Hi, again, all.

I am seriously considering buying a used plane in the USA and having it shipped out to me here in Kenya. I am looking for a modest taildragger, my budget is around $15,000-$25,000 for a two-seater, a little higher for a four- or five-seater, and high-altitude performance is key as my home airport is already over 5000' elevation.

One recommendation I have received is to track down a relatively original Cessna 120/140 with the lighter fabric wings especially with the larger prop permitted with a C-90 or a C-85 with O-200 crank STC vs. those with an O-200 and the Cessna 150 prop. I understand that they also perform better at altitude than a 150 or 152 taildragger conversion.



Sticking to type-certificated, factory-built aircraft (homebuilts are problematic with the bureaucracy here), what other options would folks suggest?

Cheers,

Matthew

How long is the airstrip? What is the surface? Are you wanting to be set up for landing only on airstrips or in off-field sites as well?

Depending on the answers, you may have a number of options or you may have relatively few...

85 to 100 horsepower Taylorcraft.

Troy Hamon wrote:How long is the airstrip? What is the surface? Are you wanting to be set up for landing only on airstrips or in off-field sites as well? Depending on the answers, you may have a number of options or you may have relatively few...

Absolutely right...airstrips only, but tarmac and grass and dirt, some of the latter rough but not terrible, nothing that would require tires bigger than 8.00 or 8.50, certainly not tundra tires. Most airstrips that I would use are not too short, nothing less than 1000' and most at least double that.

EZFlap wrote:85 to 100 horsepower Taylorcraft.

Thanks, I'll take a look on the big used plane sites for availability and pricing. Anyone have any strong feelings on Taylorcraft vs. Cessna 120/140 for this mission keeping in mind that I am a low-time pilot with no current tailwheel experience?

Cheers,

Matthew

Only based on my personal experience - I tried getting checked out in a Taylorcraft many years ago with no previous TW time and gave up in frustration, then same instructor, same airport, same experience level tired a C-140. 3 times around the pattern and I was off solo (there was not a requirement for a formal tailwheel endorsement back then). I obviously found the C-140 to behave more like the more modern Cessnas I was used to.

Best,
O-2

Thanks, OscarDeuce, that's very encouraging. What are you flying now...can I venture a guess that it's a push-me-pull-you Cessna twin?

OscarDeuce wrote:Only based on my personal experience - I tried getting checked out in a Taylorcraft many years ago with no previous TW time and gave up in frustration, then same instructor, same airport, same experience level tired a C-140. 3 times around the pattern and I was off solo (there was not a requirement for a formal tailwheel endorsement back then). I obviously found the C-140 to behave more like the more modern Cessnas I was used to.

Best,
O-2

Speaking as one whose TW experience is limited, I had no difficulty years ago (pre-TW endorsement requirements, also--early 80s) with any of the Citabria/Decathlon family, or the T-craft. I didn't fly a C140 until last year, and it reminded me a whole lot of the T-craft checkout. All of these are pretty gentle TW aircraft--and likewise all of them will have relatively limited high altitude performance, unless they've been updated with more powerful engines. My flying is out of similar elevation locations as you anticipate, and I think you'll be a lot happier with at least 125hp, maybe more.

I do think your budget is severely limiting, though. If that's all you can afford, $15-25K, that doesn't leave anything beyond purchase for unexpected major expenses. That's something that anyone with airplane ownership experience has had to face at some point, things like a low time engine suddenly crapping out, or hidden airframe damage that will cost many thousands to correct.

>I've mentioned here that my airplane's engine threw a rod only 15 hours after I took delivery, on a 975 hour engine that theoretically should have lasted another 1000 hours, a $23,000 expense. Had I not had the financial wherewithal at that time to have a new engine built, that would have ended my dream of owning my own airplane without a partner.
>A friend had a gorgeous little 150 with a new, fresh out of the crate O-200, which he figured would be good for years of service. The engine was fine, but he was having trouble with the main gear changing alignment. Exploratory surgery disclosed that both gear boxes needed to be replaced, a major airframe repair that far exceeded the value of the airframe. Ultimately, he was able to salvage most of his expense by reselling the engine and selling the airframe for scrap, a sad end to his dream.

