I'm thinking of buying a 1962 Cessna 150B that was converted to a tailwheel (using stock 150 gear) in the 70s, then converted back to tricycle gear in the early 80s. What would I need to do to make this a tailwheel again since it already has the paperwork? It still has the gear boxes bolted in to move the gear forward. The owner also has a scott 3200 for it.

I think it is a pretty decent deal other than the O-200 has 2300 hrs on it (perfect time to slap an O-320 on it, right?). The engine runs great and has good compression and oil pressure, but I think the crankshaft end play is excessive. The airframe has about 7,000hrs. I think I can get it for 12,500. Would the value be increased enough to cover the engine overhaul if it were converted back to a taildragger?

Jaerl has one with waaay less hours for about that price range. You will never make out in today's economy getting the STC and kits to install a 0-320. If you want a taildragger 150/150 your much better off buying one.

Do a V-ref on trade a plane you will find its not even close to being worth $12K

I was getting 8 - 10,000 offers for my 150J and the engine was just over TBO with new cylinders and main bearings. The fastbacks seem to demand a premium because they are a little harder to find and the tailwheel stuff might help, but considering the engine hrs I would offer him around 10,000. If you want it just buy it but don't plan to make anything when you sale it. I have seen O-200's with 4,000 + hrs so it could last, or could go tomorrow. The engine hrs is what will really destroy the value. You can buy a good 150 right now for less than an engine will cost you.

One other thing. Before you convert to a tailwheel you might want to fly it as a nosedragger. They are balanced so well you can land and stay on the mains almost until your stopped so I don't see much of an advantage of converting a 150 to a tailwheel. You can't get out of where you can land so what's the point?

It's all about the looks LOL. Did you sell your 150? You're right about the fastbacks being high priced, but I really like the looks/flying characteristics of them more than the slant tails. I have flown this one a couple of times, and it really does fly well. If I can legally get it back to being a taildragger easily, I feel like that would increase significantly.

I was joking about the O-320, although it would be pretty bitchin. I think that it would run upwards of 8k to overhaul the 0-200, and that's with me doing the work.

No, I didn't sell my 150. I just figured I couldn't replace it for what I could get out of it so I am still flying it. They are great little planes and about as cheap to fly as anything. Plus, ebay has every part you will ever need for pennys on the dollar. Nice to have such a huge used parts store!

I figure I will just fly it till it dies and then go experimental. If I could find a GM 4.3 diesel or an Isuzu 3.2 Diesel that might make and interesting project. I would like to try some leading edge flaps too.

Jaerl:

"You can't get out of where you can land so what's the point?"

I'm just learning soft field technique with my 150 and it does seem pretty easy to keep the nose wheel way up. I've seen the off strip 150 videos as well, and I've wondered about a tailwheel conversion to mine. So, are you saying the 150 lands easy enough to get you into places you won't get out of so the conversion isn't worth it? I've got no off pavement experience yet, but plan on getting plenty. Should I just keep the configuration the same and get some bigger tires until I get a more appropriate bush plane?

Glad to hear you kept your 150. More planes, more fun

Seems like to me, putting a tailwheel on a 150 is just building a heavier 140 with less performance, Why? If you put in a O-320 you have a plane with performance but no room or useable weight. Plus you'll have a bunch of money and time into a plane that could be replaced by a whole bunch of more capable planes in that price range.

Don't get me wrong, I love 150's. C150's actually land and get off the ground pretty fast. I have a climb prop and I can land and take off at U77 before the first turn off from a dead stop. Google Earth is showing it as about 650 feet and that's at 4500'. Works OK as long as you don't have a tree or power lines in front of you. They are great little planes and a lot of fun but I don't see spending a bunch of money trying to make one into something it's not.

One thing I like about a 150 is that you actually have to learn to fly in a 150 because they have a lot of nothing! No power, no climb. Everything has to be right or they just don't go. I had one guy ask me if mine would go over 8,000 ft with two people . He told me he looked at one and he said it wouldn't.

If you guys want a 150/150 there is one in the project section of Barnstormers for $12,500 right now. Supposed to have a low time engine but no engine logs to prove it. You will never build one for close to that.

Bigger tires would be nice but I wouldn't want to lose any of my 491 lb payload. It's a lot cheaper to learn to land slower anyway.

Jaerl wrote:Seems like to me, putting a tailwheel on a 150 is just building a heavier 140 with less performance, Why? If you put in a O-320 you have a plane with performance but no room or useable weight. Plus you'll have a bunch of money and time into a plane that could be replaced by a whole bunch of more capable planes in that price range.
If you guys want a 150/150 there is one in the project section of Barnstormers for $12,500 right now. Supposed to have a low time engine but no engine logs to prove it. You will never build one for close to that.

Bigger tires would be nice but I wouldn't want to loose any of my 491 lb payload. It's a lot cheaper to learn to land slower anyway.

I think you may be shocked at what the 150/150 TD is capable of doing in the hands of a guy that knows his plane. I know I was damn sure shocked the first time I saw it first hand! After having a few hundred hours in stock 150s and doing some pretty dumb shit with them off airport, I had a pretty bleak outlook on them. The 150 150 TD changed that outlook... And what is gross weight really.. its just kinda a guidline for rough air ops hahaha. I have seen several 150 150's loaded to the max and still perform VERY well.

On the flip side, I have seen a guy that could not fly the damn plane into a strip less than 2000' but that was pilot ability, not the aircrafts capabilities.

Hey, I'm sure that a 150/150 would be a kick to fly and if I had a whole bunch of extra money I might just build one too. But I also know that if you put a dress on a pig, all you have is a pig in a dress.

Gross weight, that's only important if you want the wings to land at the same time as the fuselage.

