Good evening,
Am a 300 pound pilot looking for what tailwheel aircraft might fit myself and 1-2 passengers. I have no tail wheel time or endorsement and currently fly a 172N with approx 150 hours.


Thanks
DAS

An Aeronca Sedan was recently posted on BCP that's been re-engine that would do nicely. Lots of interior space and gentle handling characteristic are hallmarks of the Sedan.

Do you have a budget? Where do you live? Where do you want to fly? (Tailwheel flying around Dallas, Tx – 500 feet MSL, flat country – you can get away with a lot less airplane than if you're talking about tailwheel flying in the Idaho backcountry...)

You've already found out with the 172 that whatever you fly heavy, you fly flat or downhill mostly. Good orientation whatever you fly heavy. Develop kinetic zoom reserve before you climb. When kinetic zoom is converted to zoom reserve in altitude, use vertical space available as needed.

Almost any airplane can fly most places if above is respected.

contactflying wrote: You've already found out with the 172 that whatever you fly heavy, you fly flat or downhill mostly. Good orientation whatever you fly heavy. Develop kinetic zoom reserve before you climb. When kinetic zoom is converted to zoom reserve in altitude, use vertical space available as needed. Almost any airplane can fly most places if above is respected.

This post reminded me of a guy I know who can work "back when I was flying the F14" into ANY conversation.

hotrod180 wrote:

contactflying wrote: You've already found out with the 172 that whatever you fly heavy, you fly flat or downhill mostly. Good orientation whatever you fly heavy. Develop kinetic zoom reserve before you climb. When kinetic zoom is converted to zoom reserve in altitude, use vertical space available as needed. Almost any airplane can fly most places if above is respected.

This post reminded me of a guy I know who can work "back when I was flying the F14" into ANY conversation.

Does he use his hands to re-enact dog fighting and refer to it as the “Big Fighter”? FWIW, even guys flying Super Hornets nowadays still somehow bring up “This one time in the Tomcat...” followed by sighs and eye rolls.

So back to the Aeronca Sedan ideal, keep in mind it's a "roundtail" and membership has privileges

I only know one 300 lb. tailwheel pilot. He bought a Denali Scout.

Not trying to be overly critical, but any 300 lb. pilot has to do some pretty good research, and not just ask for opinions, to take into account whether a given airplane will be out of CG with him and a more normal size (say around 180 lbs) passenger and empty back seats; whether the seat structure of a given airplane is designed for that amount of weight; whether the floor structure of a given airplane is designed for that amount of weight; and whether the girth of the pilot will prevent full operation of the yoke/stick with the seat sufficiently forward to provide full rudder control.

For one example, an earlier stock 182 will be out of forward CG with 480 lbs. in the front seats and nothing in the back seats or baggage area.

Just being able to get the number of souls into the airplane isn't enough.

Cary

Paddles wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:

contactflying wrote: You've already found out with the 172 that whatever you fly heavy, you fly flat or downhill mostly. Good orientation whatever you fly heavy. Develop kinetic zoom reserve before you climb. When kinetic zoom is converted to zoom reserve in altitude, use vertical space available as needed. Almost any airplane can fly most places if above is respected.

This post reminded me of a guy I know who can work "back when I was flying the F14" into ANY conversation.

hotrod180: lashes out at what he is unable to comprehend. Again. And again...

Just call me Lash.....