Piper J-3 C, PA 11,12,16,18, 20
Taylorcraft BC-12D, F-19
Luscombe 8E
Interstate S1B2 Arctic Tern
Aeronca 7AC, 7EC, 7GC, 15AC
ACA 7GCBC, 7KCAB, 8GCBC, 8KCAB
Pitts S-2A, S2B, S2C
Aviat Husky A-1, A-1A, A-1B, A-1C, A1C-200
Great Lakes 2T-1A
Cessna 120, 140, 140A, 170, 170A, 170B, 172 TW, 180, 185
Maule M-4, M-5, M-6, M-7-235, M-7-260
Waco Taperwing (Damn!)
Republic RC-3 Seabee
Murphy SR-3500 Moose
Found FBA 2C1
deHavilland DHC-2 MK I, MK III
Grumman G-21A

I'm with Gump.....a DC 3 type rating and flying a Staggerwing would be pretty nice....well, but I guess I'd rather get a type rating in a C-46......then there's the DGA 15 Howard. And, the rest of the Waco family, and....the list goes on.

MTV

Aeronca 7AC
Air Tractor AT400
Boeing Stearman
7KCAB, 7GCBC
Cessna 120, 140, 170, 180, 185
Helio Courier
North American AT-6
Piper J3, PA11, PA18
Schwiezer AgCat 600
Stinson V77

That's about all I can claim. After 7800 hours and a lot of nose dragger time, I really value any chance I get to fly a tailwheel. Actually got to play with a 180 today, God that was nice! True therapy.

I forgot Pacer time...my bucket list is the Porter and Beaver (as far as tailwheel goes).

Follow up question.

Which one was the most fun to fly?

For me while the PA-11 (and the very similar Legend Cub) were very fun and seemed almost connected to my nervous system, the Great Lakes was the most fun for me. I wouldn't want to spend more than an hour in it at a time and it is basically has no useful purpose, it just made me laugh it was so fun.

If only counting those that I did take offs and landings
S7
Cessna 120

Flying the 120 I complained to the instructor that I couldn't see the runway while landing. His remark "goddammit Arnold, if you can't see it its underneath you" It was

I have a little time in a lot of tail wheel aircraft, but not near as many on here. However, I got nearly a half hour of B-17 time when I was in college, merely a lowly line service worker. Right time at the right place. Pretty cool experience flying a B-17 cross country. No landings, so I don't know if it really counts for this thread,but cool nonetheless.

I thoroughly enjoyed each and every one, so it's hard to make up my mind, but I'd say the Air Tractor 400 was the most fun to fly. It had the 680SHP -11AG on it, and bending that thing around empty was a kick in the pants.

contactflying wrote:J-3, J-5, PA11,12,18, Pawnee 235 and PA25-250, Stearman w/R985, Callair, Taylorcraft L4 and DC-65, Luscombe 8A, Cessna 170 and 180, Kitfox, and several homebuilt airplanes I don't remember the name of. Oh! I was the first ever to fly the Daisy Mae. Marv Reese designed and built this completely wood and fabric bi-plane. He wrote a book on building it called "The Making of Daisy May."

Hey contactflying, what's a DC-65??? Did you mean a BC-65 or a DC-6??

littlewheelinback wrote:Follow up question.

Which one was the most fun to fly?

My experience is so limited that I probably shouldn't even respond to this question but I have actually been thinking about this a lot lately. I'm probably biased because of my 300hrs in a Luscombe and only 35 hours in a Bearhawk but based purely on the feel of each airplane the Luscombe was the most fun to fly. The comparison I've drawn in my head is the Luscombe is like driving a Triumph TR6, not fast or powerful but just plain fun. The Bearhawk is like a 3/4 ton diesel pickup, not a lot of fun factor in the feel of the controls but will pack anything you stuff inside and will make it look easy.

I'm envious of you guys with a ton of planes in you logbooks. After 10 years and a measly 350hrs I have a whopping total of 4 planes in my logbook. Hopefully over the next 40 years that will change.

whee wrote:

littlewheelinback wrote:Follow up question.

Which one was the most fun to fly?

My experience is so limited that I probably shouldn't even respond to this question but I have actually been thinking about this a lot lately. I'm probably biased because of my 300hrs in a Luscombe and only 35 hours in a Bearhawk but based purely on the feel of each airplane the Luscombe was the most fun to fly. The comparison I've drawn in my head is the Luscombe is like driving a Triumph TR6, not fast or powerful but just plain fun. The Bearhawk is like a 3/4 ton diesel pickup, not a lot of fun factor in the feel of the controls but will pack anything you stuff inside and will make it look easy.

I'm envious of you guys with a ton of planes in you logbooks. After 10 years and a measly 350hrs I have a whopping total of 4 planes in my logbook. Hopefully over the next 40 years that will change.