Cessna 150 fun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjzBgVT8 ... ature=fvwp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2JZq2fyxWQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDeOw4b2 ... re=related

uncle_rob wrote:Jaerl:

"You can't get out of where you can land so what's the point?"

I'm just learning soft field technique with my 150 and it does seem pretty easy to keep the nose wheel way up. I've seen the off strip 150 videos as well, and I've wondered about a tailwheel conversion to mine. So, are you saying the 150 lands easy enough to get you into places you won't get out of so the conversion isn't worth it? I've got no off pavement experience yet, but plan on getting plenty. Should I just keep the configuration the same and get some bigger tires until I get a more appropriate bush plane?

Glad to hear you kept your 150. More planes, more fun

Don't worry about not getting back out of where you can land, if you make the conversion and leave the original gear on, you will have a plane that will not be able to land there either.

Think about this: Pull the tail down on a C150 then picture sliding the main gear forward to where it will be as a taildragger. What happens to the nose? It lowers as you slide the gear forward. With the lowered angle of attack the plane will not be able to attain the angle needed for stall landings. The tail will hit first. You will be stuck with fast two wheel landings using up half the runway till it quits flying and you no longer will be able to put the plane in the same short runway that you could as a tricycle. The C150 converted to the taildragger with original gear needs longer legs to get the nose back up after sliding them forward for the conversion or it won't stall at its landing configuration. So, now longer landings. Most likely thats why this plane was put back to a tricycle.

I flew one with my step dad when he was looking for a plane before he realized what he really wanted was another Cub. We didn't know at the time what was causing the problem in flare and with the longer landing but we did realize the plane was a disappointment. I heard the same observation by another person last spring at Sidney. There was one in the hangar there and Ed, HiC's FBO there told me about its problems landing. Then I started putting it all together and thinking about the reason why. You will be disappointed in it as a taildragger.

dirtstrip wrote:

uncle_rob wrote:Jaerl:

"You can't get out of where you can land so what's the point?"

I'm just learning soft field technique with my 150 and it does seem pretty easy to keep the nose wheel way up. I've seen the off strip 150 videos as well, and I've wondered about a tailwheel conversion to mine. So, are you saying the 150 lands easy enough to get you into places you won't get out of so the conversion isn't worth it? I've got no off pavement experience yet, but plan on getting plenty. Should I just keep the configuration the same and get some bigger tires until I get a more appropriate bush plane?

Glad to hear you kept your 150. More planes, more fun

Don't worry about not getting back out of where you can land, if you make the conversion and leave the original gear on, you will have a plane that will not be able to land there either.

Think about this: Pull the tail down on a C150 then picture sliding the main gear forward to where it will be as a taildragger. What happens to the nose? It lowers as you slide the gear forward. With the lowered angle of attack the plane will not be able to attain the angle needed for stall landings. The tail will hit first. You will be stuck with fast two wheel landings using up half the runway till it quits flying and you no longer will be able to put the plane in the same short runway that you could as a tricycle. The C150 converted to the taildragger with original gear needs longer legs to get the nose back up after sliding them forward for the conversion or it won't stall at its landing configuration. So, now longer landings. Most likely thats why this plane was put back to a tricycle.

I flew one with my step dad when he was looking for a plane before he realized what he really wanted was another Cub. We didn't know at the time what was causing the problem in flare and with the longer landing but we did realize the plane was a disappointment. I heard the same observation by another person last spring at Sidney. There was one in the hangar there and Ed, HiC's FBO there told me about its problems landing. Then I started putting it all together and thinking about the reason why. You will be disappointed in it as a taildragger.

I think it was converted back because the owner thought that learning to fly in a taildragger was a bad idea... If I were to get it, I would probably use 140 gear and add 8.50s (if I could get it done legally). I've heard that they will do stall landings with that setup. I do want to do some off airport stuff but usually its the soft surface, not the length, that would necessitate the tailwheel and bigger tires (and because bigger tires would net more tail). Another reason why I like the idea of a 150 TD is because it has a good wing with very effective flaps.

Hey Jaerl:

Thanks. I'd never have thought of that. That's another thing to notice when I'm looking at planes. Thanks fo the explanation.

I think it was Dirtstrips explanation that your thinking of and it makes a lot of sense. I have never hit the tie down ring on my 150 but it will get the nose pretty high. I will probably hit it sooner or later trying to see how slow I can get off the ground or land. I can beat the POH numbers but I still think I have room for improvement.

I have a friend that has a '61 Cessna 150/150 he wants to sell that is on C140 gear ! It has a standard Airworthiness certificate
He has owned it for many years. Reason for selling -- he just built a PA-18 clone with a 180 Lycoming in it and he has a Cessna 180 on floats ! He's airplane poor ! He has not listed it for sale yet and he lives in northern Minnesota .

I disagree with some of the cons in this thread. That looks like a nice early 150. So the engine is run out, big deal. They all run out eventually, you just have to be willing to buy a new one, and in this case do the work to get an O-320 in there. Just make sure the price you pay is fair for the engine hours and condition. $12,500 is too much for a 7000 hr airframe with runout engine, period. The owner used up the value of the engine, he can't recoup its value.

To echo your thoughts, a 150/150 with its big flaps seems like a more capable bush bird than a 140. They're true Fowler flaps so you can get some nice extra lift out of them instead of just a little bit of drag like the early Cessnas. They're manual flaps too, which is more fun and more reliable. Putting the right main gear on would be mandatory, as what Dirtstrip said above about ground attitude is the truth. The nice thing is that this bird has already had the major lifting done for conversion, like you said. Find some 140 gear and get a field approval for 8.50's. The straight tail and some big tires would make it a really cool looking little bird. Useful load would be a different story, but there is lightening that can be done. Hopefully you are light. Bottom line is that the price has to be right, because you will spend a little money reconverting and sprucing it up.