Aeronca Chief 65hp PIREPs?

I'd somehow have to make sure of that empty weight - whatever it may truly be. Is it hard / expensive to get a Champ weighed??
 
terryd23 said:
I'd somehow have to make sure of that empty weight - whatever it may truly be. Is it hard / expensive to get a Champ weighed??
Click to expand...


Not at all -- there's a fairly simple process that any competent A&P can conduct.

An official W&B needs a bit more paperwork, but it sounds like you just need a "good enough" to decide if the airplane is what you want.
 
terryd23 said:
I'd somehow have to make sure of that empty weight - whatever it may truly be. Is it hard / expensive to get a Champ weighed??
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry too much about whatever claims of weight and useful load there are. You really can't hide a significant amount of weight in these airplanes. Just look at it. Most excess weight in these planes comes from electrical systems, old radios, and added junk in the panel. And to a lesser degree, thick paint, fancy interiors, larger engines, and wing tanks.

If you want a Champ, get one you like the look of, get a knowledgeable mechanic for a pre-buy, and enjoy some simple, fun flying. If useful load is important enough to split hairs over in a plane like this, you might want to look for a different type. They are what they are. :wink2:
 
Well, I'd really like to get a useful load of 475 lbs. That would work comfortably with a full (13 gal) tank and me and the wife. (That is if I dont lose weight! OK - I'm on it!) So this guy claims 474 lbs AFTER 13 gal? That's huge - if accurate. Even if he's off 75 lbs it works well. I just dont understand how it got to that empty weight.

And I do like the looks of the plane a lot (in pictures anyway). He rates the interior an 8 and exterior an 8. Love the looks of the Champ (and Chief)
 
Last edited:
Just an update fwiw: Well - I secured a hangar at my old airport in anticipation of putting whatever it is that I end up purchasing! Still leaning towards the Champ as a little searching for the right plane should be able to accomodate my useful load requirements. That said - I've been stumbling on some ads for the Cessna 140. While their weight doesn't qualify for LSA status, man are they pretty! And the useful load with them isn't a concern. And interestingly, the cabin width appears to be a few inches wider than my old 172M. I'm pleasantly surprised at that. The price on these 140's seem reasonable and an aluminum fuselage to boot. Anybody have experience with the 140 they can share? Thanks!
 
terryd23 said:
Just an update fwiw: Well - I secured a hangar at my old airport in anticipation of putting whatever it is that I end up purchasing! Still leaning towards the Champ as a little searching for the right plane should be able to accomodate my useful load requirements. That said - I've been stumbling on some ads for the Cessna 140. While their weight doesn't qualify for LSA status, man are they pretty! And the useful load with them isn't a concern. And interestingly, the cabin width appears to be a few inches wider than my old 172M. I'm pleasantly surprised at that. The price on these 140's seem reasonable and an aluminum fuselage to boot. Anybody have experience with the 140 they can share? Thanks!
Click to expand...

Is a 120 close enough?
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23057&highlight=alaska

Pretty easy to fly once you figure out how to not bounce it. I liked wheel landings.
Don't get the gear extenders.
Cleveland brakes are a lot nicer than the original Goodyear.
Your 172 must of been tight if a 140 has more room...
The heater will make the bottoms of the pilots shoes so hot you don't want to touch the rudder pedals while the rest of you freezes.
 
Official Cessna measurements do indeed state that the 120/140 had two more inches in width than the 170/172/180/earlier 182, and just under seven (!) more than the 150.

Having sat in everything above except the 150, I haven't noticed the difference. Perhaps the 140 doors are bowed like later 150s (or was it 152s?) but for me with my 43 inch jacket size the 140 was just as tight as the others.

On the other hand the cabin dimensions of the Chief makes the 140 seem very comfortable, to us bigger guys ;)
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Is a 120 close enough?
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23057&highlight=alaska

Pretty easy to fly once you figure out how to not bounce it. I liked wheel landings.
Don't get the gear extenders.
Cleveland brakes are a lot nicer than the original Goodyear.
Your 172 must of been tight if a 140 has more room...
The heater will make the bottoms of the pilots shoes so hot you don't want to touch the rudder pedals while the rest of you freezes.
Click to expand...

Why not the gear extenders? Seems like a good upgrade to me.

And thanks for that link - what a journey!
 
Last edited:
terryd23 said:
Why not the gear extenders? Seems like a good upgrade to me.

And thanks for that link - what a journey!
Click to expand...

Pushing the wheels forward means that when you put a side load on them you twist the gear legs the wrong way - in the pro-ground loop direction.

And, I never felt that there was a problem with the original gear (at least on a '46 model 120) that needed to be solved.
 
tonycondon said:
i'd probably go with a continental powered chief if i had to make the choice.
Click to expand...

dmccormack said:
Parts availability and slighter more realistic 65 hp favor the Continental, but the Lycoming isn't quite the ice maker and has less oil pump problems.

:dunno:
Click to expand...

Tony just figured he could stuff a GTSIO-520 in and nobody would notice. They both say "Continental" on the rocker covers. :D
 
terryd23 said:
The price on these 140's seem reasonable and an aluminum fuselage to boot.
Click to expand...

While this has become the de facto standard for aircraft, an all metal fuselage isn't necessarily better.

You're looking at very old airplanes. The typical flying fabric bird has had several recoverings since manufacture, and therefore spars, tubes, etc have been inspected and perhaps replaced.

That rarely happens with all-metal birds.
 
whifferdill said:
I'll assume that's not a serious question. If it is, let us know....I won't answer your question, but I'll have more to say. :)
Click to expand...

LOL.

Not a serious question. I have no intention of looping a Chief. Nor do I advocate "learn yourself aerobatics". I don't even spin my ride because the Cg is firmly behind what the kit designer specfies as the maximum rearward Cg for spins (Bummer, dude.). Guess I'm just an old Fuddy Duddy.

Though, it does seem possible that loops may have been included in the original owners manual. But, if they are not, you have to wonder what the individuals in the video were thinking on at least two ocassions (the loop, and posting it on youtube).
 
dmccormack said:
While this has become the de facto standard for aircraft, an all metal fuselage isn't necessarily better.

You're looking at very old airplanes. The typical flying fabric bird has had several recoverings since manufacture, and therefore spars, tubes, etc have been inspected and perhaps replaced.

That rarely happens with all-metal birds.
Click to expand...

I wasn't looking at it that way but it makes perfect sense. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top