Thinking About an Old Taildragger

Ted

The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
30,006
Display Name

Display name:
iFlyNothing
We live out in the middle of nowhere farm country with 11 acres, rectangular, east/west is the wide part. There's a slight hill on our property. We can have about a 1,000 ft strip as a "one way in, one way out" arrangement, more or less a 9/27. We're outside of the Mode C veil. Nice place to go fly around and count cows.

For some time, the thought had been to make a ~450 ft strip and build a Zenith, since that only requires cutting down around 5 trees. To get to the full 1,000 ft requires another 20 or so trees (some of which are going to be a bit of a pain). But after thinking about it we realized that 1) we really wanted an old taildragger, not a new tricycle gear and 2) cutting down trees is easier and faster than building an airplane. Plus, more runway = more options for friends to visit since a lot of planes can get in and out of 1,000 ft, but almost none can get in and out of 450 ft.

So now, the question, what to buy? Requirements as follows:

1) Must be an old 2-seat taildragger (older than 1960)
1a) @jesse 's FlyBaby is therefore not an option
2) Must be side-by-side seating
3) Stick preferred, although not mandatory
4) Electrical system preferred, but not required. We live close to the Mode C veil and the 414 is based at a Class D within the Bravo, so we'd need an electrical system to easily get up there legally. Coms and ADS-B. Battery could be an alternate.
4a) Or am I backwards on that? I've never had to know about regs for planes without electrical systems, do we end up better off with a plane with no electrical system and then able to just use a handheld?

Goal is something that we can take one of the kids up in and just go count cows and have fun, let them start to learn to fly some. Basically the polar opposite of the 414.

@Laurie likes J-4s. I know nothing about them, but they're appealing. The only old taildragger of this sort that I ever flew in was an old 140 at Tony's wedding, which I did really like. But I imagine they're all similarly fun. Laurie thought that the 140s were more prone to ground looping. I have effectively 0 tailwheel time so something less prone to ground looping would be better.

Alright, have at it. What should we buy?
 
That guy that posts 5 planes for sale just put one up awhile ago. Take a look, might see if one appeals to you. J-4s cool, Taylorcraft, Luscombes, C120....
 
Last edited:
All taildraggers can groundloop. You need to be good, and they won't. Thats what makes them fun. Pilot "saves the day" on every landing. 1000' is SHORT. I'd get a Supercub. They made one with side by side seating. It was a side by side Supercub. Get one with a big engine.

Get an experienced short field taildragger guy to come out and look. 1000' with trees, one way in, no go around and new taildragger pilot. Thats a lot of hazards my friend.
 
Side by side...

Well Cessna 140, or hopped up 120
luscomb
Chief
Wide body PA18 if you want to get $$$
Smaller maule
Not a 2 seater, but a S108 would work well too
 
Get an experienced short field taildragger guy to come out and look. 1000' with trees, one way in, no go around and new taildragger pilot. Thats a lot of hazards my friend.

The one way in has to do with the hill, not obstacles. There's a significant (although not steep) incline, just enough to help make takeoffs and landings a good bit easier. Go-arounds are just fine, too. Obstacles are 20-30 ft.

My wife's not new to taildraggers at all - spent plenty of time flying them. I haven't gotten my endorsement yet, even though it's been on the list. So, good reason to do it.
 
One thing I know nothing about is Franklin engines, which some of the airplanes we're looking at have. I know they're older/rarer than a standard Continental 75/85/O-200 or a Lycoming O-235, but I assume still easy enough to service/maintain?
 
One thing I know nothing about is Franklin engines, which some of the airplanes we're looking at have. I know they're older/rarer than a standard Continental 75/85/O-200 or a Lycoming O-235, but I assume still easy enough to service/maintain?
Parts are sketchy. Univair is your friend.
 
Ted, Matt maintained a few of those when he was at Moraine. Remember cylinder replacements on one, he might be a good resource as well.
 
