Let's talk crappy old taildraggers...

fiveoboy01

fiveoboy01

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
2,321
Location
Madison, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Dirty B
I should soon have my Archer but am also tossing around the idea of a ratty, tube and fabric taildragger for some fun on grass and colorful fall days.

Taylorcraft?
Luscombe?(I know that one is metal, at least I think it is)
Vagabond?
Colt?
140?
Chief?
Clipper?

What does everyone think? Cheap, not expensive to maintain, good on fuel, no crazy avionics. I think it might be fun(most of you already know this).
 
Funny tailwheel on this Colt!

colt2.jpg
 
I looked at a Luscombe yesterday. I've flown a few of the planes on your list. Here's my 3 cents;

All of them are fairly cramped. Low overheads, narrow fuselage, small doors, and small windows. Not a good place for anyone who doesn't do well in confined places. You will be rubbing elbows, and shoulders with your pax in the side by side planes.

They are all noisy. Of course, we have headsets now to deal with this so not really an issue. Almost all of them have been groundlooped or flipped on their back. This isn't a problem if it has been repaired correctly. Plan to have an A&P look in the gear attach in the fuselage, and the top of the rudder, as well as the firewall. All of them require - how shall I say this, better than average landing skills. None of them will land and roll out cleanly without plenty of pilot attention. The Luscombe is prolly the worst of the bunch, but the Clipper/Vagabond is no picnic either. You get used to it, you are diligent, and nothing gets broke. Otherwise, reread the above mention about groundloop or flip on back.

For the most part they are marginal performers. Plan on anemic climb performance with the A65, A75, or O-145. If you can find one that's been modified with a C-85 all the better, and maybe a metal prop to improve thrust.

The saving grace, as you've mentioned is that the running costs are really quite low. I would get only liability insurance because your out of pocket is small, and if you smash it up, just plan to part out what's left. Low cost auto fuel can be used, and it doesn't use much of that. Low and slow is the plan, although the Luscombe can go about 115MPH with the 85 HP at altitude. Most of them are limited to under 100MPH.

With age comes corrosion. For all of these planes, an extensive inspection is needed for corrosion. For the Piper family of tube and fabric this usually is found in the lower tube braces of the rear fuselage where water, and gunk tends to accumulate. For the Luscombe, it's back in the metal tail cone area as well as under the floorboards behind the gear attach.

I'm likely going to grab up the Luscombe and just float around in the sky on nice days. Not for long distance, or heavy loads of course, but still as much fun as the go-fast at a fraction of the cost. Plenty of parts have to be made, and the 65HP Conti is fairly well supported, as is the C85 should you find one of those.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I should soon have my Archer but am also tossing around the idea of a ratty, tube and fabric taildragger for some fun on grass and colorful fall days.

Taylorcraft?
Luscombe?(I know that one is metal, at least I think it is)
Vagabond?
Colt?
140?
Chief?
Clipper?

What does everyone think? Cheap, not expensive to maintain, good on fuel, no crazy avionics. I think it might be fun(most of you already know this).
Click to expand...

Wag-O-Bond, Fisher Celebrity, there are hundreds.

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_873154_sale+Bushmaster++2+home+built.html
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
I looked at a Luscombe yesterday. I've flown a few of the planes on your list. Here's my 3 cents;

All of them are fairly cramped. Low overheads, narrow fuselage, small doors, and small windows. Not a good place for anyone who doesn't do well in confined places. You will be rubbing elbows, and shoulders with your pax in the side by side planes.

They are all noisy. Of course, we have headsets now to deal with this so not really an issue. Almost all of them have been groundlooped or flipped on their back. This isn't a problem if it has been repaired correctly. Plan to have an A&P look in the gear attach in the fuselage, and the top of the rudder, as well as the firewall. All of them require - how shall I say this, better than average landing skills. None of them will land and roll out cleanly without plenty of pilot attention. The Luscombe is prolly the worst of the bunch, but the Clipper/Vagabond is no picnic either. You get used to it, you are diligent, and nothing gets broke. Otherwise, reread the above mention about groundloop or flip on back.

For the most part they are marginal performers. Plan on anemic climb performance with the A65, A75, or O-145. If you can find one that's been modified with a C-85 all the better, and maybe a metal prop to improve thrust.

The saving grace, as you've mentioned is that the running costs are really quite low. I would get only liability insurance because your out of pocket is small, and if you smash it up, just plan to part out what's left. Low cost auto fuel can be used, and it doesn't use much of that. Low and slow is the plan, although the Luscombe can go about 115MPH with the 85 HP at altitude. Most of them are limited to under 100MPH.

