Let's talk crappy old taildraggers...

For the best flying fun? A Cub. My minimum requirement would be a PA-11 but an -18 Cub Special would be better and a full-on Supercub would be best. For cheap and simple? A Champ. Tandem seating is part of the allure. No T Crates or Pacers for me. No Luscombes, either.
 
Stewartb said:
For the best flying fun? A Cub. My minimum requirement would be a PA-11 but an -18 Cub Special would be better and a full-on Supercub would be best. For cheap and simple? A Champ. Tandem seating is part of the allure. No T Crates or Pacers for me. No Luscombes, either.
Click to expand...
First Cub I got to fly was a Super Cub last month.

Oh, that was fun!

My only complaint with Cubs is they tend to be pricier than most other small tailwheels.
 
Out of budget, but I think the Rans S7 is the bee's knees. Tandem seating. Split doors (half folds down, half folds up) on both sides. Cheaper than a Super Cub. Experimental.
 
Just looked at that AirCamper ad. Sweet....
 
If your on a budget I would go with something like these. Both purchased for around 6 grand each. One has an a-65 for power the other is powered by a VW engine.

One cruises at around 70, the other cruises at around 130.

Both of these are up for sale. I just want what I have in them. Nothing more, nothing less.

Tony
 

Attachments

  • 270.JPG
    270.JPG
    4.3 MB · Views: 52
  • Sonerai.jpg
    Sonerai.jpg
    31.2 KB · Views: 46
timwinters said:
And what's up with the two RPM gauges?...one labelled "left mag", the other "right mag".

I don't get that...
Click to expand...

they are electronic, they receive the signal from the magneto instead of a turning cable.
 
Mooney mite is a cool cheap plane to put around, no many left out there but they come up once in a while
120mph on 3gph sweet :yes:
 
Comanche flyer said:
Mooney mite is a cool cheap plane to put around, no many left out there but they come up once in a while
120mph on 3gph sweet :yes:
Click to expand...
good nostalgia there, but these days I'd just build a ONEX if that's your thing
 
$_57.JPG


http://www.ebay.com/itm/1939-Aeronca-Chief-SHOW-PLANE-BEAUTIFUL-Prettiest-one-i-have-ever-seen-/191585995767?forcerrptr=true&hash=item2c9b6a4bf7&item=191585995767
 
There was a Chief for sale locally, and I wandered on by to look at it. At 6'4" and 180lbs, I believe I wouldn't fit in it. I'd go Champ or J-5 (with the front seat moved back a bit...)
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I should soon have my Archer but am also tossing around the idea of a ratty, tube and fabric taildragger for some fun on grass and colorful fall days.

Taylorcraft?
Luscombe?(I know that one is metal, at least I think it is)
Vagabond?
Colt?
140?
Chief?
Clipper?

What does everyone think? Cheap, not expensive to maintain, good on fuel, no crazy avionics. I think it might be fun(most of you already know this).
Click to expand...
Assuming you're planning on flying it legally? (that is with current maintenance inspections)……if you're looking for something "ratty" I'm afraid you might well wind up with something that costs you more than it's worth to put in flying condition. (think major fabric and/or steel tube corrosion issues).
 
Jimmy cooper said:
You buy it already done. Your correct! Unless your capable of the work and have the time it's a nutty idea. Lots of work-changes in fuel line, probably the engine mount,on and on.
Click to expand...

It should slide right on. takes a different prop.

used engines are about 5k.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I should soon have my Archer but am also tossing around the idea of a ratty, tube and fabric taildragger for some fun on grass and colorful fall days.

Taylorcraft?
Luscombe?(I know that one is metal, at least I think it is)
Vagabond?
Colt?
140?
Chief?
Clipper?

What does everyone think? Cheap, not expensive to maintain, good on fuel, no crazy avionics. I think it might be fun(most of you already know this).
Click to expand...

I find "crappy" old taildraggers to be a contradiction in terms.

Two of the aircraft you listed are not of tube and fabric construction; Luscombe and Cessna 140. One of them, the Piper Colt, is not a taildragger.