Maintenance itself can be pretty expensive, although usually not too bad on one of the simpler airplanes like you're considering. But the point is that just being able to afford to buy the airplane isn't good enough--you have to be able to afford a lot more, to make it a successful ownership experience.

Cary

If you get a 120/140 look for one with an O-290, they perform quite well. Climb 1500fpm and cruise at 130.

OscarDeuce wrote:I tried getting checked out in a Taylorcraft many years ago with no previous TW time and gave up in frustration, then same instructor, same airport, same experience level tired a C-140. 3 times around the pattern and I was off solo (there was not a requirement for a formal tailwheel endorsement back then). I obviously found the C-140 to behave more like the more modern Cessnas I was used to.

This may be true; the T-craft is a little lighter and "floaty-er" than the Cessnas. However, pursuant to the original post about high altitude performance, I'm pretty sure you're not going to ever see a photograph of a 65 (or 85) horse Cessna 140 sitting on top of a 10,000 foot mountain as we have seen from Coyote Ugly's T-craft

I had a c120 with an 0-200 it was a good performer with a light load but same load and same DA the 0-200 tcraft would take off considerably shorter. I'd give the edge to the tcraft for high altitude even with a c85, the cessna does have a little more shoulder room though.

Mole wrote:Thanks, OscarDeuce, that's very encouraging. What are you flying now...can I venture a guess that it's a push-me-pull-you Cessna twin?

OscarDeuce wrote:Only based on my personal experience - I tried getting checked out in a Taylorcraft many years ago with no previous TW time and gave up in frustration, then same instructor, same airport, same experience level tired a C-140. 3 times around the pattern and I was off solo (there was not a requirement for a formal tailwheel endorsement back then). I obviously found the C-140 to behave more like the more modern Cessnas I was used to.

Best,
O-2

Mole:

While I have 100s of hrs in the O-2/C337, these days I'm flying a crummy rented Piper Sport while I wait to see what the FAA does regarding the third class medical petition (I can get one, just don't want to bother). If I get stuck in the LSA, I'll be seriously considering a Carbon Cub, RANS S7, or a couple of "LSA Supercub-ish" options I've discussed with the good folks over on the Supercub.org board.

Best,
O-2

I think and have heard that T-crafts and Luscombes far outperform C-120/140s, however, I have never seen or heard of a 'fly off' to determine the truth, like vs. like planes. Luscombes might cost slightly more, however, there is no fabric to deal with. If one is tall, one might need a reverse periscope to fly a T-craft, safely. That said, I know of a C-140 w/ an o-290 that has been sitting. I can find out about it if interested.

EZFlap wrote:

OscarDeuce wrote:I tried getting checked out in a Taylorcraft many years ago with no previous TW time and gave up in frustration, then same instructor, same airport, same experience level tired a C-140. 3 times around the pattern and I was off solo (there was not a requirement for a formal tailwheel endorsement back then). I obviously found the C-140 to behave more like the more modern Cessnas I was used to.

This may be true; the T-craft is a little lighter and "floaty-er" than the Cessnas. However, pursuant to the original post about high altitude performance, I'm pretty sure you're not going to ever see a photograph of a 85 (or 85) horse Cessna 140 sitting on top of a 10,000 foot mountain as we have seen from Coyote Ugly's T-craft

EZ:

That's true, but probably only because Coyote Ugly didn't have a C-140. I imagine he could land a Volkswagon Beetle up there if he wanted to! I know you like Taylorcrafts (sp?) and not knocking 'em. The one I "flew" could have been an out of rig junker. Just felt alot like trying to balance on top a a basketball while juggling chainsaws! And then there were the heel brakes...If you don't like the way I taxi, stay off the sidewalk!

Best,
O-2

Yes I'm prejudiced in favor of the T-craft, guilty as charged.

