Thinking About an Old Taildragger

A citabria adventurer would be my vote with that price-point and tandem. The 7GCAA come in cheaper with no flaps and no inverted oil system, but still are quite capable planes in both aerobatics and STOL. - though most aren't 50's era, but rather 70's. There's also the 7ECA that would be even cheaper than the 7GCAA down from 150hp to 118hp, but still far more than a champ(7EC) and definitely able to use your strip.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Let's say that we were open to a tandem configuration, what would be a good fit there (besides the <SUPER CUB>)? Same mission of wife and me max, more likely wife or me with 1 kid.
Click to expand...
Mtns2skies had an idea -- the Champion series. More comfortable than a Cub, easier to get in & out. There were some models built during the '50s and early '60s with larger engines, before the Citabria came along in 1964. There were the 7EC (90 hp), 7GC (140 hp Lyc. O-290), and 7GCB (150 hp Lyc. O-320), usually cheaper than Cubs wth similar power.
 
One thing about oneway airstrips. If the wind is a tailwind, now you have problems, Crosswinds tend to eat up runway too. 1000' is short. Get a Supercub. They made one with side by side seating, its a PA-14. And get a big engine. That short runway, youre gonna need it. Like I said see if you can get a experienced short field guy to come look at it. Handpropping is dangerous (really takes two to do it safely). Looks doable, but its tight.
 
That’s not even close to the top of the Supercub prices. $150K is becoming ordinary. $250K is fairly common. Cubcrafters is selling $250K Carbon Cubs and $300K X Cubs. There’s a market out there.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
A citabria adventurer would be my vote with that price-point and tandem. The 7GCAA come in cheaper with no flaps and no inverted oil system, but still are quite capable planes in both aerobatics and STOL. - though most aren't 50's era, but rather 70's. There's also the 7ECA that would be even cheaper than the 7GCAA down from 150hp to 118hp, but still far more than a champ(7EC) and definitely able to use your strip.
Click to expand...

As a person who voted myself a $20k plane, I did opt for a Citabria. My particular plane is a '65 7ECA but has been upgraded to 150hp. With no effort I'm off the ground in 500' and get 1000 fpm or better on climb.

One counterpoint to the quote above: I've learned since buying my plane, a 90hp Champ may (will likely) have a higher useful load than a 7ECA if it doesn't have battery, starter, etc. That is one of those "well, duh" discoveries but there it is.

For my $20k I got a plane with under 300 hours since overhaul and a great prop. I'm pretty sure I couldn't get a decent low time O-320, a very nice McCauley prop and a decent VFR panel for that kind of money even with no airplane attached.

Looks great at 20' and passes annuals with flying colors. I have no reservation taking my family members up in it. In fact my oldest son wants his license so I need to get my ticket CFI current again.
 
Stewartb said:
That’s not even close to the top of the Supercub prices. $150K is becoming ordinary. $250K is fairly common. Cubcrafters is selling $250K Carbon Cubs and $300K X Cubs. There’s a market out there.
Click to expand...

Sounds silly to me.
 
I definitely agree more power is more better. As I always say you can always pull the throttle back, you can't push it past full. Want to stay fixed pitch prop but that still gives plenty of options, basically anything besides a sky wagon or a hello courier.

We're going to build the runway before buying the plane, so that means it'll probably be sometime next year. Gotta chop the trees, get the stumps taken care of, and maybe do some flattening etc. Then we'll have a better idea.
 
Ted my boy, if you're just lookin' fer some fun on the farm, I say get yerself a Peitenpol Air Camper.

47261.jpg
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I definitely agree more power is more better. As I always say you can always pull the throttle back, you can't push it past full. Want to stay fixed pitch prop but that still gives plenty of options, basically anything besides a sky wagon or a hello courier.

We're going to build the runway before buying the plane, so that means it'll probably be sometime next year. Gotta chop the trees, get the stumps taken care of, and maybe do some flattening etc. Then we'll have a better idea.
Click to expand...

https://www.rbauction.com/Crawler-T...5KzQyOTQ3NDM4MTgrNDI5NDk2NjQwMys0Mjk0MDkwMjUy
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
CC268 said:
Sounds silly to me.
Click to expand...
What's silly? That you don't appreciate the value of an expensive high-performance airplane? That's subjective. I have no interest in most of the planes you guys fly but I respect that you like them.
 
Stewartb said:
What's silly? That you don't appreciate the value of an expensive high-performance airplane? That's subjective. I have no interest in most of the planes you guys fly but I respect that you like them.
Click to expand...

Lol holy hell lighten up! Never said I didn’t appreciate the airplane.
 