Piper PA-16 Clipper has stick controls, and a panel big enough to accommodate the avionics you need. Four seats, but yank out the back seat to keep it light enough for your 1,000' strip.
 
ces1403.jpg ces1404.jpg cub 1.png cub 3.png cub 2.png cub 9.png I have a couple of old taildtaggers. Why do you want side by side seating? It is preference but I have both and everyone prefers the J-3 over the Cessna 140. You can see the cows much better in the J-3 because it is narrow and you see excellent out of both sides. I love my J-3 and 140 for different reasons. The 140 has a 0-200 and cruises around 115 so you can do some nice little trips. The J-3 is 65HP and cruises 65 mph so just to toot around it is very hard to beat. My wife likes being in the front of the J-3 because she has her own space. She hates the side by side seating in the 140. She has been in it twice and will probably never get in it again. As the above post the Clipper is a cool bird because it has sticks. Here are a few pics.... I'm gonna talk you into a Cub :)
 
Most common two place side by side with sticks would be a Luscombe. Lots more choices in the Experimental world if you are open to it(Avid, Kitfox, Just, and more).

You might think about a four place flown lightly loaded. PA-16 Clippers are the only four place certified with sticks that comes to mine. I have seen some with 0-320's that would be respectable performers light.

If the aircraft never in its life had an engine driven electrical system you do not need a mode C transponder or ADSB to operate in the Mode C veil around Class B. Note it is a charging system restriction; you can have an electric starter with a total loss battery system or some other(wind/solar) on board generating system. I built and fly my Bearhawk LSA in the Phoenix Mode C veil out of a Class D airport with only a starter and an EarthX battery. I charge the battery every 15 hours or so as it also keeps my handheld and tablet charged in flight.

I owned a Stinson 108 with a 150 HP Franklin. Great airplane and never had an issue with the engine. However, if you do not have access to non Ethanol auto fuel, you have to run the engine hard(throttle full forward at takeoff and pull it back when abeam the numbers for landing) and use TCP religiously to keep lead from causing issues with the exhaust valves. Not hard on the engine but pretty much meant fuel burn was 10G/hr.

You also need to be willing to learn and closely supervise any engine work as there are subtle differences to adhere to. Follow the factory manual and all will be well. Do things the same way as an 0-320 and you will be sorry. The main "unobtanium" part is the crankshaft. Spark plugs are also peculiar to the Franklin and while they can be had new from the typical vendors they are fairly pricey. Franklin Engine Company in Jewett, TX pretty much has everything else.

Univair owns the type certificate for the Stinson so airframe parts are easily available.
 
Kitfox or Just Aircraft Superstol would be my vote as long as you’re open to experimentals
 
Parts are sketchy. Univair is your friend.

Never had a problem finding anything for my old Stinson, if you can use a computer and have a interconnection you should be able to find whatever you need.
 
Kitfox or Just Aircraft Superstol would be my vote as long as you’re open to experimentals
A pre 60s kitfox might be difficult to find.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Why side by side? A stick and rudder taildragger is better in a tandem configuration. Equal view out both sides is what it's all about. A Cub is a fun plane. Supercubs are super fun. A PA-12 or J5 would give you a three passenger option or better yet, a roomier seat for one passenger. A stock engine would get in and out of 1000' easily. With a 150hp the 450' would work fine. I've used my C-180 and PA-12 in and out of 1000' with 100' trees on one end for 25 years. Usually I don't need more than half. And all the ground loop rhetoric is no worry. Fly the airplane straight and it'll go straight.

Rans makes some fun toy airplanes. The S7 for tandem or the S20 for side by side. Cool airplanes.
 
Last edited:
A Luscombe would be a great option with the patrol door stc. My father has an 8A that is a hoot to fly. I would suggest looking at an 8E though as 1k feet is too short for an 8A in anything but standard conditions. You will also need to perfect your slipping skills as they have no flaps.

A pacer would be another option for you. Might take some mods to operate out of 1k feet but it's roomy by other vintage side by side airplanes.
 
We live close to the Mode C veil and the 414 is based at a Class D within the Bravo, so we'd need an electrical system to easily get up there legally.
Um. No. Unless the 414 is actually inside the B and not just under it. You will, of course, want a radio of some kind to talk to yea olde tower.
"91.215... (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, any aircraft which was not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, balloon or glider may conduct operations in the airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part provided such operations are conducted—"... Similar words for ADS-B.

