Let's talk crappy old taildraggers...

We know that by punch testing it with a maule tester. Get a grip!

most of the systems do not call for a punch test. So what do you do, make up a test of your own?

I believe I have a grip, I've been doing these systems for near 60 years.

The Maule tester is for cotton or as directed by Polifiber, nothing else. Get it right, or don't post BS.
 
I don't have a list either, you'd probably have to call Wilma and ask her, she'll answer the 1-800 number.

Tell her I sent ya.

I'm going to translate as 'I don't know'. I'll give her a call and mention you for the discount.
 
most of the systems do not call for a punch test. So what do you do, make up a test of your own?

I believe I have a grip, I've been doing these systems for near 60 years.

The Maule tester is for cotton or as directed by Polifiber, nothing else. Get it right, or don't post BS.

Tom your wrong and probably have been for sixty years. I explained very clearly what most AIs do but you always gave a smart azz answer which is why I stated earlier you'd never work on anything I owned. Bye bye.
 
"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...

It's there because it is for sale, with sign and all.

It's called exposure, to the public that is.. Its normal home is at the maple valley airport in a hangar.
 
Tom your wrong and probably have been for sixty years. I explained very clearly what most AIs do but you always gave a smart azz answer which is why I stated earlier you'd never work on anything I owned. Bye bye.

Only to smart azzed people who believe they are the only one who knows anything.
 
Tom your wrong and probably have been for sixty years. I explained very clearly what most AIs do but you always gave a smart azz answer which is why I stated earlier you'd never work on anything I owned. Bye bye.

If you believe I am wrong prove it. And why do you believe you know most of the A&P-IAs? You only know what you do, and that is screw the owner with a test that isn't called for.
 
Getting it out in bright sunlight, looking up thru the inspection holes tells alot also.

Not any more, it doesn't. There are many aircraft out there now with Air Tech or Superflite ond maybe some others that use a chemical UV barrier that does not block visible light. Anyone judging UV resistance by looking to see outside light coming in is liable to start replacing fabric for no good reason. I have experience with the Superflite system, and know firsthand that it's pretty well-lit inside the fuselage. Visible light doesn't bother the fabric; its wavelength is too long.

And there are some homebuilders that use black paint as a UV barrier that may or may not be blocking the UV. Just because it stops visible light doesn't count for much. The aluminum powder used in dopes and many other systems stops everything.

Dan
 
I don't know of a current material system that would provide a light proof barrier. UV inhibitors are clear for the most part with a warm pink tinge that requires a machine to measure, basically imperceptible to the eye.
 
Let me clarify... By the thread title I meant "cheap but airworthy planes that are fun VFR hamburger birds", not poorly maintained, unairworthy junk...

Yea I got that and I can tell you that "airworthy" doesn't mean a fancy paint job. When I stumbled upon my Champ it had been sitting out in the weeds at Bermuda Dunes for almost two years and it really looked like hell. The owner considered it a "project" and that's why I got it for such a low price. I was fully prepared to disassemble and trailer it home but when I started inspecting I found no reason I couldn't fly it home. The fabric and paint on the fuselage is old and doesn't look all that great but the wings had new Millman metal spars put in just a few years prior so had new cover on them.

So I understand the "ratty" part. Airplanes such as these can be maintained in a working airworthy condition long past the lifetime of the exterior paint and you can't make any assumptions based solely on how it looks from ten feet. Luscombes are notorious for having lots of gremlins lurking beneath a shiny paint job.
 
Yeah, tons of old planes with weathered and flaking paint, old radios, and worn upholstery; yet completely airworthy, are available in the $20k range. The C-140 is also a perennial favorite of mine.
 
Am I allowed to fly in without an antique or would I need to drive?



Sounds really cool. I'll mark it down....


