Desire for entry level taildragger after OSH....

J

Jthamilton

Line Up and Wait
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
616
Location
Steamboat Springs, CO
Display Name
Okie182
Home Airfield
KCAG
Well after drooling over many of the warbirds this last weekend at OSH I'm considering a taildragger.

The mission would be to fly low and slow and build some time. I would consider something like a citabria for some easy aerobatics. No need for long distance as we have a family traveler.

My budget is around 70k and my lard ass weighs in at 240 pounds and I'm 6'3" so comfort kinda important as I don't want my knees next to my ears.

There is possible partnership close to home on a Super Cub which may be good deal but in don't know specifics just yet.

Any ideas?
 
Last edited:
Jthamilton said:
Well after drooling over many of the warbirds this last weekend at OSH I'm considering a taildragger.

The mission would be to fly low and slow and build some time. I would consider something like a citabria for some easy aerobatics. No need for long distance as we have a family traveler.

My budget is around 70k and my lard ass weighs in at 240 pounds and I'm 6'3" so comfort kinda important as I don't want my knees next to my ears.

There is possible partnership close to home on a Super Cub which may be good deal but in don't know specifics just yet.

Any ideas?
Click to expand...


Get a good look at the weight and balance data on any Citabria you're interested in. Some of them have small useful loads. I once instructed in a 7GCBC with a big guy and we couldn't pack any useful amount of fuel.

Citabrias/Champs are far easier to get in and out of than Super Cubs. FAR easier.

Dan
 
There should be lots of of options in your price range. Key will be trying them on for size. I love the SuperCub, but at 5'11/200 lb. it's none too roomy for me.
 
Hmmmm, you're pretty big. I'd think something like a Cessna 170 may suit you better than a Citabria. I haven't been in one for a size check nor do I know if they fit in your budget, but if you want to add a dose of cool factor to the equation, I kinda like the Cessna 165.
 
Globe\Tempco Swift.
One of the best taildraggers ever built, roomy, and will do "entry level" aerobatics.
 
I agree with Henning. At 6'1" the 170 is very comfortable for me. Most of the tandems are a bit cramped at least to get in and out of if not when actually flying.
 
Henning said:
Hmmmm, you're pretty big. I'd think something like a Cessna 170 may suit you better than a Citabria. I haven't been in one for a size check nor do I know if they fit in your budget, but if you want to add a dose of cool factor to the equation, I kinda like the Cessna 165.
Click to expand...
He'll have a much easier time finding a 170. I've only seen a 165 once and that was at an airshow.
 
Jthamilton said:
There are 2 options I never considered, a swift and a 165. I shall do some checking.
Click to expand...
I've always admired Swifts, although I've never been in one. As others said, the 170 would fit you fine and with your budget, you could get a pristine, Oshkosh prize-winning B model and still have some money left for upgrades or future maintenance. BUT, you won't be doing aerobatics in it.

Some other options: for your budget, you could get an N3N. To the casual observer, they are sometimes confused with the Stearman. For a little more (around $90k), you could get a decent BT-13 that would definitely haul you and do some aerobatics.
 
At 240 with a similar sized passenger he'll overgross the swift.
 
If you are into building, the RANS S-20 or S-7 are nice. You can also find used S-7's for reasonable prices. The nice part is you can build them as LSA or certify it to weights above LSA. They seem to fit larger guys quite nicely.
 
If you want to build time, 70K will buy a lot of fuel for the family traveler with reduced throttle.

But a taildragger would be fun. Just make sure you can get in/out of the plane, and are comfortable inside it, or you will find reasons to not fly it.
 
Shepherd said:
Globe\Tempco Swift.
One of the best taildraggers ever built, roomy, and will do "entry level" aerobatics.
Click to expand...

Though I like the looks of the swift, and it was fun to fly, the one I was in was pretty short on headroom for me at 6'2". I believe I had to slouch just a little to fit. Plus, the flip-up/forward canopy made getting in it a little challenging, I imagine more so for someone the OP's size.
 
flyingron said:
I agree with Henning. At 6'1" the 170 is very comfortable for me. Most of the tandems are a bit cramped at least to get in and out of if not when actually flying.
Click to expand...

The Citabria is roomy enough once in it. Lots of shoulder room. The 170 is narrow; I once flew across north America with a largish guy in a 170; way too tight.

Dan
 
As a Maule owner, I'm partial to the brand and they have much more useful load than any of the other planes discussed. You can pick up an older M-5 for well under your budget, or an MX7 for about what you suggested you could spend. My MX7-180 has a 1050 pound useful load, so your weight won't be an issue. Your size might present a bit of a challenge though. Maules have limited fore and aft adjustments for their seats, and getting in and out is harder than a C-170, but easier than a Cub. The 180 Hp version is easy on the operating budget and still has enough oomph to get you in and out of any place you are likely to go. I've frequently operated out of a 1,000 foot strip with nary a worry. I've also managed to get out of a strip with a 9,000' density altitude at gross (Santa Fe). The plane didn't climb very fast, but it operated within specs and I planned accordingly. The back seat comes out in a jiffy and then you have a huge cargo area for dogs, camping gear or other toys. The picture below is my plane at Sun-N-Fun. I'm about 3/4 way unpacking my camping gear for the week. Under the wing you can see my tent, sleeping bag, giant cooler full of drinks and food, my cook set, folding table, and reclining chair. My bicycle is still in the plane.

