Cessna 140 vs. Luscombe 8E

D

DMD3.

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
474
Location
Tifton, Ga
Display Name
Display name:
DMD3.
The C140 and the 8E are very similiar aircraft. They're both 2-seater taildraggers, are about the same size, and have the same horsepower (85 hp). (Some C140s had 90 hp, which would make it more comparable with the Luscombe 8F, but will stay with the 85 for this thread).

However, are there any charactaristics/traits that would make one of these aircraft more favorable over the other one? The only difference I know of is that the Cessna 140 has a yoke whereas Luscombes have a stick. Perhaps one is easier to fly than the other (I've heard Luscombes are not the easiest taildraggers in the world to fly). Perhaps one has slightly more room than the other. I've never ridden in a C120/140, but my Dad used to co-own an 8E, and it was cozy.
 
The Luscombe always made me nervous with the gas tank right behind my head. with the ford model A gas gauge in the middle.
 
Don't concern yourself with people saying the Luscombe isn't easy to fly. It's one of those planes that got an unfair reputation. I own a 140 and I've owned an 8E.
  • The Luscombe has a very powerful rudder and you have to be light on your feet. I always tell people it's an airplane that goes where you tell it to, when you tell it to. That scares some people.
  • The stick makes it hard for some people to get in. I prefer to fly with a stick, but getting in is a little harder.
  • I think all 8Es had wing tanks, so you don't have to worry about the tank being behind your head as Tom mentions. I was never concerned with the safety of the tank being behind me, but it is uncomfortable and you can't lean the seat back.
  • Sit in the plane and make sure you can push the right rudder easily to the floor. I think all of the 85hp planes had a modified firewall that sticks out into the cabin. I had to angle my toes inward, which put my heels away from the brakes... I got used to it. You'll hear a lot of Luscombe guys say they fly barefoot!
  • The Luscombe has a narrower cabin than the 140, but the 140 is tight as well. The 140 is more comfortable for sure.
  • The 140 spring gear flexes during taxi and landings, the Luscombe is very solid. I preferred the Luscombe here.
  • Both planes have large support groups, but I'd say the 140 forum is a lot more detailed.
Just my 2 cents! I like them both.
 
I fly a 140 a lot and fly a friend's 8E on occasion. The Luscombe flies a lot nicer but the 140 has a ton more room. I put a C-85 with the O-200 crank conversion and flow ported cylinders in the 140 and that makes it a real performer. Don
 
I'd go with a 8E, better handling, pretty, and it has a stick, not a fan of really small planes with yokes.
 
Flew a Luscombe a bit, felt like it was a good airplane
C140 - the one I briefly owned was a /G with two attitude indicators and a 430 garmin + O-200 conversion - maybe that's why it imprinted as a "more substantial" airplane in my memory.
The landing gear difference is definitely there, remember 140 being somewhat wobbly after Luscombe and Cub.
 
moonshine said:
Flew a Luscombe a bit, felt like it was a good airplane
C140 - the one I briefly owned was a /G with two attitude indicators and a 430 garmin + O-200 conversion - maybe that's why it imprinted as a "more substantial" airplane in my memory.
The landing gear difference is definitely there, remember 140 being somewhat wobbly after Luscombe and Cub.
Click to expand...

wtf?

Were they flying it two crew lol!
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Nope. Luscombe 8. One in each seat, three crammed in the back. Looked like a clown car as they were getting out.
Click to expand...

Well they should have won some kind of an award. The Cessna 150 cabin is exetremely spacious compared to the cabin of a Luscombe.

Also, did it actually fly with all those people???
 
Lowflynjack said:
Don't concern yourself with people saying the Luscombe isn't easy to fly. It's one of those planes that got an unfair reputation. I own a 140 and I've owned an 8E.
  • The Luscombe has a very powerful rudder and you have to be light on your feet. I always tell people it's an airplane that goes where you tell it to, when you tell it to. That scares some people.
  • The stick makes it hard for some people to get in. I prefer to fly with a stick, but getting in is a little harder.
  • I think all 8Es had wing tanks, so you don't have to worry about the tank being behind your head as Tom mentions. I was never concerned with the safety of the tank being behind me, but it is uncomfortable and you can't lean the seat back.
  • Sit in the plane and make sure you can push the right rudder easily to the floor. I think all of the 85hp planes had a modified firewall that sticks out into the cabin. I had to angle my toes inward, which put my heels away from the brakes... I got used to it. You'll hear a lot of Luscombe guys say they fly barefoot!
  • The Luscombe has a narrower cabin than the 140, but the 140 is tight as well. The 140 is more comfortable for sure.
  • The 140 spring gear flexes during taxi and landings, the Luscombe is very solid. I preferred the Luscombe here.
  • Both planes have large support groups, but I'd say the 140 forum is a lot more detailed.
Just my 2 cents! I like them both.
Click to expand...

Good reply! The purpose of this topic is to converse about the differences between two similar aircraft, and your post made for great reading material.
 
At OSH this year Budd Davisson said the Luscombes were good for training to fly taildraggers because it does what you want, theres no lag. From his Luscombe article
"As we taxied out I messed around with the rudders and I could immediately see why the airplane has a reputation for it's ground handling: The airplane goes exactly where your feet ask it to and some pilots aren't used to that. As I was to later confirm on a bunch of takeoffs and landings, the Luscombe isn't even close to being directionally unstable. But a lot of pilots are.

If you move your right foot a little bit, the airplane turns right a little. Move your foot a lot and it turns a lot. Jab at it and the airplane jumps in that direction.

