I know everyone likes the old straight tail Cessnas for crosswinds and I've heard the straight tails have more rudder authority. I was just looking on the Data sheet for Cessna 150's and the straight tails only deflect 16 degrees where the slant tails go 23 degrees. Is a straight tail really better?

IMHO rudder deflection probably has more to do with the rear window than the sweep of the tail. Looking at the "Fastback" fuselage it is obvious you will get less airflow separation and "eddy currents" along the rear fuselage then you would get with the "Omni-Vision" fuselage. So you might need a lot more rudder movement to get the same control power, because ANY rudder is going to be in more "dead air".

A higher aspect ratio un-swept tail will perform a little better than a swept tail if you had two vertical tails mounted on a stick in a wind tunnel. But I doubt that the difference is so big to justify a huge increase in the rudder angles.

So the answer to this should lie in the rudder deflection on the one or two years where Cessna airplanes had fastback fuselages and swept tails. If these 1960 and 61 airplanes have a LOT more rudder travel, then the swept tail is a LOT worse just because of its shape. If the swept tail fastbacks have the same amount of rudder travel, and the big increase in rudder travel only happened with the omni window... then the swept tails are not really much worse.

Unfortunately the 150 never had a fastback/swept tail year, so you will have to extrapolate from the 172.

Any thought to the idea a swept tail is harder to spin? Not stating that it is but have I had that impression.
Akt

Jaerl,

I don't know the answer to your question but I just bought a 1960 182 so I should be able to give my input on this bird in the next couple months. I really like the straight tail but after some research, I found that the 1960 has all the good features of the 1959 straight tail like the manual flaps, cowl flaps, same gear (Cessna lowered them another 4" in '62) but they also added a few good features like an extra side window and a redesigned headliner for increased headroom in the back.

Everyone I have talked to (and the written specs verify it) said that the fastback, narrow fuse, swept tail 182s are the fastest ones. The specs show the '56 - '59 as 134 knot cruise planes and the 1960 - 61 as 140 knot. I pick it up on Monday so I may be able to provide some educated information at a later date.

For what it is worth, my brother has a '58 182 and it is awesome but this also give me the ability to compare between two airplanes that are essentially the same thing with the exception of the tail.

Who the f**k knows????

It just looks better.

Gump

I own a slant tail 150 and have flown a straight tail fast back. I couldn't tell any difference, but I have heard that the more vertical fin gives better rudder control. I have never run out of rudder on my bird even in stiff X-winds. It's all personal preference.

The reason I ask is that I am the proud new owner of a Omni vision straight tail 1965 150E (wonder what's wrong with this one?). I sold my 150J in July and a guy brought his mechanic down and annualed the 175 Tuesday. His mechanic was impressed with the plane and told me to tell my mechanic he did a great job on it. Now, I just have to deliver it.

This way I can keep flying for a few more months. I'm excited. The 150 is ugly and high time but it has a new top end and prop overhaul (30 hrs). It is the first year of bucket seats and last year of the straight tails, has manual flaps, 1600 lb gross and 6:00 mains. Prop is pitched right in the middle, Best of all a heavy duty nose fork! Now I can finally put a 6:00 on the front of something!

Jaerl wrote:The reason I ask is that I am the proud new owner of a Omni vision straight tail 1965 150E (wonder what's wrong with this one?). I sold my 150J in July and a guy brought his mechanic down and annualed the 175 Tuesday. His mechanic was impressed with the plane and told me to tell my mechanic he did a great job on it. Now, I just have to deliver it.

This way I can keep flying for a few more months. I'm excited. The 150 is ugly and high time but it has a new top end and prop overhaul (30 hrs). It is the first year of bucket seats and last year of the straight tails, has manual flaps, 1600 lb gross and 6:00 mains. Prop is pitched right in the middle, Best of all a heavy duty nose fork! Now I can finally put a 6:00 on the front of something!

So, did you sell the 175?