Whee,

Frankly, who cares how many types one has in the logbook? The point is to get out there and fly what you've got access to. I'm pretty much down to flying one type now. I'd like to fly more types, but flying even one airplane is truly a blessing that we in this country enjoy. Compared to the rest of the world, even us folks with limited income can still get out and enjoy the likes of a Luscombe or T-Craft, or ????

Enjoy all your flying, it is truly a gift to be able to fly for recreation.....no matter the type.

This thread is all internet masturbation anyway.....

MTV

"This thread is all internet masturbation anyway..... "

Most threads on this site are...

Patin Loco,

I am old enough to be wrong on almost any issue. However, I am fairly sure it was a Taylorcraft DC-65. The story was that it was built as a glider trainer during the war. Instructor tandem in the middle of two students. The gliders they were going to fly in combat were not intended to soar. Once released from the C-47, they wanted to get to the LZ as soon as possible. Later they put the Continental A-65 engine on it.

Whee,

Pilots are by nature full of themselves. Good observation.

Jim

contactflying wrote:Patin Loco,

I am old enough to be wrong on almost any issue. However, I am fairly sure it was a Taylorcraft DC-65. The story was that it was built as a glider trainer during the war. Instructor tandem in the middle of two students.

The Taylorcraft model D was originally a tandem trainer with an engine, introduced just before WW2. When war preparations started, they were used to to compete with the Cub for CPT training contracts.

When the Army released a specification for a contract for an observation and liaison aircraft, the DC-65 was modified into the DCO-65 (O for observation), with changes to meet the visibility requirements that the DC-65 could not meet. This included cutting wedges out of the wing root, a plexiglass rear canopy, and a swiveling rear seat. This modified DCO-65 was accepted eventually became the L-2, which competed against the L-4 Cub. The DC-65 (un-modified) was used to fill CPT contracts.

(The Cub still got the lion's share of CPT and Liaison contracts)

Later in the war, when they decided to use assault gliders, the DC-65 was modified into the three seat TG-6 as contactflying mentioned. After the war, many of the TG-6 gliders were converted back to the DC-65 configuration using the original A-65 installation.

One unique piece of Taylorcraft history is that a strengthened version of the TG-6, called the GLOMB, was actually the first aircraft designed to carry the atomic bomb, and the first "standoff" weapon. They were going to radio control it, and drop it from the B-29 much further away form the target, letting the GLOMB glide toward the target for several minutes, giving the bomber more time to turn and run away. I'm guessing that they eventually figured out that there was enough time without the standoff, and so they gave up on the GLOMB.

On behalf of the Taylorcraft community, I'm proud to point out that Piper couldn't build a Cub derivative to do this same job, because of the significantly higher aerodynamic efficiency of the Taylorcraft design

littlewheelinback wrote:"This thread is all internet masturbation anyway..... "

Most threads on this site are...

And yet you're here, you nasty voyeur you.

Tailwheel types I've flown include the Scott 3200, Scott 3400 and recently, the ABI 3400.

n/a

LOL Oregon180.

Relative inexperience compared to most on this site and just enjoy going out and flying my amphibious Murphy Rebel, but I can't count it because I've never flown it on its land gear even though it is a taildragger (in that configuration). Probably never will.

However, I do have 7ECA, 7GCBC, C180, Luscombe 8F, and Maule M-4 time in my logbook.

Just happy to be flying (in anything that flies).

Thanks Jim! I had no idea. Live and learn. That's what I love about this place, I learn every time I enter.

Oregon180 wrote:Tailwheel types I've flown include the Scott 3200, Scott 3400 and recently, the ABI 3400.

LOL

A185F
J-3
PA-18
Luscombe SL-8

I've only got 3 in my logbook. I got checked out in a 7KCAB Citabria, I was one of 10 partners in a Pitts S2A, and now I own a Maule MX7-180C. Over the weekend I was at the Triple Tree Flyin and it was my birthday. They were also selling rides in a P-51. I almost added that to my list, but at $1,600 for less than an hour's time it was too rich for my blood. Besides, they never would have allowed me to land it. Still, I enjoyed the heck out of watching and listening to its circuits around the field!

As to which one was the most fun - each of them was in their own way. I enjoyed the heck out of the Citabria. It was fun and easy to fly and I learned aerobatics in it. Once I got competent, I wanted more and the Pitts delivered in style. Every landing in the Pitts had a certain pucker factor to it, and it wasn't good for much except tearing up the sky. The effortless grace that plane exhibited when it was away from the ground made buying a share worthwhile. Now I fly the pants off of my Maule and I'm getting to know it better each flight. It has let me go places and do things with the family that neither the Citabria nor the Pitts could support, so right now the Maule is the best plane I've ever flown. I suspect if I change to a motorglider at some point it will become the best plane ever because it will offer a different set of capabilities that I don't have access to now. That's the way it should be. Define your mission needs, find a plane that fulfills those requirements and then enjoy the heck out of it until your wants and needs change.