Al Downs Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 I am currently flying a CTLS and would like to add a light sport tailwheel to the hangar. I am looking at Cub, Taylorcraft and Luscombe. I am concerned about useful load because I would like it usable with a passenger. Most of you are way more experienced in aviation than I am so I was hoping to tap into that experience for some valuable advice. What should I be looking for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 Buying, or renting? If you are buying and flying as a sport pilot, there's some nasty hidden catches about using old planes like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 Carbon Cub - no other can match it. Maybe he is only looking to spend about 10-15% that much money. I have worked on and have some time in all of those, plus a Champ. If you find the right airplane you will be OK, but it might take some time. I would like a Taylorcraft BC12D upgraded to 1280 gross that was was built up light in the 750-800 range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 . . . "Carbon Cub - no other can match it." . . . Nor that whopping price either. Think $220,000 new . . . . $180,000 used. Certainly a great performer though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 Rans S-7 is pretty cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 I realize this isn't what you are looking for... but every little boy inside the pilot wants to fly one of these! You can build this LSA compliant with fixed gear instead of retractable, and with a Rotax 912 instead of a Suzuki or Honda. It does have a tandem rear seat. The LSA kit version is $54,000. With engine and avionics it can be built for under $100K. It can be bought used for between $100 and $150. http://www.titanaircraft.com/t-51d.php Here is an example used for $100K (Rotax powered, this one has retractable so not LSA compliant but you get the idea) http://www.barnstorm...lassifieds.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Downs Posted December 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 I am looking to purchase something. Most seem to have a MTOW of 1220 and with two people there isn't much room for fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Downs Posted December 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 What do I need to look out for with the old planes, Can't see spending 175 plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 What do I need to look out for with the old planes, Can't see spending 175 plus. Al, how much do you need weight wise for you and another passenger not counting fuel? Do you need electric start, or are you willing to learn to correctly prop an airplane? When looking at old airplanes it would be good to find someone who knows the type airplane well, Also get the CD of records from the FAA and check AD's to make sure the airplane has no un-documented modifications and is up to date. You have to remember just because it has flown that way for years and been passing annual inspections doesn't make it OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 What do I need to look out for with the old planes, Can't see spending 175 plus. Corrosion would be the number one issue if you are looking at old airplanes. Find somebody to do a pre-buy inspection that knows the type of airplane very well. I think the Luscombe 8A is a steal in the old airplane category. Usually priced well below Cubs and Champs, side-by-side seating, and significantly faster with a 105mph cruise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Downs Posted December 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 I think 375-400 for pilot and passenger would be what I need. I would not consider anything from a salt water area any time during its life. The corrosion factor doesn't seem to be worth dealing with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 Dont buy a used piece of junk. Not everything used is a piece of junk. Not even everything old is a piece of junk. There are some airplanes that are *really* old and still more airworthy than any of our CTs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 Lots of love for the Taylorcraft where I live. Relatively inexpensive and flies well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 Back in 1994 I finished the restoration of a 1941 BL-65 Taylorcraft that won grand champion antique at Oshkosh, it was nicer than new. The empty weight was 692 with a gross of 1150. That equated to 458 useful or 398 for passengers with full fuel. Most of the later Taylorcrafts have a 1200 pound gross weight, but also have higher empty weights. If you look you can occasionally find an 85HP taylorcraft with a sub 800 pound empty weight and a 1280 pound gross weight. The thing is they will also carry an other 60 pounds of fuel with full tanks, but you don't have to carry the extra unless you are going somewhere. BTW they don't have to come from a salt water area to have corrosion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 Not zapping used per se.. Just saying one doesn't need to spend over $100k to get a new LSA. There are a lot of options. I know your plane turned out to be sweet, Morden. There are a few new out there less than $100k, the Aerotrek is a nice bird. But there are a lot of people out there looking to spend $50k, $30k, $20k, or even less, and there are airplanes for those folks too. Not new, but perfectly serviceable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 Yes, but they are metal (or fabric) and don't have glass. At least one poster here doesn't seem to understand not everyone is as wealthy as obviously he is. Money doesn't make up for bad judgement or poor manners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 Yes, but they are metal (or fabric) and don't have glass. Or pixie dust embedded in the air pockets designed into their carbon fiber weave to make it stronger, lighter, and able to float longer. At least one poster here doesn't seem to understand not everyone is as wealthy as obviously he is. New is nice if you can afford it. There are many things I could afford new that I buy used, just because I sometimes like to avoid the huge depreciation hit that buying new entails. And the work of sorting out bugs. There are 50 and 60 year old planes more airworthy than some new ones, especially those composite wonders that start to bubble up and delaminate and decompose in about 5 years, if not washed with exactly the right ph cleaner. Time will tell who the wiser shopper is. Back on point, a Champ would be a great, reliable, simple and relatively benign plane for Al. Just beware the compromised useful load imposed by Sport Pilot limitations - that may eliminate it from consideration. 395 lbs useful load shown on the ACA website: http://www.amerchamp...hamp/Champ.html Tube and fabric construction is tried and true, and fairly easy to inspect. Just a thought. I've owned two Citabrias, direct descendants of the 7AC Champ, and they were both bought used and were both wonderful planes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 "There are 50 and 60 year old planes more airworthy than some new ones" <- name one. Beechcraft Bonanza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 I have seen some real nice Globe Swifts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercity Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 A Luscombe is a great little performer and a inexpensive buy for the older ones. Its a bit of a challenge on landings especially with the old mechanical heel brakes but with the right training is not an issue. It has a decent load and pretty good speed for the HP. Not sure if all of them qualify for LSA but worth a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 I have seen some real nice Globe Swifts. What a beauty! Now that's a real airplane! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 Ever seen a well kept staggerwing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercity Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 "There are 50 and 60 year old planes more airworthy than some new ones" <- name one. I put my family in my 50 year old Comanche all the time. It is well maintained and as airworthy as when it rolled out of the factory. Dont get me wrong I love my CT and new airplanes but the old tin ones can be maintained in a manner that keeps them airworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 A Luscombe is a great little performer and a inexpensive buy for the older ones. Its a bit of a challenge on landings especially with the old mechanical heel brakes but with the right training is not an issue. It has a decent load and pretty good speed for the HP. Not sure if all of them qualify for LSA but worth a look. The challenge on landing with the Luscombe is the stiff narrow gear that won't take much side load, later ones hada different style landing gear leg IIRC. I don't understand why people have a problem with heel brakes. It is a light simple way to make the brakes work, especially when working with mechanical brakes like the old airplanes had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted December 6, 2013 Report Share Posted December 6, 2013 OLD aircraft may still be airworthy, but they are NOT as airworthy as a NEW plane with all NEW components built with the latest tools, materials, and quality control. You are now correct because you moved the goal posts. When you challenged Eddie to 'name one' the argument was this: "There are 50 and 60 year old planes more airworthy than some new ones" <- name one" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.