Luscombe vs. Taylorcraft vs. Chief

Coolidge

Coolidge

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
10
Display Name
Display name:
Coolidge
Hey guys,

Luscombe 8 vs. Taylorcraft BC12 vs. Aeronca Chief.

Out of these 3 specific aircraft, which do you prefer? Which has the roomiest cabin? Which tends to be the most stable in all aspects of flight? Which is the better performer, other things equal? Which do you just plain like more?

Let’s make some assumptions:
All will have an engine larger than 65hp (likely 75hp or 85hp). It will be based at an uncontrolled grass strip. It will be used strictly for leisure; local flights with a duration of 2 hours or less. 50% of the time will be solo, 50% will be with a passenger, so we’ll assume there will be plenty of flying at gross. It will always be hangared. It will undergo a thorough a ore-buy and annual by an A&P knowledgable in these types prior to purchase.

Eager to hear your thoughts!
 
Search back country pilot dot org.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Coolidge said:
Hey guys,

Luscombe 8 vs. Taylorcraft BC12 vs. Aeronca Chief.

Out of these 3 specific aircraft, which do you prefer? Which has the roomiest cabin? Which tends to be the most stable in all aspects of flight? Which is the better performer, other things equal? Which do you just plain like more?

Let’s make some assumptions:
All will have an engine larger than 65hp (likely 75hp or 85hp). It will be based at an uncontrolled grass strip. It will be used strictly for leisure; local flights with a duration of 2 hours or less. 50% of the time will be solo, 50% will be with a passenger, so we’ll assume there will be plenty of flying at gross. It will always be hangared. It will undergo a thorough a ore-buy and annual by an A&P knowledgable in these types prior to purchase.

Eager to hear your thoughts!
Click to expand...
Luscome is #1 for speed and general performance. Taylorcraft is 2nd for speed, Chief is slower than both. Chief is probably a roomier cabin, Taylorcraft the worst visibility, but all are tight if you're average in today's world. They are all very light, so stability is a bit well, similar, though I'd go for better ground handling, personally. If offered my pick, it would be Luscombe, Taylorcraft, then Chief. Be very careful with the empty weights and useful loads of the aircraft you look at.
 
I learned to fly in a 65 HP Chief and then got an 85HP Chief and you definitely want those 85 ponies at high altitude. I crossed the high Rockies ( Berthoud pass) at gross with 85 HP by adding in some soaring. The Chief is the roomiest and the slowest and the Luscombe the fastest and least roomy. All 3 are proven aircraft but mechanical heel brakes are lots o'luck brakes at best.
 
Best to worst:
Speed: Luscombe, Taylorcraft, Chief.
Ground handling: Chief, Taylorcraft, Luscombe
Enter/exit: Chief, Luscombe, Taylorcraft.
Room: Meh.
They are all narrow, but the Chief and the Taylorcraft seem roomier because of the wheel, where the Luscombe has a stick you need to maneuver around.
Make sure you have extra tanks. A lot of those planes had only 11 or 12 gallons usable. With an 85 hp engine the range isn't much more than 1.5 ish hours if you want to have the FAA recommended fuel on board when you land.
They are all a delight to fly, the Chief being the most sedate in the air.
The Chief seems to need more space to get off the ground. Like 35 to 50% more. The Taylorcraft and Luscombe are a little more "sporty".
 
Luscombe by far. Its roomy enough for me at 6' 3" and 220 and one other. However my head hits the overhead in turb. They are all light wing loaded. The luscombe has STC's for up to a Lyc O-320. Not all SN's are eligible.
 
If you are keeping it tied down outdoors the Luscombe is the only one that is available all metal. No wood, no nails, no glue.
 
I don't have an experience with flying the Luscomb or the Taylorcraft have seen a bunch of them though.

I learned to fly a tailwheel in an 11CC Chief. Almost bought that plane actually. The Chief in my opinion has more room and is easier to get in and out of. It is easy to fly and handles well on the ground. The 85HP is BIG difference over the 65HP it is surprising the difference 20HP makes.
 
Coolidge said:
Hey guys,

Luscombe 8 vs. Taylorcraft BC12 vs. Aeronca Chief.

Out of these 3 specific aircraft, which do you prefer? Which has the roomiest cabin? Which tends to be the most stable in all aspects of flight? Which is the better performer, other things equal? Which do you just plain like more?

Let’s make some assumptions:
All will have an engine larger than 65hp (likely 75hp or 85hp). It will be based at an uncontrolled grass strip. It will be used strictly for leisure; local flights with a duration of 2 hours or less. 50% of the time will be solo, 50% will be with a passenger, so we’ll assume there will be plenty of flying at gross. It will always be hangared. It will undergo a thorough a ore-buy and annual by an A&P knowledgable in these types prior to purchase.

Eager to hear your thoughts!
Click to expand...
I would vote for the Luscombe. Why don't you have the Cessna 140 in your list? That would be a better choice in my opinion! Better range 4 hours 20 minutes, 108 mph cruise, two passengers + baggage, 1949 and later all metal, 85 hp (1946 & 47) or 90 hp(1948 & later).
 
