Does anyone here have any Luscombe 8 experience, preferably with a 160hp o-320 stuffed in it? There are a couple on the market right now and they are in my price range ($25-40K usd) so I am interested in them. The useful load is pretty bad on these things, and I am wondering how much of a problem that is? They carry 30 gallons of fuel and apparently burn 6-8gph. Useful load with the o-320 is around 450lbs...

I am a student pilot seeking a taildragger to build hours in that will hopefully last me a year or two beyond my initial flight training. I don't want something with an anemic engine, but I can't afford to buy a Stinson 108-3 with a big engine quite yet. Having been in stock engined Cessna 120's, 140's and 150's I know those aren't going to be the best choice for the type of flying I want to do, which is flying in the back country going on camping trips with my wife. My wife says tandem aircraft are out, she wants to sit beside me.

Pacer's are too ugly

So that kind of leaves us looking for a big engined Luscombe's, 120's and 140's.

The Luscious is a good trainer and is a 100 mph airplane with the 65. It is not comfortable and doesn't carry much. In rough air it is worse than a J-3 because it is just as light and is way faster. A big heavy engine will make it difficult to fly slow enough for off airport.

A Pacer or Cessna would be more comfortable and carry more at the same speed. I owned PA22s for years because they were cheap and fast and hauled a good load in the high mountains.

Regardless of what you get, good mountain flying techniques will increase safety and capability much faster than a big engine. Big engines cost more initially and per hour. And they make it more difficult to learn good techniques.

I have no O320 Luscombe experience but for 10 years (only 350ish hours) I flew a C85 Luscombe and did lots of two person camping trips with it. A 320 is way more engine than is needed but it sure makes a rocket out of them. As you mentioned they have a tiny useful load, so small that you can't legally carry two people and full fuel. That's what ultimately kept us from installing a 320 when we rebuilt our 8E. The guys selling the planes are probity saying they can handle the weight, that's what the guys I talked to told me, but I didn't want to operate like that. I found the C85 to be totally adequate for playing in the hills when using the proper techniques in the right conditions. I never felt like I outgrew it from a performance standpoint. Only reason I sold it was because I wanted to take the whole family on camping trips.

My 8E had 511lbs useful, would carry 25gal of fuel, burn 3-6gph and cruise at 100mph. When out playing by myself and light I didn't start to sweat till the strips were under 1000' and when loaded to gross and carrying a passenger I liked to stick to 1500' runways or longer. Most of my flying is at 4500MSL and above.

I'd never recommend flying any airplane over gross weight but back a few years when Luscombes were trying to make a come back they were trying to up the gross weight to 1700lbs. I never heard about any engineering data on that number and the company went under before anything like that could happen. Still, I think buying an airplane with the intent to fly it over gross weight is poor decision making. A C85/90 or O200 powered Luscombe is pretty capable and will make you a better pilot that something with gobs of power.

I do have a handful of hours in a O-320 powered Luscombe. Between the heavier engine and the ballast weight in the tail, the legal useful load is pretty low (Some folks worry about such things, and some folks don't). It's a decent (but not outstanding) performer.

My biggest complaint is that the cabin is quiet tight; it makes a Cessna 140 seem roomy. I'm biased, but in your price range for your mission, I'd look at Citabrias. I know the wife says tandem seating is a no go - Have her sit in a Luscombe next to you and then in a Citabria; she might change her mind.

Edit: I have also flown a O-290 powered Cessna 140. Everyone has different preferences, but I liked it better than the O-320 powered Luscombe (although not nearly as much as a Citabria).

Find yourself an Aeronca Sedan. It is: very roomy inside, rugged, STOL performance, easy to fly and maintain, and pretty on the eyes, supported by Burls Aircraft. About the only thing it is not is fast. Floats can be installed with no mods. Your lady will love the size of the cabin. When your ready to upgrade, skip the Stinson and get Burls O-360 lycoming conversion, and you will be very impressed. The Sedan is often overlooked and undervalued in my opinion. I often see them selling in the price range you mentioned. I have experience with owning and flying both a stock Sedan as well as as the 180hp conversion on floats and wheels, so let me know if I can provide you with more information. Also go to Burls Aircraft at www.burlac.com and see what is available for the Sedan, I think you will be pretty impressed. Burl has almost every part available brand new or he will even build you a brand new Sedan.

I would build on what Contact and Whee have stated. I owned a Cessna 140 with a C85 for many years in Alaska while building my tailwheel hours. My wife and I flew that sweet ship all over Alaska for fishing and camping adventures. The low power of the C85 taught me valuable lessons on how to properly manage energy, which I continue to use daily. The low weight capacity taught my wife about packing carefully and conservatively for a trip; a lesson that she quickly forgot after we bought the Cessna 185! The Cessna 140 was a reliable aircraft that was inexpensive to operate and maintain, fun to fly, and taught me good tailwheel discipline.

I love the Luscombe 8; it is a beautiful flying machine. However, I think the additional weight of the 0320 and tail ballast would make the aircraft a marginal performer for your desired backcountry use. If the Luscombe is the airplane you really want, I would suggest you stay with the C85.

