Aeronca Champ vs. Cessna 150?

Warmi said:
Tailwheel planes are simply inferior and obsolete technology as far as their ground handling characteristics and, besides often superiors look and aesthetics , there is no reason to fly one except as some kind of masochistic excersize to prove a point.

But hey , the same can be said just about any GA plane and since 90% of GA flying is for fun....I guess why not make it a bit more challenging just for the heck of it.
Click to expand...

Oh, no you didn’t! Moderator, please ban him!


Just kidding.
 
Warmi said:
Tailwheel planes are simply inferior and obsolete technology as far as their ground handling characteristics and, besides often superiors look and aesthetics , there is no reason to fly one except as some kind of masochistic excersize to prove a point.
Click to expand...

Nah, your horizons are a little narrow. There are still good reasons why some newly built aircraft are tailwheels - they are less draggy, more rugged, easier to build, mechanically simpler, lighter, and provide more prop clearance. Niche planes like racers, acro planes, and many homebuilts are better suited to the tailwheel configuration. They are also simply better looking and more fun for many of us exactly because of the added challenge and satisfaction. Most of the funnest coolest airplanes happen to have been originally built with a tailwheel. It's one of those things where if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.
 
Nosewheel, tailwheel, whatever. Learn in both and then it snot a big deal one way or the udder.
 
James331 said:
If you learn and demonstrate proper fundamentals in the 7AC you’ll be fine in most any tailwheel
Click to expand...
Well, up to a certain point. I've found that most light tailwheel pilots, (Citabria/Champ, Cub, 120/140, taylorcraft, luscombe, etc) have little to no idea how to fly heavier taildraggers, obviously they have a leg up on someone with no tailwheel experience, but generally the heavier ones can be less forgiving and harder to manage all that energy. I'm not saying I have it on lock, just that they are different animals. Tailwheel time does not mean you can fly any taildragger.
texasclouds said:
Oh, no you didn’t! Moderator, please ban him!
Click to expand...

On it.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Well, up to a certain point. I've found that most light tailwheel pilots, (Citabria/Champ, Cub, 120/140, taylorcraft, luscombe, etc) have little to no idea how to fly heavier taildraggers, obviously they have a leg up on someone with no tailwheel experience, but generally the heavier ones can be less forgiving and harder to manage all that energy. I'm not saying I have it on lock, just that they are different animals. Tailwheel time does not mean you can fly any taildragger.
Click to expand...

I transitioned from the Champ to the 180 and 185 without any trouble. Yes, there's a lot more P-factor and a go-around can be fun, but the basic directional instability management is the same idea. A guy who starts out in a taildragger is NOT the same guy that trains in a trike and then transitions to a Champ. His taildragger skills haven't been pasted over his trike skills; they're foundational.
 
Dan Thomas said:
A guy who starts out in a taildragger is NOT the same guy that trains in a trike and then transitions to a Champ. His taildragger skills haven't been pasted over his trike skills; they're foundational.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is true. I suppose I was referring to the CFI's that have 8 hours in a Citabria and think they're qualified to fly my 180... that's just not the case.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Yeah this is true. I suppose I was referring to the CFI's that have 8 hours in a Citabria and think they're qualified to fly my 180... that's just not the case.
Click to expand...

Yep, nor a blind little acro bipe. Plenty of smashed planes resulting from overconfident folks thinking they were just another tailwheel airplane and didn't need any extra training.
 
RoscoeT said:
Yep, nor a blind little acro bipe. Plenty of smashed planes resulting from overconfident folks thinking they were just another tailwheel airplane and didn't need any extra training.
Click to expand...
I've had a few minutes experience with that, in a Christen Eagle. It would take me a lot longer to master that airplane than it took to master the 180/185. Very blind, very twitchy.
 
Dan Thomas said:
I've had a few minutes experience with that, in a Christen Eagle. It would take me a lot longer to master that airplane than it took to master the 180/185. Very blind, very twitchy.
Click to expand...

The Eagle has quite forgiving wide spring gear compared to the narrower stiff bungees of a stock Pitts. The Eagle nearly lands like a Decathlon compared to a Pitts, but has similar lack of forward vis, but better lateral vis due to the lower canopy rails.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Well, up to a certain point. I've found that most light tailwheel pilots, (Citabria/Champ, Cub, 120/140, taylorcraft, luscombe, etc) have little to no idea how to fly heavier taildraggers, obviously they have a leg up on someone with no tailwheel experience, but generally the heavier ones can be less forgiving and harder to manage all that energy. I'm not saying I have it on lock, just that they are different animals. Tailwheel time does not mean you can fly any taildragger.


