Brand-new for 1946 - tell me about taildraggers, please

[alfadog]

Could some of y'all please go over the differences and pros/cons of the 1940's-era 65-85 HP taildraggers that are commonly available in the $25k range, i.e.:

• Luscombe (the only one I have experience with)
• Taylorcraft B
• Aeronca Champ
• Piper Cub
• ??

 

[dell30rb]

You won't find a nice cub in that price range. Excellent plane though.

 

[wabower]

Champ would be my choice for fully-sized adult males.

Could some of y'all please go over the differences and pros/cons of the 1940's-era 65-85 HP taildraggers that are commonly available in the $25k range, i.e.:

• Luscombe (the only one I have experience with)
• Taylorcraft B
• Aeronca Champ
• Piper Cub
• ??

 

[RyanShort1]

Could some of y'all please go over the differences and pros/cons of the 1940's-era 65-85 HP taildraggers that are commonly available in the $25k range, i.e.:

• Luscombe (the only one I have experience with)
• Taylorcraft B
• Aeronca Champ
• Piper Cub
• ??

The Luscombe will be the fastest, and the sportiest. As you know, it's side by side.
The Taylorcraft is a close second for speed, is also side by side, and in my opinion has the best landing gear geometry of the lot. The side visibility is the downside as your head is pretty close to the wing root.
The Champ and Cub are is probably the best all-around for visibility, each having points in their favor.
The Champ is about 10 mph faster than the Cub, is a lot more unstable in yaw - if you kick the rudder, it will likely stay out of whack that direction.
The Cub is the best selling of the lot, but is the slowest. It tracks pretty straight and like the Taylorcraft is more stable in yaw than the Champ.

From a price perspective if you intend to use and keep the plane for a while, I think that the Luscombe and the Taylorcraft are better "deals," - especially if you want to go anywhere more than 50 miles at a time, but it does seem that Cubs and Champs hold their resale value better - why, I'm not sure.

As far as weight goes, a LOT (not all) of Taylorcrafts are really only one seaters, unless you are light like me, or are flying with a kid. The Cubs can range quite a bit, but are often capable of more weight than the rest of the class, while the Champ is probably at the happy medium.

Don't overlook the Aeronca Chiefs as well. They are a tad faster than the Champ and have very similar maintenance and flying characteristics.

Ryan

 

[docmirror]

I like the Luscombe of them all. The T craft is second. If you get a Luscombe 8A with A-65, you'll want to investigate uprating to 75HP. Really, they all fly pretty much the same. Luscombe is a little bit harder to land, but with some Silflex gear and good brakes it's not a problem.

My favorite of all would be a T-8F with the wheelpants and rudder strake on top.

 

[whifferdill]

Yeah, you'll only find a flying project Cub for $25K. I learned to fly in a Champ. It's probably the biggest pig from a handling perspective, but that's part of its fun. Has the most adverse yaw and is about the easiest tailwheel airplane ever to handle. I've never flown a Luscombe, and have only flown the T-Craft in the Swick T form, and that's one helluva a sweet handling old-time aerobatic airplane...fly from the center, and use the outside rudders (stick control). Really a great conversion, unlike the Clipped Cub conversion for aerobatics. But I fly a Clipped Cub too, and it's a lot of fun, but really just a regular J-3 with slightly better roll rate, but worse take-off, climb, and short-field performance. Sorry, OT. You really can't beat a stock J-3 Cub for control harmony, feel, and performance on the very low-speed end of the envelope...even if it's the slowest of the bunch. There's a reason you don't see flying farmer routines in the others. Would like to fly a Luscombe, though. If I had to get rid of the Pitts, I think I'd get a stock J-3 just for the fun factor.

 

[wabower]

I'd really like to have a beautiful freshly-restored, spoiler-equipped, O-200 powered T-craft L2-M with a gel battery and starter.

Oh, wait, I already have one.

 

[kyleb]

I'd really like to have a beautiful freshly-restored, spoiler-equipped, O-200 powered T-craft L2-M with a gel battery and starter.

Oh, wait, I already have one.

No teasing!

 

[RyanShort1]

You really can't beat a stock J-3 Cub for control harmony, feel, and performance on the very low-speed end of the envelope...even if it's the slowest of the bunch. There's a reason you don't see flying farmer routines in the others.

Is that a challenge? I've done some just for fun when I was solo in the T-cart. I think it's possible in a Champ or a T-cart as well, although the T-cart wants to float a lot more. I think it's the floating that makes it less fun to do the routine.

