Thinking About an Old Taildragger

AN old taildragger with a $20K budget. Hmm, sounds like a basket case Cub project with a rusty old core engine. Seriously.
 
Stewartb said:
AN old taildragger with a $20K budget. Hmm, sounds like a basket case Cub project with a rusty old core engine. Seriously.
Click to expand...

For a Cub we'd absolutely have to increase the budget significantly. We're not looking at a Cub.
 
Any tube and fabric airplane you find for $20K will need another $50K to make it something you'd want to put your family in. And that may be too low to be realistic. Just my opinion, but I do have experience with tube and fabric airplanes.
 
Stewartb said:
AN old taildragger with a $20K budget. Hmm, sounds like a basket case Cub project with a rusty old core engine. Seriously.
Click to expand...

I missed the 20k part.

The chief is the only thing that comes to mind for that price range, in the side by side configuration, just going to have to be careful on your load to conditions.

Also I totally get the side by side thing, as much as I like tandems, learned to fly in them, they suck for sharing aviation with others, especially others who aren't pilots.

I can't think of any "project" plane that won't blow well past 20k once it's built well enough I'd trust it to your mission with my butt in it, unless the OP is a APIA and also has access to lots of "free" usable parts.
 
One that doesn't come up for sale often that I have always lusted after is a McClish Funk B. I really like the looks of them and they are decent performers. Another option would be a Stinson 10. With the stock 85 hp engine I doubt it would fit the bill and one with the o-235 conversion will be more than 20k. That said, about any old tail dragger with enough performance to meet your goals is going to be more than 20k. 25k might get you into a less than show quality one.
 
Grum.Man said:
The original Luscombes had a landing gear braced by basically flying wires. They do not hold up well to side loads and very rough surfaces. Later models got what's called a Silflex gear that was a little wider, softer, and stronger. There is also a modification to add "ski strut" in place of the landing wires.
Click to expand...

This. I have the original gear. Likes to bounce, but the main concern is side loads. I have flown an 8E with the stouter ski strut gear. It lands more like a Champ.

They say if you can land a Luscombe, you can land anything! :D
 
N659HB said:
This. I have the original gear. Likes to bounce, but the main concern is side loads. I have flown an 8E with the stouter ski strut gear. It lands more like a Champ.

They say if you can land a Luscombe, you can land anything! :D
Click to expand...
Then you are the sky god cause you made a fine Luscombe landing.
 
$20k was the original target that seemed reasonable looking at Barnstormers. But the budget isn't fixed and could go up for what makes sense.

Not looking for a show plane, either, but safe obviously is a priority.
 
11CC Super Chief would fit in that budget. You would get the two side by side. You could get around 20K. You wont get 100MPH. In theory take off and landing over a 50' obstacle is under 800' but not sure I would bank on that.

The gross on the 11CC is 1350 empty weight is 820 unless they gain a bunch of weight. I did my tailwheel sign off in one that was pretty bare bones. With the instructor, myself and 10gals of fuel we were right at gross and I can tell you the climb rate was nothing to write home about.
 
@Grum.Man @N659HB (and anyone else who knows Luscombes)

I really know nothing about them - could you expand on the "challenging" landing references?
 
Stewartb said:
Any tube and fabric airplane you find for $20K will need another $50K to make it something you'd want to put your family in. And that may be too low to be realistic. Just my opinion, but I do have experience with tube and fabric airplanes.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where you come up with that number. You're saying you would have $70K in a tube and fabric plane? There are quite a few Chiefs, Taylorcrafts out there for for less than $20K and if you put $50K into it you'd be nuts.
 
I really like this one for all of the reasons you mentioned.

41 T-CRAFT "NICE" CLASSIC • $16,500 • COME AND GET IT • PRICE REDUCED! It's time to let her Go! If you been looking around, then you'll appreciate this 'CLASSIC GEM' of a plane. She's super Nice and Clean, Great Int. and Ext. She's just Great for Cruising around to Fly-Ins and showing off to all your flying buddies. A true eye catcher and will be a great investment for years to come. She's got 390SMOH and about 1980TTAF on a strong 65 with a metal prop. Times will change as we do still enjoy flying her..I have too many projects. You wont be disappointed. • Contact Mike G. Pate - MID SOUTH AERO, Owner - located Pontotoc, MS USA • Telephone: 662-871-9919 . • Posted September 24, 2017 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser • Recommend This Ad to a Friend • Email Advertiser • Save to Watchlist • Report This Ad • View Larger Pictures

1x1.gif


 
Lowflynjack said:
I really like this one for all of the reasons you mentioned.