With age comes corrosion. For all of these planes, an extensive inspection is needed for corrosion. For the Piper family of tube and fabric this usually is found in the lower tube braces of the rear fuselage where water, and gunk tends to accumulate. For the Luscombe, it's back in the metal tail cone area as well as under the floorboards behind the gear attach.

I'm likely going to grab up the Luscombe and just float around in the sky on nice days. Not for long distance, or heavy loads of course, but still as much fun as the go-fast at a fraction of the cost. Plenty of parts have to be made, and the 65HP Conti is fairly well supported, as is the C85 should you find one of those.
Click to expand...

Interesting post. Thanks.

What got me thinking about this is a guy at the airpark has a vagabond replica, it's bare-bones but watching it take off from the grass next to the runway on a nice day makes me smile:)
 
docmirror said:
I looked at a Luscombe yesterday. I've flown a few of the planes on your list. Here's my 3 cents;

All of them are fairly cramped. Low overheads, narrow fuselage, small doors, and small windows. Not a good place for anyone who doesn't do well in confined places. You will be rubbing elbows, and shoulders with your pax in the side by side planes.

They are all noisy. Of course, we have headsets now to deal with this so not really an issue. Almost all of them have been groundlooped or flipped on their back. This isn't a problem if it has been repaired correctly. Plan to have an A&P look in the gear attach in the fuselage, and the top of the rudder, as well as the firewall. All of them require - how shall I say this, better than average landing skills. None of them will land and roll out cleanly without plenty of pilot attention. The Luscombe is prolly the worst of the bunch, but the Clipper/Vagabond is no picnic either. You get used to it, you are diligent, and nothing gets broke. Otherwise, reread the above mention about groundloop or flip on back.

For the most part they are marginal performers. Plan on anemic climb performance with the A65, A75, or O-145. If you can find one that's been modified with a C-85 all the better, and maybe a metal prop to improve thrust.

The saving grace, as you've mentioned is that the running costs are really quite low. I would get only liability insurance because your out of pocket is small, and if you smash it up, just plan to part out what's left. Low cost auto fuel can be used, and it doesn't use much of that. Low and slow is the plan, although the Luscombe can go about 115MPH with the 85 HP at altitude. Most of them are limited to under 100MPH.

With age comes corrosion. For all of these planes, an extensive inspection is needed for corrosion. For the Piper family of tube and fabric this usually is found in the lower tube braces of the rear fuselage where water, and gunk tends to accumulate. For the Luscombe, it's back in the metal tail cone area as well as under the floorboards behind the gear attach.

I'm likely going to grab up the Luscombe and just float around in the sky on nice days. Not for long distance, or heavy loads of course, but still as much fun as the go-fast at a fraction of the cost. Plenty of parts have to be made, and the 65HP Conti is fairly well supported, as is the C85 should you find one of those.
Click to expand...
I've owned champs, t crafts , Luscombes, a Stearman, cub, . One of my favorite is a Luscombe F model which came with 90 hp. It flew beautifully, easy to fly and cruised about 110 mph. In each case , I bought a nice one in excellent condition. One can spend lots of money if a fabric aircraft is damaged or is bad to begin with, like left outside. Someone really familiar with type should go over it before you buy it. Luscombes can have bad corrosion problems. A nice F model, 40 grand , possibly more. ( the 85 can be upgraded to 0200 specs with a don swords conversion. ) not cheap. Find a hangar first.
 
Last edited:
Nor did you have a clue.
Click to expand...

Yep, because I said that they came that way from Piper. Oh wait, I didn't. But if showcasing your superior Piper historical knowledge and pointing out my "lack" of it makes you feel awesome, please sir, have at it:D
 
Biggest problem with the Cont A65/75 these days is that nobody makes new cylinders. If you lose a cylinder you'll be searching around for the best used cylinder that can be overhauled.

Whoever used to make new cylinder, but no longer does, made you buy a set of 4 since they were modified O-200 cylinders or something like that...

Annoys the hell out of me that nobody is making them since there are a ton of them still flying. Luckily you don't tend to go through cylinders very often. I had to replace one, and said and done I think it cost me about $800 for another core and the associated overhaul fees. The cylinder I had couldn't be repaired, nor could the spare cylinder I had.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
I've owned champs, t crafts , Luscombes, a Stearman, cub, . One of my favorite is a Luscombe F model which came with 90 hp. It flew beautifully, easy to fly and cruised about 110 mph. In each case , I bought a nice one in excellent condition. One can spend lots of money if a fabric aircraft is damaged or is bad to begin with, like left outside. Someone really familiar with type should go over it before you buy it. Luscombes can have bad corrosion problems. A nice F model, 40 grand , possibly more. ( the 85 can be upgraded to 0200 specs with a don swords conversion. ) not cheap. Find a hangar first.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at the Luscombe because it's all metal. I think one of the sales literature of the day was something like; 'no wood, nails, glue'. Although you can spend piles of cash on a small TW plane, the OPs plan here is to get in at low cost. The one I'm looking at is asking $17k, will sell pretty close to that.
 
