Luscombe vs Champ vs Sonex or none of the above?

T

texagaviator

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 4, 2021
Messages
5
Display Name
Display name:
texagaviator
Hey guys, I'm quickly getting more ready to purchase my second aircraft. First one was a gigantic mistake and I did everything wrong with purchasing it - trusting a seller, handshake agreement, terrible MX advice, no pre-buy, you name something stupid I did it.

That being said, I do really want something older (read: less expensive) and preferably a tailwheel. I would be doing about 200mi XCs ~6 times/month at least. I would also love to be able to fly from DFW to AXX, which is a high density altitude.

I fell in love with the Luscombe at Oshkosh, but know the Champ is basically a Jeep and can do some backcountry stuff eventually. The Sonex is also in the running -EXP = less expensive avionics. I will have a local shop do my MX and prebuy.

Am I on the right track here? Anything I should be wary of with these? What are some other inexpensive options I should be looking at?

I thought about posting this in the MX forum, but this is more of a request for owner feedback than MX.
 
From a pure function standpoint the Sonex is the best choice. It’s faster, newer, and climbs better. It is ugly though and doesn’t have the swagger of a Luscombe or Champ. I would avoid the VW powered Sonex’s. They require a lot of maintenance and aren’t good performers when it’s hot or heavy. An 85 hp Rotax model will do much better than an 85 hp VW one.

I like a Luscombe but even the nicest ones can hide some corrosion issues and the higher hp E models are getting expensive for what you get.
 
I have always been intrigued by the low cost of the Sonex. Saw a video not too long ago where the canopy on a Sonex popped open in the climb after a T&G. The extra drag resulted in a forced landing. The Sonex is no longer on my list of future potential aircraft. You probably can't go wrong with either a Luscombe or Champ. Maybe decide if you like tandem seating or side by side?
 
A Champ is a jeep, wow, that's news to me.
"Champs" come in so many flavors, from the simple and light 65 hp ones to 85-90 hp with electric or maybe even up to a 115 hp.
You won't be doing any real high density work in the low hp ones, and especially with any load like a pax and gear.
 
Grum.Man said:
From a pure function standpoint the Sonex is the best choice. It’s faster, newer, and climbs better. It is ugly though and doesn’t have the swagger of a Luscombe or Champ. I would avoid the VW powered Sonex’s. They require a lot of maintenance and aren’t good performers when it’s hot or heavy.
Click to expand...

Having flown all three (only briefly in a Luscombe) I agree. I really like the the way the Sonex flys but the look has to grow on you. The cowling on mine is quite different due to the Corvair engine and I think it helps the look of the plane a little. ;)

I have owned a VW powered Sonex and I do agree that 80 HP is just not enough smash for the airframe. 80 HP will fly a lightly built tail wheel Sonex but the little engine works hard and performance in the heat, high D/A, or with the plane loaded will require that you lift up your feet at the end of the runway when you get to the tree line.

I will say that the Luscombe is a beautiful airplane and was real fun to fly! I got my T/W endorsement in a Champ and it was a fun airplane but it ain't gonna go fast ...
 
idahoflier said:
I have always been intrigued by the low cost of the Sonex. Saw a video not too long ago where the canopy on a Sonex popped open in the climb after a T&G. The extra drag resulted in a forced landing.
Click to expand...

If you open the canopy while you taxi between takeoffs and then don't close and secure it properly that can happen. Don't blame the plane for the pilot's error.
 
Daleandee said:
Having flown all three (only briefly in a Luscombe) I agree. I really like the the way the Sonex flys but the look has to grow on you. The cowling on mine is quite different due to the Corvair engine and I think it helps the look of the plane a little. ;)

I have owned a VW powered Sonex and I do agree that 80 HP is just not enough smash for the airframe. 80 HP will fly a lightly built tail wheel Sonex but the little engine works hard and performance in the heat, high D/A, or with the plane loaded will require that you lift up your feet at the end of the runway when you get to the tree line.

I will say that the Luscombe is a beautiful airplane and was real fun to fly! I got my T/W endorsement in a Champ and it was a fun airplane but it ain't gonna go fast ...
Click to expand...
Yea the Corvair cowling makes a big difference for the better. I’d like to see the HP and TQ graphs of the various VW engines vs Rotax or Corvair. I predict they give up a lot more below their rated spec. Add to that the tiny prop needed to turn 3400 rpm and there just isn’t much grunt. I’d like to have a Onex with a Corvair.
 