I've covered a fair amount of ground in a C-85 Cessna 120. Trying to climb out over any kind of obstacle on a hot day when near gross is, well, um, something to be concerned about. Same with an A-65 Taylorcraft. "I think we're climbing, what do you think?"
 
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.
 
First off, no experimentals for this. As noted, it's hard to find one made before 1960. Point is an old taildragger... because old taildragger.

I have a couple of old taildtaggers. Why do you want side by side seating? It is preference but I have both and everyone prefers the J-3 over the Cessna 140. You can see the cows much better in the J-3 because it is narrow and you see excellent out of both sides. I love my J-3 and 140 for different reasons. The 140 has a 0-200 and cruises around 115 so you can do some nice little trips. The J-3 is 65HP and cruises 65 mph so just to toot around it is very hard to beat. My wife likes being in the front of the J-3 because she has her own space. She hates the side by side seating in the 140. She has been in it twice and will probably never get in it again. As the above post the Clipper is a cool bird because it has sticks. Here are a few pics.... I'm gonna talk you into a Cub :)

Here's the thought process, feel free to poke holes in it.

Our son turns 5 on Sunday, girls turn 3 in December. Right now what we're looking for is something that we can more easily take them flying in, let them have some stick time, MAKE SURE THEY DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING THEY SHOULDN'T, and be able to easily communicate with them, etc. Side by side works best for that. I let them fly up front in the 414 and unfortunately a lot of it ends up being "Don't touch that!" (putting flaps down at FL190, etc.).

My wife and I both love the idea of a tandem (and especially a Cub), and I think that eventually we'd end up with one. My thought is we probably start out with side-by-side and then likely change to tandem (or add to the fleet?) when the kids get older.

A Luscombe would be a great option with the patrol door stc. My father has an 8A that is a hoot to fly. I would suggest looking at an 8E though as 1k feet is too short for an 8A in anything but standard conditions. You will also need to perfect your slipping skills as they have no flaps.

A pacer would be another option for you. Might take some mods to operate out of 1k feet but it's roomy by other vintage side by side airplanes.

Laurie likes Luscombes (I know nothing about them, so by default I do as well). She has concerns about the ground looping potential of them. She's got much more tailwheel time than I do, but we're both good sticks and it's not like we're going to let the kids just land the thing on the 1,000 ft strip tomorrow (that'd be hard since it's not even built yet) - that's YEARS off. I think we could be pursuaded.

Um. No. Unless the 414 is actually inside the B and not just under it. You will, of course, want a radio of some kind to talk to yea olde tower.
"91.215... (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, any aircraft which was not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, balloon or glider may conduct operations in the airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part provided such operations are conducted—"... Similar words for ADS-B.

I've covered a fair amount of ground in a C-85 Cessna 120. Trying to climb out over any kind of obstacle on a hot day when near gross is, well, um, something to be concerned about. Same with an A-65 Taylorcraft. "I think we're climbing, what do you think?"

So given that, no electrical system is actually preferable it sounds. Keep it simple and then just have a handheld for 2-way communication with the tower, probably add an antenna to help make that communication better. Already have a portable battery powered intercom. This is an area of the regs I've never had to know since everything I've flown has had an electrical system, so I appreciate the edumacation. This is approximately the route to where the 414 lives:

upload_2017-9-26_8-44-12.png

We'll have to traverse the OJC delta (or go over/around it), and MKC is located under the bravo shelf, but not in the bravo itself.

I think 90 HP is about the minimum we'd want, 100+ HP is preferable. 4 cylinder is what we're thinking, although one of the 6-cylinder Franklins or an O-300 would probably be fine.

Another point I forgot to mention is that 100 MPH power cruise would be nice to have. Laurie's job involves her going to Wichita regularly (Jabara), this would shave about an hour each way off the commute. When counting cows and playing around pull it back and go slower.

We do have access to ethanol free MoGas around here, it's actually not hard to find and a lot of my friends with experimentals use it. I would definitely prefer that to 100LL in one of these old things - just better for the engine.

Also at this point no plans for aerobatics. If we ever decide to do that, it'll be a different airplane altogether. Goal with this is simple and fun.
 