AFAIK:

PA-20 was the 4 seat Pacer.

PA-22 was the Tri-Pacer(some were converted to taildraggers).

PA-22-108 was the 2 seat Colt tricycle gear, some were converted to tail draggers and I have also seen them designated the PA22/20.
 
jesse said:
Biggest problem with the Cont A65/75 these days is that nobody makes new cylinders. If you lose a cylinder you'll be searching around for the best used cylinder that can be overhauled.

Whoever used to make new cylinder, but no longer does, made you buy a set of 4 since they were modified O-200 cylinders or something like that...

Annoys the hell out of me that nobody is making them since there are a ton of them still flying. Luckily you don't tend to go through cylinders very often. I had to replace one, and said and done I think it cost me about $800 for another core and the associated overhaul fees. The cylinder I had couldn't be repaired, nor could the spare cylinder I had.
Click to expand...

In your case why don't you simply up grade to the 0-200?
 
docmirror said:
I'm looking at the Luscombe because it's all metal. I think one of the sales literature of the day was something like; 'no wood, nails, glue'. Although you can spend piles of cash on a small TW plane, the OPs plan here is to get in at low cost. The one I'm looking at is asking $17k, will sell pretty close to that.
Click to expand...

I find the Luscombe to be the most appealing of the bunch to me followed closely by the Taylorcraft and then the Chief.

However I have also read quite a few people state that the Luscombe is the worst one of them all in terms of ground handling. IDK, I'm still fairly young and would hope my reflexes are in order:lol:
 
One of my favorite planes to fly is the 7AC.

If you want a little more fun factor get a citabria.
 
jesse said:
Whoever used to make new cylinder, but no longer does, made you buy a set of 4 since they were modified O-200 cylinders or something like that...
Click to expand...

You're referring to the Superior cylinders. I believe these cylinders are made in batches, so availability is hit and miss.

The concern I'd have with them is that they're an STCd installation. If you had a set on an engine and had a bad cylinder it might put you down for a while if you have to wait until Superior makes them again.
 
James331 said:
One of my favorite planes to fly is the 7AC.

If you want a little more fun factor get a citabria.
Click to expand...

I've flown a Citabria as well as a Super D, loved em both, but I'm talking dirt-cheap here. Like less than 20K... and I'm going to try to get a friend to partner up on it. Maybe there is one out there for that, but I can't think it would be in even mediocre shape at that price....
 
docmirror said:
I'm looking at the Luscombe because it's all metal. I think one of the sales literature of the day was something like; 'no wood, nails, glue'. Although you can spend piles of cash on a small TW plane, the OPs plan here is to get in at low cost. The one I'm looking at is asking $17k, will sell pretty close to that.
Click to expand...

The Luscombe with less Hp , like a 65 is really boring. The 90 hp, ( some are converted to 0200 are a lot of fun) none of them are hard to land, takeoff but the later models with the better gear and single strut are the best. Corrosion also occurs overhead spar area which can be real expensive. Piper has both a twenty and twenty two. The clipper (20) later became the pacer as pan am sued them over the name. One a tail dragger the other a trike. If it's a nice luscombe in excellent condition it will not be 17 grand nor will any other tail wheel in this site. Easy to sell if it's nice, tough if it's not. Plenty of beaters out there.
 
In thst case what about some of those experimentals like that air camper :dunno:

For under 20k, that's where I'd be looking, probably can get a very nice example for that price.

For the others. You're looking at a rather haggared bird for under 20k.
 
Tom-D said:
In your case why don't you simply up grade to the 0-200?
Click to expand...

Well, a few reasons:

#1 I don't have that kind of money to spend right now

#2 Even if I did, it's not like you just throw an O-200 on your credit card and go flying. It'd take a significant amount of work to convert the airplane, which would require a significant amount of time..which I also don't have.

#3 Even if number 1 and number 2 weren't a problem I would have a hard time convincing myself it made sense to buy an O-200 which would cost more than I paid for the airplane or could sell it for even after the O-200 when the A75 works just fine today.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I find the Luscombe to be the most appealing of the bunch to me followed closely by the Taylorcraft and then the Chief.

However I have also read quite a few people state that the Luscombe is the worst one of them all in terms of ground handling. IDK, I'm still fairly young and would hope my reflexes are in order:lol:
Click to expand...

the ground handling is what I've heard as well. One more good reason to operate off grass or gravel. Keep side loads off the gear.
 
jesse said:
Well, a few reasons:

#1 I don't have that kind of money to spend right now

#2 Even if I did, it's not like you just throw an O-200 on your credit card and go flying. It'd take a significant amount of work to convert the airplane, which would require a significant amount of time..which I also don't have.