Daleandee said:
If you open the canopy while you taxi between takeoffs and then don't close and secure it properly that can happen. Don't blame the plane for the pilot's error.
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming the plane for the pilot's possible error. When I first saw the video I watched the closing of the canopy a few times. It looked to me like the pilot wasn't rushed and checked the canopy. I don't know if he improperly closed it or if the mechanism has a design flaw. Regardless, the other two aircraft the OP is considering will still fly fine should their doors open in flight...
 
idahoflier said:
I'm not blaming the plane for the pilot's possible error. When I first saw the video I watched the closing of the canopy a few times. It looked to me like the pilot wasn't rushed and checked the canopy. I don't know if he improperly closed it or if the mechanism has a design flaw. Regardless, the other two aircraft the OP is considering will still fly fine should their doors open in flight...
Click to expand...
There are lots of planes that would have a bad day if the canopy wasn’t latched. Luckily most people don’t blame the plane for pilot mistakes or we wouldn’t have thousands of RV’s flying around.
 
A Luscombe is definitely sexier, but squirrelier on the ground and may be more expensive to repair. Champs are simple and solid airplanes, kinda dumpy, but not generally thought of as backcountry airplanes (though neither is a Luscombe or Sonex). All can handle reasonably smooth grass fields, though. There are other classic taildraggers; various flavors of Cubs, of course (for which you pay a premium), Taylorcraft (possibly the best value and performance of the bunch but a tight cockpit), Interstate, Cessna 120/140, and others. Tube and fabric planes are easy to repair and can often fly back out of the backcountry with an improvised repair where an aluminum plane might be grounded.

On the experimental side, there are also Cubs (homebuilt), but the Kitfox and variants seem to be the current big thing in the backcountry but there’s also the Zenith STOL series (that make even a Sonex look pretty) and others. I owned a T-Craft once upon a time but now I’m solidly in the experimental camp both for the cost and the freedom to do what I want with the plane. If backcountry operation isn't a high priority there are hundreds of experimental options, each with its devoted following.
,
A VW powered Sonex may not perform as well (I have no data), but it’s sure cheaper to maintain than a Rotax.
 
EXP is cheap to maintain, expensive on insurance. When I was shopping my goal was low cost of ownership, I jut wanted to fly.

My original plan was a Sonex or a Zenith 601 trigear, but the higher cost of experimental insurance (plus the VW engine, and tailwheel on the Sonex) really hit my budget hard.

I also looked at a Luscombe and I still regret not buying it some days. But, I was on a tight budget, and the tailwheel insurance quote and the possilbity of using my plane for IR and Comm training waived me off. Looking back, I overestimated how much training I would do in my plane, and undervalued the impact of great maintenance by the previous owner (it was his baby, any some extra maintenance expenses on my Yankee more than washed away the savings from the lower insurance rates).

I learned to fly tailwheel in a Champ, the only bad thing I can say is that a fabric plane really should be stored in a hangar (and I move too much to take for granted that I will have a hangar).

If you are looking for the cheapest way to fly, its hard to beat a well maintained Cessna 150 (at least it used to be, they are a little more expensive now).

If you are shopping for a Luscombe, also look at Cessna 140/120s.

Last, a 200 mile XC, 6 times a month, may be a little too much for the 12 gallon gas tanks on (the base versions of) these planes. 200 miles is kind of pushing it for range in my old club's Champ (12gal tank, C85 stroker, 5 gph@70mph). So try to find a Luscombe with wing tanks or a Champ with aux tanks.
 
Grum.Man said:
There are lots of planes that would have a bad day if the canopy wasn’t latched. Luckily most people don’t blame the plane for pilot mistakes or we wouldn’t have thousands of RV’s flying around.
Click to expand...

There are thousands of RV's flying with very few reported canopy openings. Of those only one I know of may have been related to a crash...
 
idahoflier said:
There are thousands of RV's flying with very few reported canopy openings. Of those only one I know of may have been related to a crash...
Click to expand...
That’s kind of my point. I’ve not heard of many Sonex crashes either due to canopy opening. Just saying that there are lots of airplanes that could have a bad day if the canopy opened in flight. RV’s, Pitts, pretty much anything with a tip up canopy. Writing a design off because of that is like saying you wouldn’t fly a Cessna because you might forget to take the gust lock off.
 
I own two out of the three, a 1946 Luscombe 8E with 85hp and a 1958 Champion 7EC with 90hp. Both of them are lovely airplanes with full electrical systems. The Luscombe is a bit faster but the Champ has the heavy duty oleo gear and 26 inch tundra tires so it can take you pretty much anywhere you can go with a normally aspirated 90hp airplane. I have never flown or rode in a Sonex but it seems to me that it is the modern embodiment of the same idea they had in 1946 with the Luscombe. A small, light, simple and economic 2 seater that the unwashed masses can afford. I love vintage aircraft so it's not for me but considering your mission and the fact that you put it on your list it might be the best choice for you. It's certainly a lot faster and more economical. Just my two cents.
 