Ryan

 

[JHW]

champ. Easiest to get in and out of, most comfortable to sit in. A piece of cake for new tailwheel pilots.

 

[whifferdill]

Is that a challenge? I've done some just for fun when I was solo in the T-cart. I think it's possible in a Champ or a T-cart as well, although the T-cart wants to float a lot more. I think it's the floating that makes it less fun to do the routine.

Ryan

Yeah...flying farmer throw down! So like I said, I haven't flown the stock T-craft...only seen them fly. Flown stock Cubs a bit. The J-3 just seems more like a kite, and something that you can get off the ground with 65 hp a good bit quicker, and maneuver better at low speed, given that high-lift Clark Y airfoil. The Champ feels like a much heavier airplane, even though it's not much more so. But the Champ just feels more like a heavily wing-loaded airplane that just doesn't have that hayseed feel of a stock Cub. Cub stalls a good bit slower, and will get off the ground earlier, and will fly a good bit slower than the Champ. My Champ was a stock 65 hp 7AC, and a 65 hp Cub is a much better flying farmer airplane. I can see the T-craft being a close second to the Cub for that...no offense.

 

[bbchien]

Has the most adverse yaw and is about the easiest tailwheel airplane ever to handle.

Absolutely. You put a nose pusher pilot in the front seat and watch him try to turn. It beings to slip and sits there on heading for a lonnnnnnggg time. Then finally you nudge the rudder a bit and around she goes.

 

[docmirror]

Yeah...flying farmer throw down!

Lol,,, one more story we won't see on AOPA - evar.

 

[Silvaire]

I learned to fly in a Cub and currently own a Champ and a Luscombe. Surprisingly, I've never even sat in a T-Crate that I can remember.

As has already been pointed out the Cub is the nostalgia king and carries about a $10k premium over the others despite being the slowest and most cramped. People often ask if it's possible to fly the Cub solo from the front seat to which I reply with the question: have you ever been in the front seat of a J3? Because getting in and out of it as well as being in it are not particularly pleasant experiences. But everybody loves Cubs and loves flying with the clamshell doors open.

The Champ is the other tandem seat option and I've been flying my 90hp 7EC regularly for about four years now. I've had a lot of fun with it and it's a fairly capable airplane. I flew it from California to my brother's place in central Utah last June and although it was a 17 hour round trip flight it had no trouble getting there and back. With just me it'll cruise about 85 mph but I found that if I put a 250 pound person in the back seat it'll do 92 so as long as you can get off the ground there's no problem bringing a buddy along. The EC's have a different landing gear than the AC's. It's called the "No Bounce" gear and believe me, as much as I've tried you can not get that thing to bounce. But it took awhile to get used to it because it has these springs and hangs down all pigeon-toed about 6 inches like a Helio Courier when airborne. It doesn't really like doing wheel landings or greasers, it really just prefers to be dropped on with no fuss and it's like landing in a field of marshmallows. If you try to grease it on often one side will compress before the other and that makes for a weird sight picture even though you're still going straight as an arrow.

Out of all of them the Luscombe is probably the best suited for traveling solo. I'm currently finishing a complete restoration on mine which is an 8E so, like the Champ it has full electrics and has an 85 hp engine that I have completely rebuilt. My plan is to take this airplane on a month long barnstorming mission from California to New York and back and hit as many grass strips along the way as I can find. It has always been a traveler, right after being purchased by the original owner in August of 1946 he took it on a 56 hour cross country flight to Fairbanks Alaska where it spent 20 years before coming to California. From the logs that came with it I can see that it's been coast to coast at least three times and been to Oshkosh twice.

So third time ought to be a charm.

I won't get into maintenance issues with any of these airplanes. Although they are all different in many ways they use mostly the same materials and components the main difference that the Luscombe is metal (some have fabric wings) and the condition of any used aircraft you get is going to be completely dependent on what kind of treatment it received over the past 67 years. If you are in the market for one of these aircraft I'd suggest not nailing yourself down to a specific model, just try to find the best condition for the best price - the best deal and as said don't discount the Chiefs because you can usually get a good deal on them as nobody wants steering wheels.

There's also the Cessna 140's

 

[whifferdill]

Lol,,, one more story we won't see on AOPA - evar.

Or even Sport Aviation...can't tell much difference these days anyway.

The EC's have a different landing gear than the AC's. It's called the "No Bounce" gear and believe me, as much as I've tried you can not get that thing to bounce. But it took awhile to get used to it because it has these springs and hangs down all pigeon-toed about 6 inches like a Helio Courier when airborne. It doesn't really like doing wheel landings or greasers, it really just prefers to be dropped on with no fuss and it's like landing in a field of marshmallows. If you try to grease it on often one side will compress before the other and that makes for a weird sight picture even though you're still going straight as an arrow.

