a64pilot wrote: I've been thinking about a C-120 or C-140 or a Luscombe. I've flown a 140, but I know very little about a Luscombe.
I'm looking for advice and not on just those two models either. They seem to be about the best values, but there may be reasons (bad ones) for that, that I'm unaware of.

A64...

They all fly nice. They all have quirks. They're all fun.

I don't know how old you are, but if you're a bit long on tooth and don't bend like you used to, and climbing in and out and sitting for more than five minutes in a seat that doesn't fit right can cripple you for a week, then take it from someone who has somehow found himself in exactly that position... It's probably one of the most important decisions to make about which aircraft to buy. Find one that fits.

I had a beautiful T-Cart with pumped up engine on Edo's that I loved. But, it got to the point that no matter how I sat, or tried to support my back, that sling seat got me, and I ended up selling the airplane because of it. I had a job for a few years flying Islanders, another kick-ass fun airplane and money maker. But lack of armrests and that weird yoke would would have you sore and aching by the end of the day's flying. On the other hand I can spend 1,400 hours a year in a C207, and it's as comfy as my recliner in the living room.

Anyway... Something to think about.

Gump

These threads always turn out the same. Lots of great advise from lots of great people.

But does anyone go out and buy the perfect plane?

Its a lot like shopping for a mail order bride.

You get the one you think you will be happy with but once at home you decide that for this reason or that you need to try again.

So the quest continues, if you think I am wrong then why do us married guys always notice the pretty girl that walks by on the street.

For your task I vote for the Champ. Very well behaved. Its also an easy seller when your task changes.

mr scout wrote:Its a lot like shopping for a mail order bride.

You get the one you think you will be happy with but once at home you decide that for this reason or that you need to try again.

That's why Nevada is such a great state!!!!! They rent girls here You don't have to buy one...

Gump

mtv wrote: ......Here's another thought, if that's really where you want to go (Unusual Attitude recovery stuff): Clipped wing Cub or TCraft. They are aerobatic, and they are inexpensive. Unfortunately, I believe they are, by definition, also all in the Experimental category. You can find them pretty cheap, though. MTV

I'd love to have a clipwing T-Craft with an 85,90,or O-200. Not too many out there unfortunately, and some have gone the Lycoming 150/160/180 route-- from what I hear, that makes them good performers but heavy handlers. Usually not LSA-compliant then either.
There are stc's for both clipwing T Crafts (Swick) and Cub (Reed). I believe Wag or Univair sells the Reed STC, guess you'd contact Swick for theirs.
There are also some experimental-category clipwing T's and Cubs, that's what I'd prefer anyway. Less hassle with changing things around, with annuals, etc.
If anyone knows of a good clip-T with a 4-banger Continental that's for sale, please PM or email me.

Eric

Eric,

The Experimental category isn't a free ride, maintenance-wise, actually.

If you BUILT the airplane and registered it in the Ex category, you can apply for a restricted repairman's certificate, which permits you to work on the plane and sign off inspections.

If you DID'NT build the experimental airplane, I believe it still requires an A & P to work on it, and an IA to inspect it. I suppose you can apply for a repairman's certificate for one you bought, but I don't know if the FAA will issue it on that basis. Doubt it.

Anyone clarify this further?

MTV

I'm an A&P/IA, so there is no advantage there. Honestly, my opinion on the experimental route is that it's as good as the builder / maintainer wants it to be. I really don't want hardware store fasteners in anything I fly. I'll stick with a certified airplane.
Why would I care for a light sport? I assumed "there's that word again", that a non light sport airplane would be cheaper, you know, more airplane for the money. The 120 / 140 assn. thinks the FAA will let them have an STC to reduce their gross weight with the installation of a placard, that's so ridiculous I won't comment.
MTV, comfort is paramount, I went the whole Oregon Aero seat route with the Maule, because the stock seat I could stand for about 2 hours on a good day. With the Oregon Aero seats, I've spent 9 hours a day for 3 of 4 days in a row with no problems. I assumed "yep again", there would be a similar solution for most airplanes. That is on my checklist now, good point.

MTV

Experimental aircraft only require a A&P for condition inspections.

Which is the equivalent of a certified aircraft annual, except no IAs required.

You can do all the work you want as long as you have an A&P for the condition inspection.

