Ah, that Ted's a cagey fellow, he's got us doing research for him.
I saw this in Backcountry Pilot:
I happen to have a Chief (for sale) & a T-Crate I just rebuilt.
Contrary to above post Chief's are faster (marginally) than Champs (acknowledged on Areonca site-those guys would know). Marginally is the key, Chief-Champ are 80-85mph cruise planes. Mine operates out of a 1100' strip with 50' tree's at about the 1300' mark with two people (350lbs) & full header tank (12gl). I average about 3.5gl per/hr. Chief's are very under appreciated planes, built light they perform very well short field. They are not mountain planes but what 65hp is @ 3.5gl per hr burn
They are much easier to get in & out of than my T-Crate & MUCH more leg room once inside. All the taildraggers are rudder planes, something that takes a little getting used to, but my Chief is a joy to fly! I have actually been thinkin seriously about selling Crate & keeping Chief to recover. Biggest downfall of Areonca's in general is Oleo landing gear. If it's in good shape no problem, rebuilding a set takes more time & $$ than most other landing gear systems.
Terry-I would recommend a good Chief any day, annuals will be 1/2 your 172 price or less, 1/3 your fuel burn, maintainance is basically oil changes. Best go try one on for size, none of those old birds really fit bigger people, I'm 6' & would think that's about the limit in most old birds with the Chief capable of handling the taller guys. Width is a problem on all of them I think about 42" is average cabin width. Champs have a certain appeal if your a "window" guy, but center of gravity is much more consistant with SxS seating birds, tandoms tend to load the tailwheel much more when two-up, to each to their own.
It's at https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/aeronca-chief-6728
Here's another discussion on the viability of the 65 horse 11AC for a short field: http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?1867-STOL-OPERATIONS-IN-AN-AERONCA-11AC-w-65-hp
Here's a Chief with C-85, no electrical system:
47 AERONCA 11CC SUPER CHIEF • $14,500 •
FOR SALE • 2155TT , 85hp Continental 140 SMOH, factory toe brakes, Logs from day one, Stitts cover, always hangared. NO electric. New landing gear struts '06, Starts very easy. Not a show plane. great flyer. 913 954 9734 • Contact
Andy Stanton -
ANDYS FOREIGN CARS, Owner - located Platte City, MO USA • Telephone: 816-858-4747
Price is right, too There are others on Barnstormers, but they don't specify if they have electrics. There are also 100 hp Taylorcrafts, I don't know if you will be able to find one without an electrical system
@Ted DuPuis , before you go off looking for such an airplane, are you sure this is what you want? I used to think I wanted a classic car until I got up close to a couple, and realized that I didn't. I've only ever flown in a little old taildragger once, and I was a wee lad at the time, but looking at them now they appear to be a little claustrophobic. I do have a little stick time in one low and slow three axis aircraft, a Schweitzer 2-22, and the best way I can describe it is to say it is sluggish.
You are a vastly more experienced pilot than I am, so feel free to disregard this. One thing my hang gliding experience has taught me is that there is a lot of stuff going on in the atmosphere close to the ground. If you're flying a heavier airplane you don't notice these things, but in something with low power and a low wing loading, these do affect you. There's mechanical rotor off of buildings, hills, and trees, there are small patches of lift and sink depending on wind and sun conditions. Any of these can affect your rate of climb and sink by a couple of hundred feet per minute, so leave some margin. All my power flying was done at airports with a minimum of 3000 feet of pavement and with obstacles removed. In a hang glider, there's not a lot of improving done to the launch and landing areas, so you learn to work with the terrain, where you can go and where you need to stay away from.
There used to be a lot more hang gliding launches that were used that there are now. Most of the ones that were abandoned had one or more issues that made them difficult or risky to use. Before you go to all the trouble of building a runway, you may want to be sure that you can use it often enough to make it worth the effort. On a nice summer day, I'm guessing that the density altitude is around 3000 feet where you are, so there goes some of your takeoff performance. How does the prevailing wind work with the direction your strip would be? I'm guessing that you usually have some kind of breeze blowing there. Will that affect how often you can fly?
Perhaps it would be better to buy the airplane first. You can always sell it if you decide it won't get used enough. Taking down a bunch of trees and getting a sod field working, well, once you do that, it's all yours and if it doesn't work out, those costs are sunk.
) So not a lot of time but I would have to say I would need tons more practice to feel confident I could get it done in 1000 feet 100% of the time. Was close most of the time give or take brakes but there were a few I just came in a hair fast and all of a sudden you are at 1500-1700 feet after a little float and roll. No obstacle would be a lot easier. Of course that is just me YMMV.