My 7AC had the 'no-bounce' gear on it, and it was the easiest wheel landing airplane ever. You're right, it's very hard to bounce them, but possible...I did learn to fly in it after all. You can do a wheelie on pavement and not even feel the tires touch...more easily than in other stiff-legged planes, at least. I didn't notice any of the unequal oleo compression you describe when touching down softly. I can only guess yours had different levels of fluid, or otherwise something different between the two oleos. But in x-wind, it would wallow around a bit before breaking ground during the take-off roll. Reminds me of this quote from this old funny article about the Champ - "No-Bounce" means that the wheels never leave the ground after first contact. The fact that the rest of the plane is performing a crude Lomcevak is beside the point." http://www.aerofiles.com/knocker.html

 

[Tom-D]

And no one has mentioned the best of the bunch.

 

[alfadog]

And no one has mentioned the best of the bunch.

Thanks. Yes, I left some out. Cessna 120? 140? Please tell me how it compares to the others. What is the engine?

 

[docmirror]

I got to take a very short flight in a Skyranger, and that would be my choice hands down. It was delightful on the controls, and for some reason it had decent 'big plane' feel to it even though it was gross at 1450Lbs.

They are ultra rare, and keeping one in the air would be a labor of love, but it's what I would shop for if I wanted a vintage farmer plane and didn't need to be LSA.

http://www.rearwin.com/skyranger.htm

DOH! I found one. It's in the OPs price range. Grab it up now.

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1664188.html

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Thanks. Yes, I left some out. Cessna 120? 140? Please tell me how it compares to the others. What is the engine?

Continental 85 is typical. Speed is in the range of the Taylorcraft / Luscombe. About the size of an early Cessna 150 . Too heavy for LSA. An easy airplane to fly.

 

[Silvaire]

My 7AC had the 'no-bounce' gear on it, and it was the easiest wheel landing airplane ever.

I've never seen an AC that had 'no-bounce' gear but it's quite possible somebody may have put it on after a wreck or something. As you can see it's quite different from the standard gear, it was developed for the military version and has a ridiculous amount of oleo travel. You can do wheel landings but on pavement the tires will make all sorts of squeaky, squealing noises as they spread back out. On take off, if you just keep the tail down the oleos extend when you get to about 30 mph raising the nose several degrees and the thing just lifts off. It'll get off as good as a Cub if you fly it that way - at least with the 90, don't know how it would behave with the 65 and a nose tank.

 

[alfadog]

I got to take a very short flight in a Skyranger, and that would be my choice hands down. It was delightful on the controls, and for some reason it had decent 'big plane' feel to it even though it was gross at 1450Lbs.

They are ultra rare, and keeping one in the air would be a labor of love, but it's what I would shop for if I wanted a vintage farmer plane and didn't need to be LSA.

http://www.rearwin.com/skyranger.htm

Interesting. Less rare, I guess, would be the three-place Stinson 105/10. Are there many of those around? I know there are plenty of 108's.

 

[Tom-D]

Continental 85 is typical. Speed is in the range of the Taylorcraft / Luscombe. About the size of an early Cessna 150 . Too heavy for LSA. An easy airplane to fly.

Now has the STC for the 0-200 / 100 horse.

easiest to maintain all metal in the 140 rag wings for the 120.

But if you like the 120/140, you'll love the 48 170. bigger engine 4 place, empty weight 1100 typical with a 2200 gross, 32 gal fuel, and the average aircraft will sell around $25-30k

 

[whifferdill]

I've never seen an AC that had 'no-bounce' gear but it's quite possible somebody may have put it on after a wreck or something.

A 1945 Champ, wrecked at some point? Hell, mine had wings off of two different airplanes...not in the logs of course. Mine was 7AC #219, and definitely had the no-bounce on it - obviously not the gear it left the factory with. I've flown both gear types and prefer the standard oleos to those long-stroke gangly no-bounce oleos. I never needed to stall it in from 3' in the air.

 

[Tom-D]

Interesting. Less rare, I guess, would be the three-place Stinson 105/10. Are there many of those around? I know there are plenty of 108's.

Stay away from the Stinson model 10, Franklin 90 horse way under powered. and complete nightmare to find parts.

 

[docmirror]

Interesting. Less rare, I guess, would be the three-place Stinson 105/10. Are there many of those around? I know there are plenty of 108's.

