I'm saving up my pennies so that in a year or so I can get my first plane. I've always loved taildraggers and the prospect of better versatility and after getting my checkout in a J3, I'm hooked!

I'm considering a few planes as my first: Cessna 140, Luscombe, Pacer, Citabria, or Cessna 170. Planes in the 20-30 range I would probably get myself, and I would get a partner for the 40-50k planes. I'm aware they all perform quite different missions as well, that is something I need to decide on in the next year or so.

I'm more interested in if there are any on this list that you absolutely love to fly, that you hated owning, might be a bit twitchy for a first tailwheel, etc? In essence, this would be my trainer for a future C180 or RV-8 (if my wife can get past the bubble).

Thanks everyone!

You'll get a number of excellent comments and recommendations from others, but I thought I'd at least share my limited experience.

I owned a 40' Luscombe 8A for a number of years and absolutely loved it. Rag wings, A65 Continental, 12-gallon wing tanks, extra window, no electrical system, LSA, 8gph. I regret selling it and am currently in the market for another one to compliment my '56 182.

A few drawbacks: (1) No flaps, though once mastered the forward slip will give you performance pretty close to an airplane with flaps; (2) heel brakes (though I almost never used the brakes); and (3) it's short-coupled, so can be a challenge on the ground. I overcame that feature by learning to be light and quick on the rudder pedals and minimizing inputs (i.e., not overcorrecting).

I have flown several other Luscombe models (8A, 8E, 8F) with engines ranging from the A65 all the way up to the STC'd 150hp McKenzie conversion and all were fun and predictable. Luscombes have great airframes, good parts availability and excellent support.

Luscombes are not what I would consider classic backcountry airplanes, but with prices commonly in the $16,000 to $20,000 range they're great time-builders and learning to fly one properly will prepare you for larger, more powerful tailwheel airplanes like the C180 you mentioned.

Best of luck in your search.

Dave

My first plane was a 46' Cessna 140, and I can't say enough good about the 120/140's. They are simple, reliable, proven and gentle. If you don't need more than two seats, they are a wonderful aircraft to fly. The only reason I sold it, is because in summer the density altitudes get really high around here (8k+), and I was very limited in the mountains.

Another great bird in your price range is a Stinson 108. That's what I currently own, and it's a pure joy to fly! I have no regrets for selling the 140 for the Stinson.

Hello PilotRPI! I'll just throw in my two cents worth-
I just sold my 1st plane, a 125 hp Cessna 140. I wish I could have kept it, but I'm saving my pennies for something with four seats. They are a simple aircraft with nothing that I would consider bad manners. They are a little different from later Cessnas, mostly with the wing. The flaps are small and the ailerons have noticeably less authority than the 150/152. Not dangerously so, just noticeable.

I found the 140 to be very tame on the ground, never having felt like I was going to be a passenger. On skis it was an absolute blast. An instructor I flew with mentioned that he thought they handle a little bit better in a crosswind than a cub, due to the aft fuselage not being so slab sided (I can't vouch for that, never having even sat in a cub. I am sure someone here might have a different opinion ).

I am sure you've been cruising barnstormers and the like; prices seem reasonable. For two people travelling with light baggage, the 140 is a nice little inexpensive flier. The International 120/140 site has a lot of good info if the 140 is on your list.

BTW, just how big of a boy are you? They can be a bit tight. I'm right at 6' 185 lbs. Headroom was alright but a passenger really cuts into the shoulder room.
Anyway, good luck.
-Nate

I gotta put in a vote for the pacer. A 150 hp pacer with VG's and wide gear is one of the most under rated planes on the market. If you are not into short filed work, with the cruise prop you can fly a,ong at 125 or so all day long with pretty good comfort. With a climb prop they can get you in and out of anywhere you should go. They are not a cub by any means, but with VG's I could fly around all day at 40 indicated without if feeling mushy at all. Most times, I had the back seat out so it was 2 place with LOTS of cargo area. I have flown it with full fuel, 2 not so small people and 16 5 gallon cans in the back full of gas along with camping gear. She was packed in tight, but performance was still more than I expected. On skis, I had a blast, on full lotus floats it was EXTREMELY versitile. One day mine will be rebuilt with lots of mods. A buddy has one that he stretched, added 8' to the wing, big flaps 180 hp yada yada and it is truely a sweetheart to fly.

Allow me to be the first:

Just get a Maule.

You can't go wrong with a 170. Especially the A or B model. I only add that because I haven't owned a rag wing.
They are incredibly versatile, capable and affordable. The 3 models have their differences which are easy enough to research here and on other sites.
You will be amazed at how much camping gear you can haul when you remove the back seat.
A decent one can be had for about 32G and up.
Of course the ultimate would be the 180 Lycoming but they perform quite well with the stock O-300 145 horse.
Good Luck!

My vote is to get the airplane that you find most attractive, that you can EASILY afford. Getting competent and confident in a taildragger takes hours behind the stick, and a few hairs converted to grey.

For me, it was the 170. Damn, what a beautiful bird. The 140 is a great choice if you can an "A" model (don't flame me, rag wingers!)

There are lots of Citabrias out there too. The Champ lineage are great flying machines, but baggage is always a limitation.

Some older Maule M4's can be found for cheap, but there will be a reason. I'd advise finding a smaller ship that is tight from tip to tail and flying the crap out of it.

I'm 6' tall and 155 lbs. I usually fly with the wife who is quite small, so shoulder room for the two of us usually isnt a big issue, as when taking a bigger buddy for a ride in a Cessna 150.

