Thinking About an Old Taildragger

I flew the J5 tonight with the idea of what if I ONLY HAD 1000' to land in and absolutely no more. Our runway is grass and 5000'. There are trees and power lines on the end of the runway I was using. Today it was 90 degrees here with zero wind. The airport is 560' MSL. I was in the plane by myself with full fuel to start. Now let me qualify that the J5 needs some brake work so you can't reef on the brakes (not that you would want to) to stop faster. I have 64.2 hours in this airplane and 248 landings (don't judge me I like practicing landings:D) So not a lot of time but I would have to say I would need tons more practice to feel confident I could get it done in 1000 feet 100% of the time. Was close most of the time give or take brakes but there were a few I just came in a hair fast and all of a sudden you are at 1500-1700 feet after a little float and roll. No obstacle would be a lot easier. Of course that is just me YMMV.
 
Nope, what matters is if the wife likes it. :D

I do have a question about your requirements, though. Are you and your wife okay with no electric starter?
 
Ah, that Ted's a cagey fellow, he's got us doing research for him.

I saw this in Backcountry Pilot:

I happen to have a Chief (for sale) & a T-Crate I just rebuilt.
Contrary to above post Chief's are faster (marginally) than Champs (acknowledged on Areonca site-those guys would know). Marginally is the key, Chief-Champ are 80-85mph cruise planes. Mine operates out of a 1100' strip with 50' tree's at about the 1300' mark with two people (350lbs) & full header tank (12gl). I average about 3.5gl per/hr. Chief's are very under appreciated planes, built light they perform very well short field. They are not mountain planes but what 65hp is @ 3.5gl per hr burn
icon_wink.gif
They are much easier to get in & out of than my T-Crate & MUCH more leg room once inside. All the taildraggers are rudder planes, something that takes a little getting used to, but my Chief is a joy to fly! I have actually been thinkin seriously about selling Crate & keeping Chief to recover. Biggest downfall of Areonca's in general is Oleo landing gear. If it's in good shape no problem, rebuilding a set takes more time & $$ than most other landing gear systems.
Terry-I would recommend a good Chief any day, annuals will be 1/2 your 172 price or less, 1/3 your fuel burn, maintainance is basically oil changes. Best go try one on for size, none of those old birds really fit bigger people, I'm 6' & would think that's about the limit in most old birds with the Chief capable of handling the taller guys. Width is a problem on all of them
icon_rolleyes.gif
I think about 42" is average cabin width. Champs have a certain appeal if your a "window" guy, but center of gravity is much more consistant with SxS seating birds, tandoms tend to load the tailwheel much more when two-up, to each to their own.

It's at https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/aeronca-chief-6728
Here's another discussion on the viability of the 65 horse 11AC for a short field: http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?1867-STOL-OPERATIONS-IN-AN-AERONCA-11AC-w-65-hp


Here's a Chief with C-85, no electrical system:

47 AERONCA 11CC SUPER CHIEF
• $14,500 • FOR SALE • 2155TT , 85hp Continental 140 SMOH, factory toe brakes, Logs from day one, Stitts cover, always hangared. NO electric. New landing gear struts '06, Starts very easy. Not a show plane. great flyer. 913 954 9734 • Contact Andy Stanton - ANDYS FOREIGN CARS, Owner - located Platte City, MO USA • Telephone: 816-858-4747

Price is right, too There are others on Barnstormers, but they don't specify if they have electrics. There are also 100 hp Taylorcrafts, I don't know if you will be able to find one without an electrical system

@Ted DuPuis , before you go off looking for such an airplane, are you sure this is what you want? I used to think I wanted a classic car until I got up close to a couple, and realized that I didn't. I've only ever flown in a little old taildragger once, and I was a wee lad at the time, but looking at them now they appear to be a little claustrophobic. I do have a little stick time in one low and slow three axis aircraft, a Schweitzer 2-22, and the best way I can describe it is to say it is sluggish.