OscarDeuce wrote:Only based on my personal experience - I tried getting checked out in a Taylorcraft many years ago with no previous TW time and gave up in frustration, then same instructor, same airport, same experience level tired a C-140. 3 times around the pattern and I was off solo (there was not a requirement for a formal tailwheel endorsement back then). I obviously found the C-140 to behave more like the more modern Cessnas I was used to.

Best,
O-2

Years ago there was a post on here that referred to difficulty in landing Tcrafts. Was it you EZ that said to check for bent or misaligned axles that send you right or left on landing and that over the years most had been readjusted by hard landings. Anyway, it stuck in my mind and not long after I recommended to a friend to check his recently purchased Tcraft because of trouble he was having. Realignment cured his problems and I took the credit. Could this be the difference in the Taylorcraft/140 experience... and can I get credit?

I'm happy with my C85 powered Luscombe. The long wing really helps with high altitudes. My home base is 4700msl and we see density altitudes above 6k in the summer. For low horse power I think the luscombe does well at highish altitude airports.

Thanks, all, for the feedback. I am not wedded to any particular design, very much going in to this with an open mind. I do want side-by-side seating to make it more fun to fly with my wife and three kids (one at a time). I am even looking at nosedraggers if they have the performance I need, though real airplanes have always been taildraggers in my mind.

By the way, on the Taylorcraft question, most of the ones I am finding are BC-12D models and other 65hp models, so not enough oomph for 5000' ft field elevation on a hot day, though there is the possibility of an STC upgrade to a bigger engine, especially if the overhaul was due anyway. I loked at ragwing Pipers but the various Cub models seem in such high demand that they cost a lot more than other, comparable designs. Pacers (and converted Tri-Pacers) come up at modest prices fairly frequently but don't seem right for high altitudes. I have seen a couple of C170s under $30k and even a couple of nice old straight-tail C172s that I would consider.

On the financial side, this would be my first aircraft purchase and while I have reached the point in my life when I can manage it, I also don't want to bite off more than I can chew. The budget I set seems reasonable for the initial purchase price of a two-seater or maybe a little more for a modest four-seater, knowing that there will still likely be update and overhaul costs to get the plane where I want it to be.

If I were really going whole hog I'd be shopping for something big enough for the whole family in club seats plus luggage, maybe a Cherokee Six or Cessna 206. But as much as I'd love a flying RV for family vacations, I just can't afford to buy, feed and maintain something like that now, and maybe not ever. And by the time I could, the kids will be grown and I won't need the seats anymore.

What I can do is get something that gets us flying right now, just not all at the same time, suitable for this country and therefore not hard to resell if I decide not to take it with me when we move on to our next assignment in a few years.

Keep those suggestions coming!

Cheers,

Matthew

Not interested in starting a pissing match here, but comparing a Lycoming powered 120 to a 85hp T-cart is like comparing apples to oranges. I own a Lyc powered 120 and one of my friends use to have a very nice 85hp T-cart that I flew often. Two different birds of a feather. One is a floater powered glider and the other is quite capable as a small bush plane and is a rugged typical spring gear Cessna taildragger. Yes, a 85hp 120 is not much of a performer, but just like a 170, put a bigger Lyc in the nose and you really change the performance and personality. I urge you to fly both before you make a purchase.

Stinson 108? Higher operating costs, but it would make a great 2 seater at those altitudes.

I'll put in another vote for a Luscombe. I liked metal, side-by-side (wife likes to fly) and a stick rather than a yoke. My first plane was an O-200 powered Luscombe 8A converted to 8E and the O-200 did well, but then Luscombes do pretty well on 85hp or even 65hp. Haven't kept track recently but I would think you could get a good one for under your $25k limit. I'd still have it if I didn't decide I needed 4-place and room for gear.

And absolutely, landing gear alignment makes a huge difference, I think that's the first place to look if ground handling is twitchy. My Luscombe originally had a bit of toe-in (should be 0 to 1 degree toe-out) and it would get your attention. After aligning the gear to 0.5 degrees toe-out it was a pussycat.