Stewartb said:
What's silly? That you don't appreciate the value of an expensive high-performance airplane? That's subjective. I have no interest in most of the planes you guys fly but I respect that you like them.
Click to expand...
I must agree. Supercubs and their ilk fit a mission profile few other aircraft can match. There aren't many, so enter the laws of supply and demand. One of the new Supercub clones is amazing, it'll fly in cruise at the same speed as my Mooney, but land on sandbars and stuff. Really amazing aircraft, truly unmatched by anything. Folks buy them, so obviously there's a mission for them. Then again, folks in my very civilized part of the world buy those things, I think so they can go pretend to be bush pilots or something.
 
CUB is three letters. Multiply three by ten thousand, and you get the price premium for having the name "CUB" on it.

Aroniksomethingsomethingsomethinga is too hard to spell and be sure how many letters are in it, so you don't get the name brand premium price.
 
I really don't know why someone would spend 150k on an old supercub when they could spend 160k on a brand new Legend cub that is better in every way. But to each their own as I wouldn't spend that kind of scratch on any cub variant.
 
We talked some about the plan last night. Just to clarify, we aren't necessarily thinking this will be ready for next summer - part of why we want to start now.

1) We're going to work on cutting down the trees for the runway this fall. Chopping trees down is effectively free, and lets the stumps start deteriorating now, making them easier to pull when we're ready to do that.
1a) If we decide to chop down the trees on the far side of the pond (to reduce obstacles) then we can do that whenever, since that will just be chopping down trees and no stump removal
2) Laurie wants to have a structure to keep the plane in built before we get one, which is completely reasonable, especially if we end up with a rag-wing of some sort. We have an old outbuilding that's not particularly useful and not in good shape at all which we will likely tear down and replace with a new, bigger, better structure (expect a new "Thinking About..." thread for that). I expect that will likely be next year
3) Once we have the runway and the building, that'll be when we actually purchase the airplane

So there's some infrastructure work to be done (which we knew), and that will probably also time well for getting to the point where we're comfortable with the kids in a tandem (especially since they would realistically probably be fine now), at which point the thread will be resurrected.

First step is cutting down the trees. Any local to the KC area who have chainsaws and want to help, let me know.
 
I think any Cub or Cub variant is awesome I just *thought* it was silly to spend that much on a Super Cub when there are tons of Cub variants (kits, etc) that are probably more capable at the same price or less. But I’m not a Cub expert by any means so maybe spending that much on a Super Cub isn’t silly after all.
 
I have a similar mission to Ted. There's a mostly dry tundra meadow behind my cabin. It has about 700' between 50' trees on both ends and is mostly oriented to the prevailing winds. It is littered with small black spruce but my DR brush mower will take those out easily enough. The surface is a little bumpy and has variable firmness but nothing a pair of hiking boots can't walk around in. To keep from penetrating the tundra and churning up the watery goo from beneath I'll use 35" Bushwheels. My biggest nuisance will be cutting out the obstructions for the tailwheel when turning around. My target had been for this summer but the plane is behind schedule and winter is approaching. Next summer will be fun.

Experimental Cub variants in general are not inexpensive. With no FAA restrictions we can do some really cool things to these planes. Leading edge slats, 9'+ split flaps, extended chord ailerons, 220+ hp FI engines spinning hollow carbon fiber constant speed props... Yowsa! By comparison the certificated Cubs fetch lower prices. My exp Cub is definitely in the "silly" price range. Not what I planned but exactly what the guys who built similar planes before me predicted. Sometimes the projects we take on snowball and become very expensive, but you can't stop or you'll lose what's already invested. And that goes full circle back to my earlier comments about inexpensive old planes and maintenance costs. ;)
 
This freshly disclosed hangar project will eat 2X your current airplane budget. You're going to need a silver tongue to get that one past your accountant
 
aftCG said:
This freshly disclosed hangar project will eat 2X your current airplane budget. You're going to need a silver tongue to get that one past your accountant
Click to expand...

Depends on how one goes about it and depends on how much we do vs. farm out. We're probably going to start out with gravel but set it up so that we can pour a cement floor later. Goal will be to have the structure itself, but can add things like electrical, etc. later if we're so inclined. Don't overthink it.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
A citabria adventurer would be my vote with that price-point and tandem. The 7GCAA come in cheaper with no flaps and no inverted oil system, but still are quite capable planes in both aerobatics and STOL. - though most aren't 50's era, but rather 70's. There's also the 7ECA that would be even cheaper than the 7GCAA down from 150hp to 118hp, but still far more than a champ(7EC) and definitely able to use your strip.
Click to expand...