You should consider seating. Side-by-side seating in this class of airplane tends to be rather cramped. Tandem seating in a fine airplane like, oh, say, the Aeronca Champion for no particular reason, is roomy and provides better visibility.
 
Last edited:
This 7BCM can be had for 10k. It's at AWO on the ramp.
 

Attachments

  • 20141112_134958.jpg
    20141112_134958.jpg
    385.6 KB · Views: 65
  • 20141112_135011.jpg
    20141112_135011.jpg
    282.8 KB · Views: 51
  • 20141112_150746.jpg
    20141112_150746.jpg
    394.4 KB · Views: 59
  • 20141112_150800.jpg
    20141112_150800.jpg
    374.4 KB · Views: 60
Tom-D said:
This 7BCM can be had for 10k. It's at AWO on the ramp.
Click to expand...

Seems like a good deal?

Would you fly it away today, or are their demons lurking within (the plane, not you :D )?
 
After selling the Maule I went back to my roots and now have a Luscombe 8E and a 7FC Champ. The Champ was originally a tricycle but was long ago converted to tailwheel. The nice thing about the FC's (most have been converted) is they came with 90 hp and 26 gal fuel.

In 1969 I learned to fly in a J3 Cub but the thing about Cubs is that you are going to pay a substantial "nostalgia" premium over the other makes and it's not because it's a better airplane, it's just going to cost you more. Flying with the door open is fun but not ten thousand dollars worth of fun.
 
Silvaire said:
In 1969 I learned to fly in a J3 Cub but the thing about Cubs is that you are going to pay a substantial "nostalgia" premium over the other makes and it's not because it's a better airplane, it's just going to cost you more. Flying with the door open is fun but not ten thousand dollars worth of fun.
Click to expand...
You don't need to have a Cub to open the door.
SAM_1075.JPG
 
Get a Champ! Easy to fly, cheap on fuel and to maintain and you'll have a hoot in it. I have a LOT of hours in C140's, Citabria's, Decathlon's, J3 and J5, Vagabond, C120, Pitts S1C, S2A, S2B, Flybaby, Stinson 108, Pacer and others.... And I can tell you, aside from the different stuff (aerobatics) the Champ is one of the most fun planes I've flown. Trust me, for a lazy Sunday afternoon, flight breakfast or tooling around the patch, you'll love a good ol'Champ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Would you consider an ultralight, either fixed wing or a trike? If you're going by yourself, you can get a Part 103 ultralight that you can maintain yourself.

In the E-AB ranks, I've always liked the look of the Kolbs, but I've never flown one.
 
PAustin said:
Get a Champ! Easy to fly, cheap on fuel and to maintain and you'll have a hoot in it. I have a LOT of hours in C140's, Citabria's, Decathlon's, J3 and J5, Vagabond, C120, Pitts S1C, S2A, S2B, Flybaby, Stinson 108, Pacer and others.... And I can tell you, aside from the different stuff (aerobatics) the Champ is one of the most fun planes I've flown. Trust me, for a lazy Sunday afternoon, flight breakfast or tooling around the patch, you'll love a good ol'Champ.
Click to expand...

And getting into and out of a Champ/Citabria is far easier than into or out of a Cub of any sort. That's important for us older, less agile and flexible guys.

It has to do with the placement of the wing struts. The Cub's are right where you want to climb in or out instead of farther ahead and out of the way. And that strut placement also makes working on a Cub's interior far harder, which can mean more time and money.

Dan
 
jhausch said:
Seems like a good deal?

Would you fly it away today, or are their demons lurking within (the plane, not you :D )?
Click to expand...

"It's at AWO on the ramp" might tell you everything you need to know. I assume he means that's where it calls home. Tube and fabric tied down outside in close proximity to saltwater?

I certainly can't see it from Missouri but...
 
Last edited:
peerlesscowboy said:
Assuming you're planning on flying it legally? (that is with current maintenance inspections)……if you're looking for something "ratty" I'm afraid you might well wind up with something that costs you more than it's worth to put in flying condition. (think major fabric and/or steel tube corrosion issues).
Click to expand...

