PilotRPI wrote: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!

Not sure I would pair a Champ with the LSA market, weight wise yea, but from what I have seen of LSA the champ is a little less of a dumbed down big plane lol

The Taylor craft would be great too, I would stay away from the cessna, from my experience they are more bouncy on landing and just not as nimble as some of the others, just my two cents

Or if you want something that looks really good, and handles like a caddy could always get a Stinson!

No matter what you do, take a few bucks and go out and fly some of these things, let your butt tell you what you like!!

In my experience, 170's go for a bit of a premium compared to Stinsons & Pacers- like well into the 30's instead of the nid-twneties. I'll admit that 170's are nice, having owned one for about 11 years, but I'm not sure they're worth the extra dough.
It is nice having a "4 place" airplane for 2-place operations-- pull that back seat out & you have a helluva lot of room for stuff. The back-seat door on the Pacer is nice for access.

PilotRPI,

I've owned four Taylorcrafts, a J-3 Cub, and several other oddball small tailwheel airplanes. So I'm reasonably familiar with the T-cart; have small experience only on the other types.

That being said, the Taylorcraft is an excellent performer and a good trainer... specifically because it is NOT the easiest of the bunch to handle. It is not difficult to fly, but it is not idiot-proof either, and is less tolerant of inattention so it will keep you on your toes. It is not as groundloop-prone as the Luscombe (better insurance cost), and not as prone to airframe corrosion, so it may be a better choice than the Luscombe... but it is also not quite as idiot-proof as the Aeronca Chief/Champ so you will be a sharper pilot with better reflexes and better precision.

The T-craft is also 1/2 the price of an equivalent J-3, with much better performance and much better passenger comfort. The T-craft is just about equal in speed to the Luscombe, it's 20+ mph faster than the Cub, and 8-10 mph faster than the Champ/Chief (all on the same power). If you are saving your pennies, understand that you can buy a T-craft and 500 hours worth of gas for the price of a Cub and no gas.

(If you are interested in buying a good easy-flying tailwheel airplane (Aeronca Chief) total rebuild project on a low budget by substituting your time and elbow grease for up-front investment, contact me at victorbravo )at{ sbcglobal }dot( net . But the distance between us will be a significant factor in transport.)

Having built/flown an RV8 I can attest to ANY RV being a superb airplane for so many reasons; Speed, agility, slow speed capability, excellent visibility and absolutely honest in the tailwheel versions. I went from the RV to the C-180 once my son was born. Needed more seats! I still greatly prefer experimental airplanes where you're not stuck with stupid (read: expensive) TSO/PMA parts and antiquated technology. If you can swing the time to build an RV, DO IT. They're not the best backcountry planes, but very capable off decent turf strips. The choices in spam can taildraggers are many, and most are truly excellent, safe, durable machines. All will humble you if you get lazy on the pedals.

gbflyer wrote:Allow me to be the first:

Just get a Maule.

I think the M planes cost a bit to much. I do love mine. 50K will get you a decent M plane. I also like the Cessna 120 140.

Cheers

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

With 125 hp, 78" prop and 8.50x6.00 tires I cruised right at 100 mph with 2400 rpm. 6 1/4 gph. But that's not a typical setup. There are quite a few that have the O-200 under the cowl; that's probably a pretty good combination.

I don't really have much direct experience with other aircraft, besides the 150 I rented to get my license and a little bit of time in a 172, plus some unlogged time in my father's Pacer.

Reading all these posts it seems that there is not a bad plane out there. I know that deep down we all want one of each. Conventional wisdom will say to purchase the best example you can afford i.e. maybe look at a nice Pacer instead of a similarly priced but wore out 170 (just as an example). Just be realistic about what you want to do. And don't be afraid to invest a little money in a pre-purchase inspection. Good luck!
-Nate

Don't get one of these. I spent 2400 bucks on a Flaglor Scooter in '78. 65 hp VW engine with magnetos, wood prop, go cart tires and a grocery cart tail weel which would go egg shaped and need to be changed after numerous gravel road landings. The engine was above the wings and after having flown planes with an engine on the front, what a surprise on my first soft field landing to touch the throttle on touch down and nose it over in a soft bean field. Other than that it was a fun flying machine and handled good and climbed like a rocket. Did I mention don't get one?

