It's a Model 8A, 2 PCL-SM, sitting on Edo 1320s. If I buy they will remain on. SP legal 1250/1350 L/S GW. 23 gallons in two wing tanks, no side windows, taller with the same weight limit FA'd baggage compartment, cloth wings with stamped ribs, no electrical system, orig s/n Continental 65hp engine. Supposedly increased to 75... short of breaking the case how do I tell?

I have an ASES but want to fly under SP rules. The intended mission is "fun," mostly defined as freshwater lake hopping at under 1000 ft AMSL. I weigh 125 and my fishing buddy weights 165 so even with a full baggage compartment and tanks we'd be legal.

Thoughts, especially stuff to look for before "big money" changes hands.

Thanks

Lisa

Do it. I have no Luscombe seaplane time but wish I did. Luscombes are great airplanes that are a blast to fly. MTV once said a Luscombe on floats is a ‘water lovin machine’ so it wouldn’t expect too much out of that A65 even if it is hopped up to 75hp. Still should be a way fun airplane. Probably no way to legally fly it on floats with two people.

I can’t remember for sure but I’m pretty sure the hp increase comes from a carburetor change and higher rpm. Continental has instructions on how to do it I’m sure you could find via google.

Maybe I should buy it…where’s the ad?

What are the prop options for the 8A? Often that can make a huge difference.

Luscombe 8 is a beautiful machine. You may be relegated to some long lakes though.

whee wrote:Maybe I should buy it…where’s the ad?

Ha, ha, nice try...

whee wrote:I can’t remember for sure but I’m pretty sure the hp increase comes from a carburetor change and higher rpm.

Same carb just different jets. The 75 has the same cruise rpm, just a higher TO rpm for 10 extra hp at TO than the 65. The Bay is only 577 AMSL and there are long enough lakes not much higher. Not too many hot days either.

whee wrote:Still should be a way fun airplane. Probably no way to legally fly it on floats with two people.

It's light, the weight savings from cloth wings and having no electrics more than makes up for the 109 lb exchange weight on 1320s. Kenmore says they are 187 lb actual weight. I like light airplanes. With only 290 lb of people, 146 lb of oil and gas, 75 lb of baggage IF we can fit that much, legal isn't the issue. Figuring out where to put our catch is...

Zzz wrote:What are the prop options for the 8A? Often that can make a huge difference.

There are quite a few, it actually is optimised for cruise right now, which some may find funny given its few hp, but the lakes are long enough. This generation of aircraft was more "gliders with engines" than Convairs or 188 Electras with big fans creating lift over 93 percent of the span.

Zzz wrote:Luscombe 8 is a beautiful machine. You may be relegated to some long lakes though.

I looked it up, Tahoe is over a statute mile higher than Green Bay. I might make a different choice if I had that to consider.

Test without passenger and baggage first. Don't try to climb quickly. Accept situation if it will not climb at all. Ground effect works on the water too.

What’s the empty weight? Depending on the fabric job it can come out heavier than polished metal wings. But most rag wing Luscombes don’t get heavyweight glossy fabric jobs.

Luscombes have that blessed “any wood prop that meets static rpm” phrase. I recall that the metal McCauley is 76” long which is a pretty big prop for a little engine/airplane so a flat version would likely work really well.

You can add the D windows if you really want them but they are just more weight.

Sounds like a fun airplane.

Whee is right....I flew a Luscomb 8E (90 hp) on EDO 1320s. It was a water lover, for sure. Not sure what prop was on it. Bear in mind that this was all dual instruction. The owner had owned the plane, on wheels, for several years, so all I was trying to teach him was how to fly it on floats.

I wouldn't call it a dog, but it did make the pilot work at getting airborne. If you have some float experience, especially in this category of seaplane, you should do okay. If you need to carry two people and gear, plus gas....might be some difficult math.

MTV

whee wrote:What’s the empty weight? Depending on the fabric job it can come out heavier than polished metal wings. But most rag wing Luscombes don’t get heavyweight glossy fabric jobs.

822 lb (+14.45) as weighed on the Edos when installed. It's also a stones throw from a higher GW of 1375 as a "C" if I wanted to. Which means I don't actually weigh enough to fly it solo without a bag behind the seats.