I like the idea of a Maule. But that may be plane #2 a bit down the road.

I currently live in NJ and plan on staying on the east coast in the near future, so I don't need super STOL capabilities at the moment. I'd prefer a cruise prop to actually travel around.

Thanks for the input. Keep it coming!

Oh yeah. And it is a rare day that I'm not on Barnstormers looking into the most recent offerings for all of those models.

What is the cruise speed for a Cessna 140 and the fuel burn?

There is the argument to buy your last plane first.

OTOH pilots who say that are usually experiencing insurance-induced amnesia.

I second the vote for a Pacer. I was looking seriously at these before I found my C150/150TD, and if/when I need a change I'll probably be looking at them again unless I go LSA. Put fat tires, VG's, & a flat prop on a good light Pacer & you'll have a damn good all-around airplane.
Actually a tailwheel-converted Tri Pacer ("PA-22/20") is probably the best bet. The main problem is that the ones you'll find for sale are either getting pretty tired, esp in the fabric department (priced very affordably), or else have been completely rebuilt (way more money, but damn nice). There'll be very few that strike a happy medium between these two extremes. The beaters are usually servicable & have plenty of time left in them, but you'll have to live with faded looks & blemishes and/or some (fabric) repair work. Of course, the same is true of just about any airplane that isn't freshly rebuilt or low time-- in other words, affordable.

The two-person utility of a Cessna 170 is great compared to a true two-seater. You have two more seats for the occasionally circumstance in which you want to take a third, or small fourth person for a short trip. Lots of room for baggage when you don't. A bit less twitchy on landings than the Pacer though that just takes practice. You can even find them with very nice IFR panels, and yeah horsepower increases.

But it is a different class of airplane than the other choices you listed (that, and most Citabrias.) Higher purchase price, higher insurance.

IMO you should decide if you want two or four seats, first. That will narrow your choices some.

Oh, and you should consider a (mostly) original Globe Swift too, if you are talking taildraggers

Sounds like discussions I had last year when I started shopping. I ended up narrowing the choices for me to the Pacer and Stinson. I ended up with a Stinson. I'm 5'11" and have a fake hip...I found the Stinson to be much more comfortable and easier to get in and out of. Lots more knee and leg room for me in the Stinson over the Pacer as well. Then the personal preferences kicked in too, I think the Stinson looks better. I still like Pacers too, don't get me wrong. I got to fly both as well and that helped me make the decision. I'd still like to get a Pacer project one day and trick it out!

I owned a 1948 (or '47, I can't remember) Cessna 120 for a few years as a beater airplane, and it was a hoot. I built up an O-200, changed motor mounts, stuck on a climb prop, and ran 8.50's on it. Not a lot of room for two plus gear, but certainly OK for one person and a week or two of wandering.

At 2500 RPM I most times showed 100 MPH at 5 GPH. 20 MPG ain't bad. I made a shitload of trips up to Bella Coola and the Dean in British Columbia with the thing (I was living in Sonoma County at the time) and hit most of the Idaho strips either on my way north, or when traveling back home. It wasn't a Cub, but light and early morning it went anywhere I wanted to go.

Very docile on the ground. Flys slow nice. Don't need flaps, and brakes are for parking. Mine was a carb ice magnet, though I assume most are. I bet you can find them cheaper than a POS used car.

Gump

For that price range, I'd get a Champ hands down! You can pit a little 7AC down ANYWHERE,

Doing precision/short landings with the Champ always reminded me of that line in Training Day "you know I'm surgical with this b1tch" lol

I think the 170 is your best bet in your list, if you are gonna go anywhere. Like said before, a nice 2 plus gear plane.

I wouldn't try to find one with a bigger motor and CS, because they are overpriced, IMO. 180 price, less payload, and slower.

Good choice on the 180 or the RV-8. They are my favorites too

Champs are fun planes, but the LSA ones are high priced too.

Don't need the LSA type necessarily. I fly max two people 98% of the time, but the idea of a 4 seater in terms of gear for a longer trip or camping is appealing. Luscombe and C-140 are at the top of my list as I hear they fly brilliantly, and they can be had for 20-25k. Good thing I have a year or so to figure this out!

To answer your question about you being able to fly the 170 without any trouble. I bought a 170 B in 1980, before I had a pilots license, my partner in this venture was a CFI and so I learned to fly in the 170. I didn't have any more problems than I read about others on these forums having. I flew it for 835 hours and it was a great plane. I had a chance to get my 1959 182 Cessna, was the only reason I got rid of it.

This will probably turn into a 20 page discussion/argument, so I'll be happy to add my opinion as well

I was going to pull the trigger on buying a 140 with a c-90 but I didn't because I wanted something that would get off the ground a little faster. They do cruise around 100mph and can burn under 5gph doing it though. They also look pretty damn good when they're painted in the classic red/white or polished. I wouldn't get a metal wing 120/140 though because of the added weight unless its a 140A. The 140A is much better IMO but pretty hard to find for a decent price.

I ended up getting a Taylorcraft and of course that's what I would tell you to do as well. They are a very underrated airplane that with some mods will perform very well and cruise over 100mph with 65 hp. With a c-85 they still do well on fuel and can make a nice light duty back country plane. Mine is getting a facelift right now with a c-85 stroker, patrol doors, increased baggage, and a lot of glass which I hope will make it pretty bitchin. I've noticed quite a few really nice ones for under 15k and with a c-85 and electrical system for under 20k.