Aeronca Chief 65hp PIREPs?

dmccormack said:
This looks like on simple, lightweight airplane!

I think even the reduced asking price is too much, though. I'll give her a call and see if she's willing to deal (my guess is she got the asking price from one guy on the field -- "Oh yeah, those things go for $15,0000 easy...")
Click to expand...

Well, what'd she say?!?! :dunno:
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Well, what'd she say?!?! :dunno:
Click to expand...

Called -- no answer. I'll try again but need to look at a few other options first.

My son (now in US Army Basic) wrote and said he thinks he wants to fly rotorcraft after ROTC ("Army Aviation" in Army-speak).

So I need to consider actual 2 person airplanes (I'm 190, he's 180).

I flew a VERY nice L-2 tonight....lot's o' fun, that!!
 
Update:

While the L-2 Taylorcraft was a real sweet bird, the asking price was over budget at this time (one more wedding in 2 more weeks).

The L-2 price is certainly justified, given the warbird premium, and the obvious investment by the owner. I simply couldn't justify it.

So it looks like the Chief will be my tailwheeel trainer parked at KVVS!

(KWAY has no hangar space -- VVS has old T hangars open -- I'll put it there temporarily)

Unless someone wants to talk me out of it?

:D

Though I gotta say -- the low and slow, rag and tube bug has definately bit -- hard.
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
The panel is pure simplicity -- Airspeed, needle/ball, altimeter, whiskey compass, and a HUGE RPM indicator in the center with some sort of engine oil temp deal on the left side. Heel brakes (ugh), bench seat, sliding plexiglas door window.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with heel brakes, just different. Once you get used to it you never think of them again. Just learn to taxi, takeoff and land without using the brakes. Brakes are for the run up. On all these old airplanes brakes are an afterthought.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Nothing wrong with heel brakes, just different. Once you get used to it you never think of them again. Just learn to taxi, takeoff and land without using the brakes. Brakes are for the run up. On all these old airplanes brakes are an afterthought.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I was thinking about that a couple of days ago: "How often will I be on the brakes in a taildragger?"

About as often as a nosewheel airplane -- rarely.

The '47 Bonanza I flew had a free castering nosewheel -- brakes came in handy to straighten it out.
 
Solid or pneumatic tailwheel? Pneumatic tailwheel will be quieter on pavement and I think the handling is better. Make sure the tailwheel springs are properly adjusted. When they are not you will be fighting the airplane.
 
dmccormack said:
Yeah... I was thinking about that a couple of days ago: "How often will I be on the brakes in a taildragger?"

About as often as a nosewheel airplane -- rarely.

The '47 Bonanza I flew had a free castering nosewheel -- brakes came in handy to straighten it out.
Click to expand...

You'll also find out you seldom use the trim also.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Solid or pneumatic tailwheel? Pneumatic tailwheel will be quieter on pavement and I think the handling is better. Make sure the tailwheel springs are properly adjusted. When they are not you will be fighting the airplane.
Click to expand...

I think it's pneumatic -- but will have to check.

Talked to the IA that's worked on it the last 5-6 years. He said when the previous owner ought it he had a "bunch of stuff" taken care of, but hasn't needed much since.

It looked in good shape. For the price I'll take it and then fly it straight to my trusted IA for a look-see.
 
Last edited:
Dan ,
So how do you like the Chief? I'm considering one and would like your experienced input!

Thanks!
 
Not Dan, but:

A Chief is a very honest airplane. It will teach you how to use your feet. It isn't fast, it can't haul a tremendous load. But man, they are a hell of a lot of fun for not a hell of a lot of money.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Not Dan, but:

A Chief is a very honest airplane. It will teach you how to use your feet. It isn't fast, it can't haul a tremendous load. But man, they are a hell of a lot of fun for not a hell of a lot of money.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true. 3.5 GPH with 100LL/ MOGAS mix (too much lead in 100LL to run straight), and as simple an airplane as you can find.

The 65 hp Lycoming is a bit anemic, but on any day below 60 F you're fine with 2 people on board. Above that it will be a shallow climb.

This airplane has taught me more stick and rudder in 100 hours than the previous 700.

And gracefully landing a TW on turf is about as good as it gets.

:D
 
Trying to decide. I like the bench seat of the Chief - but also like the stick of the Champ! Also finding that Champs have a bit of a better useful load. But!! I came across the prettiest lil Chief. Tough. Tough. :dunno:
 
terryd23 said:
Trying to decide. I like the bench seat of the Chief - but also like the stick of the Champ! Also finding that Champs have a bit of a better useful load. But!! I came across the prettiest lil Chief. Tough. Tough. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Seriously -- either will grow on you. I haven't regretted paying 25% less than premium price for tandem seating.

90% of my flying is solo, but it's nice to have company that sits next to you.

The Chief seat is actually a sling -- many folks put a plywood board on top but you'll gain some head room by removing the board.
 
i'd probably go with a continental powered chief if i had to make the choice.
 
terryd23 said:
Trying to decide. I like the bench seat of the Chief - but also like the stick of the Champ! Also finding that Champs have a bit of a better useful load. But!! I came across the prettiest lil Chief. Tough. Tough. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Have you flown both? Most folks have a preference for the side-by-side vs. tandem, stick vs. yoke issue in these types of planes. Other than that, they are almost the same airplane. If you don't care about the seating arrangement and control system, I'll just say that the Champ has better visibility due to larger windows (as well as being tandem). Oh, and it looks much better too. :) I used to have a Champ and learned to fly in it. It's got a lot of charm. But a comparable Chief will be several grand cheaper.
 
whifferdill said:
Have you flown both? Most folks have a preference for the side-by-side vs. tandem, stick vs. yoke issue in these types of planes. Other than that, they are almost the same airplane. If you don't care about the seating arrangement and control system, I'll just say that the Champ has better visibility due to larger windows (as well as being tandem). Oh, and it looks much better too. :) I used to have a Champ and learned to fly in it. It's got a lot of charm. But a comparable Chief will be several grand cheaper.
Click to expand...

