Warbird Information Exchange

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

If you have an airport near you I suggest in renting one as often as you can afford to build some time. Of course buying one is the quickest way. Maybe start with something simple like a Champ, Chief, T-Craft, Luscombe, get some time and then look for something like a Swift, Fairchild, or WACO

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

just a thought but does the RAA chapter 85 still have their Piper J5? RAA members were able to rent it and fly it as much as they liked.

I flew that thing 25 years ago, lots, it was great fun, and really cheap, (then)
might be worth checking into. It was (and they still are) based at Delta Air Park, although I think they now call it heritage park or something like that.

As well, there used to be lots of guys there with little tail draggers, maybe someone can add you to their insurance, or you can buy a share in something there.

Hey Lotus,

Thanks for the suggestion. I have considered joining the RAA at Delta Air Park. I just haven't gotten around to it, and also wondered if there was possibly a cheaper airplane to rent.

As it turns out the J-5, from what I know was damaged years ago and they were in the process of restoring it, but fell short of getting it all done. So they sold it.

They've had for a long time, and still have a Turbi... little 2 seat tandem low wing taildragger. That would probably be my best bet.

Thanks again,

David

To throw in my 2 cents worth, and echoing other replies to this post:

Spend some time defining the mission. What do you want to do with the airplane? For instance, a cub is a great way to build hours cheaply, but maybe not the best platform for long trips.

The real cost of the airplane is ongoing ownership costs. If you are on a budget carefully consider this.

If the object it to build total time or tailwheel time in a hurry, be sure that it is easy to find parts for the airplane/engine you chose. Depending on what's broken, hunting for a part or waiting for a new one to be fabricated can take a long time.

Not sure if I saw this on anyone's list, but the Cessna 120/140 series might be worth considering. I think they are pretty inexpensive in today's market, have modern conveniences like electrical systems and starters and heaters that work and they are pretty inexpensive to own and operate. A quick look at Barnstormers makes me think you could get a decent one for under 20K.

It's certainly a good time to buy if you decide you are serious.

FWIW,

Steve

_________________
Steve
www.eaglesmereairmuseum.org
www.net2nite.com

Thanks Steve,

more great input. I certainly do need to refine my objectives with getting an airplane.

I haven't really thought of the low numbered Cessnas like the 120's or 140's... but that's mainly because I've never flown in one.

But, speaking of those airplanes, what about a Luscombe? What can people tell me about those?

Cheers,

David

A Cessna 120 or 140 would actually be a very good option. Very nice habits as far as most taildraggers are concerned - AND you can see over the nose! I got my endorsement on one - so that's an endorsement for the airplane from me.
Luscomes? I hear that their owners like them a lot, but I've also heard that their claims can be exaggerated at times. I guess I tend to think of them like I think of Mac computers... (I'm a PC guy - and yes I know how to use a Mac and can appreciate some of it's features.)

Ryan

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

I haven't flown a Luscombe much for years but my memory says they are speedy and really nice to fly but perhaps a little less well mannered on landing than some (but not too bad) and a little more cramped in the cockpit than some.

Another thought: if you are doing this on a budget (as I think you are) all metal or metalized will, IMHO, do better tied down outside than a fabric airplane.

_________________
Steve
www.eaglesmereairmuseum.org
www.net2nite.com

I have time in both a Luscombe and a Cessna 140. Both are decent airplanes and can be bought for under 20K. The Luscombes can come with a 65, 75, 85, 90hp engine depending on the model and/or mods. I flew a 65hp one. The gear on a Luscombe is stiffer than the gear on a C140 and so will give you a different feel on landing. I flew both off of grass. I would say the C140 had more room width wise. Both cruised about the same, around 100mph.

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

The 140 is nice in that you can access the baggage compartment in-flight. IMO, it is the best-bang for the buck in little airplanes. Not as squirrely as a Luscombe on landing. Has toe brakes instead of the heel the Luscombe has.

The Fairchild, by comparison, is a huge aircraft, drinks the fuel and doesn't go that much faster. It does have a stick whereas the Cessna has a yoke (so does a Swift.) I could put the Cessna away by myself. If it's summer and the Fairchild has full tanks, it's a struggle. It weighs twice as much as the Cessna.

The Fairchild has more "wow" factor when you pull up to the pump. The Fairchild practically lands itself.

Don

Wacoykc said that both the Luscome and 140 cruise around 100mph. True, but the Luscome does it on 65 H.P. and the Cessna requires 100H.P.

I had a Stinson 108-3 and it was a real honest aircraft. Lots of room, carried a lot and could get in and out of small strips. The 165 Franklin is a great engine and burns about 10US GPH at cruise.

I recently sold it and got a Thorp T18. This is also a nice performing aircraft. The fuel burn is 8US gph at 155 mph. It's a bit tight if you are thinking about putting two 200 lb people in it. This plane is a head turned at the pumps but does require some precision to fly correctly.

Jim Mantyla

Davey, I'm not qualified to answer your tech questions on this but one thing I have to consider getting into some aircraft....how tall are you? I tried getting into a Luscombe Silvaire a while back and got out with imprints of the inst. panel on my kneecaps. An airplane may fit your bill exactly but if you're too tall to be comfortable in it, it blows the whole deal.

What about a Cessna 195? Does it even fit the current criteria here??

_________________
"I love the smell of 100LL in the morning."

A Cessna 195 is a good airplane for size however it is not a beginner taildragger by any means and I am pretty sure it is not in his budget if he's looking at Cubs, Champs, Luscombes, etc.

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

I suggest a Piper PA-16 Clipper. I have had mine for 20 years of land, float, and ski flying and will never sell it. Never. Features:

Sticks.
Tail wheel.
Four seats (that you can really use if it's a light example).
Lycoming engine.
Clipwing Cub wings and flight characteristics (literally).
Small to hanger.
Cheap to buy.
Awesome two-place camping airplane (rear seat 1 minute removable).
Great short field airplane.
Great visibility.
Good 112 mph cruise speed.
Very easy to maintain.
Cheap to maintain.
Easy to push around.
Incredible weight hauler.
Toe brakes.
Decent insurance rates.
Good resale value.
Good gas pump appeal.
Brisk responsive controls.
Six gallons of car gas per hour.

And one last positive comment. We all go through fat times and lean times. Don't over buy. While there are times when I could afford to operate a more expensive airplane (such as a Cessna 180) there are times where it would have to sit. I can always afford to operate my Clipper.

Draw backs:

Slightly cramped width wise, but great for tall guys once you are in the seat.

Not a great take off airplane at density altitudes above 5000 feet.

Slightly nasty ground handling airplane, but then you’re trying to learn to be a good taildragger pilot so that might be good in the long run.

And one piece of advice that Ercoupe guys and others will give you. Don't listen to negative comments from guys on any particular type from anyone who hasn't owned one. There is allot of negative information out there on types that is not true, but is spread widely by those that have not owned one. The owners and past owners are always the best source of information on the real truth. Talk to some owners and past owners before you finally write that all important check.

And never skip the Prebuy Inspection.

_________________
Fly low. Fly slow, Fly safe.