Thinking About an Old Taildragger

Ted DuPuis said:
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...
Those diesel DiamondStar DA40NGs that the airline academy uses here at KGYR sound like they have three positions on the throttle -- mix, blend and puree.
 
mscard88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the Breezy. Good info, thanks.

Pilawt said:
Those diesel DiamondStar DA40NGs that the airline academy uses here at KGYR sound like they have three positions on the throttle -- mix, blend and puree.
Click to expand...

I'm sure. I flew in a DA42 with Austros (converted from Thielerts) once and it wasn't too bad, but the engine itself I think is pretty muffled so you mostly hear the props on that plane. I'd bet you hear the engine a lot more on the ground.

Whenever I hear a Rotax flying it has a major chainsaw sound to it. Not knocking the engine, I think quality wise they're fine like I said. But in a piston airplane, I want it to sound like a traditional piston engine. Kinda like I like my pickups to have a diesel in them, and I like the sound of an I6 diesel the best. Particular sounds for particular vehicles.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd smooth it too Ted, wouldn't want to land w/ stumps sticking up if your motor coughed taking off and you had to put it down there. Something to think about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
mscard88 said:
I'd smooth it too Ted, wouldn't want to land w/ stumps sticking up if your motor coughed taking off and you had to put it down there. Something to think about.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That is part of the plan.
 
So, let's look at Cubs. Not Super Cubs per se, but just a regular Cub with an 85+ HP engine instead of the 65 HP engine it came with. How's that on distances? Add in tundra tires to give some extra foregiveness on the terrain.
 
BTW, if you're tall, no way you'll fit in a Tcraft. I'm 6'4", and can barely fit in one. I certainly can't pilot it. I imagine a C120 or 140 isn't much bigger inside.
J-3s I fit in fine, same as the J4. J5 is quite roomy. A J-5 with 100hp would be a great plane.
 
UngaWunga said:
if you're tall, no way you'll fit in a Tcraft. I'm 6'4", and can barely fit in one. I certainly can't pilot it. I imagine a C120 or 140 isn't much bigger inside.
Click to expand...
6 and a skosh. 120: head room to spare, but it is tight in the shoulders with a second 6 foot + person. Taylorcraft was no problem that I recall, but your head is up inside the wing root area and you have to duck to look under the wing. Don't recall any issues inside a Champ or Citabria.
 
I'm a hair over 6', good info.
 
PA-11s are 90hp and can be flown solo in the front seat. I’d expect a healthy one with two people would operate out of 300’ with the right prop. No flaps so landing distance is relative to how well you slip. The early PA-18s had 95hp, then 105, 125, 135, and finally 150hp. An -11 should be easier on the wallet.
 
I'm beginning to think your expectations can not be met by the market with in your budget.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
6 and a skosh. 120: head room to spare, but it is tight in the shoulders with a second 6 foot + person. Taylorcraft was no problem that I recall, but your head is up inside the wing root area and you have to duck to look under the wing. Don't recall any issues inside a Champ or Citabria.
Click to expand...

In the Tcraft, I couldn't get my legs out of the way to get full control of the yoke. They were hitting the underside of the panel. The Champ I sat in had been modified to move the seat back an inch or so, and I had no problems with it. The Pipers seems to have more room, and I have no problems with them at all. Don't have to duck down to see out in the Pipers, either. I could probably fly a Taylorcraft if I needed to, but I sure wouldn't buy one. I might take one for free... lol. Too uncomfortable.

That being said, with my long legs in a J3 I could either have my feet on the rudders or the heel brakes. Had a hard time doing both. Too much of an angle for my ankles in the back seat.
 
Tom-D said:
I'm beginning to think your expectations can not be met by the market with in your budget.
Click to expand...

This definitely busts the budget!

00j0j_j4KEU3ed3UJ_600x450.jpg


https://chattanooga.craigslist.org/for/d/piper-pa12-super-cruiser/6285043254.html
 
T-Craft is a great plane but yeah, it's tight. That's why it performs so much better than a Cub, lots of attention to reducing drag. At 5'7" I fit just fine in mine, but as somebody said you have to duck your head to see out the side windows, it just becomes automatic.

A girlfriend at the time had her own T-Craft, she had the opposite problem. She was so short she couldn't reach the rudder pedals without a pillow behind her, and then she couldn't pull the wheel back far enough to properly flare because of interference with her, ah, chest (mscard would have worded it differently, I know). We solved that problem with 4" blocks clamped to the rudder pedals.
 