If a VW powered Sonex is the object, and the mission is to fly the backcountry I'd say don't. The little VW engine doesn't make that much power, and it spins fast enough that you need a small prop. Very inefficient power delivery. For flying around flatistan they're fine, so long as the engine is put together correctly. But for the backcountry, for short occluded strips I think not. Lost a good friend in one of those doing exactly that.

I am very mistrustful of the VW powered Sonexes. The problem is a lot of those engines are put together by the airplane builders. The skill set to build an engine and the set to built an airplane are non overlapping, and a fair number of those engines have problems. Heck, Monnett's own son died in one of those things.
 
What Champ are we talking about here? A 7ac is not a back country airplane by any stretch. It is an underpowered trainer. It is slow. I generally plan for 60 knots when flying the champ in the hopes I will get closer to 70. On a 80-90 degree day at close to gross expect maybe 200 fpm sometimes less. Put an 85 or bigger engine in it and the climb performance goes up to a reasonable level but you don't go much faster over the ground. A 200 mile cross country in a Champ 6 times a month is going to get old fast. Don't get me wrong I love to fly for the sake of flying but 200 miles if you have a 10 knot or better head wind is going to take a loooong time to get there. You may need to stop for fuel.

Never flown in a Luscombe but while faster than a Champ they are not that much faster and both leave you no room to carry anything with you. The Luscombe is tiny inside.

The Sonex seems like the best choice of the three for your mission but again no place to put anything and that windscreen is just weird.
 
Definitely don’t rule out the Cessna 120/140, it’s a cousin really to the luscombe… ya get aluminum fuselage, and fabric wings but over aluminum not steel. So if it’s hangared with modern fabric it’s likely lifetime fabric or close. 100 mph give or take depending on engine/prop/load. Mines usually 105 or so.

I have flown mine all over, including three 1000 mile plus Xcountries. Two of those being from MI to Johnson Creek Idaho- she handled the DA well. 8600 DA she did fine, 9600 DA was too much for her. I was solo but with some gear.

They are doggedly simple to maintain, very few recurring ADs, I have one- a 100hr wing wire check. It’s such a simple one my IA doesn’t even charge me to take a peak when I crack 100 hrs in a year.

my understanding, not experience, is they are less Squirelly on the ground than their Luscombe cousin (though I’d not eliminate that option-just mentioning)

My insurance has been around 1000 a year, even year one, three years ago, with zero TW time. Once hooked on landing a TW you will be smitten.

I wouldn’t bat my eye at all doing 200 NM regularly in mine. I know everyone Ive talked to that had one regrets selling it and misses it.

any low powered plane and DA - learn to use ground effect like a soft field- level out a second or 5 after they lift off, let the bird catch up and shell climb out much more confidently… trying to pull and rotate results in a climb that feels behind the power curve. Technique makes a big difference.
 
Last edited:
Also there are two kinds of "back country" There are the gnarly strips down in canyons or on mesa tops where there is nothing and really no good reason to even land there other than to say you did and then there are gorgeous strips like Johnson Creek where all the "back country" boys gather with their quarter million dollar Carbon Cubs on $4,000 Alaskan Bushwheels only to be dismayed when some kid shows up in a clapped out 150 or, God forbid, some old codger in an Ercoupe. The Champs and 120's and Luscombes might not be perfectly suited for consistently high altitude places like Colorado or Wyoming or even the high deserts of Nevada and Arizona but they'll serve you well anywhere east of the mountains or in California and most of the north west.
 
Silvaire said:
Also there are two kinds of "back country" There are the gnarly strips down in canyons or on mesa tops where there is nothing and really no good reason to even land there other than to say you did and then there are gorgeous strips like Johnson Creek where all the "back country" boys gather with their quarter million dollar Carbon Cubs on $4,000 Alaskan Bushwheels only to be dismayed when some kid shows up in a clapped out 150 or, God forbid, some old codger in an Ercoupe. The Champs and 120's and Luscombes might not be perfectly suited for consistently high altitude places like Colorado or Wyoming or even the high deserts of Nevada and Arizona but they'll serve you well anywhere east of the mountains or in California and most of the north west.
Click to expand...

well said!
 
