Old original Pacer gear was a little narrower than the new conversions if I remember correctly. Anything you convert now will have the wider gear, and allignment is definitely crucial as it would be with any gear. Iceman

A friend of mine is building a champ from the frame up. I was thinking that using a Lycoming 0-235 with the 125hp high compression pistons would basically make it a (very) poor mans' super cub. Not a lot of cargo capacity, but plenty of economical power.

I've been looking at bigger planes for two years now, and in those two years I've noticed that I fly ten times more than my friends with larger airplanes. With gas going rapidly towards five bucks a gallon I'm starting to think I should just do the high compression conversion to my engine and call it good.

One of my more successful friends has a cessna 120 and a early model 180...just about the perfect combo if only I could afford two planes...

ravi wrote:One of my more successful friends has a cessna 120 and a early model 180...just about the perfect combo if only I could afford two planes...

If the 180 is on floats I would would have to agree a near perfect combo.

My perfect combo would be a Luscomb & a floating 185

Todd Giencke

ravi wrote: ................
I've been looking at bigger planes for two years now, and in those two years I've noticed that I fly ten times more than my friends with larger airplanes. .............

I've noticed the same thing.
Sounds like a couple pretty good ideas for your 140 and for your friend's Champ. I've seen a 7AC Champ with an O-235 Lyc, but I'm not sure about just how the paperwork was handled.
A guy doesn't need a lot of airplane to have fun,unless that having fun involves heavy hauling -- then there's no substitute for cubic inches.
Flying a lighter-duty airplane is kinda like shooting a 22 instead of a magnum-- maybe not real macho, but it sure is fun! And affordable to boot.

Eric

ravi,

Where can I get some info on putting those high compression pistons in an O-235? I have a 7AC/CONV with a Lyc O-235C2C and I would love to get some more power out of it. Will I still be able to use premiun auto gas?

Keith

I believe the certified engine HP upgrade is called a "sparrowhawk" ?

Or you can conctant Lycon http://www.lycon.com/ in Visalia, CA for one. There are many engine builder/rebuilders who are into eaking maximum performance from aircraft engines these days. Barrett is another http://www.bpaengines.com/site.html Mattituck is an old standard who will help you with performance too http://www.mattituck.com/


If I were you I would not hesitate to go experimental instead of certified.
I am planning to do something like you're talking about except I will be using an 0-320. I have champ fuselage and the Lyc engine for starters. The champ fuse will take the HP.

Experimental versus certificated: some recent mentions in the EAA e-newsletter leads me to believe that the FAA is gonna start cracking down on things like using a certificated aircraft's fuselage (like a Champ) as the basis for a amateur-built experimental. I believe the way they put it was that the fuselage would not count as part of the amateur-built 51% portion of the finished product. If you can convince the DAR or whoever that "no, it's not a Champ fuselage-- it just looks like one" great, more power to you.
I have a friend who wants to build an experimental Pacer- kinda like a Bushmaster or Producer, but with standard-length wings. He'll have trouble with this issue. Same as guys wanting to build clipwing T-Crafts, etc.
Check this article out:
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaane ... lease.html
(hope that's right)
I for one would like to see the FAA come up wuth an "owner maintained" category similar to what Canada has.But I doubt it's gonna happen, at least anytime in the forseeable future.

Eric

zero.one.victor wrote: cracking down on things like using a certificated aircraft's fuselage
Eric

I read the article you provided carefully and without mincing words, I concluded that there is not a single solitary thing in the article that would suggest that using a champ fuselage would negate the ability to claim the 51 percent rule. Nothing has changed, there is no crack down.
"This is not a new policy and does not prevent builders from using salvaged or new aircraft parts from other aircraft. It simply states that no fabrication or assembly credit will be given for work done on these parts to make them airworthy for use on an experimental aircraft."
I will be able to comply with the 51% rule.... no problem.
I will not be able to claim that I built the fuselage and indeed there is no need to. There is no need to with all the kit manufacturers who supply prebuilt components including fuselages. There will be plenty of other items to put in the 51% check list.
I hear your caution and I don't know to what degree the fellow wanting to put an 0-235 on his "Champ", what he is modifying or what other work he has to do or build or what he has to start off with but I would still advise that if it were possible...I would do it. That is...go experimental. Maybe he can't? I have no doubt I will be able to.

you should look for a taylorcraft or an L2[tandem tcraft milatary spotter] if you shop around you may find a J3CUB they are all great planes and you will not loose money on them. these planes are all verry cheep to build hours and have a slower aproach speed than the pacer ,verry nice on a short strip, I would go for these classic airplanes they are shure to gain value and you may get your tailweel time for free or even make money plus have a hell of a lot of fun.