41 T-CRAFT "NICE" CLASSIC • $16,500 • COME AND GET IT • PRICE REDUCED! It's time to let her Go! If you been looking around, then you'll appreciate this 'CLASSIC GEM' of a plane. She's super Nice and Clean, Great Int. and Ext. She's just Great for Cruising around to Fly-Ins and showing off to all your flying buddies. A true eye catcher and will be a great investment for years to come. She's got 390SMOH and about 1980TTAF on a strong 65 with a metal prop. Times will change as we do still enjoy flying her..I have too many projects. You wont be disappointed. • Contact Mike G. Pate - MID SOUTH AERO, Owner - located Pontotoc, MS USA • Telephone: 662-871-9919 . • Posted September 24, 2017 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser • Recommend This Ad to a Friend • Email Advertiser • Save to Watchlist • Report This Ad • View Larger Pictures

1x1.gif


Click to expand...

That caught my eye, too.

One thing is that we aren't likely to buy a plane until we build the runway. 1) Realistically it'll take us months to build the runway 2) We still don't know what exactly we want. But if we find something really awesome, then we'll buy it and store it somewhere.
 
Friend of mine had an Aeronca Chief on a one-way 2K turf strip on his property. He ground looped it once to save him crashing into trees. 2K feet seemed tight in and out to me. Obviously I don't know taildraggers at all, and don't fly turf strips, so take anything I say with a hefty grain of salt.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
Friend of mine had an Aeronca Chief on a one-way 2K took strip on his property. He ground looped it once to save him crashing into trees. 2K feet seemed tight in and out to me. Obviously I don't know taildraggers at all, and don't fly turf strips, so take anything I say with a hefty grain of salt.
Click to expand...

The Chief was also stupidly underpowered, especially if it had the O-145.
 
steingar said:
Friend of mine had an Aeronca Chief on a one-way 2K took strip on his property. He ground looped it once to save him crashing into trees. 2K feet seemed tight in and out to me. Obviously I don't know taildraggers at all, and don't fly turf strips, so take anything I say with a hefty grain of salt.
Click to expand...
You can find them with 75hp and 85hp and they get off the ground a lot quicker. The original 65hp most of them has is a little lacking. I flew one out of a 2K strip with 60' trees at both ends and never had any trouble, but if I was flying out of 1K, I'd want a clear path on either end of the runway.
 
His strip was one-way, with big honking trees at one end. Like I said, it looked tight to me either way. Obviously his ground loop was from landing with too much speed, but he was no slouch. Bought one of the first certificated Lanceairs, in fact.
But again, I speak from a wealth of ignorance.
 
The one consensus I'm getting out of this (which I already knew) is more horsepower is more better, and a climb prop is also going to be an expected necessity (if it doesn't have one already). No surprise. Seems like 85 HP would be about the min we should consider, and 100 HP (or more) is better.

What about Stinson 108s? I know that those are technically 3 seaters, but we'd use it as a 2-seater. Franklin engines. Those have some cool/unique factor.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
What about Stinson 108s? I know that those are technically 3 seaters, but we'd use it as a 2-seater. Franklin engines. Those have some cool/unique factor.
Click to expand...
The 108 was the post-war four-seater built with Franklin engines, 150 or 165 hp. The 105 was a pre-war three-seater with Continental 75 or 80 hp; and morphed into the Model 10 of 1940, with a 90 hp Franklin.
 
Pilawt said:
The 108 was the post-war four-seater built with Franklin engines, 150 or 165 hp. The 105 was a pre-war three-seater with Continental 75 or 80 hp; and morphed into the Model 10 of 1940, with a 90 hp Franklin.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I had thought I saw an early 108 that was advertised as a 3 seater.

I suppose from a performance perspective there could be benefit to a 4-seater operated as a 2 seater and take the extra horsepower. Lot of benefits to that.
 
The 11CC chief has the 85HP.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Hmm. I had thought I saw an early 108 that was advertised as a 3 seater.

I suppose from a performance perspective there could be benefit to a 4-seater operated as a 2 seater and take the extra horsepower. Lot of benefits to that.
Click to expand...

The 3 seater is the Stinson 10 that I mentioned earlier. It's quite a large airplane for only 85 hp.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
@Grum.Man @N659HB (and anyone else who knows Luscombes)

I really know nothing about them - could you expand on the "challenging" landing references?
Click to expand...

I have never landed one, only flew one and my dad owns one. Generally the comments are that the gear is stiff and airplane sits high making it tippy. Once you get a feel for it I have heard it's no more challenging than any other antique tail dragger. While the Luscombe is stiff, the Cessna's spring gear is bouncy. Both can get you in trouble. I have heard the Stinsons are sweethearts on the ground with a firm forgiving gear.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
@Grum.Man @N659HB (and anyone else who knows Luscombes)

I really know nothing about them - could you expand on the "challenging" landing references?
Click to expand...