You are a vastly more experienced pilot than I am, so feel free to disregard this. One thing my hang gliding experience has taught me is that there is a lot of stuff going on in the atmosphere close to the ground. If you're flying a heavier airplane you don't notice these things, but in something with low power and a low wing loading, these do affect you. There's mechanical rotor off of buildings, hills, and trees, there are small patches of lift and sink depending on wind and sun conditions. Any of these can affect your rate of climb and sink by a couple of hundred feet per minute, so leave some margin. All my power flying was done at airports with a minimum of 3000 feet of pavement and with obstacles removed. In a hang glider, there's not a lot of improving done to the launch and landing areas, so you learn to work with the terrain, where you can go and where you need to stay away from.

There used to be a lot more hang gliding launches that were used that there are now. Most of the ones that were abandoned had one or more issues that made them difficult or risky to use. Before you go to all the trouble of building a runway, you may want to be sure that you can use it often enough to make it worth the effort. On a nice summer day, I'm guessing that the density altitude is around 3000 feet where you are, so there goes some of your takeoff performance. How does the prevailing wind work with the direction your strip would be? I'm guessing that you usually have some kind of breeze blowing there. Will that affect how often you can fly?

Perhaps it would be better to buy the airplane first. You can always sell it if you decide it won't get used enough. Taking down a bunch of trees and getting a sod field working, well, once you do that, it's all yours and if it doesn't work out, those costs are sunk.
 
Last edited:
This is what I found to fill my mission.
Matches your wants perfectly.
1948 Fleet Canuck 80.
85hp, side by side sticks, stressed 7G's
Both ways, 100 mph cruise.
1000 ft runway, no problem.
Only problem is there is only one in the US, mine.
ADS-B out and full panel with IFR GPS.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1475.PNG
    IMG_1475.PNG
    1.2 MB · Views: 25
Experience. Ted said a Cub was too expensive. Fair enough. Let's talk about a Tcraft. Is is cheaper to re-cover than a Cub? Nope. The truth is, when you cut off old fabric you get to see what 30-40 years of corrosion does to the tube frame. For a Cub? I can drive to two shops in Anchorage and buy a PMAd replacement airframe. The Tcrate? Those rusted longerons and bent up tail post need repair. How? Build a jig or do it with string lines. Tons of labor cutting out the old crap and inserting new. How much does that cost, on top of that cover job? The mechanics I know that make a living restoring tube and fabric airplanes would tell you don't even think about it unless you have $50K to spend. So why do you see these cheap old tube and fabric planes for sale? They're at the end of their lives and the owners know what it'll cost to restore them. The only way anyone can justify the purchase is to lower their standards below the sellers, and go in blind thinking there's no way an old tube and fabric plane can cost that much to fix.

Been there, done that. Sold the plane for $25K less than I had into it. There's a pirep for you. No fantasy, just honest truth.

I've been flying old planes for a lot of years and I've never spent anywhere close to $50K on fixing one up, much less buying one. In fact, I can almost add up my last two planes and be less than that. Maybe the advice is don't buy planes that have been abused in Alaska! Sorry, but if you're willing to buy a T-Cart for $20K, and you put $50K in it, the mechanic saw you coming. You could put a new engine, recover the wings, and paint it for less than half of that. If you buy a plane for $20K that needs all of those things, well, you get what you deserve. Hell, you could buy 3 of them and still have money in the bank to fly and fix them. The average price for a Taylorcraft that is a show plane is $25000. You can get a good, corrosion free, low-time engine plane for $20K.

BTW, just using your story... you spent a lot of money fixing one up, then sold it for $25K less than you had in it. Didn't that guy get a good plane without having to spend $50K to fix it up? There is junk out there that people want to sell for more than a new plane, but there are a lot of old planes that have been cared for. If you reach out to the type clubs to learn which areas to check, you'll be fine.

Just my pirep...
 
Last edited:
That guy spent $100K for that -12 after I flew it for a few years.

After helping me with my -12 my mechanic was hired to restore a Tcraft to original condition. It was the original airplane used to start a regional airline and was being given to the airline founder by his son. That wasn’t an inexpensive project for a stock old airplane.

Your comment about abused Alaska planes is ignorant.
 