I love the American Champion family. They are at the top of my list for a two seat taildragger.
 
Stewartb said:
I have a similar mission to Ted. There's a mostly dry tundra meadow behind my cabin. It has about 700' between 50' trees on both ends and is mostly oriented to the prevailing winds. It is littered with small black spruce but my DR brush mower will take those out easily enough. The surface is a little bumpy and has variable firmness but nothing a pair of hiking boots can't walk around in. To keep from penetrating the tundra and churning up the watery goo from beneath I'll use 35" Bushwheels. My biggest nuisance will be cutting out the obstructions for the tailwheel when turning around. My target had been for this summer but the plane is behind schedule and winter is approaching. Next summer will be fun.

Experimental Cub variants in general are not inexpensive. With no FAA restrictions we can do some really cool things to these planes. Leading edge slats, 9'+ split flaps, extended chord ailerons, 220+ hp FI engines spinning hollow carbon fiber constant speed props... Yowsa! By comparison the certificated Cubs fetch lower prices. My exp Cub is definitely in the "silly" price range. Not what I planned but exactly what the guys who built similar planes before me predicted. Sometimes the projects we take on snowball and become very expensive, but you can't stop or you'll lose what's already invested. And that goes full circle back to my earlier comments about inexpensive old planes and maintenance costs. ;)
Click to expand...

If you have a minimalist runway, you need a maximum airplane. Makes perfect sense.
 
aftCG said:
As a person who voted myself a $20k plane, I did opt for a Citabria. My particular plane is a '65 7ECA but has been upgraded to 150hp. With no effort I'm off the ground in 500' and get 1000 fpm or better on climb.

One counterpoint to the quote above: I've learned since buying my plane, a 90hp Champ may (will likely) have a higher useful load than a 7ECA if it doesn't have battery, starter, etc. That is one of those "well, duh" discoveries but there it is.

For my $20k I got a plane with under 300 hours since overhaul and a great prop. I'm pretty sure I couldn't get a decent low time O-320, a very nice McCauley prop and a decent VFR panel for that kind of money even with no airplane attached.

Looks great at 20' and passes annuals with flying colors. I have no reservation taking my family members up in it. In fact my oldest son wants his license so I need to get my ticket CFI current again.
Click to expand...


7ECAs are GREAT aircraft.
 
I'm thinking about my old taildragger tonight, planning our next outing. It would be great to have some acreage and an airstrip. Then I could just go somewhere, or nowhere, whenever the mood struck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
N659HB said:
I'm thinking about my old taildragger tonight, planning our next outing. It would be great to have some acreage and an airstrip. Then I could just go somewhere, or nowhere, whenever the mood struck.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly why we're doing this.

Cut down the first tree. Nobody got hurt. Moved it with the tractor.
 
One thing to ponder: The difference between landing on a short airstrip one time under good conditions, vs being BASED at a short airstrip where you will have pressure to land under adverse (high wind, pilot tired) conditions (and be doing it a lot).
 
Last edited:
coloradobluesky said:
One thing to ponder: The is a difference between landing on a short airstrip one time under good conditions, vs being BASED at a short airstrip where you will have pressure to land under adverse (high wind) conditions.
Click to expand...

Within a 15 minute drive there are 3 airports that have runways in different directions from what ours will if the winds are too bad. This is also a fair-weather airplane to count cows, not a go-places airplane that has a job that needs to get accomplished. Honestly if we get truly adverse conditions... it probably means we didn't plan well, and have plenty of backup options if that happened.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Within a 15 minute drive there are 3 airports that have runways in different directions from what ours will if the winds are too bad. This is also a fair-weather airplane to count cows, not a go-places airplane that has a job that needs to get accomplished. Honestly if we get truly adverse conditions... it probably means we didn't plan well, and have plenty of backup options if that happened.
Click to expand...
Seems to me, you'd want a heater, Kansas does get cold, and some vey nice flying occurs in the winter.
the C-120/140/ have heaters, and I've never seen one that wouldn't get off in a 1000 feet.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement to fill all seats. but it is nice to have the space for the back woods camp trip.
 
You keep on saying 'counting cows'... to me that means flying low and slow, in a tandem that you can fly with the doors open. Being able to fly with an open door like a J3 or 5 on a warm summer day is just awesome. In the winter, we used painters tape to seal up the door gaps and wore a bunch of layers of long underwear. Really helped since the J3 doesn't really have a heater.