Thank you for all of the responses guys. It seems that the Luscombe is out.

In regards to the low power aircraft to learn better piloting skills - I understand where you guys are coming from in that recommendation. My interest in the extra power is not to over come poor decision making or general ham fistedness, but rather to make higher DA operations a safer option.

As for the tight cabin, my wife actually thinks that is "fun". I know you might be thinking that that will won't last a few hour flight, you might be surprised... I would definitely prefer a larger cabin, I'm not too partial to tandems myself, so if the wife doesn't like them then it's not worth pursuing.
I've actually looked into Citabrias as well, but same useful (useless?) load situation as the Luscombe.

The Aeronca Sedan looks pretty interesting, I'm not sure why I haven't looked into those more. Perhaps it was the wood? I'll do a bit more digging around on those. How are they for AD's and such? What do you need to look out for?

I'm going to start looking at 140's a bit more now as well.

FYI- Skywagons.com in Placerville CA has a 1947 8E (150 HP 0-320) for sale. The empty weight is 834 lbs with a 1400 lb gross leaving a useful load of 566 which is higher that you thought. It might work for you.

My dad has a 120 with an O-290. I spent the first few hundred hours of my PPL in that plane when I was 17-18 years old. Of course I'm biased but if I was looking for a small two place this is what I would get, or a 140 of course. It's a great performer with that engine and a lot of fun to fly. Climbs in excess of 1000fpm and cruises at 125mph. With that said, it's going to be tight for 2 and your gear, a 170, Pacer, Stinson 108, or Aeronca Sedan would be better for that mission.

bcp2012 wrote:FYI- Skywagons.com in Placerville CA has a 1947 8E (150 HP 0-320) for sale. The empty weight is 834 lbs with a 1400 lb gross leaving a useful load of 566 which is higher that you thought. It might work for you.

There is an error somewhere on that ad. That airplane should weigh about 75-100lbs more then it does. I kind of think the claimed useful load was based on the original engine empty numbers.

TheMachinist1 wrote:

bcp2012 wrote:FYI- Skywagons.com in Placerville CA has a 1947 8E (150 HP 0-320) for sale. The empty weight is 834 lbs with a 1400 lb gross leaving a useful load of 566 which is higher that you thought. It might work for you.

There is an error somewhere on that ad. That airplane should weigh about 75-100lbs more then it does. I kind of think the claimed useful load was based on the original engine empty numbers.

Yeah, somethings not right there. Our 8E was 889lbs empty and all the Luscombe guys were always giving me a hard time about forgetting to weigh the tail. High 800s is about as light as an all metal, electric equipt Luscombe gets.

Machinest1, What kind of DAs are we talking about? I guess "safer" is a matter of perspective. One instructor I flew with squealed like a little girl, literally, when flying within 500ft of terrain while most of us on BCP feel safe when working much closer than that.

Here's a crummy video of me departing Hidden Splendor (4830msl and 1900ft) with my wife, camping gear and 20gal of fuel.


I admit that I'm the local Luscombe fanboy. Rob is right that a 120/140 would be a fine plane and I think Hammer also had a 140 with a O290 that he flew all over with his wife and camping gear. You can get a Luscombe with a O290 also

For that kind of money you can get a really good Taylorcraft F-19 or maybe an F-21 if one comes up. The Taylorcraft is always one of the "best bang for the buck" airplanes. The O-200 and O-235 versions (F-19 and F-21 respectively) are very good STOL airplanes. If you happen to find an F-22 version, they are highly desirable because the airframes were built (in small numbers) with 118, 150 and 180HP Lycomings. So you can take an F-22 and bolt on an O-320 with a somewhat easier paperwork battle for a 337 or one-shot STC.

The Taylorcraft is also the most "glider-like" of all the old fabric taildraggers, and as such it can make the best use of all the energy management and "free energy" concepts that Contact Flying has spoken about. Ridge lift, thermals, ground effect, and all that sort of stuff works very well in the T-craft.

I was told by someone who would know that the majority of Aeronca Sedans are working and playing up in Alaska where they are very much desired (for the reasons previously mentioned). You chances of finding a cheap Sedan are not exceptionally high.

If you can get over your (incorrect, BTW) prejudice against Pacers, I know of a really good experimental Pacer project that was being put together by a well qualified guy (Skunk Works engineer, multiple airplane owner, aviation family). Hanging in a dry desert hangar, several innovative (but not extreme) bush/STOL mods. And it's cheap. Since it's not mine I cannot post an ad for it here, PM me if you are interested.

I have over 100 hrs in a 160hp Luscombe. Legal useful load is not high, but the airplane is very capable. 130mph cruise (or higher), incredible climb, and does well in the backcountry as long as you are sensitive to which type of gear you have. The original gear can be a weak point, but the silflex gear or normal gear with ski tubes will be more than strong enough for most "backcountry" runways. They can be bought relatively cheap and you would be hard pressed to find a more reliable engine. Just my two cents

DA's up to 8500 or so in the summer. But most of my operations would be quite a bit lower. Just so I am clear, I do not NEED the larger engine, it is just a WANT, along with things like larger brakes, a corrosion free airframe etc.