Dana said:
T-Craft is a great plane but yeah, it's tight. That's why it performs so much better than a Cub, lots of attention to reducing drag. At 5'7" I fit just fine in mine, but as somebody said you have to duck your head to see out the side windows, it just becomes automatic.

A girlfriend at the time had her own T-Craft, she had the opposite problem. She was so short she couldn't reach the rudder pedals without a pillow behind her, and then she couldn't pull the wheel back far enough to properly flare because of interference with her, ah, chest (mscard would have worded it differently, I know). We solved that problem with 4" blocks clamped to the rudder pedals.
Click to expand...

She should have flown with me. I could get her to "reach the pedals". :goofy:
 
I think it's a fair statement to say we'll likely break the budget on the plane, and we're coming around to that idea as well. But the budget was a target, not necessarily a firm budget. If we spend more to get something we like better anyway, then that's a worthwhile tradeoff.

More trees chopped down, and more trees left to chop down (a lot more)...
 
Bill Jennings said:
Most of what I know of has been suggested except for the Vagabond. A waaay cool option would be a Swift, but I have no idea if they can comfortably get in and out of 1000ft.
Click to expand...

The answer is, no.

N3368K said:
Piper Colt with tailwheel conversion and O-320 STC.
Click to expand...

This is a reasonable suggestion. 150+ HP will give you a lot of margin for taking off in 1000'
 
Ted DuPuis said:
So, let's look at Cubs. Not Super Cubs per se, but just a regular Cub with an 85+ HP engine instead of the 65 HP engine it came with. How's that on distances? Add in tundra tires to give some extra foregiveness on the terrain.
Click to expand...

Looking at an old video I have of a takeoff in a 85hp Clipped wing J3 my solo takeoff roll on grass with a slight downhill slope was about 550'. You should be fine.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Appreciate the PIREP, Ren. That looks like an 85 HP Cub would do the job. C-90 would still be better at a little more horsepower, but kinda confirms what we thought about a Cub being a good option.

About what was the temp that day?
 
dell30rb said:
The answer is, no.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right. I could and did easily land my Swift in under 1000' but never on a short runway simply because it would have never flown back out. At even lightest weights and on a cool day, it took 1000+' to get airborne with a fine pitched prop allowing it to turn up well. Mine had an O-300,so still relatively small engine. Even one with a Cont IO-360 and CS prop wouldn't be happy trying to operate out of 1000' unless it is wide open on both ends.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Appreciate the PIREP, Ren. That looks like an 85 HP Cub would do the job. C-90 would still be better at a little more horsepower, but kinda confirms what we thought about a Cub being a good option.

About what was the temp that day?
Click to expand...

Probably 85 or 90F. That cub has clipped wings... I think 6ft less wingspan. A regular cub would takeoff in less distance. If you added a small child the performance would probably be about equal to my solo flight in this video with the clipped wings.

BTW I verified that 550' with google maps. I think that number is pretty accurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
dell30rb said:
Probably 85 or 90F. That cub has clipped wings... I think 6ft less wingspan. A regular cub would takeoff in less distance. If you added a small child the performance would probably be about equal to my solo flight in this video with the clipped wings.

BTW I verified that 550' with google maps. I think that number is pretty accurate.
Click to expand...

Thanks. An 85-100 HP Cub seems like what we'll likely end up gravitating towards. If it's much above 90 we're probably not going to fly anyway - be too hot out to make it enjoyable.
 
N3368K said:
Absolutely right. I could and did easily land my Swift in under 1000' but never on a short runway simply because it would have never flown back out. At even lightest weights and on a cool day, it took 1000+' to get airborne with a fine pitched prop allowing it to turn up well. Mine had an O-300,so still relatively small engine. Even one with a Cont IO-360 and CS prop wouldn't be happy trying to operate out of 1000' unless it is wide open on both ends.
Click to expand...

I operate one with the cont IO-360 and CS prop out of a 2100' paved rwy sometimes. If I was landing there all the time I might be comfortable with 1800. But 1000', no way. I would say the takeoff roll, paved is about 1000' solo with half fuel.
 
Luscombe 8E with climb prop is still the better choice for inexpensive option, but I understand the appeal of a Cub. A Kitfox would be a good choice, but you want something vintage. Hard to beat a Luscombe.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Thanks. An 85-100 HP Cub seems like what we'll likely end up gravitating towards. If it's much above 90 we're probably not going to fly anyway - be too hot out to make it enjoyable.
Click to expand...

