Warbird Information Exchange

It's not like I can just go out and buy a plane right now, but what's the harm in researching, right?

I'd love to have an airplane one day and I'd prefer something more exciting than a C-172.

What would y'all say is the best all-round airplane for the best value?

As in, I'd want something with:

1.) decent-good performance (cruise and t/o & ldg)
2.) fun and comfortable to fly
3.) economical (won't burn a hole in the wallet)
4.) easy to operate (not very complicated systems)
5.) easy to maintain
6.) eye catching (like Dave's Fairchild), and
7.) inexpensive (certainly below $50,000)

So based on those lucky 7 requirements, what would you suggest is the best airplane?

I'm thinking that maybe a:

1.) Fairchild 24
2.) Stinson 108
3.) Piper Cub / Super Cub
4.) Globe Swift
5.) Taylorcraft
6.) Piper Pacer / Tri-Pacer
7.) Aeronca Chief / Champ
8.) Am I missing any???

I'd really like your input about the pros and cons of each of those airplanes, and in your mind, how they rank among eachother. Maybe there's a few owners out there that can add some interesting bits too.

Cheers,

David

Good list.
A friend has a Stinson 108, says it uses a lot of fuel, but the Franklin engine is fine and parts are no problem. A nice 108-3 with the wood back seat trim "Station Wagon" option would be collectable.

Also, I read somewhere that you need to be a bit wary of Stinsons (and Pacers/Tri-Pacers) that have been metalized. Unless you get all the STC or form 337 paperwork from the previous owner, your local FAA office may have you hire an engineer to do the engineering/stress math on the mods before they'll license it in your name.
It may be nothing, or may be something. Worth asking about anyway.

How about a Piper J-4 Cub Coupe ?
For more modern types, how about a C 170 (I know it's towards the upper endge of your desired price range but a staright 170 or 170A should be in there. The "big flap" 170Bs are the expensive planes of the family).

Ercoupe. Or to be different, a Mooney M-10 Cadet with a single tail.

While boring... don't underestimate an early (1956-59) straight tail 172. I've seen some with restored polished aluminum and correct 50's paint trim (full fuselage paint was in the future or an option) and they lookled great.
It's a great way to have something vintage or perhaps a show plane, while having something practical.
I don't think you'd lose money on them over time.
Likewise, there is super polished straight tail, no rear window, 150 at a local field, it too looks super.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

Hi JBoyle,

Great input!

I knew of some metalized Stinsons and Pipers but never knew that there were 'potential' issues with them. That is a very important nugget of info.

As for the early Cessnas, it's true, they can look really sharp and their retro design is quite appealing, but call me bored of Cessnas, but I am more interested in something not so Cessna.

It's funny though, Cessnas are a d*mn good product. They are amazing when you think about how safe, capable, reliable, etc, etc they are... But at the end of the day I've flown Cessnas practically all my flying career and I expect it's pretty normal to long for something different.

I'd love to hear what people say about the Globe Swift. There seems to be lot of them, they're a good price, and they seem like a quick little thing.

Thanks again for the input.

Cheers,

David

Swift is a good airplane, the one I fly (owned by Steve Roth here in Virginia) has a 200 Lycoming with constant speed prop (and sticks) and turns an 8 hour drive to Dayton into a 2 hour and 15 minute flight. And it's a true classic, and gets plenty of looks at the gas pumps. Plus they seem to be reasonably priced nowadays.

They have a few quirks, don't like left crosswinds on take-off, but aren't too hard to fly.

_________________
http://www.biplanerides1.com/

Hey Baldeagle,

I have a friend that's got one but I haven't gone up with him in it yet. They certainly do attract a good stare. I think they're a really beautiful airplane.

I take it the engine in yours is a higher HP than a stock one?

Oh, and sticks. I am definitely a stick pilot (trained on gliders) and I've gotten used to yokes, but yeah, I didn't know you could convert a Swift to stick. That's definitely on my list of things to modify if I ever get around to buying one.

Thank you for your input.

Cheers,

David

They started with only 85 hp (Continental), very few of those around still, then went to Cont. 125. Lots of them now have 145 Cont., and some have the bigger Lycs or 210hp Cont.




-

_________________
http://www.biplanerides1.com/

SWIFT for sure. A friend from long ago installed everything from the firewall forward from a CITABRIA that a hanger fell on down in Lousiana on his SWIFT. Ever flown inverted with three friends?
There was one around here in the Seattle area that had a really neat sort of meandering stripe that wound around it, upon close investigation it turned out to be evey landing or gas stop they'd made going around the world!

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

The list you gave is pretty wide ranging. Everything from 80 mph taildraggers (J-3's and Aeroncas) to sporty retracts (the Swift) to stately 4 seaters (the Stinson and Fairchild).

So how 'bout refining your criteria? How fast, how many people, how inexpensive to own/restore/operate?

If you're looking for performance, your choice is the Swift, hands down. The downsides there are the expense, cost, and reliability of retracts, plus the type's reputation for sporty ground handling (not enough rudder authority to handle much crosswind from the left on takeoff), abrupt stall (works against 3 point landings), etc.

If you need 4 seats, buy a 4 seater.

If you're looking for something in the J-3, Champ, or Taylorcraft class, also consider the Luscombe. In that group, the T-cart and Luscombe are fastest, the J-3 has the most value, and a Champ has the best visibility. If side by side (not tandem) is your thing, consider the C-120/140 and Chief Remember that all the 1940's side by side airplanes are tight since most people today are a little broader than people were back when.