Stinson 105 is another rare one. They have the easiest landing gear in the world, same as the 108. Despite that cute sideways seat, unless you are midgets, and the plane is bone stock with light fabric and ONE coat of paint, you can't get three in them.

It flies kind of piggish, but good at slow speeds with the wing slats for aileron authority. I would not generally consider it unless you specifically wanted a Stinson which is a good build plane. Some have Franklin engines, which is another point of contention.

 

[Silvaire]

A 1945 Champ, wrecked at some point? Hell, mine had wings off of two different airplanes...

Ha ha Mine actually started off as a 7FC with tricycle gear and made it through about 90 days from the factory floor without a scratch before the first time they flipped it on it's back. Sometime in the mid 60's after wrecking it for the third or fourth time someone finally got wise and converted it to an EC which is the way it should have been all along

 

[docmirror]

Wow, I' might just grab this one up myself. Very, nice, and check out that vintage gauge!

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_782307_1946+Commonwealth+Sky+Ranger.html

 

[moonshine]

Continental 85 is typical. Speed is in the range of the Taylorcraft / Luscombe. About the size of an early Cessna 150 . Too heavy for LSA. An easy airplane to fly.

That must have been either a very slow 140 or a super fast Luscombe

Granted, only flew in O-200 C140 (/G no less!) but that plane flew 90-95 knots (not miles) on a good day
Luscombe did like 70-75 (85 engine)

 

[alfadog]

That must have been either a very slow 140 or a super fast Luscombe

Granted, only flew in O-200 C140 (/G no less!) but that plane flew 90-95 knots (not miles) on a good day
Luscombe did like 70-75 (85 engine)

Sick Luscombe? The 65 HP 8A that I fly will do close to 105 mph IAS in cruise one-up. Luscombes are the fast ones of the 65-85 HP bunch, I think.

 

[PA-11]

Pay the premium for the Cub...they hold their value.

 

[Silvaire]

There are quite a few Luscombes out there with STC'd O-320's under the hood.

Luscombe 8E - $29,000

 

[Silvaire]

Pay the premium for the Cub...they hold their value.

None of them are going to drop in value.

 

[Dead Stick]

I learned to fly in a 65 HP Champ and used to own a Luscombe. I've flown all of the others on your list and several more that aren't listed. My hands down favorite would be a 85 or 100 hp Champ. I wasn't a big fan of the Taylorcraft, I just didn't like it nearly as much as the others. The Luscombe was a very nice airplane and no where near as squirrelly as the hangar stories would lead you to believe. (Most of those guys had never flown one and were just repeating with a certain amount of embellishment what they had heard others say.) The Cub was a nice airplane, but they want a premium for them and personally, I don't see it. I never liked sitting in the back anyway. I've flown a C140 quite a bit, but I liked the Luscombe much better. Thinking about some more, I'd still go for the Champ. It will give you a lot of bang for the buck and there's probably not a more dirt simple, honest airplane.

 

[docmirror]

As for speeds, I think discounting the Cub, all the rest are gonna be real close. Fitted out the same, with the same prop might be 4MPH diff between the bunch. The Stinson will be slower due to the slats, and the Luscombe does seem to be a touch faster I think due to the smaller cross section and slightly higher wing load. But - it's not gonna be worth anything to compare top speeds.

I might have Tom go over to look at that Skyranger. It is suh-weet. Mebee he'll deliver to TX for me!

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Could some of y'all please go over the differences and pros/cons of the 1940's-era 65-85 HP taildraggers that are commonly available in the $25k range, i.e.:

• Luscombe (the only one I have experience with)
• Taylorcraft B
• Aeronca Champ
• Piper Cub
• ??

• Luscombe (the only one I have experience with) ----Nice plane, not the best backcountry machine though, better x-country then the others, also nice to be side by side seating

• Taylorcraft B--- Kinda like the Luscombe mixed with the champ, just more fabric, also a little better back-country, lil slower then the lus

• Aeronca Champ ---- GREAT machine, slower then the taylorcraft or Lus, but VERY surgical plane, land it where you want, probably can get one down under 6' of target, also what I learned how to fly in. Basically a cub but you can solo FROM THE FRONT!

• Piper Cub---- Too much hype not enough plane for the price, solo from back BS, get a champ

If you like the champ but want side by side also look at the chief, very similar to the Taylor

 

[MBDiagMan]

The Cessna 140 is available in many forms, some still having an 85, many of the 85's have been upgraded with an O-200 crankshaft and many planes have the O-200 STC as does mine.