The Chief and Champ are the same airframe and many parts are interchangeable.

Pre-war Chiefs (65LA, LB, TC, CA) used a different wing than post-war (AR11 series) and are a bit faster -- but "faster" is certainly a relative term in these airplanes.
 
Yes they are basically the same but the Chief has a 8 inch shorter fuselage (and a slightly larger wing I think.)
 
terryd23 said:
Yes they are basically the same but the Chief has a 8 inch shorter fuselage (and a slightly larger wing I think.)
Click to expand...

The fuse is completely different, being a side-by-side airplane. Only the method of construction is the same. Chief wing span is slightly longer due to the wider fuse of the Chief, but only the pre-war wings (as Dan mentions) are different between the two. Post war - same wing, same wing area.
 
I'm looking at an ad for a Champ that claims a 552 lb useful load? (Lord knows I need it!) But isn't that unusually high? Engine is a Cont 65
 
Last edited:
terryd23 said:
I'm looking at an ad for a Champ that claims a 552 lb useful load? (Lord knows I need it!) But isn't that unusually high? Engine is a Cont 65
Click to expand...

552 is a big number. The 65 horse birds have a 1220 gross and the factory claimed a 740 lb empty weight, which might have been true, but I've never seen one that light.

As to Chief vs Champ, the Chief is prettier, IMO, but the side windows are low, so your visibility to the side isn't great. Also, the Chief is a side by side, and is tight for two 2010 people. The Champ has lotsa room, taller windows, etc. It is a better two place airplane than the Chief, unless you're a small person. For reference, I'm 5'7", 160 lbs and feel a Chief is snug when I'm in it with a similar sized person.

I have a Champ project in the basement, and will probably find and restore a Pre-war Chief at some point.
 
kyleb said:
As to Chief vs Champ, the Chief is prettier, IMO, but the side windows are low, so your visibility to the side isn't great. Also, the Chief is a side by side, and is tight for two 2010 people. The Champ has lotsa room, taller windows, etc. It is a better two place airplane than the Chief, unless you're a small person. For reference, I'm 5'7", 160 lbs and feel a Chief is snug when I'm in it with a similar sized person.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind: 2011 people are far, far easier to shove into a Chief.

(Since they can't be more than 26 days old).

:wink2:

I'm 6'1", 190 and the Chief is a snug fit, no doubt.
 
Turns out that this Champ doesn't have cabin heat. Would that be enough to account for the useful load disparity? I also wonder how difficult and how much it might cost to put heat back in??
 
Last edited:
terryd23 said:
Turns out that this Champ doesn't have cabin heat. Would that be enough to account for the useful load disparity? I also wonder how difficult and how much it might cost to put heat back in??
Click to expand...


Hate to break it to you but cabin "heat" is a wishful hope in the 65 HP Aeroncas.

The "heater" consists of a can through which the exhaust is routed. The can is supposed to warm up and let warm air come into the cabin via 1 1/2" SCAT tubing.

Ummm... ok. :rolleyes2:

I've flown my Chief in temps as low as 15 F. I covered up most of the air gaps in the cowling with Aluminum tape (no STC required :ihih: ).

I'm pretty warm blooded and all I could stand was one hour aloft - my feet got really cold. Rest of me was fine but I was dressed for the temperature. But Oil Temp was barely in the green though oil pressure was fine.
 
Last edited:
I thought it was something like that! Skyhawk kinda the same thing I believe. But I just can't figure out what accounts for the lower empty weight on this Champ. He doesnt have a parking brake either but that can't be it. Can it?
 
terryd23 said:
I thought it was something like that! Skyhawk kinda the same thing I believe. But I just can't figure out what accounts for the lower empty weight on this Champ. He doesnt have a parking brake either but that can't be it. Can it?
Click to expand...


Heater and associated plumbing weight = 6 lbs

Parking brake weight = 2.5 lbs

Yeah -- may just be a typo. Contact him and find out!

There are several excellent Aeronca groups: National Aeronca Association and Fearless Aeronca Aviators. They are the source for Aeronca info!
 
He says it was weighed after it was re-covered (in 1993) and the empty weight was 668 lbs...... ??? I'm corn-fused. Looks like a pretty bird. I'm a big guy and am interested in this extra useful but I just want to make sure every wing spar is there, etc! :o)
 
terryd23 said:
He says it was weighed after it was re-covered (in 1993) and the empty weight was 668 lbs...... ??? I'm corn-fused. Looks like a pretty bird. I'm a big guy and am interested in this extra useful but I just want to make sure every wing spar is there, etc! :o)
Click to expand...


Have an A&P-IA who knows Aeroncas look it over before you buy.

Get on one of the Aeronca lists and ask -- you'll be overwhelmed with offers of assistance.

:thumbsup:
 
terryd23 said:
He says it was weighed after it was re-covered (in 1993) and the empty weight was 668 lbs...
Click to expand...

668?! I think he forgot to put a scale under the tailwheel....or else his scales need calibrating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top