I'm sure you've considered it, but what about a little 2-place helicopter if you just want to count cows? Maybe a Rotorway. Then you don't even need to build a runway.
 
From the time my kid could reach the yoke I encouraged her to help me. When she could reach the pedals? Better yet. Removing the rear stick and snapping a stick cover on is simple. Removing or shrouding the throttle is, too. Don’t overthink it.
 
Side by side...

Well Cessna 140, or hopped up 120
luscomb
Chief
Wide body PA18 if you want to get $$$
Smaller maule
Not a 2 seater, but a S108 would work well too

Not a chance I would fly my 140 off of a 1000' strip unless there were no obstacles at either end. On a warm day, coming out of a 2000' strip, I feel like I barely clear the trees. That is a standard 85hp plane with a climb prop. As far as a hopped up 120, the 120s have the same engine as a 140, so maybe a hopped up 140 would work as well. They look funny when putting some of the bigger engines in them though. The engine sits lower in the cowling.

I do like the suggestion of a Chief. I flew one for a few hundred hours and never worried about having it overloaded and I flew it out of some very short strips with passengers. It would get off the ground and climb well, just wouldn't go over 85mph during cruise! I also had better climb performance in my Luscombe than I do in my 140. A factory metal wing Luscombe, even with a 65hp engine would climb nicely.
 
ces1404-jpg.56607
I like the observer doors on your 140. I think my plane needs them!
 
I'm sure you've considered it, but what about a little 2-place helicopter if you just want to count cows? Maybe a Rotorway. Then you don't even need to build a runway.

Yeah, don't really want a helicopter, although we've discussed the option. Experimental helicopters are verboten in our household (the kit you get is an NTSB report), and the certified ones are way too expensive.

From the time my kid could reach the yoke I encouraged her to help me. When she could reach the pedals? Better yet. Removing the rear stick and snapping a stick cover on is simple. Removing or shrouding the throttle is, too. Don’t overthink it.

I probably am overthinking it to some degree. But also need to buy what'll make my wife and me comfortable flying with the kids. More discussions to be had for sure.

Not a chance I would fly my 140 off of a 1000' strip unless there were no obstacles at either end. On a warm day, coming out of a 2000' strip, I feel like I barely clear the trees. That is a standard 85hp plane with a climb prop. As far as a hopped up 120, the 120s have the same engine as a 140, so maybe a hopped up 140 would work as well. They look funny when putting some of the bigger engines in them though. The engine sits lower in the cowling.

I do like the suggestion of a Chief. I flew one for a few hundred hours and never worried about having it overloaded and I flew it out of some very short strips with passengers. It would get off the ground and climb well, just wouldn't go over 85mph during cruise! I also had better climb performance in my Luscombe than I do in my 140. A factory metal wing Luscombe, even with a 65hp engine would climb nicely.

That's good info to have. One thing I was wondering was what the difference is between the 140 and 120. I did see a 120 with a hopped up engine (forget the exact power) that looked like a good potential. If a stock 140 should be off the list then that's no problem, we definitely want to prioritize short field performance as first for obvious reasons.
 
Oh, and slips are no problem for me, as anyone who's seen me fly the Aztec or a Navajo can attest.
 
Is 1000 feet of runway enough for any of these little old low powered aircraft?

You want to count cows, you need forward visibility. How about a Kolb Mark III? You may not have to cut those trees after all.

9eb5773e08e1a0d614d0ccd7953d2b08.jpg


The wings fold, you can put it in the barn when you're not flying it.
 
One thing I was wondering was what the difference is between the 140 and 120. I did see a 120 with a hopped up engine (forget the exact power) that looked like a good potential. If a stock 140 should be off the list then that's no problem, we definitely want to prioritize short field performance as first for obvious reasons.

A 120 doesn't have flaps, came without the "D" window behind the door, most of them didn't have electrical. Today, almost all of them have had electrical added, a lot have the "D" window added, so the only way to spot them is the lack of flaps. Early 140s and 120s came with C-85, later 140s had an optional C-90, but that didn't help much (I've had both). The 140As mostly had O-200s and that seems to be about the right horsepower, they also had flaps that were big enough to be effective!