On it.
Click to expand...

I think that’s the fundamentals bit, ie stuff like for a two point fly to the horizon vs put the stick forward, same movement different purpose
 
Flying a Champ is more fun than a 150 but perhaps a little less forgiving. I believe the Champ will (at least initially) make you a better pilot due to the need to use the rudder. The seating arrangement in the 150 may be a better learning environment for many due to being side-by-side vs. tandem in the Champ. Also, hand propping a Champ is an experience that you’ll never forget.
 
Brad Smith said:
Also, hand propping a Champ is an experience that you’ll never forget.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of Champs that don't need hand-propping. It was pretty much only the 7A series that had the A-65 and had no starter or generator. Anything 7Exx or higher had that stuff. There were a lot of 7ACs at one time, though. Got a bunch of time in one. Cruise 80 MPH, maybe. The 7EC was much better, with the C-90 or O-200, and that's the one that leaves the 150 in the dust.
 
Given the opportunity you have I wouldn’t constrain my self to either/or. Definitely start off in the Champ to learn the basics, it will teach you more about adverse yaw than just about anything else out there short of a Jenny. But the 150 has a lot going for it too since it’s a miniature “big boy” with instruments, a mixture control, flaps and brakes that actually do something. Also doing stalls is much more dramatic in a 150 than a Champ so there are things to be learned from both of them.
 
N3368K said:
Not to mention a VOR to demonstrate the ancient nav technology for the PP Checkride.
Click to expand...

VOR or other "installed navigation equipment" is completely unnecessary for the checkride. Only "onboard navigation equipment" - anything in the plane. Ipad with EFB and GPS is completely acceptable. Hopefully we will move past this piece of mis-information soon as it took me a lot of time to get if figured out before me recent checkride. With that said, I contacted one surly DPE who was still going to require a plane with not one, but two VORs!
 
Silvaire said:
Given the opportunity you have I wouldn’t constrain my self to either/or. Definitely start off in the Champ to learn the basics, it will teach you more about adverse yaw than just about anything else out there short of a Jenny. But the 150 has a lot going for it too since it’s a miniature “big boy” with instruments, a mixture control, flaps and brakes that actually do something. Also doing stalls is much more dramatic in a 150 than a Champ so there are things to be learned from both of them.
Click to expand...
That's the way my primary training worked out. Started in a 7EC Champ with a Narco Superhomer coffee-grinder radio, then just before solo the CFI switched me to a new '67 C-150.

Very glad I had that foundation in the Champ, though I kinda wish I'd stayed with it through solo, at least.
 
Silvaire said:
Also doing stalls is much more dramatic in a 150 than a Champ so there are things to be learned from both of them.
Click to expand...

I found the Champ much better, and much more convincing, when doing base-to-final skidding turn stall/spins in the Champ. At altitude, of course. The 150s would tend to tolerate a lot more cross-controlling without dropping the inside wing, and I wanted my students to see what can happen in older designs if they get complacent and sloppy.
 
TreeTopFlyer83 said:
Question guys/girls. I'm dragging my feet on starting my PPL. I've been back and forth trying to decide to start with a tail wheel with stick and rudder or the 150. Any information or recommendations any of you can provide would be most appreciated. The pros and cons so to speak. I've done a fair amount of research online about the differences between the two and I know they're not very comparable but both are good planes to learn to fly in. I'm open ears folks and thanks in advance for any information and recommendations that you all may have.
Click to expand...
The Champ will make you a better taildragger pilot. Once the wheels are off the ground, it isn't relevant where the third one is attached. Go with the one that moves you. . .
 
Sundancer said:
Once the wheels are off the ground, it isn't relevant where the third one is attached. Go with the one that moves you. . .
Click to expand...

I disagree. I've have time in both and they are different airplanes, each with its own special characteristics.
 
Sundancer said:
The Champ will make you a better taildragger pilot. Once the wheels are off the ground, it isn't relevant where the third one is attached.
Click to expand...

Not about the gear at this point, but the Champ will beat rudder skills into you that the 150 will let you slide with...assuming you're half paying attention. In a 150, the instructor has to yammer at you about rudder coordination. The Champ slaps you in the face itself.
 
All the tail wheel lovers on this thread a bias. The truth is the Cessna 150/152 is the best training airplane ever made.
 
Clip4 said:
All the tail wheel lovers on this thread a bias. The truth is the Cessna 150/152 is the best training airplane ever made.
Click to expand...
Lol. It’s a good plane. The question is whether the bias is justified...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Clip4 said:
All the tail wheel lovers on this thread a bias. The truth is the Cessna 150/152 is the best training airplane ever made.
Click to expand...

