140s and Luscombes - The Hidden Gem of the Market?

Which would you choose?

  • Cessna 140

    Votes: 29 55.8%

  • Luscombe 8A

    Votes: 13 25.0%

  • Other two seater in the same price range?

    Votes: 10 19.2%
  • Total voters
    52
Oops, one more thing: all the airplanes you mention (the cheap ones, anyway) have 65hp, no electric system, save a battery-powered radio. Fine if you just fly alone, and don’t mind roughing it by hand-propping, stay out of certain airspace and live near sea level. Champs, Taylorcraft, Vagabonds and Luscombes with 65hp are cheap for a reason:They’re impractical. Once in a while you’ll see an immaculate Luscombe for say, $27K. That same airplane with an O-200 and electrical system, ADSB, etc, would cost closer to $40K.
 
j1b3h0 said:
That same airplane with an O-200 and electrical system, ADSB, etc, would cost closer to $40K.
Click to expand...
A friend sold a nice one like that for around 30. Deals are out there.
 
My Luscombe 8A was built in 1946 and sold at Dallas Texas in August 1947 to a guy who promptly flew it to Fairbanks Alaska. Took him 57 hours to get there so "practical" is what you're willing to make of it.
 
Silvaire said:
My Luscombe 8A was built in 1946 and sold at Dallas Texas in August 1947 to a guy who promptly flew it to Fairbanks Alaska. Took him 57 hours to get there so "practical" is what you're willing to make of it.
Click to expand...
And, my brother and I took a 120 from Detroit to Fairbanks and back. But it was not new at the time.
 
Yes, when we flew up there in the Maule we ran into an elderly couple who had flown up from Wisconsin in a J3. I just always wondered why it took my previous owner so long to get there. He didn't elaborate much, the logbook entry just says: Ft Collins - Fairbanks - 57.05
 
Lowflynjack said:
Yep, we should burn Cessna 180s, 185s, 140s, 190s, 195s, 165s, Beech 18s, Beech Staggerwings, Waco Cabin Biplanes, Maules, DeHavilland Beavers, Lockheed Electras, DC3s, DC4s... ;)
Click to expand...
Ha , I'm safe , you missed the 172's :)
 
My 65 HP ex-Luscombe 8A flew 500 hours between March of 1946 and the Kansas winter. Almost unbelievable but it was all in the log, 5 or more flight hours a day. It then lived a quieter life there and in Arkansas before being flown cross country a couple of times and eventually completely restored in California. Won Best of Show at Columbia. Then 17 years cosseted with me before sale. Four days later in 2019 the ‘highly experienced’ buyer had put it on its back. Hope it will be restored again some day, Luscombes do seem to have nine lives and and enjoy each of ‘em.
 
Last edited:
j1b3h0 said:
Oops, one more thing: all the airplanes you mention (the cheap ones, anyway) have 65hp, no electric system, save a battery-powered radio. Fine if you just fly alone, and don’t mind roughing it by hand-propping, stay out of certain airspace and live near sea level. Champs, Taylorcraft, Vagabonds and Luscombes with 65hp are cheap for a reason:They’re impractical. Once in a while you’ll see an immaculate Luscombe for say, $27K. That same airplane with an O-200 and electrical system, ADSB, etc, would cost closer to $40K.
Click to expand...

My 140 has a fresh O200A, six pack, dual VOR’s, glide slope, ADS-B IN OUT transponder, alternator, vacuum pump, updated brakes and tailwheel, 150 seats....... and I doubt that I could get $30K for it if it were for sale.
 
8A’s can be found in so many different configurations it’s hard to choose based on that alone. An original 8a will be a lot cheaper than a 140. Pretty much any configuration of Luscombe will outperform a 140. I think the Luscombe is easier to land because the gear is stiff and doesn’t bounce like the Cessna spring gear. The 140 has better ergonomics and flies like a more modern airplane with less adverse yaw. The perfect plane would be an 8A with a non electrical 85hp engine and wing tanks.
 
Grum.Man said:
8A’s can be found in so many different configurations it’s hard to choose based on that alone. An original 8a will be a lot cheaper than a 140. Pretty much any configuration of Luscombe will outperform a 140. I think the Luscombe is easier to land because the gear is stiff and doesn’t bounce like the Cessna spring gear. The 140 has better ergonomics and flies like a more modern airplane with less adverse yaw. The perfect plane would be an 8A with a non electrical 85hp engine and wing tanks.
Click to expand...
I like the ergo of my 8A better than the 140 I teach in, just sayin'.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I like the ergo of my 8A better than the 140 I teach in, just sayin'.
Click to expand...
Does it have wing tanks? I find the ones without the fuselage tank are very comfortable, but the fuselage tank makes it very uncomfortable for me.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Does it have wing tanks? I find the ones without the fuselage tank are very comfortable, but the fuselage tank makes it very uncomfortable for me.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the seat changed depending on tank design. There is an STC for an ergo seat that a lot of people have done. My only ergo complaint is the rudder pedal placement and the heel brakes versus the more traditional toe brakes on a 140
 
Grum.Man said:
I don’t think the seat changed depending on tank design. There is an STC for an ergo seat that a lot of people have done. My only ergo complaint is the rudder pedal placement and the heel brakes versus the more traditional toe brakes on a 140
Click to expand...
Not saying the seat changed, but without a wall behind your head, you can move around a little, or put your arm behind the seat and stretch a little. It made a big difference to me!
 
Lowflynjack said:
Does it have wing tanks? I find the ones without the fuselage tank are very comfortable, but the fuselage tank makes it very uncomfortable for me.
Click to expand...
I've got just the fuselage tank in my '39. I'd bet it would be even better with wing tanks.
Grum.Man said:
My only ergo complaint is the rudder pedal placement and the heel brakes versus the more traditional toe brakes on a 140
Click to expand...
See, if you have enough hours in heel brakes, you realize that it actually tends to keep people from slipping up and using the brakes when they really shouldn't. It takes a little more "intent" to use heel brakes, which can be a good thing in a tailwheel plane.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I've got just the fuselage tank in my '39. I'd bet it would be even better with wing tanks.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes it is. I have 12.5 gal wing tanks and it allows me to tanker fuel between cheaper stops. I've done a couple of 4.5 hour flights but it took quite awhile to stretch out to my normal, unimpressive, height.
 
Arnold said:
Yes, yes it is. I have 12.5 gal wing tanks and it allows me to tanker fuel between cheaper stops. I've done a couple of 4.5 hour flights but it took quite awhile to stretch out to my normal, unimpressive, height.
Click to expand...
That's something I want to do down the road when it's time to recover the wings.
 
Re Luscombe wing tanks in fabric wings: The pre-war 8D had them from the factory, but they were a little smaller than the post-war wing tanks so that a false rib over the tank could hold the fabric down. The post-war 8E prototype had fabric wings and wing tanks, apparently the drawings exist(ed) somewhere, but production 8Es had metal wings and the larger post war production 12.5 gallon wing tanks were designed to work with their unique hat section ribs. Fabric wing 8As are eligible for 12.5 gallon wing tanks because of the way the TCDS is structured but its not clear where the data to install them is supposed to come from. Some installations have been field approved by those who prefer rigor. My fabric wing 8A had them along with an installation logbook entry referencing an inapplicable factory drawing, made by an A&P IA who was by the time of my ownership dead and gone. Nobody ever said anything.

If anybody needs a set of post war fabric wings and 12.5 gallon wing tanks to build up and replace their existing 8A wings with little down time, I have a set left over including somewhat rare factory tanks.

Welcome to the world of pre-war designed and certified aircraft, now almost 75 years old.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top