Your comment about abused Alaska planes is ignorant.
I doubt it. You or someone bragged about typing airplanes down outside in Alaska. I saw what Ohio winters did to an airplane, and it wasn't pretty. I suspect strongly that sentiment is spot-on. Sorry, hate to be so negative, and I admit I've not been there. But I'm no stranger to flying airplanes in the cold.
 
That guy spent $100K for that -12 after I flew it for a few years.

After helping me with my -12 my mechanic was hired to restore a Tcraft to original condition. It was the original airplane used to start a regional airline and was being given to the airline founder by his son. That wasn’t an inexpensive project for a stock old airplane.

Your comment about abused Alaska planes is ignorant.
Planes are used in harsher conditions in Alaska and planes that would be for pleasure down here are workhorses up there. I'm saying in drier climates, we open planes all the time and find no corrosion. I would be more cautious buying a plane from Alaska than one that had spent it's life in Arizona.

So someone spent $100K on a very special plane that I'm assuming you fully restored. A fully restored, award-winning plane is not what we're talking about here. If you have a daily flyer (similar to a T-cart), in great flying condition, but not perfect, you're crazy if you have $100K in it.

Not trying to fight with you, and I'm sure I won't change your mind, but there are tons of good flying, corrosion-free planes here in Texas that are $20K or less.
 
Get a Breezy. It is the closest thing you will get to a Helicopter. Mine has a Cub wing and 150 HP Lycoming. Every person I have taken for a flight loves it. It's hard to beat. For sight seeing what can you get better?View attachment 56638 View attachment 56639

It does look like a hoot to fly, and fits a lot of criteria in some ways. I would be terrified to take one of my kids flying in that for a few years, which is part of the reason for wanting side by side currently.

We walked the area where the runway will be last night. It's not going to be bad from a tree removal perspective in my opinion. The elevation change according to my watch is about 40 ft from end to end, which isn't huge but enough to cause a noticeable bump.

We may end up getting pushed into an electrical system, which I'm ok with. One of the things Laurie wants is for the plane to be able to accommodate her and me taking off, and that seems like it would almost certainly require 90 HP or more. More power is more better there. Although I do want to stick to fixed pitch prop, etc.
 
Alaska weather isn’t harsh on airplanes. We have a very low UV index and UV is what kills airplanes. I don’t brag about tying down outdoors, I do it because economics support doing it. Come see my airplanes and you won’t be able to see any harsh weather abuse.

On the topic of old taildraggers, my PA-12 was one of the later ones made. It’s now 70 years old. Mild steel tubing changes a lot in 70 years, and not for the better. If not dealing with that suits some guys? That’s their choice. I’ve shared my thoughts.

I’m sitting in my TX house and soon will drive past the local GA airport to go to my TX office. I see TX airplanes frequently. I’ve never had the desire to bring mine down. Alaska flying is where my heart is.
 
I don't think that I've said we expect to be able to buy a $20k airplane that is perfect, and obviously there's the aspect of finding the "right one."

Keep in mind that I'm used to dealing with maintenance requirements on old piston twins, and currently an old pressurized piston twin (which also has turbos). Two constant speed props, 12 cylinders, 24 spark plugs, a pressure vessel (which by definition is an aluminum can trying to blow itself up), two turbos, two inconel exhausts (well some of the exhaust parts the plane has now are stainless), etc.

Not trying to say that there isn't the potential for some big repair work to need to be done on an old taildragger, but the plane is way, way simpler.
 
I still say this is a bad idea. Yeah, Ted and Laurie are the best pilots there are, and can stuff whatever they get into their 1K foot strip. But little kidlings are inherently distracting, and sooner or later we all have a bad day.
 
I still say this is a bad idea. Yeah, Ted and Laurie are the best pilots there are, and can stuff whatever they get into their 1K foot strip. But little kidlings are inherently distracting, and sooner or later we all have a bad day.

Duly noted. Real key in my opinion is picking the correct airplane, which is the point of the thread.