Yes I did, Unless I crash it when I deliver it, but I can't imagine something bad like that happening to me. KNOCK ON WOOD!!!!

Jaerl wrote:Yes I did, Unless I crash it when I deliver it, but I can't imagine something bad like that happening to me.

Don't say that shit, Jerry. You better go back and delete that. Big bummer to let it go, but also glad you finally got rid of it under the circumstances

It will work out for the best. I don't actually feel to bad about it. He got a great plane and I got another POS to play with.

I remember when the local flight school got it's first 172 with the new wing that had the drooped leading edge. Of course me and my friend had to check it out. That sumbich would not spin. After about 3 tries, and being whiz bang rokit scientists, I tried goosing the throttle just as the wing broke. We ended up doing a rather mushy half snap roll. That's when we made the command decision to go try the VOR approach, you know, just to make sure the radio's worked straight and level.
My parents owned a '56 172 about that same time. The previous owner had installed drooped wing tips, not the radical Madras type but the ones that drooped just a bit. That was a real nice flying airplane and would hardly stall. I mean you really had to work at it. That straight tail and rudder were effective right through the whole non-event. I flew that thing all over the west coast. Other than some modern radio's and a bit more useful load there was not much difference between them. Oh, and some new plastic moldings and a proper baggage door. Mind you I had all of 800 hours TT when they sold it which must be 35 years and 2 or 3 beers ago so my comparisons may or may not be valid. Most likely the latter.
I checked the TCDS for the 172, looks like 16 degrees is it for all 172's. 1956 to now.

Congratulations on your new POS airplane to play around in!

The heavy duty nose fork is definitely a bonus.

Congratulations on both the sale and the purchase Jerry. Now all you need is $4.5M stimulus money to get things back to normal. Oh, and avoid women folk for awhile.

Thanks, don't worry about me avoiding the women folk. Now that I owe 4.5 million they avoid me!

Sounds like the perfect 150. All of the best, with less weight than the later models. Should be a sweet ride for you.

Yea, it has a lot of advantages over my old one and good logs. I was always watching for one of the 150 heavy nose forks for my old plane but they want an arm and leg for them. I think Dawson has one for 1250 but it isn't complete and a guy has one on ebay right now for $2300. It looks like it's all there with a tire and wheel. They look funny because the fork sticks out the front, not the back. This plane was about a thousand less than what I sold mine for. Makes me feel a lot better about giving mine away.

Would 8:50's fit on 150's mains?

Jaerl wrote:
Would 8:50's fit on 150's mains?

Stock engine 150 in SLC set up for back country flying? Might as well take out the right seat and put it up on eBay right now. Same with the right cabin door, just put a piece of .020" sheet over the right door opening with Cherry rivets, and save the weight of the door while you're at it. Taking out the right side yoke and pedals will save you another five pounds.

The most weight that can be removed from our small aircraft typically rides in the pilot/passenger seats.......
Not particularly easy to lose, but shedding excess weight is very BENEFICIAL at the AME visits of the future (near & far...).
When I started flying in a 65 hp J-3 at 16, it was a good performer. I weighed about (wish I had a copy of my old medical for reference) 130 lbs. Likely a little less. Now I pack 100 additional lbs. in my pilot seat. (not braggin' )

Not that the idea to remove the passenger door and rudder pedals isn't valid, Flap, but most of us should look in a full length mirror to see most of the superfluous weight that our small aircraft carry. (This is NOT aimed at Jerry. This is aimed at the majority of US BCPers)

Personal weight may be a challenge to lose, but another advantage-there is no paperwork/approval/runaround at the FSDO to deal with on this 'modification'.

Win-Win, just lose....
lc

I WISH recognizing the problem was half of solving it. NOT this one.

Littlecub, your exactly right! I'm pretty sure 80lbs could be lost from the loose nut behind the yoke. Bill, a Backcountry 150 is exactly what I would like to do if for some miracle I am able to keep it. I would go experimental and do an engine swap.