I recently came to similar thoughts as well. Not sold on anything yet, but I kind of agree. Maybe i need to find something that works for now, builds times and will function for what i want in AK. Also, i doubt i'll be jumping straight to flying two husky guys and hunting gear to the middle of nowhere up there. So maybe I should scale all things back a bit.

I did just learn about an STC that i didn't know existed, a O-320 in a luscombe!! seems to be a good powerplant for a LSA. haven't put much thought into it, but they are about as cheap as they come with the factory sub 100hp engine. and would teach me to understand the weather and fly the plane a bit more than jumping into something with a boatload of power. and O-320s aren't that expensive in comparison to upgrading an already larger displacement package in a different airplane i assume. Am i crazy in my thoughts? (disclaimer i literally just came upon this info so i haven't thought it through much)

Useful load with a 320?

Guy I know had a T-craft with an O320. When the engine was hung, they did not change the fuel system. That joke about the Lear 20 series? Where you declare a low fuel emergency situation during your initial departure climb? That was about where he found himself.

So...hanging a bigger engine sounds great, definitely improves performance...but consider the entire package when you are looking at a modified plane. Some aircraft have more latitude for cohesive mods, some less.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

not as high as i would want for commercial use for guiding and such, but then again i doubt i'll be doing that right off the bat anyways. mostly it would be taking someone here or there. glacier viewing and such. the idea with the luscombe would be to build hours and use it for what i can. then upgrade to a maule or similar 4 person plane with 1000lbs useful and power to pull it through anything i might find up there.

Luscombe 8F useful load 630#

can't find the #'s for the O-320 option that i trust, but general thoughts are that its lower than the C-85.

between the wife and myself, we would take up 280# is all. and we are into ultralight backpacking already so very light gear isn't an issue.

And i fully get the look at the entire picture idea. Some early luscombes only had a small fuel tank in the fuselage. while later models had twin wing tanks (30gal i think?). the c-85 version burns very little fuel. 4.5-5GPH. while the o-320 is said to be around 6GPH.

The linked Sedan looks good! Nice mods for a reasonable price. Lots of wing and lots of power. Should do well in CO and again in AK when you go back.

Adding fuel and instructor to go bring it home adds considerable to the price of acquisition, but then you'd have the experience to show for it too. Don't rule it out.

It's as close as you can get to a Maule with a big bore, or a Skywagon for the price.

An 8F Luscombe is light if it has 500lbs useful, 630 useful isn't going to happen. Most have 12.5gal wing tanks but a few of the later models have 15gal bladders in each wing. A Larson Luscombe won't teach you a thing about how to manage a marginal performing plane in the mountains. They are a rocket with ~1500fpm climb and impressive takeoff performance. Most are quite heavy, enough useful for a pilot and almost full tanks, but most owners don't care and fly them with whatever they can fit inside. I once had dreams of flying my 8E around with a paying passenger but the reality is they are so cozy that I don't want to sit that close to anyone and I doubt a paying passenger would actually get inside. They'd probly take one look and pay the guy next door double for a ride in his C206. Also, most Luscombes aren't LSA and a Larson Luscombe certainly isn't (1400lb gross). I loved my Luscombe and regret selling it almost daily. I flew it all over Idaho camping with my wife and had a blast. For a measly 85hp it preformed well and would be a great time building airplane even at high DAs.

I'd probably be looking for either a C170B or a early Maule. The cabin configuration of a Stinson isn't great for hauling loads. A Pacer would probably be fine too but they aren't very roomy. I can't remember which book it was, 'Winging It' or 'Last of the Bush Pilots' in which the author said he thought the Cessna 170 was the best plane built for hauling loads in Alaska. Obviously the C180/5 and C206/7 do it better but he made a living with his C170.

This comment is meant well so don't get upset...but so far all the suggestions are good and valid for various conditions...what isn't known is your flying experience. Expectations are dreams, but the most helpful and relevant suggestions come to valid play after you've done some flying in the realm you expect to encounter.