Any complaint about the airplane's directional control on the ground would be the same as someone transitioning from a Buick station wagon into a Miata or similar sports car: There's nothing wrong with the way the little cars handle, but the driver has to get used to a car that isn't lethargic.

The Luscombe responds proportional to rudder inputs while airplanes like Cubs and Champs don't. They have a measurable lag and the Luscombe doesn't. Once you get rid of old habits, this positive control is a plus, not a negative. Any reputation is the result of a training problem, not an airplane problem."
 
I used to have an 8A, I soloed in a Cub and trained in a Cessna 175. Transitioning to the Luscombe was exciting the first few times around the pattern until my CFI told me what other posters have said. Easy on the rudder, you don't have to mash the pedals. Great airplane even with only 65 hp.
 
Another vote for the Luscombe, but then I've been having an affair with one for more than 44 years. The cabin does seem to shrink a bit more every year, mostly for getting into and out of it. I think the Luscombe has a great balance of performance and handling that is well suited to both fun local flying and cross country trips.

Some people don't care for the Luscombe's heel brakes. Others complain that the brake pedals are only on the left side. The solution to the brakes on one side only is to put the student in the right seat until he can handle the airplane well without using the brakes. Some airplanes have been modified for brakes on both sides while retaining the cable operated brakes and others have been converted to hydraulic brakes.

Univair sells virtually all the airframe parts. Maintaining the polish requires about 26 hours of work (some might call it tedious, I have other words) every year in Colorado's dry climate. But once the polishing is done, it really is a very attractive airplane.

Good luck
Scott
 
DMD3. said:
The C140 and the 8E are very similiar aircraft. They're both 2-seater taildraggers, are about the same size, and have the same horsepower (85 hp). (Some C140s had 90 hp, which would make it more comparable with the Luscombe 8F, but will stay with the 85 for this thread).

However, are there any charactaristics/traits that would make one of these aircraft more favorable over the other one? The only difference I know of is that the Cessna 140 has a yoke whereas Luscombes have a stick. Perhaps one is easier to fly than the other (I've heard Luscombes are not the easiest taildraggers in the world to fly). Perhaps one has slightly more room than the other. I've never ridden in a C120/140, but my Dad used to co-own an 8E, and it was cozy.
Click to expand...
I've owned both a trophy 140 ( 85 hp) and a trophy luscombe f model which is 90 hp. The Cessna 140 is a dog on a hot day with two people. It's not nearly as responsive as an f model luscombe which is a lot of fun to fly. Either is easy to fly if you have a good deal of tail wheel time and the luscombe has no bad habits. The f model luscombe has wing tanks and advanced gear and single struts. A great airplane to be sure. I much prefer the f model luscome over the 140 Cessna. The Cessna needed an 0200 at its inception. Underpowered.
 
Right out of the factory, the 140 and the 8E both developed bad reputations for ground looping.
Someone came up with a "fix" for the 140. They extended the landing gear. I haven't seen a 140 without the fix in 50 years.
The 8E drivers had to learn to fly. :D
Sorry. Couldn't help myself.
The 8E is a slightly faster airplane, It can carry a higher load. It also makes a heck of a float plane. One of my all time favorites on floats.
Because of the bad rep, equivalent airplanes will see the 8E costing less than a 140.
 
Shepherd said:
Someone came up with a "fix" for the 140. They extended the landing gear. I haven't seen a 140 without the fix in 50 years.
The 8E drivers had to learn to fly. :D
Sorry. Couldn't help myself.
Click to expand...
You must not me looking very close! ;)
The 1946 Cessna 140 was the one everyone was concerned with. Cessna came up with an extender which moved the centerline of the axle forward a few inches. Most planes never had them put on, and on the ones that did, a lot have been removed. It's rare that we see them on a plane. It looks horrible and adds weight to the tail. It also subjects the owner to "training wheel" comments! They are easily removed if you buy a plane that has them.

On 1947 and later models, Cessna changed the design and swept the gear forward.

I have a '46 and have the original gear with no sweep or extenders.

On my plane, you can see the gear leg lines up with the center of the wheel:
16292085359_970b6893e4_b.jpg


On this plane you can see the axle is ahead of the gear leg. This is an extender.
15265125757_7bc5f798bb_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm with Shepherd on this one, every 140 I have ever seen and even 120 had the extenders on them.
 
Grum.Man said:
I'm with Shepherd on this one, every 140 I have ever seen and even 120 had the extenders on them.
Click to expand...
That's odd. You must have only seen 1946 models. They are the only ones that can use the extenders. You can't use them with the swept forward gear, which came along in 1947.
But then again, I'm assuming you guys haven't been to as many 120/140 fly-ins as I have!

I have a group where people add photos of 120/140s. In 1500+ photos, you'll see the majority don't have extenders. https://www.flickr.com/groups/2125780@N22/
 
Grum.Man said:
I'm with Shepherd on this one, every 140 I have ever seen and even 120 had the extenders on them.
Click to expand...
No extenders on the '46 120 I learned to fly in. And, I would not recommend installing them.

Liked to bounce, but no issues with ground loops. It did nose over once - brake grabbed on the old man and it took it through a ditch (with my mom in the right seat). Got nice Cleveland disks installed after that.

It's been re-painted since then:
http://img.planespotters.net/photo/...rivate-Cessna-120_PlanespottersNet_622163.jpg

 
I've owned two Cessna 140s. Neither had gear extenders which simply added weight and did no good. If you've been around them you know they are worthless. To me , neither the 140 nor the luscombe had any bad habits compared to say, the Cessna 195 or the stearman. They were both easy to fly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top