2C2MnVal.jpg
 
Another good choice, maybe not as sexy, is the 108 series of the Stinson Voyager. I flew one with an 0-470 towing banners way back, and that plane rocked for short performance. On a 7500' runway, I could take off, climb to 700', line up on, dive for, and pick up my banner without flying the pattern. There's also a conversion with the Cont IO-360 220hp that's supposed to be nice as well. With the leading edge slots and the ability to hang from the prop, I could get it in really short and slow. The back seat may not be the most comfy, a fabric sling, but the dog never complained. :D
 
Hank S said:
If you want to build time, 70K will buy a lot of fuel for the family traveler with reduced throttle.

But a taildragger would be fun. Just make sure you can get in/out of the plane, and are comfortable inside it, or you will find reasons to not fly it.
Click to expand...

I should have clarified that I want to build some taildragger time. In the long run I would like to own a T6.

I fly the toga on a regular basis and building time isn't an issue with it.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I've always admired Swifts, although I've never been in one. As others said, the 170 would fit you fine and with your budget, you could get a pristine, Oshkosh prize-winning B model and still have some money left for upgrades or future maintenance. BUT, you won't be doing aerobatics in it.

Some other options: for your budget, you could get an N3N. To the casual observer, they are sometimes confused with the Stearman. For a little more (around $90k), you could get a decent BT-13 that would definitely haul you and do some aerobatics.
Click to expand...

I've considered the Stearman and N3N, however that thought of only getting to fly it a little more then half the year bugs me. Now if I didn't live in NW Colorado it would prob be a done deal.
 
Jthamilton said:
I've considered the Stearman and N3N, however that thought of only getting to fly it a little more then half the year bugs me. Now if I didn't live in NW Colorado it would prob be a done deal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can see how that might be a challenge!
 
Jthamilton said:
I should have clarified that I want to build some taildragger time. In the long run I would like to own a T6.



I fly the toga on a regular basis and building time isn't an issue with it.
Click to expand...

When (ie how far down the road) do you think you'll be looking for a T-6?

Do you already have a TW endorsement and any TW time? Roughly what is your Total Time?
 
Jthamilton said:
I should have clarified that I want to build some taildragger time. In the long run I would like to own a T6.

I fly the toga on a regular basis and building time isn't an issue with it.
Click to expand...

Oh! Then it's an easy choice. http://www.vintageaircraftgroup.org/projects/PT19-1/PT19-1 For Sale.htm

If you want an enclosed canopy there is also the BT-13 Vultee Vibrator, but I think they go for above $70k for a decent one.

Oh, I read in the ad the PT-19 has the enclosed cockpit with it.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I just went through the pics on the PT-19, that one is pretty interesting, right up your ally. Looks like a lot of recent time and work into it.
 
Henning said:
Another good choice, maybe not as sexy, is the 108 series of the Stinson Voyager. I flew one with an 0-470 towing banners way back, and that plane rocked for short performance. On a 7500' runway, I could take off, climb to 700', line up on, dive for, and pick up my banner without flying the pattern. There's also a conversion with the Cont IO-360 220hp that's supposed to be nice as well. With the leading edge slots and the ability to hang from the prop, I could get it in really short and slow. The back seat may not be the most comfy, a fabric sling, but the dog never complained. :D
Click to expand...

How is a Stinson not as sexy? The Stinson has been known as one of the best looking 4 place taildraggers it there, not like a boxy Maule or standard issue Cessna.

Also you really don't need to hop up the engine, flying a 108-1 with a 150 I've never had to turn down a destination due to performance.


How the back seat not comfy BTW? I've slept in the back a few times and my pax always said it was comfortable.

Any why on earth would you tow banners with one, I'd way rather two with a Citabria or something smaller and easier on the mx
 
James331 said:
How is a Stinson not as sexy? The Stinson has been known as one of the best looking 4 place taildraggers it there, not like a boxy Maule or standard issue Cessna.

Also you really don't need to hop up the engine, flying a 108-1 with a 150 I've never had to turn down a destination due to performance.


How the back seat not comfy BTW? I've slept in the back a few times and my pax always said it was comfortable.

Any why on earth would you tow banners with one, I'd way rather two with a Citabria or something smaller and easier on the mx
Click to expand...


You're not towing a 40x60 Flying V double billboard with a Citabria.:no: That takes horsepower and high lift wings. It was a great all around utility plane for the owner that made him money. That's why it towed banners, it was a work machine that he could also use as a general plane. The only plane that was hauling bigger signage was a highly modified 260hp O-540 powered PA-18 in Restricted category. Big signs pay bigger money and fly longer contracts for bigger companies, mostly booze. One side was always a Bacardi product, sometimes both.
 