The book says for takeoff, 750' ground roll, 1950 for takeoff over a 50' obstacle. Not what I'd call much of a short field plane, but some may argue about this. I've got a lot of time in mine and going into my friend's 2000 foot strip has me on my toes, coming out is even more fun!
 
A 120 doesn't have flaps, came without the "D" window behind the door, most of them didn't have electrical. Today, almost all of them have had electrical added, a lot have the "D" window added, so the only way to spot them is the lack of flaps. Early 140s and 120s came with C-85, later 140s had an optional C-90, but that didn't help much (I've had both). The 140As mostly had O-200s and that seems to be about the right horsepower, they also had flaps that were big enough to be effective!

I think the 120/140 is probably off the list anyway if they're not very good at short field, but good info there.

Is 1000 feet of runway enough for any of these little old low powered aircraft?

You want to count cows, you need forward visibility. How about a Kolb Mark III? You may not have to cut those trees after all.

9eb5773e08e1a0d614d0ccd7953d2b08.jpg


The wings fold, you can put it in the barn when you're not flying it.

Yes, 1,000 ft should be fine provided we pick correctly.

Experimentals are off the list. I agree that looks like fun, but not what we're looking for. It's like saying that you want a 1940s Ford pickup and going and getting Jesse's new F-150 Ecoboost instead.
 
A 1000 feet side by side that goes 100. Sure it's possible. Having said that, I fly a J5 with 100HP a lot and while 1000' is doable with a second person and full fuel not interested in that nonsense at all. On a hot day 1000 feet would seem short with me (I am a big guy) and half fuel. Add in obstacles and again I will pass. It wont go 100 MPH going downhill so that isn't going to happen. I love that airplane and the 100HP makes it pretty capable but I like a little margin for error built in.
 
Luscombe 8E with modified landing gear. Wing tanks make it a reasonable cross country machine. Fun to fly.

What does the modified landing gear change?
 
A 1000 feet side by side that goes 100. Sure it's possible. Having said that, I fly a J5 with 100HP a lot and while 1000' is doable with a second person and full fuel not interested in that nonsense at all. On a hot day 1000 feet would seem short with me (I am a big guy) and half fuel. Add in obstacles and again I will pass. It wont go 100 MPH going downhill so that isn't going to happen. I love that airplane and the 100HP makes it pretty capable but I like a little margin for error built in.

Certainly agree that there's margin aspects to consider, and that's part of the purpose of this thread. Figure out a plane that's going to handle the short field aspects the best since that's the priority. The hill aspect is going to help without a doubt. I'm not sure the exact slope, but it is absolutely noticeable. My wife and I are more or less FAA standard people weight wise, and the mission will be one of us with one kid at a time and low fuel because we're just counting cows. I realize none of these things have a lot of useful load, but we're not trying to pack it full.

The plane I normally fly is the 414. It's a runway hog and I'm all about runway margin with that. My preference with it is 5,000+ ft, and if I can get 7,000 ft, I'm happiest. I can also get it down and stopped in well under 2,000 ft easily. I used to have the 310 based out of a 2800 ft runway, it was previously based at a 2900 ft runway with obstacles for 25 years (I flew it in and out of a 2900 ft runway with 75 ft trees, too - @Grum.Man 's home field). Shortest I ever flew the 310 on was 1900 x 25. So I'm also familiar with short field flying. In this case, the runway length is a constraint because of our property. So really the point is figuring out which aircraft will best fit. This is also about fun flying, so if it's too hot we probably won't be flying anyway.

Too hot that the performance would be uncomfortable? Don't fly (although we want to pick the right plane for that). Wet runway? Don't fly. Don't feel like it? Don't fly. etc. Not trying to overthink it. When I'm flying the 414 it's about going places on a schedule (since for Cloud Nine we ARE on a schedule). This is effectively the polar opposite mission.
 
What does the modified landing gear change?

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.
 
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.

Got it. Yeah, I like stronger gear.
 
A older Cessna 150 with the 150hp conversion in tailwheel might work.


Or of you want the easy answer, get a big engine skywagon, Robertson STOL, rock it pickup style (just front seats) so she's just a 2 seater, and that'll do er'

IMG_1589.jpG
 
Back
Top