Well, of all the airplanes I've flown (and the few I've owned), I sure miss the Clipped Wing Cub the most. You've got the classic lines of the Cub, but the short wings so you can have some fun.

Gary

Your specs still leave the field wide open.

I like the idea of a Swift.

If you want something a bit bigger and easier to fly (and qualifies as a warbird) how about an L-17 version of a Navion? Reletively cheap to buy (if close to stock). Also, they are very distinctive and designed by the guys that created the P-51 Mustang! On the down side, they are a bit higher on the upkeep and not too speedy with a stock engine.


Regards,

Art S.

I'm liking the Swift too.

It's got good performance, it's tailwheel (which I like), and it's not a super big airplane. The price is good too.

Then again, maybe it's too much of an airplane for me to own and maintain. Perhaps a tube and rag type airplane would be better.

I've always thought a Fleet Canuck would be a fun airplane to own (I've got about 8 hours in a Canuck), but because of their rarity they are hard to find and they're probably a little bit more expensive than a T-craft or similar.

Right now I don't need a 4 seater. I am more in the time-building range right now, and with regards to a Navion, I'd rather have a tailwheel so that I can eventually get checked out on my air museum's airplanes.

Living in Vancouver, BC... I think the kind of flying I'd be doing is the within 75 nm kind of trips. Around the patch, but not at a crawl.

Now, the issues with the Swift's lack of rudder authority.... considering the number of Swifts out there, has there been a mod giving it a bigger rudder? And if not, how come?

oh, and Gary, a clipped wing Cub sounds like it would be a great airplane to fly. I saw Warren Pietsch in his clipped wing and overpowered T-craft and wow... what a performer.

The search continues....

Thanks again for the input everyone. By chance does anyone have some "sample" airplanes for me to try? hahaha....

Cheers,

David

David,

My first choice when we started dreaming about owning an airplane was a Swift. My reasons were that it was reasonably fast for cross-country, neat looking, fairly simple to maintain, and a taildragger. When I started to shop insurance my lack of tailwheel time (and no way to build such time then) caused me to go with the older Mooney we ended up with. I'm happy with what we bought, but the Swift was still something I really wanted.

Scott

Hey Scott,

yeah, the Swift is nice, but I never considered the whole insurance side of things. How does that all work? I've already got some time, but how much is enough to make insurance less of a drag?

-David

I can speak of Stinsons as I flew one (108 NC97141) that I restored for years (won Best Stinson at OSH with it 3 times). The best undervalued 4-place airplane on the market. Cheaper then a C170, Aeronca Sedan, Luscombe Sedan, early Bonanza, Navion, etc. Will truly hold 4 people, full gas and bags. Mine fully loaded would cruise at 110mph. Without all that it was around 120mph. Had the 150 Franklin. You have the 108 with small tail, no baggage door and 150 Franklin, 108-1 with small tail, baggage door and 150 Franklin, 108-2 small tail, baggage door with 165 Franklin and the 108-3 with the big tail, fancy wood trim and 165 Franklin.

The Swift is a nice airplane with pump appeal but not really a short field airplane (engine makes a HUGE difference). The Fairchild 24 is nice and is a good going places airplane. You have 6 engine choices, 145 Warner, 165 Warner, 185 Warner, 175 Ranger, 200 Ranger, 245 Jacobs (a later mod). In my book I would go with the 200 Ranger simply because of parts availability.

Think of things this way: Tailwheel time is critical in todays world of insurance. It can make/break a good deal on an airplane. Two choices, insurance or no insurance. If financed, you must have it. There is a break at around 100hrs and another at 500 hrs. Maintenance wise on any of the airplanes you listed...retracts cost more to annual and require more work...but so do controllable pitch props, flaps, fuel pumps, etc. If gas is your concern, think of it like this...150hp engine will be around 8-10 gph, 220hp 12gph, 275 14-16gph. A price of $50K will buy alot of cool airplanes but do research first. Talk to the various "Type Clubs" and get answers BEFORE buying. I see this MISTAKE all the time in the Waco world! Good luck on financing any kind of antique. Have two friends who have called every single financial institution they can find that will lend on airplanes to purchase a $25K airplane and have been turned away. The airplane (1941 Rearwin Skyranger fresh restoration with 6hrs) is (a) not in the bluebook (too old), (b) cannot establish value as none for sale (c) require 30% down, (d) 9% interest for 5 yrs and the list goes on. Both have good credit and combined make well over 100K a year.

_________________
President National Waco Club
Curator for the Waco Historical Society Air Museum
Writer for VINTAGE AIRPLANE, SKYWAYS, BARNSTORMERS.COM EFLYER

Thank you wacoykc,

that's some great stuff to think about.

Maybe I should hold off on purchasing and considering "getting on someone's insurance who has a small taildragger"

How many people out there do you think would put someone on their insurance and let them fly their taildragger? It kind of deserves seperate thread, and I think it's a valuable discussion so I'll put it in the WIX Hangar.

Anyways, there's wacoykc sure brings up a lot of different factors.

Like the differences in price for annuals, and fuel burn, and of course the bigger the plane the bigger the hangar needed.

Boy, this is a lot to think about.

Cheers,

David