These planes are very nice to fly, cruise in the 90+ knot area, are stingy on gas, very good parts availability, lots of AP's/IA's are very familiar with them and just plain fun.

They're not a short field plane like a cub or a Champ, but they are still great little planes in my completely biased opinion.

Good luck with your choice.

 

[yakdriver]

Another one that would fit in your $25000 budget is a Piper Pacer. Get a 150hp version and you have a nice performer with 4 seats. Cruise in the 125mph + range. Also has good short field capabilities. Out of the others you have discussed the Luscombe is the nicest flying of the bunch. The C 140 has the most leg and headroom and is a nice cross country cruiser. All of them are pretty tight on shoulder room and except for the 140 are tight on legroom for a 6 footer. All of them are a lot of fun on around 5gph and there are some very nice ones when you get in the low to mid $20,000 range. I also really love the J3 but they are insanely expensive and the slowest of the bunch. Go get one and have fun! Don

 

[rottydaddy]

I won't get into maintenance issues with any of these airplanes. Although they are all different in many ways they use mostly the same materials and components the main difference that the Luscombe is metal (some have fabric wings) and the condition of any used aircraft you get is going to be completely dependent on what kind of treatment it received over the past 67 years. If you are in the market for one of these aircraft I'd suggest not nailing yourself down to a specific model, just try to find the best condition for the best price - the best deal and as said don't discount the Chiefs because you can usually get a good deal on them as nobody wants steering wheels.

There's also the Cessna 140's

That is sound advice...
Only flown a Champ, a Cub, an Aeronca L3, and a couple of 140s (including one with an O-200),and I've done a lot of research on the other old 2-seaters mentioned above. I still don't own anything, but I've done plenty of window-shopping and some tire-kicking. If I were looking to buy one of that group, with economy as a primary concern, I'd think first of a Champ. BUT.
They can all be flown and maintained pretty cheaply (including T-craft, Chief, and Luscombe), but not all examples of make/model/year are equal, especially after so many decades. The potential for (legal) modification is staggering (I've seen a C-120 with a C-85, flaps and an IFR panel, for example), which complicates the selection process, and the potential for serious abuse, neglect and bad repairs over so many years is also staggering, which dictates a very thorough pre-buy inspection, preferably with someone very knowledgeable. It's wise to be open-minded about which make/model to buy, but there are soooo many flavors to choose from, it will take some work.
The upside to the vintage 2-seater market, though, is that there are a number of type clubs and web forums, with some very helpful and knowledgeable members. You'll get leads on planes that are not advertised yet, you'll probably hear from someone who has the "inside dope" on some plane you're looking at, you'll hear all about what it takes and costs to do maintenance, where to get parts and services, and you might make a friend or two and get some stick time in some type new to you. I'd sooner start my search through such a group than cold from the classifieds.

Here's a couple, off the top of my head...

When I was contemplating buying a 140, these folks welcomed me and several were very helpful, and generous with their airplanes. Just about anything you need to know about those Cessnas will be found here.

http://www.cessna120-140.org/

Via the Luscombe Endowment, the "go to" guys in the US for anything to do with Luscombes. Doug Combs is a bottomless well of Luscombe knowledge.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/luscombe-silvaire/

 

[wabower]

Unless the owner is an iron-butt zealot who plans to fly around the country at sub-highway speed, all of these planes are just weekend/evening toys that are seldom flown more than 50 miles from home. As a result, availability, even with several users, is virtually unlimited since the plane is usually close-by.

So the strategy I would pursue is to find a really nice specimen of whatever kind, hopefully owned by somebody in the area who wants to sell part of it, and buy a share, and maybe spit it 3-4 ways.

It's almost better to have several owners, since it provides somebody to fly with and splitting the pie reduces the costs to peanuts. I co-owned a 210 and a PA-17 Vagabond with a friend for many years and most of the mileage on the Piper was moving it in and out of the hangar so we could fly trips in the 210.

 

[Edgefly]

Just have to say that my 46 Chief is one fine airplane. It is a basic , no electric, two passenger aircraft which is a beautiful compromise of all the aircraft mentioned. It is LSA but has the capability for upward mods of all sorts w/o going out of category. This is Flying with comfort (side by side), excitement and class. I'm not going to tell you one is better than another but I will say anyone considering a taildragger of this vintage should take the time to fly a Chief. as someone pointed out above, details of any older aircraft are often best found in the respective type clubs. The NAA forum site forum will give you a chance to investigate Chiefs and Champs at the same time.