I don't think you could go wrong with a Pacer. The do have a bad reputation for being a little squirrely on the ground, but the PA-22/20 Pacers with wide gear seem a little better. I did all of my primary in a pacer and loved it. Good solid and simple aircraft.

I do think a C170 flies a little nicer, plus you have more elbow room, but you can get into a good Pacer for about 10k less. I only have a few hours of 170 time, but it seemed like the Pacer outperformed the 170 in most categories except cabin space (I'm 6'2").

Hello Everyone,
When looking for my first airplane I started looking at champs and cessna 140's. Then I ran across
a Taylorcraft project. O200 with the Hare stc to increase the gross weight, and larger baggage. Basically
what is a model F-19. Gross weight is 1500 lbs. emty with 8.50 tires is 935 lbs. It has electric and radio. Baggage compartment holds 72 lbs. 24 gallons fuel. That little airplane is a blast to fly and cheap. I think Gump owned one at one time, I'm disapointed he did'nt mention it.
Best of luck in your search.
46tcrft

Mine was on Edo 1320's. Never been in a T Cart on wheels. It was fairly fast (100 MPH) with C85 at 5 GPH. What drove me nuts in the thing was the sling seat. It absolutely killed my back. If flying by myself I found the only way to be comfortable was to sit kind of sideways and use the co-pilot side right rudder pedal right foot, and pilot's side pedal for left foot.

Gump

The T-craft suffers a little in the comfort department, especially for tall pilots. The skylight modification gives you another 2-3 inches or so of headroom compared to the headliner, plus it makes the airplane a whole lot safer and more fun to fly.

The sling seat is not exactly the favorite part of a T-craft for most pilots, as mentioned. Most people don't know the T-craft sling seat is adjustable... but you still need to fiddle with the cushions a lot to make it tolerable on a long flight. The "Jack Norris" Luscombe seat STC (simple plywood seat) makes a good field upgrade on a T-craft too. You leave the sling in all the way loose, put the plywood in above the sling, and then good cushions on top of the wood. Several T-crafters have said this is as good as you are going to get in that setup. When the FAA comes to ask about paperwork on the Norris seat, you point to the fabric sling still sitting under there, and say "what... the plywood is an orthopaedic cushion, firm just the way I like it"... the stock T-craft sling is right there under it.

BTW, off-topic warning, Jack Norris has owned and flown the same Luscombe for 60 years continuously! He was at our EAA chapter Xmas party last night, just as clever and razor sharp as always. Now how many people do you know who own an antique tailwheel airplane that can honestly say "why yes, now that you mention it I AM a rocket scientist..." After being a rocket scientist (whose inventions got us to the moon and back), Jack became the technical director on the Rutan Voyager world flight. For fun after retirement, he just went off and solved the mathematical mysteries of how propellers really work, and his blade design is now being incorporated into the Whirlwind and other propellers delivering race-winning performance improvement. Anyone who wants to learn how to fly their airplane measurably better (cruise efficiency) than they do now should read Jack's book "Propellers Explained". The book is split into two sections, one of which is how to get the maximum range and efficiency out of any aircraft easily. Jack is one of those genuine "he's forgotten more about airplanes than I'll ever know" kind of guys.

flattie45 wrote:

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

With 125 hp, 78" prop and 8.50x6.00 tires I cruised right at 100 mph with 2400 rpm. 6 1/4 gph. But that's not a typical setup. There are quite a few that have the O-200 under the cowl; that's probably a pretty good combination.

I don't really have much direct experience with other aircraft, besides the 150 I rented to get my license and a little bit of time in a 172, plus some unlogged time in my father's Pacer.