Is it too much to ask for an airworthy(airplane from the list above) aircraft for 20K or less? I see lots of them 15K give or take. Are most of them projects that will require 5-10K of work to just get legal again? I don't know the answer to that. I woudn't be looking for anything pretty, just airworthy with some life left in the engine.

Anyways this is sort of moot as I haven't bought my first plane(yet) and I'm already talking about a second. The expenses of the first may put a damper on the second one lol.... But I thought it would be a fun idea to toss around.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Is it too much to ask for an airworthy(airplane from the list above) aircraft for 20K or less? I see lots of them 15K give or take. Are most of them projects that will require 5-10K of work to just get legal again? I don't know the answer to that. I woudn't be looking for anything pretty, just airworthy with some life left in the engine.

Anyways this is sort of moot as I haven't bought my first plane(yet) and I'm already talking about a second. The expenses of the first may put a damper on the second one lol.... But I thought it would be a fun idea to toss around.
Click to expand...

Depends on who you ask. I personally found one for $16.5k that I wouldn't hesitate to fly for months with basic mx. Others here have spoken that anything under the $20k threshold is going to explode the next time it leaves the runway.

My choice doesn't have the newest paint, and the fabric on the wings was put on in 1997, there are a few minor scuffs in the prop, and a few wrinkles on the back of the rudder. It is what it is, and those things aren't going to concern me that much at that price. I'd still fly the hell out of it and just keep it in good flying condition, and not worry too much about cosmetics.
 
Oh, BTW. Friend sent me a pic of his Colt :D

colt-L.jpg


I won't say what he bought it for but if I'd known about it and the price, I would have written a check on the spot. It's going to need fabric though... failed the punch test. No idea how long you can fly it like that.
 
Ten years ago I paid $17K for a PA-12 project with a core engine. It was nothing $100K couldn't fix. Can you find a worthwhile flying airplane for under $20K? My opinion is no.
 
James331 said:
That is going to end up selling for a bit more than 20k :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
Not much more than 20k. It's a Chief. May be a beautiful airplane, but the demand isn't there to drive the price up.

Nicely restored '48 170s aren't going for more than 30k these days.
 
docmirror said:
Ectually, where I hear it is from various Luscombe owners. So - pardon me if I disagree with you and stick with several of the owners who advised such. While not as hard to land as say - a Pitts S1, the Luscombe does have more of a tendency to weathervane than the Cessna 120/140.

As far as the later model, single strut being best, well that's a matter of opinion. If I want a lighter weight plane, I might be tempted by a fabric wing. the various gear designs can be had on any of the Luscombes. I've seen a 1939 model with the Silflex gear, and I've seen one of the latest 8F models with the spring steel inner tension rod(does not like side loads).
Click to expand...

Not so much a matter of opinion. It's simple fact. The Luscombe, like the others, improved as it was refined. It's a simple airplane to fly, land, etc. As far as " side loads" I'm not at all sure what your talking about. They all have adequate gear if you don't abuse them on grass, asphalt, whatever. I've also owned two cessna 140s which are not as much fun as a Luscombe F as they are underpowered but land and takeoff pretty much like the rest. On a hot day with a passenger, a 140 is a real drag. I've got about 800 hours in Luscombes. The later F is a much nicer airplane but you get whatever you want. A nice one is twice twenty grand.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
I'm not at all sure what your talking about.
Click to expand...

On one thing we can agree.

Time for a whatev. You post what you want, I'll post what I want, and we'll let the consumers decide.

buh-bye
 
Stewartb said:
Ten years ago I paid $17K for a PA-12 project with a core engine. It was nothing $100K couldn't fix. Can you find a worthwhile flying airplane for under $20K? My opinion is no.
Click to expand...

You can buy an airworthy fly baby for around 10k. You may or may not have to put money into it. They're slow, but you can still get around, I've covered some decent distances with it in a day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top