I think the real problem was that I posted the question on a pilot forum. I really should stick to posting questions about semis and the like. Maybe I could post the question on a Kenworth forum. ;)
 
<Super Cub> I don't know, Ted. When I <Super Cub> think about a 1,000' strip with obstructions <Super Cub> and 1,000' elevation on hot <Super Cub> Kansas days, my mind keeps drifting <Super Cub> back to something that would <Super Cub> take the pucker factor out of it. Not sure what <Super Cub> that might be yet, but I'm working <Super Cub> on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
<Super Cub> I don't know, Ted. When I <Super Cub> think about a 1,000' strip with obstructions <Super Cub> and 1,000' elevation on hot <Super Cub> Kansas days, my mind keeps drifting <Super Cub> back to something that would <Super Cub> take the pucker factor out of it. Not sure what <Super Cub> that might be yet, but I'm working <Super Cub> on it.

:rofl:

I kinda see this as a progression, and not buying a plane that would be keep forever. What I'm looking at is some compromises/limitations for now that allow us to fly the kids. As they get better and more responsible, then we can switch to the tandem. Maybe I'm just being overly paranoid, but I think that's what makes the most sense to us for the moment.
 
<Super Cub> I don't know, Ted. When I <Super Cub> think about a 1,000' strip with obstructions <Super Cub> and 1,000' elevation on hot <Super Cub> Kansas days, my mind keeps drifting <Super Cub> back to something that would <Super Cub> take the pucker factor out of it. Not sure what <Super Cub> that might be yet, but I'm working <Super Cub> on it.
I know I'm going to get chaff for this... But super cubs SUCK. They are by FAR my least favorite taildraggers. the ailerons are ineffective, the cockpit is unbelievably loud, I'm short so I absolutely hate the door, the seats are very uncomfortable and hurt the sight picture and the one I flew had a sling back seat which makes pax instantly I'll.

If you're going for a high performance tandem taildragger you have to go with the citabria series and get a scout or a Denali scout, even an explorer will do (7gcbc).

But Ted doesn't want a tandem taildragger so that rules them out, but without that requirement a 7gcbc would be my first suggestion because in addition to being VERY STOL capable, it's also aerobatic.
 
Duly noted. Real key in my opinion is picking the correct airplane, which is the point of the thread..
I honestly think the only correct airplane for this mission is going to be experimental. A little tail dragger with a big engine out front. I thought you were on the right track thinking about a Zenith, even as ugly as I think they are. The crucial thing is what operates with acceptable safety margins in that space, not what looks cool and floats your boat. These are your children we're talking about.
 
These are your children we're talking about.
I'm certain he's aware. Like he said he only plans to fly when Wx and heat is acceptable. 1000' with a gentle slope at sea level is really quite easy if you know what you're doing and Ted and Laurie most certainly know what they're doing. Old taildraggers were designed to fly off of short grass runways, because that's what was around in the 40's and 50's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
There's nothing magic about experimentals. They use wing loading and power loading to achieve design goals just like anything else.
 
Ted, have you ever flown a stick and rudder taildragger? Being centered in the plane is the best part. As you explore your idea for a new toy you really ought to beg some rides in tandems, especially if somebody will put you in front so you can see and feel what it's like.
 
These are your children we're talking about.

For someone who has no children and no experience with the aircraft listed, your comments amuse me.
 
Ted, have you ever flown a stick and rudder taildragger? Being centered in the plane is the best part. As you explore your idea for a new toy you really ought to beg some rides in tandems, especially if somebody will put you in front so you can see and feel what it's like.

I've flown a Cub (loved it), a Stearman (loved it), a 140 (loved it), and Greg's 170 (loved it). Experience in them is very minimal (hence the point of the thread), but all experiences left very positive memories. It's an area of flying that I've wanted to do for a long time, but the situation hasn't been particularly feasible until now. Begging some rides would be great. Unfortunately I don't know folks around here with old taildraggers other than Greg, who's now in Guam.

Like I said, the side by side is more a thought with kids at the moment for better communication when flying together. I understand the reasons for tandem but I don't think that's the right move for the moment. But I could be wrong on that.
 
It does look like a hoot to fly, and fits a lot of criteria in some ways. I would be terrified to take one of my kids flying in that for a few years, which is part of the reason for wanting side by side currently.

We walked the area where the runway will be last night. It's not going to be bad from a tree removal perspective in my opinion. The elevation change according to my watch is about 40 ft from end to end, which isn't huge but enough to cause a noticeable bump.