The repairman's certificate allows you the builder to also do the condition inspection. Without it the builder cannot do a condition inspection.

Man, I'm glad someone else struggles to get in and out of some of these little airplanes.... . I struggle to get in and out of this 140A I'm instructing in right now, and T-Carts are really tough for me. One reason I like the Cubs and Champs, actually.

a64, you are right, of course on the homebuilt thing. Some are absolutely better than ANY production airplane. Some aren't. I REALLY hate Maule seats, but never had the opportunity to put a set of Oregon Aero seats in one. They sure make a Cub or Husky a lot easier to sit in, so I have no doubt they'd do the same for a Maule.

Scout, that's what I thought. But, here's a question for you: Suppose Mr. Mechanic does a condition inspection on my homebuilt. Right after, I decide to bolt on a totally different set of wings, or modify the existing wings, or change the engine to a 300 hp in place of the 90 hp it was built with. Now, it comes to the NEXT condition inspection.....Does Mr. A & P just sign it off again, even though it no longer conforms to its original Airworthiness Certificate?

I'm not being smart here, I'm really curious. I think this whole function of experimental aircraft maintenance is pretty interesting.

MTV

MTV

Well now that you changed to the 300 HP engine.

The FAA is going to trust that since you have done a major change you need to fly another 50hr around the patch, before you can take me for a ride. And sign that in the log book.

Part of the reason behind it being called a condition inspection. The A&P isn't saying he thinks its airworthy as in an annual, he is only saying that the craft appears to be in a condition that would allow it to fly. If the design is sound. Hardware pinned etc.

Really a pretty laxed requirement on the behalf of the A&P liability wise but many are afraid to mess with homebuilts.

That's why Nevada is such a great state!!!!! They rent girls here You don't have to buy one...

The problem with rental girls is a lot like rental airplanes...you don't know what's been done to them by those that came before you (bad pun...sorry), and you never get to fly the same one enough to feel comfortable in her (another bad pun...sorry again). Not to mention that you rarely find a premium ride on the flight line...

I have a friend here in the Nashville area that is selling a beautiful Champ. It has the O-200 upgrade, higher gross weight, electrical system, radios, fuel capacity upgrade, recent covering, paint, interior, etc...great airplane. He likes to buy, tinker, upgrade, sell & repeat. It is painted like a red & white Citabria.

Give me a shout and I will send you his contact info if you want to look into it.

-Low

I'll put in a vote for the Luscombe. I completed all of my training in mine, except for the 3 hours of night flying because I don't have landing lights. My first three hours were spent in the right seat because there is no brakes on the right side (there is a kit to install them) and the instructor was very cautious. After those three hours I moved and got a new instructor, an old crop duster pilot, who put me in the in the left seat right from the start.

I honestly don't know how someone puts a Luscombe on their back unless they have upgraded their brakes or push forward on the stick on roll out while mashing on the brakes. I keep my mechanical GY adjusted pretty tight and I occasionally land with pressure on the brakes before touchdown then fully apply them.

I don't know about ground handling, I don't know any different.

Jon

Here is a pretty good article http://www.airbum.com/pireps/ClassicCompLuscombe.html

I say a 65hp Taylorcraft. My brother and I bought one, and I flew it around all summer long. It is a great plane to learn in, and it is very economic. It will also force a young/new pilot (like me) to be a better pilot. It can still cruise around 85-90mph, 95 if you are lucky or push up the rpms a little. But whats the hurry? Especially if you are building time. Also many have wing tanks and a nose tank, so you can do a lot of cruising and not have to fuel up as many times. And ofcourse it has the Autogas STC. My dad and I did a few stalls just before I left, and it was uneventfull. The only draw back is that many do not have much in the way of baggage. But if it did, with two people, you would most likely be over gross (assuming gas). I found I could fit all I needed, for two months, in the seat next to me on the floor and in the sling behind me. With full fuel, I was not over gross. The TO roll was not that bad, but the rate of climb did suffer some.
All in all, great plane that doesnt cost as much as a cub, and will do most of the things you may need it to (as a new pilot).