They have a bad rep because the gear is not very forgiving, and they require quick footwork on the roll out. The gear is narrower than many tailwheel aircraft, lending to the tipsy quality that grum mentioned. Once you are used to the handling, it's not too bad, but it's an airplane that must be "flown" until parked.

If I make it to the April fly-in, you're welcome to a ride. Let me know if you're ever near KFDW.

Perhaps @Lowflynjack can expound on the handling characteristics compared to a Cessna 120/140. I think he once owned an 8E.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
ktup-flyer said:
No idea about the performance specs or anything, but it's cheap. https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...model=S65C&listing_id=2285421&s-type=aircraft
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that's a 65 HP plane, which I definitely think would be lower than what we want. Seems to me like 100+ is a strong preference, although getting that with no electrical system might be harder to accomplish.

That Luscombe looks interesting, although it'd be nice if he put in pictures taken after color film was invented...
 
You might better stretch your budget a bit and get a nice 170. ask Greg about his, Last I heard it was for sale.
Then you'll have an aircraft that could take the family.
 
Is this going to be sleeping outside?

I would totally look at a Cessna 150 with the david lowe tw conversion and a 150hp engine.

One of our instructors has one that he flys off his ranch in Nebraska. 800' strip, but between him and his wife they weigh 260lbs, and he will not go when the DA is over 4k, he is on the stock 0-200, I love flying it, looks like a baby 180 as it is a strait tail fastback. With a 150hp engine a 150 is transformed, but of course isnt as light on the controls and useful load is down.

upload_2017-9-26_14-7-35.png
 
Tom-D said:
You might better stretch your budget a bit and get a nice 170. ask Greg about his, Last I heard it was for sale.
Then you'll have an aircraft that could take the family.
Click to expand...

Greg's 170 came to mind. I really liked it when he took me for a ride in it at Gaston's a couple years back.

Our thoughts may shift, but at the moment we specifically don't want an airplane that will take the family. The goal is taking one kid up at a time for one-on-one time to count cows, while also having the full old taildragger/vintage airplane experience. Maybe Laurie and me flying together some, but I doubt it. Whenever you have all 3 of the kids in one place it's more "zone defense" rather than individual quality time, having a 2-seater helps that. If we're all flying something, we use the 414.

Other aspect is ADS-B. I want to be able to fly the plane to MKC where the 414 is based, and even if I didn't we're not far from the Kansas City bravo airspace. So per @Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe 's CFIing (do I get to log dual received for that?) if it doesn't have an electrical system, it don't need one, and I can just use a handheld. If it has an electrical system (which the 170 does) then I'll have to do something for ADS-B.

Really we want the polar opposite of the 414, rather than trying to find a "good compromise" plane like most people do.
 
Lowflynjack said:
I'm not sure where you come up with that number. You're saying you would have $70K in a tube and fabric plane? There are quite a few Chiefs, Taylorcrafts out there for for less than $20K and if you put $50K into it you'd be nuts.
Click to expand...
Experience. Ted said a Cub was too expensive. Fair enough. Let's talk about a Tcraft. Is is cheaper to re-cover than a Cub? Nope. The truth is, when you cut off old fabric you get to see what 30-40 years of corrosion does to the tube frame. For a Cub? I can drive to two shops in Anchorage and buy a PMAd replacement airframe. The Tcrate? Those rusted longerons and bent up tail post need repair. How? Build a jig or do it with string lines. Tons of labor cutting out the old crap and inserting new. How much does that cost, on top of that cover job? The mechanics I know that make a living restoring tube and fabric airplanes would tell you don't even think about it unless you have $50K to spend. So why do you see these cheap old tube and fabric planes for sale? They're at the end of their lives and the owners know what it'll cost to restore them. The only way anyone can justify the purchase is to lower their standards below the sellers, and go in blind thinking there's no way an old tube and fabric plane can cost that much to fix.

Been there, done that. Sold the plane for $25K less than I had into it. There's a pirep for you. No fantasy, just honest truth.
 
Oooh Ted finally sees the light! Tailwheel! Obviously if you want an old tailwheel that satisfies your need for a twin get a Beech 18 ;). Just ask @Fearless Tower or a Cessna T50 Bobcat/bamboo bomber... then it's still a twin Cessna.
My vote would be for an old Maule M4, though potentially pricey. Alternatively you could look at a Piper Pacer.
My favorite of all of the planes suggested are the 120/140... They just fly the nicest IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top