Come on down with whatever. I fly my Bonanza down sometimes and there's Cherokees, RV's, Cessna's etc.... All are welcome.... Give me a heads up and I can show you around. I'll probably be in a Stinson 108 as it's the theme this year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
However I have also read quite a few people state that the Luscombe is the worst one of them all in terms of ground handling. IDK, I'm still fairly young and would hope my reflexes are in order:lol:
In my experience the Vagabond is the worst of the list I've seen that I've flown in...
 
Nicely restored '48 170s aren't going for more than 30k these days.

OMG :yikes:don't tell Greg that. All he could find at that price was junk.

NICELY restored, ones are over $40k.
 
The best, most long lasting, and the easiest to get right when applying is Airtech. Their glue is easy to apply, and stronger than Poly fiber, (which is simply dope) and Stewarts.

Poly fiber requires a poly tack as first coat which must be brushed in to encapsulate the Ceconite, then the silver as UV shield, then primer and finally the top coat. Screw up any step and it all falls of in 5 years.

Stewarts is a water based system, it does not stink or harm you if you get some on you. it also require brushing in the first 6-8 coats to fill the weave. then spray the top coat. All UV protection is Chemical no silver required.

Airtech Chemical proof, fire proof, and only requires spraying the first 3 wet coats, it will wet out the Ceconite like water on an old dish rag with the the first coat, then 2 more wet coats wait 24 hours and sand as required, and spray the top coat, all UV protection is chemical no silver required. Their glue is a URA based air dried, a 4 square inch patch on ply wood will glue Ceconite that will support 200 pounds. Poly fiber about 75 pounds and stewart about 150 pounds.

To hell with all of that. 50 layers of paint/whatever?
Too bad this can't be put on a certified plane yet: http://betteraircraftfabric.com/
 
OMG :yikes:don't tell Greg that. All he could find at that price was junk.



NICELY restored, ones are over $40k.

That's because most of the early 170s aren't as well taken care of from what I've seen. I haven't seen a nice (or any '48 for that matter) bring in over $30 in a few years.

There was a beautifully restored one out in CA that was an award winner at the convention 3 or 4 years ago that went for $28k. I love '48s (remember I owned one), but the demand for them is not what it is for the later A's and especially B's.

But on that light, I would recommend a '48 as a great value for an affordable taildragger.
 
We've been using shrinkable fabric on lots of things, including model planes, since the late 1970s. I'm a little dubious of the claim that Oratex doesn't need something to seal it to protect it from gas, oil, etc. But hey, you never know.
 
The Luscombe would probably be the most challenging.

I have flown 140, Champ, 170. I would prefer having a Champ or J3, or while I'm wishing I might as well add that I would REALLY love to have an L19 or Super Cub, but unless I win the lottery, that will never happen.

Generally speaking the side by sides will be less expensive. They can be fun, but I would really enjoy a tandem more because of visibility and most of them have better short field capabilities, again generally speaking.

If you're wanting to get in cheap, the 140 would be a good choice. They are plentiful and have lots of parts and knowledge availability. A lot of people shy away from the ragwing versions which would make them cheaper. If it has been recovered with synthetic and kept hangared, and you also will hangar it, the ragwing would be preferable. Synthetic covering and hangaring will allow the fabric to last indefinitely.

That said, if you are really could be happy with a ratty looking, but airworthy toy, you might find a Champ or J3 that could fit your budget.

Good luck and keep us informed regarding what you come up with.
 
there is no punch test for the synthetic fabrics.

My previous IA did the punch test. I moved to a different field and my new IA said that the punch test was not required. I think he said that there were some Maules that required it, but I'm not sure I remember correctly. He inspects the fabric by how it looks and feels.

I am not saying that this is correct. I am just saying that this is what I was told.
 
of all the planes of than genre, i think the champ is the most comfortable to sit in. It's hard to go wrong with a champ. We bought a project and now have all of 12k in ours, and it's pretty nice. Good already-flying examples can be had for 20k.

