit back in it's heyday (80's & 90's).
Any of these would be a nice fun airplane, but might be a bit short on power for float op's with the stock engine-- C140's are lighter so one of those esp with a C90 might be a better choice.
What's the asking price for the one you're looking at? For comparison, I know of one at Arlington WA that's up for sale for around $23K with a fairly low-time engine. Seems reasonable to me- you sure couldn't buy a decent stocker & convert it for that.

The one in Arlington is the one I am looking at. The owner says it has the re-arced gear...I have heard negative reports on those. Otherwise the only problem would be getting float approval and it may be a case of a nice looking plane that just isn't what I need.

That polished C150TD in Arlington is a nice airplane. Should be a decent performer with the stock 100-horse if kept as light as possible, and a lot of fun to fly.
I guess if you're interested in having one on floats, the thing to do would be to research if there's any STC'd for it. The only C150 floatplanes I've seen have been 150 horse conversions, but there may be some stockers out there.
As far as small affordable floatplanes go, seems like a Taylorcraft might be hard to beat.

My friend Jim Brewer has a 100 HP T-craft F-19 on floats/wheels/skis in Anchorage. Great performance on a budget. You can buy an 85 or 100 HP T-craft for under $25K if you work at it. Eric is right, it's hard to beat for the money, but you have the difference between fabric and metal skin.