#3 Even if number 1 and number 2 weren't a problem I would have a hard time convincing myself it made sense to buy an O-200 which would cost more than I paid for the airplane or could sell it for even after the O-200 when the A75 works just fine today.
Click to expand...

You buy it already done. Your correct! Unless your capable of the work and have the time it's a nutty idea. Lots of work-changes in fuel line, probably the engine mount,on and on.
 
James331 said:
In thst case what about some of those experimentals like that air camper :dunno:

For under 20k, that's where I'd be looking, probably can get a very nice example for that price.

For the others. You're looking at a rather haggared bird for under 20k.
Click to expand...

There's an Air Camper on Barnstormers right now for 20K, brand new.. well 5 hours on it.

Looks like it it could be a TON of fun to fly with the open cockpit...

http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?ID=929668
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
You buy it already done. Your correct! Unless your capable of the work and have the time it's a nutty idea. Lots of work-changes in fuel line, probably the engine mount,on and on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there would be a lot to it... off hand:

1.) probably would have to rework the cowling, this could be a major PITA
2.) new exhaust system
3.) change engine mounts
4.) sort out plumbing and cables
5.) acquire different prop
6.) I think the plans call for changing the landing/flying wires to a thicker diameter, and maybe the cable attach mount bolts, can't remember.
7.) If I had an O-200 I'd want a real electrical system..so would have to figure that out...

Basically it'd cost a big pile of money, and take three times the time I would expect it to take, and you'd still have a slow airplane, although the rate of climb would be sweet.
 
docmirror said:
the ground handling is what I've heard as well. One more good reason to operate off grass or gravel. Keep side loads off the gear.
Click to expand...

What you heard is not correct. They all handle pretty much the same landing , taxiing, whatever. The Luscombe is pretty tame as are the others. Side loads? I never even thought about this in 4000 hours of tail draggers. Grass is better for braking as it's harder to nose it over in a cross wind . Gravel is never good anytime. Tough on the airplane, prop blast, etc. The best Luscombe as I said, is the later model, single strut, better gear.
 
Since the Piet almost all wood, and open cockpit it has to be kept inside, or at a minimum under a covered tie down with a canopy cover. They are s-l-o-w on the same HP as the other planes mentioned but if you aren't going anywhere, I guess slower isn't much of an issue. I just like metal planes better, so that leads me back to a Luscombe.

Although it's not on the list, you can add the Stinson 105 or 10A to the search. Some of them have a fairly useless 3rd seat in back, and many still have the Franklin engine with all that entails. The Stinson has the best TW landing gear of all and makes even the rankest pilot look good when landing.
 
of all the planes of than genre, i think the champ is the most comfortable to sit in. It's hard to go wrong with a champ. We bought a project and now have all of 12k in ours, and it's pretty nice. Good already-flying examples can be had for 20k.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
What you heard is not correct.

The best Luscombe as I said, is the later model, single strut, better gear.
Click to expand...

Ectually, where I hear it is from various Luscombe owners. So - pardon me if I disagree with you and stick with several of the owners who advised such. While not as hard to land as say - a Pitts S1, the Luscombe does have more of a tendency to weathervane than the Cessna 120/140.

As far as the later model, single strut being best, well that's a matter of opinion. If I want a lighter weight plane, I might be tempted by a fabric wing. the various gear designs can be had on any of the Luscombes. I've seen a 1939 model with the Silflex gear, and I've seen one of the latest 8F models with the spring steel inner tension rod(does not like side loads).
 
Really nice! How much room does an air camper have? Enough for a 6'-2", 200# guy?
 
Another vote for a Champ. There is a good reason they were so popular. You have to also remember that back when most of the airplanes you are talking about were made, a "standard" FAA human wasn't all that uncommon in the good ole USA like it is now :).

I like your idea, though, to get back to the fun of flying. It is sometimes easy for us to get so caught up in the "go fast and get there" that we forget to enjoy the journey. Have fun!
 
fiveoboy01 said:
There's an Air Camper on Barnstormers right now for 20K, brand new.. well 5 hours on it.

Looks like it it could be a TON of fun to fly with the open cockpit...

http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?ID=929668
Click to expand...
If you are looking for a second fun airplane, the Piet would be my vote. Champ would be second.

That is a nice looking Piet, but if you search around, you can find other nice ones in the $10-15k range.
 
timwinters said:
Really nice! How much room does an air camper have? Enough for a 6'-2", 200# guy?
Click to expand...
I never got in it, but I have talked to 6' 200 lb folks who have and they were able to get in the back. Front pit requires flexibility I don't posses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top