Silvaire said:
Also there are two kinds of "back country" There are the gnarly strips down in canyons or on mesa tops where there is nothing and really no good reason to even land there other than to say you did and then there are gorgeous strips like Johnson Creek where all the "back country" boys gather with their quarter million dollar Carbon Cubs on $4,000 Alaskan Bushwheels only to be dismayed when some kid shows up in a clapped out 150 or, God forbid, some old codger in an Ercoupe. The Champs and 120's and Luscombes might not be perfectly suited for consistently high altitude places like Colorado or Wyoming or even the high deserts of Nevada and Arizona but they'll serve you well anywhere east of the mountains or in California and most of the north west.
Click to expand...
Completely agree!
 
Just feedback on the Luscombe.

Hanger or no hanger. Metal Luscombe 8A was my choice because no hangar and no electrical hence no x-ponder/adsb operating under the PHL class B. BUT A-65 engine parts are getting scarce and expensive. If looking at Luscombes look for a ship with wing tanks and "c" model continental engine. You'll get good range and the option to upgrade to an O-200. There is also a firewall modification that will allow the 8A to accommodate a "c" continental engine or an O-200. I think D or later meets both of these.

There are a few ADs. One for wing spar corrosion but if it is not corroded inspection holes and annual inspection seem to do the trick.

Luscombe's are not bad on the ground. A bit more attention needed but it is not significant. Make sure the strut (yes it has only one) is properly serviced.

Do you want tandem (champ) or side-by-side. Luscombe with wing tanks has decent baggage capacity. Don't think either the Champ or the Sonex offer that. I can take full fuel, two smallish folks and 70lbs luggage in an "A" even with the "A's" lower gross weight. That means light weight camping gear. Small survival gear. Some summer clothing.
 
I can't offer much, except to say that flying 7 hours in a 7AC Champ (N3692E) after finishing my instrument rating is what I still call the most fun I had in all the flying I did.
no electrical system....simple... Low and slow with the window open. Just seemed like what flying should be..... Even though I never did master it. The one I rented had a tailwheel problem and it would shimmy like a bad shopping cart... and rattle me everytime

I've got just a little time in Cessna 120 and 140, and while fun, just didn't leave me with the same memory...nor did the one dual flight I had in a Bellanca 7GCBC (newer variant of the Champ) which was just more complicated

That said a pro for the Cessna's is the side by side seating...IF the majority of flights will be shared.

I've dreamt a lot over the years about buying something like this and one of the hang-ups I see with the champ is the fabric and wood spar which kind of need a hangar...which can be hard to come by around here.
 
Never been up in a Sonex, but I admire them.
I have had both a Luscombe and Champ. 65hp Champ cruises 80-85 mph. A 65 hp Luscombe does 100-105. Mine had the rag wing which is said to give you 5mph. I took the Champ (with 600-6 tires) boondocking in northern Maine. Yeah, bigger tires would be better. I put my Champ on skis and landed on every frozen lake around. The Champ is roomier than the Cub that I got my Pvt in. Also about 8mph faster. Handles like a baby buggy.
Now the Luscombe having poor ground handling is b.s. Mine wasn't. I had at first aired up the tires to 30 psi just like my Ford. A little skittish. Then I read the POH which said tp's should be 15 to 18 psi. The maint manual gave 19 psi. I corrected tp's and she was a sweetheart. The maint manual also said toe out should be zero to no more than two deg. I put a long straight edge against the rims, made marks on the hangar floor, measured and concluded that mine had zero toe out. Like I said she was a dream on landing and ground handling. Never toe in the mains on a tail wheeler.
The Luscombe is the only one among the post WW2 GA planes that has an Acrobatic Supplement to the POH. Mine had it. The story is; Moody Larsen bought the company from Don Luscombe. The CAA (FAA wasn't created till 1958) believed that sporty pilots were routinely abusing un approved planes with acrobatics. Larsen got some local talent in the Dallas area together and gave them an 8A and an 8E and told them to do some testing. He submitted a letter to the CAA with data and asked that they approve the 8A & E for a list of maneuvers along with entry speeds, max G's, etc. Letter was approved as a POH sup. CAA planned to test more types but they were replaced by the FAA.
 
I would try and find a RV4 or 6. They can still be had a reasonable prices and the cost to insure is basically the same as any certified airframe. Maintenance will be far cheaper than going certified.
 
FormerHangie said:
For those that have been in a Sonex, how snug is the cockpit with two aboard?
Click to expand...