Leave the upper half of the door open an climb to altitude. It's very refreshing, that was one of my favorite things about flying the Grummans, being able to open the canopy on hot days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
FormerHangie said:
Leave the upper half of the door open an climb to altitude. It's very refreshing, that was one of my favorite things about flying the Grummans, being able to open the canopy on hot days.
Click to expand...

Works in the 414 too. :)

IMG_1429.JPG
 
N3368K said:
Absolutely right. I could and did easily land my Swift in under 1000' but never on a short runway simply because it would have never flown back out. At even lightest weights and on a cool day, it took 1000+' to get airborne with a fine pitched prop allowing it to turn up well. Mine had an O-300,so still relatively small engine. Even one with a Cont IO-360 and CS prop wouldn't be happy trying to operate out of 1000' unless it is wide open on both ends.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you had the prettiest plane at any field
 
I haven't done an update on this since the initial post, but since this is effectively the runway thread, but was inspired to after this weekend.

Back in November 2017 we had some friends over for the "Kansas Chainsaw Massacre" where we cut down just about all of the trees needed to clear the strip. I say just about all because there are a few more we'll probably cut down just to make it a bit wider in certain areas for a bit more safety margin. Also, the pond has some trees on the far side of it that I expect we'll cut to give some more room.

The hydraulic return line popped off the front end loader and it was beer-thirty that day, so we called it a day, although I didn't get to clear as many trees as I would like. Then a hydraulic ram went out on it, and so I had to get that replaced which was a whole fiasco. Cleared out the chopped trees, and then came the question of clearing stumps. I haven't made much progress on that yet, but we did get the bulldozer and that's the planned implement for clearing at least most of them.

There's a lot of work remaining on the runway, but I expect that this year we'll clear the tree stumps and get some prep work done to get the land such that it could actually support an aircraft landing on it - going over it with the roller, maybe some level of flattening/grading. And of course building the hangar and buying the airplane to put it in.

What prompted the update was that yesterday I took a video of driving the Farmall H up the runway, at least in its current state. You can see a lot of tree stumps sticking up. Obviously the trampoline will get moved, but no point in doing that now since we're a ways away from needing it.

Anyway, it's a long video as I was driving pretty slowly as I was towing the kids along on their sled behind me. But it's a nice peaceful video, and shows the runway. For reference, at the start of the video I show the end of the runway with a dirt pile (covered in snow) and then drive up. Note there's about a 3% grade, and I'm going the uphill direction, so this would be the direction I'd go landing. It's about 1,000 ft.

With the snow yesterday, that convinced us that we should think about skis for whatever we end up getting.

Enjoy!

 
N659HB said:
Luscombe 8E with climb prop is still the better choice for inexpensive option, but I understand the appeal of a Cub. A Kitfox would be a good choice, but you want something vintage. Hard to beat a Luscombe.
Click to expand...
Dare I say it on an aviation forum... I'm not a fan of Cubs! I don't like getting in them, I don't like sitting in them for very long, I don't even like flying them much! I do like the doors...

I've had a couple of Luscombes and flown quite a few of them. I really like the ones with wing tanks. The ones with fuselage tanks are a bit cramped for me.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Dare I say it on an aviation forum... I'm not a fan of Cubs! I don't like getting in them, I don't like sitting in them for very long, I don't even like flying them much! I do like the doors...

I've had a couple of Luscombes and flown quite a few of them. I really like the ones with wing tanks. The ones with fuselage tanks are a bit cramped for me.
Click to expand...

Since we're not really at a point of purchasing anything, it doesn't matter a whole lot what the airplane is, just that there are options that will fit the needs. There are, so we're good there. The rest of the project right now is the big thing.
 
With a downhill take off and clearing those obstacles, I see no reason a 120/140 wouldn't do ya, especially with a climb prop... Yea I'm biased and don't have others to compare it to, I wouldn't do it with many/any real obstacles to clear but if you can knock those down, there is no reason in the world you wouldn't be airborne to get out of there... The guys tell me with experience landing can be done in 3-400 feet. And if its for counting cows no reason a 5-6 GPH (depending on engine) you need to cart 25 gallons of petrol with ya... The C-85 with the 0-200 crank and other goodies on paper is still an 85hp, but most folks will say in practicality that isn't so, that the cost of getting the increased hp on paper for the STC would have made it impractical to do, so they don't claim any gain... Others I'm sure know more technicalities of that than I. 800s inflated to the lower end of acceptable range takes a lot of her bouncy reputation out of her...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top