We may end up getting pushed into an electrical system, which I'm ok with. One of the things Laurie wants is for the plane to be able to accommodate her and me taking off, and that seems like it would almost certainly require 90 HP or more. More power is more better there. Although I do want to stick to fixed pitch prop, etc.

If you don't mind going a little newer in build year, there were some later Taylorcrafts built with O-200s and 0-235s under the cowl. They're out of your original price range, though.

Here's a 1982 with an O-235: https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...model=F-21&listing_id=2287926&s-type=aircraft

Here's a 1973 with an O-200: https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1300175_1973+Taylorcraft+F19+100HP.html
https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1300175_1973+Taylorcraft+F19+100HP.html
Other than that, there are C-85 powered Chiefs around. I can't think of any short field appropriate two seaters from the 40's or 50's that have more power.

There's also an STC that puts O-200 crank, rods, and pistons in a C-85, but the STC holder says it does not change the output of the engine.
 
The Luscombe 8F had 90 hp but you will likely not find one of those under 30k. A taylorcraft will probably be the best short field performer of the side by side ones but man those things are cramped. I really like the Luscombe best of them all, even the 8A is a good performer on 65 HP.
 
I don't know what they go for, but isn't this what Maules and Helios were designed for?
 
I don't know what they go for, but isn't this what Maules and Helios were designed for?
Helios are 6 pax planes and Maules are 4. The early Maule M4 may be a candidate but it is based strongly on the Piper Pacer. The m5s, 6'a and 7's are very pricey large engined 4-seaters.
 
I don't know what they go for, but isn't this what Maules and Helios were designed for?

He wants a two seater.

Not all Maules are short STOL, anyway. A Helio Courier would get in an out of there just fine, but it's a much bigger airplane. A Helio would be pretty pricey.
 
Helio would be awsome, you're talking a six figure plane, and at that price you'd be better of Mx wise getting a skywagon.
 
For someone who has no children and no experience with the aircraft listed, your comments amuse me.
The arrogance of this is utterly overwhelming. What you're in effect saying is that I can't value human life, especially that of those who can't make decisions for themselves, without first procreating.

Second, you second assertion is utterly wrong. I don't know how to properly land a taildragger, that's true (if I'm not mistaken we share that particular deficit), but I've flown in plenty (I'll bet more than you, including types you never will in your whole life) and do have some idea. Moreover, as I said I had a good friend who had almost the same setup you're envisioning. Watched in in action, and saw some of the aftermath. I might even know something you don't. Imagine that.
 
Help me clarify the strip's layout. A thousand feet with a slope that allows one way use with uphill landings and downhill takeoffs. What are the terrain and obstacles at the downhill end?
 
The arrogance of this is utterly overwhelming. What you're in effect saying is that I can't value human life, especially that of those who can't make decisions for themselves, without first procreating. I consider myself venally insulted.

Second, you second assertion is utterly wrong. I don't know how to properly land a taildragger, that's true (if I'm not mistaken we share that particular deficit), but I've flown in plenty (I'll bet more than you, including types you never will in your whole life) and do have some idea. Moreover, as I said I had a good friend who had almost the same setup you're envisioning. Watched in in action, and saw some of the aftermath. I might even know something you don't. Imagine that.

Then perhaps you should give more consideration to what you post before hitting "Post", and not dish out anything you can't take.

Your statement that I originally quoted was highly insulting to me or to any parent. What you were effectively saying is that I don't care about the safety of my kids or am not thinking about their safety in all of this. I can assure you that nobody is more concerned about the safety of my kids than my wife and I are. You don't have kids, and so no, you do not have any idea what it's like to have the level of responsibility that goes with it. Are you able to value human life? Sure, but you do not value those lives as much as I do, not even close. You're not even on the same order of magnitude. If you're insulted by that statement, get over it.

And no, my assertion is not utterly wrong, and the arrogance you display is utterly overwhelming. You may have flown in more taildraggers than I have and have some second hand knowledge, which I am thoroughly uninterested in. It would be like someone coming in to ask about bizjets and me responding because I have friends who have them. I believe you made a statement to feel free to ignore you, which I will take you up on.