I look forward to seeing progress on the landing strip. Cool project.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
UngaWunga said:
You keep on saying 'counting cows'... to me that means flying low and slow, in a tandem that you can fly with the doors open. Being able to fly with an open door like a J3 or 5 on a warm summer day is just awesome. In the winter, we used painters tape to seal up the door gaps and wore a bunch of layers of long underwear. Really helped since the J3 doesn't really have a heater.

I look forward to seeing progress on the landing strip. Cool project.
Click to expand...

@jesse is actually the one who came up with (or at least who I first heard use) the "counting cows" term, since that's what he'd sometimes describe his flying in the Fly Baby as.

I do think we're probably leaning more towards tandem the more we think about it. The performance of them is better (which helps our grass strip), and the reality is that we're talking a while before this project turns into actually having a plane based at the house. Chop down trees, pull stumps, tear down current outbuilding, put up new outbuilding/hangar...

"Thinking about a hangar" will be the next thread, although I'm going to wait on that until we make some more progress on the runway itself.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It does look like a hoot to fly, and fits a lot of criteria in some ways. I would be terrified to take one of my kids flying in that for a few years, which is part of the reason for wanting side by side currently.
.
Click to expand...

I can almost guarantee your kids would love riding in (or is it out?) of a Breezy. I've flown in a few old planes but the Breezy was a blast.
 
Tom-D said:
Seems to me, you'd want a heater, Kansas does get cold, and some vey nice flying occurs in the winter.
the C-120/140/ have heaters, and I've never seen one that wouldn't get off in a 1000 feet.
Click to expand...

Which engine, what weight, what temps? Fellow I talked to with a stock 140 said his best was 300 ft in winter while lightweight, worst was 1200-1500 ft in summer at gross. Either way, I think we're headed more towards a tandem.

Regardless, we understand that our aircraft choice is going to be limited by the runway, and that's fine.

Tom-D said:
There is no requirement to fill all seats. but it is nice to have the space for the back woods camp trip.
Click to expand...

Understand that point, although realistically that's not something I see us doing. We're not much into camping. My wife's idea of camping would be a 48' Class A diesel pusher.

Tom-D said:
1941 REARWIN SKYRANGER
Click to expand...

We saw that and it looked very cool, and very unique. What can you tell me about them?

mscard88 said:
I can almost guarantee your kids would love riding in (or is it out?) of a Breezy. I've flown in a few old planes but the Breezy was a blast.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it would be a lot of fun, and since realistically it's a year or two before we actually buy the airplane while we get the runway/hangar going, we may expand what we're willing to fly in. However one requirement my wife has always had is a traditional (Continental/Lycoming) engine, and I tend to agree with her. For her it's a reliability concern. For me, I know that the newer 4-stroke Rotaxes are just fine reliability wise, but I'm not a fan of the chainsaw sound - there's something about the sound of a LyContisaur that helps the visceral feel for me.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Here's the proposed layout:

View attachment 56647

0 would be the takeoff end heading west. 1009.84 ft would be the landing end.

The trees on the other side of the pond are roughly 30 feet higher than the ground at that point. There's approximately a 40 ft drop between the takeoff end and the landing end, so I believe that comes out to around a 3-4% grade. Those trees are still part of our property so it would be possible to get to them and chop them down, which might be a good idea. Wouldn't have to clear them since we don't use the pond, just chop them down so they're out of the way as obstacles. Those trees aren't super easy to get to but it's still doable.

At the takeoff end (which would be the end of the runway when landing) there's some bushes between the property and the road. There are also power lines at that end, which of course are not movable. An aborted landing decision would need to be made early on, I think.
Click to expand...

Yes IMO I think it would be wise to clear a takeoff path thru those trees on the other side of the pond, and grade it relatively smooth in case of a forced landing.
 
mscard88 said:
Yes IMO I think it would be wise to clear a takeoff path thru those trees on the other side of the pond, and grade it relatively smooth in case of a forced landing.
Click to expand...

The more I think about it the more I think I'll chop down those trees, although not clear them, so it should work well.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'm sure it would be a lot of fun, and since realistically it's a year or two before we actually buy the airplane while we get the runway/hangar going, we may expand what we're willing to fly in. However one requirement my wife has always had is a traditional (Continental/Lycoming) engine, and I tend to agree with her. For her it's a reliability concern. For me, I know that the newer 4-stroke Rotaxes are just fine reliability wise, but I'm not a fan of the chainsaw sound - there's something about the sound of a LyContisaur that helps the visceral feel for me.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Breezy? I don't know what most of 'em are powered by but I think the only one I went up in had a regular Lycoming or Continental. I'm sure Pidgeon can provide more info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top