Well I started this thread and have considered a lot of things. I just got back from Grahm, ID from a weekend of squirel shooting. If I sell the 182 and get a little tail wheel plane, I can kiss off doing that sort of thing with my 240 pound son in law.

I told him that I can not aford Beaver so he better not gain any weight.

A friend of mine wants to get a Pacer and would like a partner. This might be a good ticket to build time. The other option that was sugested was to just sell the 182 and buy a 180.

Many things to consider.

Tim

Tim,

Glad I'm not in your shoes. My personal experience comes from flying a number of Cessnas products, Piper a bit, Aeronca some. I did my tail wheel check out in a J3. Flew a rented Champ 20 or so hours, a bit of Super cub, PA12. Was out of tail wheel flying for about 5 years and then got into a ugly 180 for cheap. Loved the 180 a 54 model with the J engine. Refurb that airplane and flew it for a little shy of 5 years. About 125 hours total. The issue I came up against is keeping the skills up in Xwind. Mind you living in Eastern Oregon, wind blows all the time in the double digits with gusts. I have gone everywhere in my 1960 182 that I went in my 180. Best Xwind I ever did handle in the 180 was about 9 to 11 mph. I landed in Carson City rwy 27 a several weeks ago in the 182, wind was 350 @17 gusting to 28. I could have never done that in the 180. Now there a guys out there that I know can, but you can bet they fly a tail wheel airplane for a living and are in it every day. For me now the $4.50 a gallon for Av gas is cutting into fly time, mostly because of the $3.50 a gallon for car gas getting back and forth to work x 3 cars. May have to break out the bicycle.

My question to you would be where would you go in a 180 that you can't go in your 182?

Oh, I like the early 50's model 180s best. Mine always treated me well and flew true. $900 a year difference in insurance. Same hull value.

Tim, whatever you decide, good luck.

flyby wrote: ......
I read the article you provided carefully and without mincing words, I concluded that there is not a single solitary thing in the article that would suggest that using a champ fuselage would negate the ability to claim the 51 percent rule. Nothing has changed, there is no crack down.
........ I will be able to comply with the 51% rule,no problem.
I will not be able to claim that I built the fuselage and indeed there is no need to. There is no need to with all the kit manufacturers who supply prebuilt components including fuselages. There will be plenty of other items to put in the 51% check list.

The second paragraph on that webpage sez "Note: a rebuilt or repaired type-certificate aircraft DOES NOT meet the intent of 21.191(g) and DOES NOT meet the 21.191(g) requirement that the major portion of the aircraft
be fabricated and assembled."
Let's say I have a Champ fuselage, I add a 320, Cleveland wheels/ brakes,fat tires,enlarge the vertical stabilizer area,maybe add bungee-type gear, then cover and paint the beast. Wahlah, a fine lightweight fun airplane. Where's the 51%? Further down on that page, the FAA sez repair/cover/paint of certficated parts doesn't count. "..rebuilding restoring or any other work done to airframe components that were previously type-certificated will not count toward the majority-portion requirement of 21.191(g).."
I agree, this should be something that can be registered as an amateur-built aexperimental. But my take is that the FAA would not agree.
Alot would depend on the DAR or whoever inspects it for registration.
Re: hotrod O-235's, a guy I know just recently bought a Grumman Yankee. He sez it has a (125?) hoprsepower upgrade, by virtue of a different Sensenich prop. No engine work, nothing other than the prop and a remarked tach. Don't know if this is the "Sparrowhawk" mod or something different.

