Club Homepage Forums Classified Ads Buy & Sell - Airplanes Only 180 hp Taildragger Wanted

I considered a 150/180 before I bought the Cherokee. Even with LR tanks and all that extra hp, there are probably better choices. As others however, my 150/150was a doll. Wish in some ways I still had her. The Scout I flew was the most beautiful airplane in the controls. You thought what the plane wantedd to do and it was done....perfectly. Well, except landing, but not the planes fault.

Bottom line, if you want a 180hp airplane, except for towing, there are probably better alternatives.

If I wanted a 180 HP plane...it'd be an RV. Plain and simple.

I know they're more expensive...easily the cost of three or four Cessna 150's...but wow.......

My 150/150 Tailwheel plane is one of the most mild-mannered planes I've ever flown...nose wheel or tailwheel.

Even other's that I've let fly mine agree, it's extremely docile.

Do I secretly wish for more speed? It ain't a secret. I think we all do. I do maintain that it's an awesome balance between fun, speed, utility, and cool-factor.

We've effectively totally hijacked the OP's thread...and we don't know how determined he is to get a 180 HP taildragger.

Good luck in your quest...

But no room for Cheyenne!

Bill

I don't have a dog, Bill. (well....anymore...)



Seriously...you could put Cheyenne's kennel behind the seat...up to 75 pounds in an RV-6 and 100 pounds in an RV-7.

And...you still wouldn't need a transponder!

What Gary said....I would have an Rv in a second, but wifey wants a back seat for grand kiddo's

Dave,

I agree that it may have been the particular conversion that was less than optimal. I have flown very few airplanes that I didn't like, although there were some, such as the Cessna Airmaster that had handling that concerned me (neutral stability in yaw and a sense that I had no say over where the airplane was going during deceleration from about 30 MPH to 20 MPH during rollout). There were some that I felt were okay, but when compared to airplanes with roughly the same power and performance, I'd easily chose something else. The 180/150 that I towed gliders with was in that category. It was okay, but it wasn't particularly fun to fly.

It was nice having all that power (it sure out-performed a 150 HP Super Cub or 150 HP Pawnee [now there's a true dog - and an airplane I do not like] for glider towing), but where you could land the Pawnee or Super Cub on a dime and give back change after a day of 15 or 20 landings, you were never quite sure what the 180/150 was going to do on and after touchdown.

That being said, it may very well have been the particular conversion. And, as with all conversions and homebuilt airplanes, I recommend flying any one a person is considering buying before putting the money down. I flew two different SeaRey amphibs over the course of a few years. Despite being built from the same kit, the differences between them were startling. One was a real pig, sloppy controls, was difficult to trim, on and on. The other was a gem. One builder was sloppy, the other was precise. The finished airplanes reflected the differences.

Warmest regards,
Rick

It must have been that one aircraft Rick. My Cessna 150/150 Texas Taildragger is fairly easy to handle on the ground. In the air it is just another 150 with a larger engine. On the ground it is just like any other taildragger but with it's own quirks. There isn't as much rudder authority as a Piper Super Cruiser but then again there isn't as much fuselage to act as a sail either. I use differential braking more so than the Super Cruiser but it works well for me. I do have the wider landing gear so it is more stable than the Luscombe I flew for a few hours (never soloed though). Actually I think my kayak is more stable than the Luscombe. Visibility over the nose is excellent with no S-turns required. It does take lots of practice to get used to landing the spring steel gear of the Cessna. For about the first year of ownership I practiced quite a bit. I still do that, just not as often though. Wheel landings are somewhat of a challenge and I won't do them in anything but the calmest of conditions. Not because of the directional control but rather the clearance between the prop and the ground when on the mains. Can't speak to the 180hp other than to say it must climb pretty well. In the cruise it is still a draggy 150.

With a drinking problem.

Ed,

Thank you - I agree it may have been the conversion. The landing gear was incredibly soft, so the airplane rocked excessively during rollout and would dart one way or the other. Wheel landings were no problem at all until the tail came down. I've flown 150s with very soft gear - putting that on a tailwheel machine would not create a particularly nice handling airplane.

I've got a lot of time in Luscombes and instructed in them - they were all nicer handling than this particular conversion. I've also got a fair amount of time in the spring steel gear 180s and 185s, and none have had the unpleasant handling of the conversion.

In cruise, the 180 HP overwhelmed the airframe. I've flown big engine conversions of a number of airplanes, Riley Rockets, T-34s, turbo-prop P210, but none essentially "disharmonized" (for lack of a better word) the airplane the way this one did. Again, it may have been the conversion. And, it also helped convince me that if I'm going to buy any airplane, I am going to fly it through its entire envelope before I buy it. (I made the mistake of letting one of my co-owners do the acceptance flight on one airplane and we wound up with an airplane that cost us a few thousand dollars trying to fix a seriously out of rig condition due to a crappy wing rebuild - and neither the damage nor the rebuild were recorded in the logbook.)

Warmest regards,
Rick

Interesting listening to different pilots experiences and opinions.

I know of at least one member here that turned their "twitchy" 150 taildragger into a well mannered one simply by realigning the landing gear.

Just a few weeks ago I was chatting with a 152 taildragger owner who says he always wheel lands his airplane for the airplane runs out of rudder authority just at the wrong time when doing a three point landing.

I have heard it told that on the taildragger that the flat gear is much more predictable and pleasant on the ground than the later tube gear. (I do know that has been my experience with tricycle gear.)

Adding on to my personal experience in going from a "doggy" 152 to a relatively "perky" stock 150 to a 150/150 is that when I inputted the controls into the 150 or 152 there was an over all "mushy" feeling where the airplane seemingly was thinking whether it really wanted to do this or not where the 150/150 is like it has been put on rails, you input the controls and that is where it goes!

Different airplanes + different pilots = different opinions?

Bill