Not sure I really want to add a pound to the plane tho.

whee wrote:Luscombes have that blessed “any wood prop that meets static rpm” phrase. I recall that the metal McCauley is 76” long which is a pretty big prop for a little engine/airplane so a flat version would likely work really well.

You can add the D windows if you really want them but they are just more weight.

Nah, I'd rather keep it lighter,

whee wrote:Sounds like a fun airplane.

Thanks. My thoughts exactly.

Since speed clearly isn't in your game plan I'd be putting a seaplane prop of some sort on it, NOT a cruise prop. Also deeper chines on the floats can really "assist" with getting on the step as well. The Luscombe has a "speed" wing, not a "lift" wing, I know that sounds funny. I don't know if there's an STC for a leading edge cuff of some sort but I'd be looking into that possibility as well. I realize it will add some weight but the enhanced lift may be a worthwhile trade off.

Mapleflt wrote:Since speed clearly isn't in your game plan

It's all relative, faster than some, but not most. But getting there first isn't as important as having fun along the way.

Mapleflt wrote:I'd be putting a seaplane prop of some sort on it, NOT a cruise prop.

It has a 76A46, sorta what I think of as in the middle diameter wise.

Mapleflt wrote:Also deeper chines on the floats can really "assist" with getting on the step as well. The Luscombe has a "speed" wing, not a "lift" wing

Please, tell me more. I thought Luscombe's UC-90, Piper's USA-35, and Aeronca's 4412 were all modified Clark 'Y"s. With Taylor's 23012 being the semi-symmetrical outlier. And always thought of the "corners" of the 1320 as being more "square" than those of the 1400 due to the "deeper" flare.

Mapleflt wrote:I don't know if there's an STC for a leading edge cuff of some sort but I'd be looking into that possibility as well. I realize it will add some weight but the enhanced lift may be a worthwhile trade off.

To my knowledge Robertson never made any goodies for Luscombes like he did for Skywagons, but then again I'm not looking to lift my own empty weight either. Sometimes simple is best, like an instrument panel with six indicators in five holes.

I instruct in a Tcraft on floats, one where it will not get on step with 2 people if you have even 1kt tailwind. I hated it at first but have learned to love. It's making some great float pilots. It's cheap for them to fly and teaches theory with every struggling takeoff.

Buy it and have fun. The good thing about a floatplane is that if you can get it off the water (weight, CG, etc), it'll probably fly fine.

The later you arrive the colder the beer will be and the warmer the fire that the faster guys got going while you caught up with them.

The mission starts with getting off the water so for the sake of a few extra knots in the cruise I'd be swinging a "full on" seaplane prop if such a creature exists.

I'm not an aerodynamicists but my limited understand is that within the smaller, two seat taildraggers the Luscombe wing was more of a cruise wing like a Taylorcraft or Cessna 140. It's not as much of a lifting wing like Piper but I'm happy to be wrong on that.

Robertson is not the only company that has developed "lift enhancing" modifications; research Horton, Sportsman and a host of others.

Most importantly however is fly it often, learn it's the unique characteristics, the operational envelop to expand as you gain comfort and skill.

Never heard of a STOL leading edge cuff for a Luscombe,
but Micro Aero does make a VG kit for them.

https://microaero.com/image-gallery/?sm ... smfgid=643

Mapleflt wrote:I'd be putting a seaplane prop of some sort on it, NOT a cruise prop. Also deeper chines on the floats can really "assist" with getting on the step as well.

Apparently the A&P "almost converted" this 8A to an 8C. Had he changed the prop and made the proper notations in the log book the GW would increase from 1260 / 1260 lb to 1310 / 1375 lb. 115 pounds is 19 gallons of gas, not shabby.

Besides the cost of the new prop the trade off is a required smaller diameter. which flies I the face of the TC allowing larger diameter props on other float planes vs the same model on wheels.

It has a 76A46. The options I've found, in an admittedly quick look, if "converted" to a "C" are 72 inch diameter props with 52, 50, 46, or 44 inch pitch. Cruisers have more pitch than climbers, but floaters have more diameter than turfers. Both diameter and pitch use up hp, and one of the ways an A-75 develops those ten nebulous hp the 65 doesn't is by spinning a smaller lighter prop faster.

Anyone up for some algebra?

Lisa