Hi guy's,

Does anyone know if Harry Dellicker Del-Air has an email address? I need some drawings for a tailwheel STC. A google search tells me he doesn't....

Cheers

They are old-school and don't use the web... Just give a ring. Chris will be more than helpful I'm sure.

Harry was never an email kinda guy.... But boy oh boy he likes talking on the phone.

Gump

Multiple Xs for Gumps comment

Actually his wife will often answer e-mail

[email protected]

Now it has been a while since I have been there and they are both gettin up there in years so even she may not answer - at least not for a while

Phone 559-784-9440

If you ever go there have him take you for lunch at an old beat up run down Mexican place.

Hope it helps

Chris C

Thanks for the replies, much appreciated. I'm in NZ so you guy's sleep at the wrong time, makes phone calls a pain... I'll give them a call tonight though and maybe try email too..

Cheers

Email doesn't work, but just spoke to Chris at Del-Air, very helpful guy!

onefitty wrote:
I need some drawings for a tailwheel STC.

Uuuhhhh..... I know your username is "onefifty", but uhhhh...just for grins.... what kind of airplane is it for which you are looking for a tailwheel STC?

This one....



Sounds like you're laughing at me..... Of all the planes I fly, this one always makes me giggle!

D or E model, looks good. I've got one like that but with the 150hp Lyc. Did the Dellickers get you squared away with the drawings you need?

It's a '64 D, one of 4 imported new to NZ, tailwheel was done around 2001. I bought it as a junker, sat outside without flying for many years, basically changed the oil and it's been going fine for the last few years. It's a fun plane and owes me next to nothing..

Del-Air want $500 for the drawings, but the chap there was happy to answer my questions. I just wanted to fit a Scott TW, they confirmed it's on the drawing list so all good. I've since tracked down the originals, hopefully they're in the post

Have you got the Del-Air tailwheel stc as well? I've got an issue with the legs moving fore and aft and messing up the alignment

The STC I've got on mine is the same one Dellicker has now: STC # SA2846SW, the "texas taildragger" conversion. My airplane also has STC # SA5733SW for the 40 gallon "texas ranger" fuel tanks, and STC # SA4795SW for the O-320 Lycoming conversion. To the best of my knowledge, these were all developed by Custom Aircraft Conversions of San Antonio TX (hence the "texas" nicknames). The three STC's seem to be a set-- Aircraft Conversion Technologies of Georgetown CA owned them back in the 1990's, and sometime since then DelAir acquired them. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be marketing them at all. I don't know who (if anyone) is actively selling either a tailwheel or a 150-horse convesion for the C150 these days.
I've never had any trouble with the gear legs moving. Maybe check the attach points ("gear box") for loose bolts and/or loose rivets. They are accessed through inspection covers on the airplane floor immediately in front of the seats.

Hey onefifty, I wasn't laughing at you. I will be offering a 172 conversion, so I thought I'd ask which airplane you were talking about.

The gear legs moving back and forth could either be normal wear, or worse. Hopefully your conversion has a removable cover on the side which gives you access to the outboard gear fitting, and whatever kind of shim system is used.

All you have to do is jack the airplane up off the wheels and gear legs (wing jacks), and see whether the problem is just a worn slot in the outboard fitting, or whether it is damaged, cracked, etc.

If it is normal wear, you can make up a pair of shims, one in front and one in back, which will keep the gear leg in the right position. This may be able to be incorporated into the existing Cessna shim system with a bit of machining and a block of metal.

In general, if a hardened spring steel gear leg is being swung back and forth on the attach bolt, acting against the edges of a slot in a 2024 aluminum fitting, you're going to beat the hell out of the aluminuim and wear out the slot. This type of wear will accelerate, getting worse over time faster and faster. Cessna used this system because it was fast and cheap to manufacture, NOT because it was the longest-lasting solution. Cessna's design engineers are turning in their graves... they never EVER thought that these thin sheet metal Cessnas would still be out there bouncing around 50 years after they were built.

IMHO you really must investigate the problem immediately, and identify what the problem is. If the gear swings rearward past a certain point, your airplane wsill groundloop or nose over and suffer far more damage than the effort to address the problem now. It may not be quite ready to do that, or it might. That is something you need to know.

There's no cracking or other defects and I regularly retorque the wedges, just under hard braking the legs sometimes slide back a little in the outer support slots. I've never had this problem with 180's or 185's.. When I get a chance I'll machine up some new wedges and a block to go each side of the leg. It seems the slot in the support is just too wide perhaps but doesn't appear modified from original

Hotrod, how do you like the 150hp? Have you got much time in a stock O-200 150? As much as I'd like to do it and I've got several good running 320 and 360 cores I can't really justify the time or $$.. I've got other planes to feed as well!! I can get my hands on an O-240 which I think would be a great conversion but I can't find any info or STC's. Could possibly do it as per IPC from a Reims 150 but there's a lot of differences between those and an old D model... I'll keep dreaming!

There may be a few cheap 172's come on the NZ market soon due mandatory SID's, a converted A model would be neat EZFlap!

What landing gear parts does your 150 conversion use? Meaning... do you have 170-185 outboard fittings and 140A gear legs? Or do you have 170 gear legs mounted in 170 fittings? Those gear legs in your photo look much taller (and sexy) than 140 parts. Early light "symmetrical" 170 legs might be a good choice for a 150 conversion.

