Conversion to taildrager

D

Donny Hughes

Pre-Flight
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
41
Display Name
Display name:
Taildrager
It seem like I remember years ago there was a conversion done to C 150's and they were called Texas taildrager's . Have 172's ever been stitched to taildragers and if so what is involved for example does any one make a kit ?
 
Didn’t Cessna make them as 140s and 170s?

Sort of.
 
There are a couple of STCs for converting a 172 to a taildragger. You'll just need to research it. I don't have the info right at hand.
 
Pretty much. I am not around 172’s much, and have never seen or heard of one converted to tailwheel. I would be surprised if it has not been done though.

I have seen a number of 150 taildraggers. A very Cessna knowledgeable doctor frequently flies one into my field from his nearby grass strip. I asked him about his Texas Taildragger and he quickly told me that it was not a Texas Taildragger, rather is a conversion done by someone else with their own STC. I think the doctor did a lot of the work himself. If anyone reading this is considering a 150 conversion, it is probably worthwhile for them to know what he said. If I remember correctly, he said that some of the TT’s have a weak rear spring section. His has the far rear section from a 140 and the gearbox from the 140.

There are several of my 140 friends that have massive respect for this doctors early Cessna knowledge and I am under the impression that he is an authority on such conversions.

Hope this is helpful to someone here.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
They also turn up on the used market.

http://barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?id=1435999
Click to expand...

WOW! $70K for a 6/10, 7/10 172 with the third wheel moved to the other end and not even ADS-B? My 140 has more panel including ADS-B Out AND In! I think the previous poster is right. A 170 is a wonderful airplane and a nice example can be had for significantly less.

Let me be clear. That 172 looks like a decent plane, but strikes me as overpriced.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
Didn’t Cessna make them as 140s and 170s?

Sort of.
Click to expand...
Except they're not. A 150 doesn't have much in common with a 120/140. A 170 is closer to a 172, but there are still a lot of differences in the models in the same year.
 
My opinion of the 172 / 170 conversion, the 172 has a much better instrument panels 6 pack instruments, a vac system, center stacked radios, and a larger fuselage /windows.
but when converted to tail wheel they are squirrels, when the gear boxes are moved to the front some thing happens to the CG. They just don't handle well on the ground.
The 170- has three versions, the 48 rag wing, the 49-53 A and The 53 to 57 -B
all have small instrument panels that do not have space for a good instrument panel for IFR work.
radios are mounted low / left and are difficult to see. but they are a very good handling aircraft on the ground, and fly with a very light touch, most are 115-130 MPH aircraft.
They have very simple systems a 0-300-A-D engines that are easy supported, smooth to fly, and easy on gas.
I've owned 4, 2-48s 1-B and 1-A, my favorite is the 48, they are lighter, faster, and have a better useful load. there were only 712 of them made.
 
Last edited:
Donny Hughes said:
It seem like I remember years ago there was a conversion done to C 150's and they were called Texas taildrager's . Have 172's ever been stitched to taildragers and if so what is involved for example does any one make a kit ?
Click to expand...

I would consider myself one of the leading "experts" on swept-tail 172 taildraggers (okay one of few people that have flown both for more than an hour). I have about 60 hours in a Bolen Cessna 172 (shown below) and another 20 in a texas taildragger (N6303E). The texas taildragger has its gear 2" further back than the bolen and this makes it quite a bit less stable in the wheel landing configuration. I found the Bolen conversion to be better, it's longer coupled and lands nicer in both 3pt and wheel landing configurations. I will say that STOL performance likely suffered from the conversion, but they are sweet airplanes to fly.

A lot of people say that the swept tail taildraggers don't have enough rudder authority, but I didn't find that to be true. I thought it was adequate for anything I was doing and I took on some big cross winds. You absolutely have to be ontop of the airplane and it trained me incredibly well for the Skywagon I own today.
Juliet Hotel said:
They also turn up on the used market.

http://barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?id=1435999
Click to expand...
It's a great airplane, I have about 60 hours in it. The owner is an excellent person (as is the mechanic that maintained it) and its a well cared for plane. The price IS negotiable. https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/1977-172n-tailwheel.118704/

As I said in that thread I would absolutely own that plane if it were not for the 180 I have now.
Juliet Hotel said:
Or buy a 180 and get better performance for about the same money as a converted 172.
Click to expand...
Find me a 180 for that money. Please. I will buy it. Today. An equivalent conditioned 180 will go for 130-150k in todays market.

17835044_10212147511591345_4117401473690123397_o.jpg
 
flyingron said:
Except they're not. A 150 doesn't have much in common with a 120/140. A 170 is closer to a 172, but there are still a lot of differences in the models in the same year.
Click to expand...

Not much in common? Huh?

They share the same engine family, the shape is close enough to the same that a 140 rear tail cone will fit a 150 and the gearbox will fit into position in a 150. A 150 panel is close enough to be put in a 140. The 140A has the same wing as a 150. Seems like a good bit of similarity to me.

My 140 was retromoded and a 150 was salvaged in the project. My 140 got the O200A and prop from it, the seats from it, the engine accessories from it and even the wheel pants from it.

Are there differences between them? Certainly, but there are also similarities.
 
texasclouds said:
That ones been on the market quite a while. Also i think it has the engine model known to have issues. -h2ad

http://cessnaowner.org/h2ad-engine/
Click to expand...
After the "T" modification by Chuck Ney, they no longer had any problems, a customer put 3200+ hours on one he built, never had a problem.
This engine got a bad rap, early and never out lived it.
 
I posed the question just kind of thinking out loud . I had at one time a 1955 170 B best plane I ever owned . I also owned a 195 and you can't get me to say any thing bad about it but you can't really compare the to . If I had 45 min to fly I could fly the 170 out of the hanger and fly 45 min . With the 195 if I wanted to fly 45 min you needed two hours or more . Put the tow bar on pull it out with the tug . Than pull the prop thru and all the other time eaters with that plane . So than you fly after that you lay under the plane and clean all the oil it may have puked out fun fun . But it was a fat boys airplane . At the local airport they nick named me the big unit . I crank down that left window and taxi with my arm hanging out the window
So now what prompted the 172 question . I was told about a plane that a family is want to get out of the way . The owner took the wings of and brought to his home shop to work on and paint .At this point the details are unknown to me as when all this happened All I have at this point Is a couple of pic . A friend of mine is a friend of the family that has the plane . But to give you an idea the mind set of this mans family they told my friend there was a spare engine on the shop floor and it was in there way so the hauled it to the scrap yard along with who knows what else ?
If nothing else it may have made a air boat motor . With out making a fuss he questioned them about the motor and they said it was complete but the did not know any thing about it and off it went . As for the plane the photos are not great but showed the n number so I looked it up and its a 1960 model . It is very hard to say what will happen it is not over till its over but there is a possibility they in the very near future they will want it gone for scrap price ? And the sad reality not at this point not having seen it that my be all it worth ? we shall see . I need another project like I need another bung hole LOL
 
I am so glad it has shed some light for someone . As for myself I have gotten very accustomed to having the feeling of being in the dark about 90% of the time . At 25 I thought I know every thing . Now at 61 I don't know a dang thing .So the question is have I dumbed down or was I as dumb at 25 and was not able smart enough to know . One can only wonder .
 
Sounds like you were normal for that age. In your late teens and twenties, most guys have two things n common; they already know everything and they are going to live forever.
 
The best all around 170 I have ever flown was the Tom Anderson's IO-360-? mod, off the ground in about 200', trying to hold 70 on climb out, you can see the horizon over the nose. the VSI showing 1200' per minute. And it required no cowl mod, no bumps lumps or anything
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top