I suggest you share yours and then maybe go fly local aircraft to get some experience in your location. Planning for Alaska is just that and may be different than what and where your reality is now. I've not flown high DA in your location but have survived 52+ years in Alaska, all of them in aircraft and 44 of the time flying and learning every day as a pilot.

Is that a fair comment and suggestion? I hope so. There's no Swiss Army knife plane for cheap but several can be upgraded for better performance and load capacity as requirements and money become available.

Gary

I was and am worried about the room in the luscombe as well. But I would not be buying the o-320 version to start. Rather learning on the c-85 first. And this idea just comes from wanting my cake and eating it too. As Gary said, there is no inexpensive perfect plane. So something as to be sacrificed. And with my low time and experience, maybe the luscombe is my foot in the door? Id still rather a sedan, maule, or even c170. But that's part way to a c180 as well. I think I need to plan for using my first plane for the high DA that I live in now, and building hours and experience. Mostly for my wife and I.

And Gary, no problem with your post. My thoughts are following yours as well. I'm always trying to do more with less and plan things out, but I might be reaching to far on this one.

Spdcrazy wrote:the c-85 version burns very little fuel. 4.5-5GPH. while the o-320 is said to be around 6GPH.

I’ve got an O-320. I plan for 8.5 gph and usually burn 7.5 to 8 depending on my hurry.

I’ve seen as low as 6.5 in “loafing mode” which is a really fun way to fly but won’t get you anywhere quick.

EDIT: “loafing mode” is somewhere around 2000 to 2200 rpm. I’ve got a slick airframe and a cruise prop so that keeps me at supercub cruise speeds. Not sure what you’d get out of a luscombe at that low power setting.

I investigated all those planes and spent countless hours driving,flying,researching.
Usually the density here is about 4500 so that was also a concern of mine.
The 170b is a sweet little plane but suffers a inflated market price. It probably has about an inch wider cabin and factory climb around 800 fpm. Not any noticeable difference in high da really. It also lacks a tube cage and has straight spring gear.
The piper I flew seemed difficult to land and the majority I saw were neglected to a degree. It also has a basic style bouncy landing gear.
The 108's are marvels and in alot of respects ahead of their time.
Big strut landing gear,leading edge slats,chromoly tubing and harmony in the control yoke.
With that said I have to say the biggest downfall to the stinson is probably the previous owners. You would not believe the horrible stuff I viewed when I was shopping.
This group of cheap old geesers literally maintain these planes like they did with old farm trucks. No offense to the old geesers, I'm well on that slide but I don't treat my plane like a farm truck.
If you can however find a respectable po willing to sell and it checks out I would be all over a -3 or -2

And the franklin engine has a tendency to lose compression starting around 600,700 and that will greatly impact high da. So that's a biggie.

CamTom12 wrote:

Spdcrazy wrote:the c-85 version burns very little fuel. 4.5-5GPH. while the o-320 is said to be around 6GPH.

I’ve got an O-320. I plan for 8.5 gph and usually burn 7.5 to 8 depending on my hurry.

I’ve seen as low as 6.5 in “loafing mode” which is a really fun way to fly but won’t get you anywhere quick.

EDIT: “loafing mode” is somewhere around 2000 to 2200 rpm. I’ve got a slick airframe and a cruise prop so that keeps me at supercub cruise speeds. Not sure what you’d get out of a luscombe at that low power setting.

I average 6.8 gph with the O-320 in the Cherokee. That's burning mogas at 2400 rpm.

Spdcrazy. Are you dead set on a taildragger? There are many cases where more plane is to be had for the money if you're open to a trike. For example, there are 175's that have have been converted to O-360s for the same or less money as a 170.

I know fuel burn numbers are always up for flexibility and honestly even at 8 I would be interested. But you are right, if I were loafing around, a strong wind might carry me away.

I am pretty set on a tail dragger. Being that's the direction I plan to go in life I'd like to start that way early.

IMO if the plan is to sell this plane in a few years to upgrade to possibly a 180 then I would buy one that is more likely to resell easily. The 170B seems to be an airplane that doesn't sit around with a for sale sign on it very long. The pacer and Maule take a little longer and the Stinson has a small following.