I agree. The Champ is wonderful. I spent my first 7 hours in a Champ 25 years ago. I flew one a little bit about 3 years ago and it was everything I remembered. A wonderful aircraft.

That said, when I was plane shopping five years ago. All the decent Champs were around $30K to $35K. Has the market taken that much of a hit?
 
It seems so. They're not LSA and new buyers are concerned about 30 year old fabric. I bought a 172 for my first plane, one of the big reasons was the metal skin. But I do miss flying the L4.
i-B9mh7pP-XL.jpg
 
That's because most of the early 170s aren't as well taken care of from what I've seen. I haven't seen a nice (or any '48 for that matter) bring in over $30 in a few years.

There was a beautifully restored one out in CA that was an award winner at the convention 3 or 4 years ago that went for $28k. I love '48s (remember I owned one), but the demand for them is not what it is for the later A's and especially B's.

But on that light, I would recommend a '48 as a great value for an affordable taildragger.
Your right about the perception of the 48, They normally won't bring the prices of a 180 horse B. when you can find a 48 that has a new restoration, and the up grades that mine had they will sell in the high 40s.

They are faster, and will carry more, plus they are lighter on the controls.
My first 48, (2623V) sold in the 90s for 30k. My 54B an equally nice aircraft sold for 45 in 2000. Prices have been steadily going up on all the 170s, I see one now listed at 65. That makes it tempting to restore another one.
 
To hell with all of that. 50 layers of paint/whatever?
Too bad this can't be put on a certified plane yet: http://betteraircraftfabric.com/

That stuff is really expensive, considerably more than the fabric + finishes of other systems, and its only advantage would be a quicker job. Maybe.

50 layers of paint is a gross exaggeration, unless some restorer insists on dope and wants a really nice finish. Poly-Fiber, the next oldest system, uses maybe 6 or 7 coats, total.

I enjoy fabric work. But it takes a long time and the costs keep the prices of rattier airplanes way down. It can easily cost $30K to refinish an airplane, plus repair all the busted stuff one finds after removing the old stuff.

Dan
 
Did Bellanca ever manage to design a pretty plane? :lol: He had some nifty ideas, and the engineering was ok, but looks...:nonod:
 
That stuff is really expensive, considerably more than the fabric + finishes of other systems, and its only advantage would be a quicker job. Maybe.

You don't have to paint it. You don't have to expose yourself to all those chemicals. It's faster to cover. You can repair dents with a hair dryer. What's not to like?

I do like those Champs. I started flying in the J3 and L4 they have at Hampton, but never got checked out in the Champ. Should have. Miss flying them.
 
I didn't have time to read all of the posts, this one is getting a lot of attention. I may repeat something others have said.

Most of my hours are in tailwheel planes, including Pitts, Luscombe, Decathlon, Great Lakes, and others. I currently own a Cessna 140. I personally like them all.

I think the Luscombe got a bad reputation early from WWII pilots used to slow responding rudders. The Luscombe goes where you tell it to go, when you tell it to go. That's rare in old tailwheel planes. It's a good thing in my opinion. Even on 65HP, the metal wing 65HP plane my friend had would jump off the ground and climb well. He had a wooden prop and it would max out at about 85mph, but it wasn't meant to scream across the country. The only drawback was his had a the fuselage tank and you can't lean the seat back. Very uncomfortable on long trips. The Luscombe is also quite a bit narrower than the 140.

As to the suggestion one person made to carry only liability, well I guess if you're rich that's a good suggestion. I pay about $700/year and have my plane valued at $30K. I think that's a wise choice. I narrowly avoided losing my plane this week in a flood at the Taylor Airport. A lot of planes will be totaled and had I been one of them and didn't have insurance, I would be done flying for awhile.

All of the planes listed are good planes. I recommend finding a type-club or forum dedicated to the plane you like and ask them what to look for. On the 140 for example, you want to check the gearboxes for damage. The 120/140 forum is a great resource.

Good luck finding a real airplane to fly!
 