A quick scan shows little in the way of Aeronca Sedans on the market, but I will keep any eye out.

I'll look into the Taylor Crafts.

I'd rather be flying something I didn't find aesthetically pleasing rather than not flying at all, so you have an inbound PM Ezflap.

There’s almost as many right ways to do things as there are wrong ways to do them, but here are a few things you might consider for a first airplane:

You've got to crawl before you can walk...EVERYONE wants to start out with a lot more airplane than they actually need. They look forward to what they eventually want to do with an airplane, not what they’re actually going to be doing with it for the next few years. Your plans are a lot more realistic than some peoples, but you might still be looking a bit too far down the road.

As a very low time pilot, it’s going to be a while before you start landing at high DA backcountry strips, or even low DA backcountry airstrips, with or without a load. Everyone progresses differently and it’s impossible to give a hard number, but it’s reasonable to expect you’ll be doing a couple hundred hours of frontcountry flying before you have the skills to start taking on easy backcountry strips with your wife and camping gear.

Yes, you do need a certain amount of power to utilize backcountry airstrips. But you also need a lot more flight experience than you’ll have in 2017, or probably 2018, and very possibly 2019, depending in large part on how much you can afford to fly.

What you really need for the next few hundred flight hours isn’t load hauling or climb performance, it’s an airplane you can afford to fly and fly and fly…and fly. What exactly that is depends on your budget, but you’ll get into the backcountry a lot faster if you start out in a tiny airplane you can afford to fly four hours a week than in a larger airplane you can only afford to fly four hours a month.

I’m a big proponent of starting out in a small, anemic, affordable airplane that doesn’t have the performance or load capacity to do backcountry camping trips at anything much above sea level. The primary reason being that you'll learn about air movement in a way you simply won't in a more powerful airplane. Also, it’s more affordable, so you fly more, and more often. But a very valid third reason is that most people benefit from having limiting factors placed on them during flight training.

Put a new pilot who wants to fly the backcountry in a high-performance airplane and it’s almost inevitable that sooner or later they’re going to try something well over their head because “the airplane is up for it”. Engine power never has and never will compensate for poor decision making, though it’s been a contributing factor to more poor decisions than most folks realize. And there's a WHOLE lot more to operating at high DA's in the mountains than horsepower.

Consider buying a two-seater with 100hp or less and then fly it a few hundred hours before worrying about camping with the wife. It’ll make you a better pilot, save you a wheelbarrow full of cash, and frankly be a lot more fun than starting off with a more powerful airplane.

If that’s just not your style, it would appear that your budget might get you into a stock Cessna 170, at least an A model. Something to look at, anyway.

Also, before you buy anything, get an insurance quote. You’re going to be paying the very highest premiums, and for no obvious reason some airplanes are dramatically more expensive to insure than others.

Take your time, go slow. Don't expect your first airplane to check all the boxes...if it does, it's probably the wrong airplane to start with.

I have a 140 with an O-290-D2, 140 hp. It performs very well and I'm quite happy with it. It is tight with two but definitely doable. I see them for sale with the O-290 every now and then. You may want to check out:

https://www.cessna120-140.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=5

Also, if you go with a 140 try to get a 140A.

I very much agree with what Hammer said. I was always in a position where I flew a lot. If you do something else "in real life," you need to find a way to fly a lot.

Make all takeoffs low ground effect and all landings on the numbers. It needs to be muscle memory. Always know which way is down drainage and evaluate where the ridge lift will be, even if you don't use it. Practice Dutch rolls to 45 degrees bank for when you need to quickly turn steeply to miss things. Make 1g energy management turns to target your normal turn. Fly around quite a bit with your hands off the stick. Learning not to overuse aileron is difficult once it becomes habit.

If you're going to look at a Tcraft (which is what I'd recommend as well) try to look at one with the Gilbertti STC...1500 gross, 85hp. It'll give you one of the highest useful loads out there, and you'll see over 100 in cruise. They're quite a machine.
John

hardtailjohn wrote:If you're going to look at a Tcraft (which is what I'd recommend as well) try to look at one with the Gilbertti STC...1500 gross, 85hp. It'll give you one of the highest useful loads out there, and you'll see over 100 in cruise. They're quite a machine.
John

This, 100%. The Tcraft I fly a bit has 625 lbs of legal useful with a C90 on 8.50's. That's myself, my wife, the (75lb) dog, 4 hours of fuel with 100lbs to spare for gear & equipment. Off the ground in well under 1000' on a standard day, much less in the winter.

Thank you for all the advise guys.

I'll be keeping an eye out for Taylorcrafts and Aeronca sedans, there isn't much on the market right now.

I did some more digging into Cessna 120's and 140's. They have about the same useful load as the Luscombe. I'd really like to have over 550lbs useful.

I've been looking more into the pacers, and I think they fit my mission well. There are a couple of o320 160hp models on the market that have a 2000lb gross, which gives you around 850lbs useful. Fuel burn around 9.5gph, which is fine with me, and the aircraft themselves are cheap at the lower end of my budget.