As a Swift owner, you will be load challenged unless it has big engine and gross weight increase. With a 170# passenger and 240# pilot! you will have about 13 gallons of gas...less than half a tank and no baggage.

I love my Swift, but fly solo most the time. With two adults, it gets a bit tight. I've also retired my Swift from acro. It is 68 years old.
 
Henning said:
You're not towing a 40x60 Flying V double billboard with a Citabria.:no: That takes horsepower and high lift wings. It was a great all around utility plane for the owner that made him money. That's why it towed banners, it was a work machine that he could also use as a general plane. The only plane that was hauling bigger signage was a highly modified 260hp O-540 powered PA-18 in Restricted category. Big signs pay bigger money and fly longer contracts for bigger companies, mostly booze. One side was always a Bacardi product, sometimes both.
Click to expand...

In that case a simple A9 or a older Pawnee would be a way better plane, unless he just wanted a S108 to have one.
 
James331 said:
In that case a simple A9 or a older Pawnee would be a way better plane, unless he just wanted a S108 to have one.
Click to expand...

Exactly, he still had a 4 seat hauler to fly that paid for its use. Pawnee doesn't give you that. I bet the Katmai would be hell of banner plane too.
 
Fearless Tower said:
When (ie how far down the road) do you think you'll be looking for a T-6?

Do you already have a TW endorsement and any TW time? Roughly what is your Total Time?
Click to expand...

I'm at least prob 2-3 years away on the T6, that is if I feel like I have progressed to safely do it. I have 450 hours and since picking up flying again a couple years ago I'm flying 120 a year, that point a to point B. I would prefer a couple years at least in various TW before making jump. I currently do not have my TW endorsement but hope in next month or two work that out.

I'm definitely open to ideas for pursuing my T6 dream....
 
Last edited:
Jthamilton said:
This is an interesting bird! Definitely has my interest. I did talk to nice guy at OSH outside of his, there were also a couple in Tulsa that flew regularly.
Click to expand...

I see the 19s around reasonably frequently, it's a Fairchild plane with a pretty good following.
 
skip the BT13. Those things try harder to swap ends on the ground than anything I've ever flown, and that is when one is perfect. And none of them are perfect because they've all been wrecked dozens of times and have all sorts of wierd twists in them.
 
JHW said:
skip the BT13. Those things try harder to swap ends on the ground than anything I've ever flown, and that is when one is perfect. And none of them are perfect because they've all been wrecked dozens of times and have all sorts of wierd twists in them.
Click to expand...


I flew one about 40 hours for airshows one summer. Very easy to handle on the ground. I never saw any attempt to swap ends beyond what any taildragger will do. Only vice is slow and uncoordinated and they can snap inverted. Bad juju in the pattern.


Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift
 
I'll also disagree with what Jeff said of the BT-13. The one I flew was a dreamboat and would almost fly hands off. Ground ops were uneventful. In all it's years since 1943 the only damage to that particular aircraft came in the 1990s when the owner, while flying single, mashed the brakes too hard upon landing in the attempt to avoid another aircraft which taxied out for an intersection takeoff. The damage consisted of a bent prop.
 
Edit--Just noticed the last response from the OP was months ago...this still may be pertinent for someone :-) ......

Want to add a +1 for the Citabria. I'm 6'4"/240 and no problems at all in our 7ECA, even with a chute. Some things to think about....

Excellent and stable tail-dragger that will teach you what you need to know to transition into any of the other airplane suggestions above.

Later models have a fore/aft adjustable front seat. That's a good thing for big folks.

Later models also have a metal spar wing, which eliminates a repetitive wood spar inspection (which in itself isn't that horrible). There are some older Citabrias that have been retro'd with this, which adds significantly to their value.

150/60 horse vs 115 horse....we like the 115 in the 7ECA. Very economical, only 10 knots less in cruise, but does take more time to climb back up during acro.

Jim
 
Last edited:
One must remember these 1930-1940 designed tail dragger were built for the averaged sized person of the 30's, 170# and 5'5" tall.
 
Assuming a big guy has good maneuverability he'd have no issues fitting into a Supercub. He may prefer a wide body, though. Don't get lulled into thinking a -12 is better suited for a big pilot. Pilot access is more difficult in a -12.
 
I'm 6 foot, 185 lbs. PLENTY of room in....a super cub 180 hp, a Citabria 150 hp and a champ.85 hp. You might want to consider losing some weight as your weight should probably be around 200-210. If the supercub is a 180 hp. which it should be in Colorado , I'd go for it if the deal is sensible. I'm not sure how a T6 standard operates in Colorado. At sea level, 600 hp is adequate but not overpowered by any means.
 
My reports on T6 s come from two owners who flew them quite a bit. They reported the horsepower was wanting. These were both flown on the east coast. I have only flown one once. How about you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top