That seems to be the big thing. Seems much of the demand for small tailwheels is in the LSA market which hasn't helped many of the airplanes that are just a little too big.

Yeah, but really, we should be grateful for the ones that do fall under because really, LSA was not designed around a need there. LSA was about an actuarial corral to put 'fat' 2 seat ultralights in and a way to assure their operators had at least a minimum of training for liability issues the insurance companies were having because the passenger carrying crashes were being sued against Homeowner policy Liability clauses. They needed to make the operation independently insurable. That is why LSA exists. If it weren't for liability gaps, they would still be covered under 103.
 
What are people's thoughts on a stinson 108, with a continental or lycoming engine, instead of the franklin engine? Also, what's the fuel consumption in one of those with a bigger engine?
 
What are people's thoughts on a stinson 108, with a continental or lycoming engine, instead of the franklin engine? Also, what's the fuel consumption in one of those with a bigger engine?

I have not had a chance to fly one yet, but all of the owners I've talked to love them. There was a gorgeous 108 at the Horn Point fly-in a couple weeks ago.

I suspect you will have an easier time maintaining a Continental or Lycoming one, but I have no experience with Franklins. The 108 that I saw at the fly-in had a Franklin and the owner said he hadn't experienced any challenges keeping it going.
 
When the FAA allows flight with out a 3rd class medical, the light weight tail draggers are going to take a hit on their selling prices.
 
Stinson 108 series are good airplanes. Flew a 165hp Franklin over 200 hours. Only issues was the 14mm plugs tended to foul easier and could be a pain to remove and replace due to helicoils used. Otherwise, they are very smooth running engines.

They are decent load haulers, but they aren't sports cars...more like a truck.


Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift
N4WJ--1994 Van's RV-4
 
Stinson 108 ...more like a truck.

I'm OK with a truck. I was thinking about something that could take me, the wife and 2 kids to Madeline Island in WI (from the twin cities), in a little less time than it would take to drive (it takes about 7 hours to drive). From my reading, the stinson would be fun for $100 hamburgers, be easier to land than the C120 I did my endorsement in, and hold more crap than an aeronca, cub or similar plane. Also, I think that the stinson has a service ceiling that would allow for the potential to visit my parents in the Aspen area (assuming I first got a good mountain flying course under my belt).

Any ideas about fuel usage in a stinson? Are we talking about 10gal/hr or 14 or 3?
 
...Any ideas about fuel usage in a stinson? Are we talking about 10gal/hr or 14 or 3?

Fuel burn is completely dependent on what engine you have and what rpm you want to cruise at. It doesn't matter what airframe it's attached to. A 180 hp Lycoming O-360 is going to burn the same number of gallons per hour whether it's hung on a Piper Supercub or a Lancair.

Stinsons are good solid airplanes but it's a pre-war design so the airframe is very complicated in comparison with a Cessna 172 which is far simpler. If you can find a good one it could be a real bargain though as, for whatever reason, they seem to be abundantly available in the low to mid $20k range.
 
You can get a Flybaby cheaper than that. I've owned mine since 88'. It does about 95mph indicated in cruise on about 4.5 hr. Fun plane (obviously since I still have mine) but if you want to take someone up, buy a Champ.
I haven't seen many selling that are being actively flown, have a current condition inspection, and no major issues sell for much less. Granted I don't keep a very close eye.

Most of them I've seen for less have been sitting for years, and may or may not require substantial work to get them going.
Indeed. One Fly Baby went for $5800 last summer. It hadn't flown for ten years, but had been stored indoors. The new owner had an A&P work on it for three days, then they flew it home ~300 miles with no problems.

Mind you, a tornado dropped a hangar door on it right after it arrived, but....
hang.jpg

It's fixed and flying again.

Jesse's estimate of $10K for a decent flyable Fly Baby is probably pretty good. The biplanes go for another $3K-$5K

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
Back
Top