Eric

I have been reading this thread with interest and agree with most of you but still feel the need to speak in favor of the stinson. The nicest controls in the business, the most forgiving landing gear, Not a single bad habit in the air or on the ground. Give one a try.

Tim,

So if I understand this correctly, your ultimate goal is to replace the 182 with a 180 and the "starter tailwheel plane" is just a time builder for tailwheel time?

If that's the case, I'd take a little different tack than you are suggesting.

Having bought and sold way too many airplanes in the past, I can tell you that there are a lot of traps to run into when buying and selling planes. The process itself is also a significant hassle, and requires a LOT of time and money, if done right.

So here's what I'd do:

Go somewhere like Santa Paula, CA and hook up with Rich Stowell there. Get him to go through a tailwheel transition course with you in a Decathlon. Find some other places that have tailwheel airplanes and buy as much tailwheel time in a couple different aircraft as you can afford reasonably.

In the meantime, start the process of looking for a good 180 and selling the 182.

As soon as you find a good 180 to buy, find a really good 180 instructor, and hire them to work with you until you are pretty comfortable in the airplane. The 180 isnt' the best tailwheel airplane to start in, but its a good honest airplane, and if you have say 20 to 25 hours of really GOOD tailwheel quality instruction in other planes, the transition to the 180 won't be that hard.

What are the benefits of this tack? First, you only have to go through the buy and sell thing once each, as opposed to a couple times. That is a painful process, and If I never go through it again, I'll be happy. There are also ALWAYS little surprises (spelled $$$$) in buying an airplane, any airplane.

Also, you'll start fairly early in the process working in the 180, which is good. You can fly a Champ till you are blue in the face, but it will only go so far to prepare you for flying a 180. Twenty hours in Champs/Decathlons, etc will get you to the point of reasonable trainability in the 180 WITH A GOOD INSTRUCTOR.

Finally, if the 180 you have is a really good one, and you bought it right, AND it's the right model year, it can be converted to a 180. That will cost some fairly serious $$$ as well, but if you know what you've got.....it might be cheaper in the long run.

Just some thoughts. Personally, I wouldn't buy a small plane to prepare myself to fly a 180. I'd go find a good 180 and some very specific and good quality instruction. Don't skimp on the instruction, and build this expense into your cost estimates.

In otherwords, as they say in the movies....."Cut to the Chase, Dude"

MTV

While I don't disagree with the earlier posts I think one of the bigger sleepers out there is a good Stinson 108. With the 165 engine and not loaded too heavy 1100 feet is no problem. If it has a drawback, it is that it is not a fast airplane. Guess you could call it a poor mans 180. If you look they can be had for about 25k. An added plus-you will love the way they fly!

I will agree, but then I have to don't I.

A good Stinson is more in the range of 30 to 35 now. You can get them as low as 25, but they are not the really nice ones.

If you are interested I may be selling mine. 1400TT 125 smoh. Runs like a dream.

New fabric and always hangared.

Dane

So,
I guess I didn't do the right thing? My first tailwheel airplane was my first airplane and is the airplane I have now, A Maule M-6/235. I don't understand the move up theory, I think you will spend more money going through a couple of airplanes, instead of buying the one you want to begin with.

If you are interested I may be selling mine. 1400TT 125 smoh. Runs like a dream.

Ouch, Dane, what will you replace it with?

Looking to be in Homedale after the 1st, at the paint shop. I lost your phone number, so if you would pm me that agin I'll give you a call when I head over and we can make the trade.

see ya, Bub

I trained in a 152, flew many hours in a 172, then transitioned to a 170. It was fun.

180 insurance is expensive if you don't have a lot of tailwheel hours though.

Perhaps a little far from you, but in Quincy, Ca there is an interesting instructor named Johny Moore who does a lot of tail wheel instruction. He has both a 140 and a 180 on line, and a lot of hours in each. About 25k total hours, if I recall.

I went up there to see what he could teach me about mountain flying and got a good workout. I haven't actually been scared in a plane since basic flight training, but I can honestly say it was like doing steep turn stalls for the first time all over again. There's something about taking lessons from a man who thinks crop dusting is the easiest dollar in aviation...

Anyway, he might be a good resource for you if you decide to pay for tail wheel training and go straight to a 180.