I've got to weigh in on this one. I have to agree with the fellow that opted for the Cessna 140 with an up graded engine. I would be more specific and say a 140-A with a 125 or 135 horse engine. I have a c-90 and it is anemic even on cool days if you have more than you in the airplane. I prefer the 140-A because it has the single strut and the 150 wing. You can probably find a 140 or 140-A for $25K but geting the upgrade on the engine would cost more. You sound fairly handy, since you're working on a Maule - I don't know how difficult/expensive it would be to make the neccessary changes to the engine. The Patroller model of the 140-A has 42 gallon taks. Easy to overgross if you're not careful but plenty of endurance even with the higher fuel burn of the larger engine.My last annual cost about $700 without any major repairs.

My complaint with the Luscomb is that is way too tight a fit. I'm not large (175 lbs) and all I can fit in the 140 is me and my 100 lb daughter. Two full grown men makes it a very tight sqeeze (overlapping shoulders), and you can't put much fuel in it and expect to get off the ground. I can't imagine doing that in a Luscombe. The other thing I would think about is a square tailed 150 with a 150. probably more expensive, but you'd have a baby 180.

Regardless, you'll have fun in whatever you get.

mtv wrote: ..........
Scout, that's what I thought. But, here's a question for you: Suppose Mr. Mechanic does a condition inspection on my homebuilt. Right after, I decide to bolt on a totally different set of wings, or modify the existing wings, or change the engine to a 300 hp in place of the 90 hp it was built with. Now, it comes to the NEXT condition inspection.....Does Mr. A & P just sign it off again, even though it no longer conforms to its original Airworthiness Certificate? ............. MTV

Remember there is no type certificate for an amateur-built experimental. So I can put on those fatter tires, better brakes, and VG's without moving heaven and earth to get them approved. Like Scout said, condition inspection requires an A&P, not an IA. Plus you can work on it yourself, as long as the A&P does the condition inspection.

Eric

a64pilot wrote:Honestly, my opinion on the experimental route is that it's as good as the builder / maintainer wants it to be. I really don't want hardware store fasteners in anything I fly. I'll stick with a certified airplane.

I agree with your first statement, but the 2nd statement isn't a good reason not to fly an experimental. Our ultralights are A/N hardware top to bottom, and in my opinion they're much safer and better maintained than some of the certified scrap I see sitting on the ramp. A bad IA paired with an ignorant or indifferent owner is a terrible thing.

I think though that it would take a pretty thorough inspection to sell me on a used experimental that I had not assembled myself.

zane wrote:

a64pilot wrote:Honestly, my opinion on the experimental route is that it's as good as the builder / maintainer wants it to be. I really don't want hardware store fasteners in anything I fly. I'll stick with a certified airplane.

I agree with your first statement, but the 2nd statement isn't a good reason not to fly an experimental. Our ultralights are A/N hardware top to bottom, and in my opinion they're much safer and better maintained than some of the certified scrap I see sitting on the ramp. A bad IA paired with an ignorant or indifferent owner is a terrible thing.

I think though that it would take a pretty thorough inspection to sell me on a used experimental that I had not assembled myself.

Zane,
Your last statement is what my concern is, by making it you concede my point. Although it will take a pretty through inspection of any 20's thousand dollar airplane, especially if it is 60 yrs old At least with a certified airplane there are standards, which in this case would be used primarily as an indicator. In other words, find a couple of mechanical things that do not meet standard and walk. MY theory is that once someone starts making undocumented modifications, I don't want the airplane.

My first post so here goes
Another good plane option would be the Piper Vagabond, 2place side by side, the start of the short wing Piper series.

OK,
Where to start looking? I know of only two places, Trade-a-plane and barnstormers. It seems Luscombe's, T-carts and a couple of the other aircraft mentioned are pretty rare, at least on the east coast. Give me some other places to look.

I never really cared for the looks of Champs but I had a guy talk me into trying one and I am not sorry. I picked up a 7AC with an 0-235 in it and it is my mini bush plane. I needed something that was fairly roomy and comfortable and the Champ has room to spare as far as these small planes are. I have 2 rods in my back and T6-T12 fused and I have a problem sitting for long periods so I got some of that Temper-foam from a seller at Oshkosh and put it in the seat cushons. WHAT A DIFFERENCE!!

Pick up a copy of Aero-Trader and the Controller at most any FBO. They have lots of ads in them. Controller is a little limited on the type you are looking for but you can find them in the small print sometimes. Also on the web are:

aso.com
flyboytrader.com
globalair.com

Good Luck,
Keith