LOL, Windows is the best operating system ever made.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Yup. A Champ is more demanding in the air as well.
Click to expand...
Right, but the point was that it'd be no more demanding than a tri-champ (eugh so ugly) or an early 182 would be no different than an early 180 etc. Comparing apples to apples it really is just ground handling that's different. That being said, many of the taildragger are of an older design and thus have more adverse yaw etc. To deal with.
 
Some points that may not have been mentioned: Yoke vs stick, left or right hand throttle, differences in visibility, respect for asphalt runways and cabin heat. Then there are the intangibles: the feeling of being alone in the cockpit even though the instructor is behind, feeling like you are part of an aircraft that has a wonderful view left and right, the confidence of knowing you can fly a plane with conventional gear, having the choice of so many cool planes if desired and, of course, slipping around trees and obstacles without a final and landing beautifully on a 1600' dogleg field out in the middle of wherever you want. Oh yes, did I mention ski flying?? I learned to fly in a 150 many years ago and always longed for the tandem fun of a cub or champ. Maybe many others don't have that burning desire? A Cessna taught me to fly. A champ took me to the next level...a sweet place indeed. Here I am, flying my dream, looking at the photographer while the guy up front stays true to course.W10.jpg
 
Sundancer said:
The Champ will make you a better taildragger pilot. Once the wheels are off the ground, it isn't relevant where the third one is attached. Go with the one that moves you. . .
Click to expand...
I wasn't clear, I think - I meant in general, the diffrence between taildraggers and nose draggers is on the ground. The wing, rudder, ailerons, etc., don't know where the third wheel is. Granted, you use 'em diffrent when close to, or on, the ground. But it doesn't make you a better pilot, except in those regimes.
 
Sundancer said:
I wasn't clear, I think - I meant in general, the diffrence between taildraggers and nose draggers is on the ground. The wing, rudder, ailerons, etc., don't know where the third wheel is. Granted, you use 'em diffrent when close to, or on, the ground. But it doesn't make you a better pilot, except in those regimes.
Click to expand...
And those regimes are where a huge part of flight training occurs.
 
RoscoeT said:
Yep, nor a blind little acro bipe. Plenty of smashed planes resulting from overconfident folks thinking they were just another tailwheel airplane and didn't need any extra training.
Click to expand...

I've seen that as well. Shove the stick forward quickly to get the tail up so you can see over the nose in an S1 Pitts and watch the fun...

Matthew Rogers said:
VOR or other "installed navigation equipment" is completely unnecessary for the checkride. Only "onboard navigation equipment" - anything in the plane. Ipad with EFB and GPS is completely acceptable. Hopefully we will move past this piece of mis-information soon as it took me a lot of time to get if figured out before me recent checkride. With that said, I contacted one surly DPE who was still going to require a plane with not one, but two VORs!
Click to expand...

So you found a DPE who would let you fly using a GPS or iPad in your lap with him in the seat behind you in a Champ? I can see it in a side-by-side, but in a tandem seat, it becomes somewhat more difficult to observe and evaluate. What did a/c and electronic nav did you use for your PP ride? By my comment, you could tell I'm not a big fan of VOR, but to many, especially DPEs, it seems the Gold Standard. If you don't live in a large metro area, it may be hard to find the DPE who does. Hell, I took my checkride almost four decades ago. All I knew was pilotage. My dad took me up in a friends 172 a few times and let me play with a VOR to learn about it for the checkride. I'd flown nothing but a Cub or Super Cub, neither with so much as a Comm radio, much less a Nav. I never used one again for years afterwards. My RV-4 has a VOR which I tune-in infrequently, just to see if it works or occasionally just to cross check a flightpath just for grins. In this day and age, I agree that GPS is far easier and friendly to use. Just don't know just every DPE go for a hand-held GPS in a tandem seat airplane...or even a side-by-side taildragger. :D
 
Dan Thomas said:
And those regimes are where a huge part of flight training occurs.
Click to expand...
And a tiny part of flying that happens after training. . .nothing against taildraggers, and no argument that ground, and near ground, operations in them require special, deeper skills. But it's silly to say flying one makes you a better pilot.

Plenty of niche applications and design needs where the wheel on the back is the way to go - and if your mission is one if them, more power to you, and you have my admiration for developing the skill to handle it, and that includes the mission of having fun. But attributing total, overall better pilot qualities to taildragger pilots? Nah, I don't think so. Maybe aerobatic instruction would, or intense IFR training, or flying a lot, or flying for a living, or experince with many diffrent aircraft. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top