The 175 is a hidden gem IMO and there are two on Barn Stormers right now with O-360s on them. Worth a look.

[quote][This group of cheap old geesers literally maintain these planes like they did with old farm trucks./quote]

- I apologize up front for the thread drift......If only you knew..........currently cleaning the Bondo out of my 108's rudder; not enough room to discuss the rebuild on the 60 hr TSMOH Franklin 165 in my 108. I submitted a SDR when things crossed the into the egregiously unethical/unprofessional maintenance zone. I had to trailer the aircraft two-thirds of the way home when the crankcase through-bolts sheared in flight & the engine lost 4 qts of oil. On the plus side, the aircraft flew great for @ 6.25 hours.

- Proves the old "buyer beware" axiom. You can only tear someone else's aircraft apart so far on a buyer's inspection, and long-distance
purchases add some additional risk into the transaction because of the limits it places on time spent with the prospective purchase. And "cheap old geezer" is 100% accurate regarding the previous owner. I rolled the dice & lost; learn from my mistake.

You could save ten grand by choosing a 170A over a 170B and only the landing distance would be effected. Now if you were looking at 180 hp 170B's, which is what I am flying now, then the flaps make a difference as you can actually take of where you can land. Of course 180 hp 170B"s are in the same price range as the same vintage 180's, perform the same, and feel lighter, just don't cruise as fast.

Tim

Railchummer wrote:

[This group of cheap old geesers literally maintain these planes like they did with old farm trucks./quote]

- I apologize up front for the thread drift......If only you knew.........

Damn,sorry about your luck. Mine was not that serious,just 70 year old reused valve springs and what not. You can take a guess how that worked out. After two years of piddling mine is rock solid.

bat443 wrote:You could save ten grand by choosing a 170A over a 170B and only the landing distance would be effected. Now if you were looking at 180 hp 170B's, which is what I am flying now, then the flaps make a difference as you can actually take of where you can land. Of course 180 hp 170B"s are in the same price range as the same vintage 180's, perform the same, and feel lighter, just don't cruise as fast.

Tim

True, I was reading about that as well. I expect I'll skip this step and go lighter smaller and cheaper for now. Then step up to a maule or 180 after much more experience and later in life

One plane that has its plus and minus is the Taylorcraft. With at least 85hp and a big wing it'll take off good, climb high, and go 95-105 on most days. They are undervalued in the used market and can be had for less than Pipers or other smaller aircraft. Support for them isn't as good as some. There's an active group to help: http://vb.taylorcraft.org and Barnstormer's always has several for sale.

Out of the nine planes I owned I've had a couple of them on wheels, skis, and floats, and the current one serves my needs well. It's not a Super Cub but gets the job done within its limits.

But if you need a 3-4 place plane that's flown for two and lots of gear then there are better choices.

Gary

Spdcrazy wrote:

bat443 wrote:You could save ten grand by choosing a 170A over a 170B and only the landing distance would be effected. Now if you were looking at 180 hp 170B's, which is what I am flying now, then the flaps make a difference as you can actually take of where you can land. Of course 180 hp 170B"s are in the same price range as the same vintage 180's, perform the same, and feel lighter, just don't cruise as fast.

Tim

True, I was reading about that as well. I expect I'll skip this step and go lighter smaller and cheaper for now. Then step up to a maule or 180 after much more experience and later in life

A 180HP 170B is equal money to a Cessna 180. You can find a great 150/160hp Pacer for <$25K with a little searching. The Pacer I have most of my time in had (RIP) 925lbs useful load on Desser 8.50's and flat out performed. You CAN NOT beat the performance of the Pacer for the money, period. Keep her empty weight light!! If the gear (axles) are straight (most are not), they handle great on the ground. Stick with the factory Piper wing; droop tips and stall fences are not worth the 'performance gain' or wing cover hassle.

She was definitely a beater, but man do I miss flying her!





Four adults


Bad gear leg