Based on your comments, assuming no damage or wear on the inboard (bolt) end of the gear, my guess is "normal wear" in the outboard fitting slot. Try machining up some half-round blocks that go into the outboard fitting on both sides of the gear leg. You will have to secure official approval from whoever does that sort of thing in NZ, but it is completely reversable. And it solves a valid problem without damaging or modifying the rest of the aircraft, so they should not give you too much grief.

That's a very nice looking aircraft, and I like the way it sits there looking back at you with such "attitude". Enjoy the hell out of it!

onefitty wrote:..... how do you like the 150hp? Have you got much time in a stock O-200 150? As much as I'd like to do it and I've got several good running 320 and 360 cores I can't really justify the time or $$.. I've got other planes to feed as well!! I can get my hands on an O-240 which I think would be a great conversion but I can't find any info or STC's. Could possibly do it as per IPC from a Reims 150 but there's a lot of differences between those and an old D model... I'll keep dreaming!......

My first airplane was a stock 150J which I flew for about 300 hours. Then a ragwing 170 for about 11 years. The C150/150TD is way more fun than either-- a lot better performer than the stock 150 & much sportier to fly than the 170. The 150-horse makes a whole different plane out of it. But to me it makes more sense to buy one already converted (if you can) than to convert one.
The 240 Continental seems like the perfect upgrade to a stock C150, since it should drop right in and fit the stock mount and should give a noticable boost in performance. Is the Reims 150 on the same type certificate as the Cessna? If so, maybe the 240 can just go on with a logbook entry? Might need new exhaust, definitely a new prop (or repitch). I believe the 240 is an injected engine so I'm not sure what all would be required to accomodate that.

I think the o-240 was also offered w/ a carb., don't know how common they would be on the used market, however. I was thinking of getting one for my Luscombe.

Yeah, the O-240 was carb and 130hp, they're not very common at all and hence $$, the current IO-240 is 125hp

EZ, I'm not sure what legs are on it, they're not symmetrical though. I had assumed 140 but they do sit up high, it certainly looks the part! The outer supports look like part of the conversion kit but without access to STC the drawings I can't confirm. Unfortunately the shop that did the conversion used a lot of Cherries in the lower skins so they're working a little, when I get a chance I'll get solids right through it. I need to give the whole plane a birthday and repaint. I sure do enjoy flying it, I think it's the one aircraft I'll actually keep

I think 150hp would be great but does it feel heavier? Personally I like flying an A-65 cub better than a super cub and a 180 maule better than a 235 etc.. I thought it might be the same with a heavier lyco up front?

Hmmm.... Higher comp pistons, 35' timing.... Maybe I can squeeze a bit more out of my 2600 hour O-200 yet!

onefitty wrote:Unfortunately the shop that did the conversion used a lot of Cherries in the lower skins so they're working a little, when I get a chance I'll get solids right through it.

Hmmm.... Higher comp pistons, 35' timing.... Maybe I can squeeze a bit more out of my 2600 hour O-200 yet!

Cherry rivets work well when you have a good tight round hole, but not so well when you have an oblong or loose hole. But getting a bucking bar into that area for solid rivets will be very difficult in my estimation. I'm going with next-size screws on my conversion.

You could squeeze a little more HP out of your O-200 by spinning it faster, but not a whole lot more torque. Torque is more important. Our IF1 race engineers figured only 115-119 HP when we spun the O-200 at 4000 RPM. Not much gain for the huge loss of reliability and associated wear/heat/structural problems. Compression ratio also comes with safety issues, starting issues, etc. Your O-200 went 2600 hours of safe flying for a reason. IMHO A much better solution would be adding the LSE electronic ignition (6-8% power increase, PLUS reduced fuel consumption), and doing friction work inside the engine. Sealed needle rocker shaft bearings, KG "Gun-Kote" Molybdenum coatings on all the parts that rub against each other, etc. Also an exhaust system that is tuned for torque in your flight regime. And then aerodynamic drag reduction upgrades to match.

Of course this would still not give you as much performance as a "standard" O-320 conversion, but it would probably split the difference, at less weight, cost, fuel burn, and not affecting the handling.

The 150/150 conversion does give you a heavy airplane. Mine was about #1040 stock, but now with the 150 horse, t/w gear, and 40-gallon tanks it weighs #1240 on 850's-- and that's without RH controls & vacuum system/gyro's and with a lightweight battery, starter, & alternator. It's not nose-heavy though-- actually it's a bit tail-heavy due to moving the battery aft & installing the light starter & alt. I wish I could just magically wish away about a hundred pounds, although it flies real nice as is..

Hmm.. 200lbs is quite a lot, I would not have guessed that much. Do you have a gw increase? I stripped about 80lb of junk from mine when I first got it, old avionics, wiring etc but it's still a touch over 1100. Not much else I want to remove though. Any experience with VG's on the 150? I've had great results with them on cessna and piper twins

EZ, my shop mainly does structural work and rebuilds, I buy expired PRC from Aviall and use that for most lap joints and we rarely put a cherry in without it. Never an issue if they're fitted right but I'm sure you have lazy mechanics over there too!