My wife is not a large lady so it's pretty nice in there with her. ;)

One of my flying buddies is about 210 lbs and he ain't tall (but he is wide) so it can get a bit snug in there when he rides with me. A 30-45 minute flight isn't too bad but if I'm going somewhere I ain't taking a larger person with me. My plane has a bit over 500 lbs. useful so with a full tank I can get a couple of 180 pounders and ~40 lbs. of baggage. It's a small light sport plane but it's OK for some cross country work.
 
One of the advantages of tandem seating is you get more elbow room but some passengers don't like being in the back seat especially if they are prone to motion sickness because you get a more seat of the pants experience back there.
 
It's a tradeoff, elbow room vs leg room. My 6'3" son hates riding in the back seat of my Decathlon for any length of time.
 
texagaviator said:
That being said, I do really want something older (read: less expensive) and preferably a tailwheel.
...
What are some other inexpensive options I should be looking at?
Click to expand...
Acquisition price is just the cover charge...

I wanted a Luscombe but ended up with a 140A. Sometimes I wonder if I should have gotten a 170A or an RV9. S21 and Murphy Rebel look nice too. Good luck!
 
I would not choose either a Luscombe or Champ for “200mi XCs ~6 times/month at least“. Sure, they will do it but it will grow tiresome. I’d choose something a bit faster, requiring less attention to fly and maintain. Nobody likes to hear it but a Cessna 150 comes to mind, better in almost every way if utility is your goal. If you do go in the direction of a classic taildragger, make sure it has 85 HP and an electrical system.

I owned one of the nicest ‘best of show’ winning Luscombes for 17 years. When I finally sold it a couple of years ago, the new and (on paper) qualified owner totaled it within a week. These things happen to Luscombe pilots who might not be willing or able to direct their attention to learning and flying the thing, all the time.
 
Last edited:
Good point on the electrical system (which will further hurt useful load). Volunteering at a warplane museum I have propped planes thousands of times even planes with electrical systems 172s, 150s with dead batteries. Doing that by yourself all the time can be a pain. Not impossible but for safety sake if I am alone I tie the plane off to something and chock it.
 
Maxnr said:
The Luscombe is the only one among the post WW2 GA planes that has an Acrobatic Supplement to the POH. Mine had it. The story is; Moody Larsen bought the company from Don Luscombe. The CAA (FAA wasn't created till 1958) believed that sporty pilots were routinely abusing un approved planes with acrobatics. Larsen got some local talent in the Dallas area together and gave them an 8A and an 8E and told them to do some testing. He submitted a letter to the CAA with data and asked that they approve the 8A & E for a list of maneuvers along with entry speeds, max G's, etc. Letter was approved as a POH sup. CAA planned to test more types but they were replaced by the FAA.
Click to expand...

I think I may have already corrected this once in a separate PoA thread, but its inaccurate. Don Luscombe lost control of the company before WW II, with Leopold H. P. Klotz (a wealthy Austrian) acquiring control in 1938 and moving postwar production from New Jersey to Dallas TX. TEMCO bought Luscombe from him (out of bankruptcy) in February 1950 and eventually utilized the factory for other work. Otis Massey, a former dealer bought the TC from TEMCO and built 80 additional 8Fs in Colorado between 1955 and 1960. Moody Larsen then acquired the TC in 1964, and produced approved modifications etc. but no aircraft. The story goes on from there but the aerobatic letter was provided by CAA much earlier, on December 22nd, 1947 based on testing conducted by Luscombe in collaboration with an CAA Flight Division (Engineering) prior to that date. Here's a copy for your reference.

Note that the timing of the letter implies that the testing was done on a later metal wing plane, not a fabric wing plane covered by the same TC, and that the letter explicitly says there was little margin for many of the maneuvers relative to the +4.5/-2.2 G structural strength of a brand new plane.

aerobaticspeeds.jpg
 
Last edited:
The ownership of the Luscombe type certificate A-694 is a long and sordid story. Back in the late 90's there was a series of law suits between The Don Luscombe Aviation History Foundation and Renaissance Aircraft LLC. Renaissance eventually won and was supposed to start producing new Luscombes but it never panned out. Now the TC belongs to a guy named Steve Testrake who also promises to start reproducing the aircraft. I believe that along with the TC ownership also goes many of the original tools and jigs for manufacture. Fortunately, as owners, you can get most of what you need from Univair in Colorado (they also sell a lot of Champ stuff) but bottom line is that owning any of these older orphaned aircraft comes with certain challenges. So the suggestion to just buy an old Cessna 150 is actually very sound, especially given the parameters the OP laid out.
 
:yeahthat:
You could do worse than to get a runout early 150, go through it with a fine tooth comb, and do the Lowe tailwheel conversion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top