Reading all these posts it seems that there is not a bad plane out there. I know that deep down we all want one of each. Conventional wisdom will say to purchase the best example you can afford i.e. maybe look at a nice Pacer instead of a similarly priced but wore out 170 (just as an example). Just be realistic about what you want to do. And don't be afraid to invest a little money in a pre-purchase inspection. Good luck!
-Nate

My Dad has a 120 with a 125hp Lycoming, 76'' cruise prop and 8.00x6.00 tires. It will cruise at around 125mph on less than 7gph. Even with the cruise prop it will get off short and climb like a bat out of hell. I used to see up to 1800fpm when flying by myself and half fuel and over 1000 with 2 people and full fuel. I probably would have bought it instead of Zanes 170 if I didn't want more room in a plane. That 120 sure is a fun plane though, I always wanted to put a set of VGs on it and some 26'' airstreaks from AKbushweel.

A C140/120 with a bit more oomph does sound like a lot of fun. I like the idea of having at least 105mph for cruise so headwinds aren't totally obnoxious. I'm thinking I should just get the 5 planes I want for all needed missions:

V35B Bonanza (4 person cross country cruiser)
RV-8 (or other aerobatic)
Cessna 180 (camping plane)
Lake Amphibian (seaplane)
Tiger Moth (open cockpit biplane)

My first was a PA-12. It was a great plane.
Nice to be able to carry two people in the back seat.
I think the longer gear legs would have been nice though as it seemed on skis I was always touching with the tail ski well before the mains.
It is a little cheaper than a PA-18. You could get a good basic plane for $30,000 - $40,000. After that you could start the mods as you could afford them or as you wanted them.
Mine was on either floats or skis. I did have it on Whittaker Tandem Wheel Gear a couple of times though.
GJ

Well have been lurking here for a few months now and this one hits close to home just bought a c-140 and now have a total of 15 hrs and loving ever second best of luck

I just bought my first tailwheel airplane!

Its also my first airplane of any kind. For me it is the 1949 170A. Everyone says 170B's are better. I was able to find the A model for only a little more than a 140 and $15,000 less than a 170B. So a 170A is better for me! I think the real choice is to find some thing you can afford and afford to put fuel in. A 180 would be great but on a pilot salary I could never afford to feed it.

Cessna 140's where on my list and I looked at a few. That's what I got my tailwheel endorsement in. But I really liked the idea of my wife and I being able to take the dog and camping gear.

I'm super excited about heading over to Johnson Creek and camping this summer. I think it would be a hard fit to do that with 140. Not that it can't be done.

Water Boy

Congrats on the 170, I'm sure you're going to love it. I'll be at Johnson Creek this year with my wife, dog, and camping gear in our 170 Come over and say hi.

robw56 wrote:Congrats on the 170, I'm sure you're going to love it. I'll be at Johnson Creek this year with my wife, dog, and camping gear in our 170 Come over and say hi.

Will do. Not sure if I can make the BCP flyin but hope to. I like the mods you've done to your 170. Mine came with a Horton STOl that flys slower than I do. Can't put the sportsman on the A model but it sounds great.

How do the bush wheels do on the early 170 gear legs?

I'm just coming out of lurker status now that I've read most everything I can find while searching for 170.

My 1st airplane is still the one I have. I went from 100hr renting 152 172 Cessnas to a Maule M7 235HP tailwheel. There is more than one way to get your 1st tailwheel plane.

Cheers...Rob

Waterboy wrote:

robw56 wrote:Congrats on the 170, I'm sure you're going to love it. I'll be at Johnson Creek this year with my wife, dog, and camping gear in our 170 Come over and say hi.

Will do. Not sure if I can make the BCP flyin but hope to. I like the mods you've done to your 170. Mine came with a Horton STOl that flys slower than I do. Can't put the sportsman on the A model but it sounds great.

How do the bush wheels do on the early 170 gear legs?

I'm just coming out of lurker status now that I've read most everything I can find while searching for 170.

I was worried about how the bushwheels would do on the early gear, but honestly it hasn't been a problem. You do need different torque plates to mount the double puck clevelands though. Let me know if you ever go that route and I'll fill you in.