DFH65 said:
The 85HP is BIG difference over the 65HP it is surprising the difference 20HP makes.
Click to expand...

You're talking about nearly doubling the *excess* HP. It probably takes 35-40 HP for a Chief to stay in the air. If you have an A65 on the nose, that leaves 25-30 HP for additional performance (like speed or climb). Adding 20 HP is a huge boost.
 
That depends on many factors.

How much tailwheel time do you have? What kind of flights are you looking at?

Are you looking for something Sport Pilot eligible?

Why did these 3 make your list?

All 3 are good budget airplanes, and there are many situations where the choice between them could be made in choosing from the condition of the individual aircraft and not the models.
 
Coolidge said:
Hey guys,

Luscombe 8 vs. Taylorcraft BC12 vs. Aeronca Chief.

Out of these 3 specific aircraft, which do you prefer? Which has the roomiest cabin? Which tends to be the most stable in all aspects of flight? Which is the better performer, other things equal? Which do you just plain like more?

Let’s make some assumptions:
All will have an engine larger than 65hp (likely 75hp or 85hp). It will be based at an uncontrolled grass strip. It will be used strictly for leisure; local flights with a duration of 2 hours or less. 50% of the time will be solo, 50% will be with a passenger, so we’ll assume there will be plenty of flying at gross. It will always be hangared. It will undergo a thorough a ore-buy and annual by an A&P knowledgable in these types prior to purchase.

Eager to hear your thoughts!
Click to expand...

these are the aircraft you’re looking at and want a “roomy cabin?”
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
Champ
Click to expand...

I certainly agree. A tandem would be wonderful for your mission. It has less frontal area which gives better performance. The visibility is phenomenal for both folks on board. Anyone who has ever flown one will offer you instant respect.
 
MBDiagMan said:
these are the aircraft you’re looking at and want a “roomy cabin?”
Click to expand...
Ain't none of them gonna be like the interior of a Chevy 'burban. But it ain't like you not gonna close the door.

I get into a 152 and it's like, "****! this thing is big!".

It's all relative.

Einstein had a theory about relativity.

You pick your friends, your relatives you're stuck with.
 
So much misleading information in here! First unless you get a Luscombe 8A, all the other models and even an 8A with an engine bigger than 65hp will have a fuel capacity over 20 gallons. In fact the 8e carries 30 I believe. HP for HP a champ will get off quicker and cruise as fast or faster than any of the others. The downside is The cabin is VERY cramped and the visibility is horrid.

I haven’t spent much time in a Chief but the Luscombe has the most head and shoulder room but on the short side for leg room. The Taylorcraft and Luscombe handle pretty similar. Both have massive amounts of adverse yaw. The choice between those two should be stick vs yoke preference. I’ve only sat in a Chief and seen them fly so can’t comment on it’s handling. The Luscombe is all metal which is a huge advantage if it will sit outside.

I would pass on the Champ. Yea it will be more comfortable but the inflated asking price and so so performance aren’t enough for me to offset that. The only reason I would consider a 120/140 is because they are dirt cheap. They don’t perform as well as any of the others listed. Some people don’t like the Luscombe ground manors but I do. I like the more solid feel they have because you can tell what is doing.
 
I don’t understand how you can fault the Champs visibility over the others unless you are talking about seeing over the nose. Not seeing over the nose is often something you must learn in order to be a tail wheel pilot.

I agree that the Champ(as well as the J3) is overpriced.
 
MBDiagMan said:
I don’t understand how you can fault the Champs visibility over the others unless you are talking about seeing over the nose. Not seeing over the nose is often something you must learn in order to be a tail wheel pilot.
Click to expand...

I had to read the post you're responding to a couple of times before I realized he was saying the Luscombe has the poorest visibility of the 3 (Chief, Taylorcraft, and Luscombe) and wasn't talking about the Champ. The Champ probably has the best over the nose visibility of any taildragger.
 
Didn't I mentioned J5? Helo is this thing on...Tap Tap Tap. Roomy, fly from the front so good visibility, more useful load. Or better yet a PA12 if you have the money you get all of the J5 goodness plus an electrical system.
 
kyleb said:
I had to read the post you're responding to a couple of times before I realized he was saying the Luscombe has the poorest visibility of the 3 (Chief, Taylorcraft, and Luscombe) and wasn't talking about the Champ. The Champ probably has the best over the nose visibility of any taildragger.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, on multiple counts.
 
kyleb said:
I had to read the post you're responding to a couple of times before I realized he was saying the Luscombe has the poorest visibility of the 3 (Chief, Taylorcraft, and Luscombe) and wasn't talking about the Champ. The Champ probably has the best over the nose visibility of any taildragger.
Click to expand...

okay, so you WERE talking about over the nose visibility. My first seven hours were in a Champ, but that was almost thirty years ago. I don’t remember a problem seeing over the nose, but in that regard I don think it is as good as a 140. The view for the two folks aboard to gawk at the countryside can’t be beat by that in a Champ, in fixed wing anyway. Overall the ground visibility from a Bell 47 is something to behold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top