The point of this thread was getting some insight from people who actually have first hand experience, and I am appreciative to those who have given useful feedback thus far - keep it coming! The requirements are still ongoing and we're still fleshing out what exactly makes sense, so I appreciate the feedback from those who have participated. The constraints are the runway length and configuration, not much we can do to change that since the boundary is the road on one side and a pond on the other.

One thing I'm thinking is that I may have to compromise on the no electrical system to get an aircraft that meets the other requirements (most notably the runway length and side by side). I'm ok with that if needed, so I suppose I'd view no electrical system as a strong preference rather than a requirement.
 
Help me clarify the strip's layout. A thousand feet with a slope that allows one way use with uphill landings and downhill takeoffs. What are the terrain and obstacles at the downhill end?

Here's the proposed layout:

upload_2017-9-27_13-56-11.png

0 would be the takeoff end heading west. 1009.84 ft would be the landing end.

The trees on the other side of the pond are roughly 30 feet higher than the ground at that point. There's approximately a 40 ft drop between the takeoff end and the landing end, so I believe that comes out to around a 3-4% grade. Those trees are still part of our property so it would be possible to get to them and chop them down, which might be a good idea. Wouldn't have to clear them since we don't use the pond, just chop them down so they're out of the way as obstacles. Those trees aren't super easy to get to but it's still doable.

At the takeoff end (which would be the end of the runway when landing) there's some bushes between the property and the road. There are also power lines at that end, which of course are not movable. An aborted landing decision would need to be made early on, I think.
 
With those conditions - particularly the slope, and flying in nice "evening after work" conditions, I think a Taylorcraft or a Chief would be in and out just fine unless the density altitude or winds were unfavorable.

85 or 100 hp would help climb performance, but, IMO, wouldn't be absolutely necessary. An A-65 or A-75 with a climb prop would be fine. However, you'd never see 100 mph from a post-war Chief (the pre-war is a different animal), but you might get there with an A-75 Taylorcraft.

And Taylorcraft are cheap to buy, even the nice ones. The caveat is I never did find an easy way to climb in/out of one.
 
With those conditions - particularly the slope, and flying in nice "evening after work" conditions, I think a Taylorcraft or a Chief would be in and out just fine unless the density altitude or winds were unfavorable.

85 or 100 hp would help climb performance, but, IMO, wouldn't be absolutely necessary. An A-65 or A-75 with a climb prop would be fine. However, you'd never see 100 mph from a post-war Chief (the pre-war is a different animal), but you might get there with an A-75 Taylorcraft.

And Taylorcraft are cheap to buy, even the nice ones. The caveat is I never did find an easy way to climb in/out of one.

I think ease of entry/exit isn't too big of a deal in our perspective.

I appreciate the info there. I think we'd want more horsepower just to have more margin regardless of what we get. My general feeling is I'm less worried about landing and stopping with the hill to help out than I am about takeoff and climbout. The problem with the hill of course is that an aborted takeoff becomes harder because of that.

I saw an O-235 STC for the 140s, which looks appealing if we went that route. Boosts them to 115 HP, which would give it a nice kick in the pants for takeoff and climb and help the margins there significantly. VGs or other goals to help lower stall speeds (and thus approach and takeoff speeds) are likely also worth a consideration. I think I saw a couple 140s with O-235s in them, which would make those preferable to start. Also saw some T-Crafts with O-200s, so similar there.

More power would also help cruise speed for that idea, too.
 
I'd go with an 0-200 conversion over the 0-235 just due to weight. You're not talking about airplanes with much useful load to begin with.
 
I'd go with an 0-200 conversion over the 0-235 just due to weight. You're not talking about airplanes with much useful load to begin with.

Good point on that. O-200 is probably the best option. Performance wise the O-235 probably makes up for the weight with its power, but like you said, gross weight remains unchanged.
 
Now, throwing this out there:

Let's say that we were open to a tandem configuration, what would be a good fit there (besides the <SUPER CUB>)? Same mission of wife and me max, more likely wife or me with 1 kid.
 
Back
Top