Taylorcraft vs. Cessna 120/140 vs. Luscombe

[Rodney Anderson]

In looking around for a first plane, I've started to look at some of the
older tailwheel planes as viable alternatives. I've been getting
tailwheel training in a Citabria 7ECA, and wondered if I could get some
opinions from the group on the Taylorcraft BC12 series (I've found a
1941 BC12-65 for sale locally, haven't seen it yet), Cessna 120/140, and
Luscombe 8 series. I know I want an electrical system, and currently
don't have a hanger available, but I don't know enough about these
planes to know the pro's/con's of each. Also hear conflicting things
about fabric planes being tied down on the ramp. I've heard you have to
hanger a fabric plane, but some things I've seen suggest that
Ceconite/Polyfiber, etc. can last for years in the weather. Most of my
time is in a Cherokee 140 so far, but the Citabria is fun. Now if I can
just get those wheel landings down.......

Rodney

[ShawnD2112]

The Taylorcraft is a wonderful machine because of it's simplicity and
performance. It handles like a kitten - soft and gentle even when you're
poaying pretty rough in short grass strips but can occaissionally scratch
after some unwary teasing. She also purrs when you get a landing just
right - who says airplanes don'e have personalities? :)

The Tcraft performance is surprisingly good. Our little 65 hp engine will
take it into the air in a pretty aggressive way and she handles very
smoothly and crisply even at very low speeds. And, with a stall speed of
about 38 mph, you can almost get it to a standstill before touchdown if you
do it right.

Ours is hangared and I would suggest that for any ragwing airplane. Just go
out to the airport and look at the condition of outdoor airplanes comapred
with the ones indoors and you'll see what a difference it makes, even on
aluminum.

Ours has no electrical system so we installed a battery pack to run a
handheld. I personally wouldn't add any more than that as it's wasted
ballast.

And it's flown all around Europe. Two of the guys in the group have her
across the channel for a tour around Austria as we speak - last year was the
farthest northern reaches of Norway, two years ago, Gobraltar. You CAN go
places with them - it just takes a while.

For vintage simply flying, you can't beat a Tcraft, and I've flown Cubs and
Citabrias. The side-by-side seating is much more sociable for passengers,
too!

Just my .02

Shawn
T Craft G-BRPX
"Rodney Anderson" <r...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3B745A42...@charter.net...

[Peter D. Brown]

T-crafts are great airplanes. Designed by Mr. Taylor, the
same guy who designed the J-3 Cub except he corrected the
mistakes he originally made on the Cub. They are faster,
more nimble on the controls, and more fun with a pax.

I have had both a BC-12D and a newer F-19. I would still
have the BC-12D but my wife wrecked it. It used to have a
wind generator which keep the battery well charged and drove
the rarely used nav lights and a strobe, and the radio
used daily for the control tower. If you got one in decent
shape, its tough to imagine that you wouldn't love it.

The C-124-140 are nice as well. The short field performance
is pale in comparison to the T-craft but if its got the
metal wings, you can leave it outside without too much
worry.

Pete
Anchorage

[Joe Norris]

> T-crafts are great airplanes. Designed by Mr. Taylor, the

> same guy who designed the J-3 Cub...

Just a slight nit to pick. C. G. Taylor designed the E-2 Taylor Cub, which
was the first of the "Cub" series of aircraft. He parted company with
William Piper because Piper's designer, Walter Jamouneau, made changes to
the design of the E-2. The resulting aircraft was the J-2 (the J standing
for Jamouneau). By the time the J-3 was introduced, Mr. Taylor was long
gone and building Taylorcrafts at his new aircraft company. So, while the
bloodlines of the J-3 go directly back to the E-2 Taylor Cub, Mr. Taylor was
not directly involved in it's (the J-3's) design.

> ....except he corrected the mistakes he originally made on the Cub.

As for Mr. Taylor making "mistakes" on the Cub, it all depends on how you
look at it! <g> Judging by the longevity and popularity of the Cub and it's
descendants, I'd say both C.G. Taylor and Walter Jamouneau did a pretty good
job! <g>

Ok folks, fire away!!

Joe

[BARR DOUG]

If you are going to keep it outside, the Cessna 140 (preferably with the
100 horse engine), is a pretty good choice. Enough power to get you in and
out of quite a few strips, aluminum wont deteriorate much, and has electric
start. Also fairly forgiving in regards to ground handling. I think you can
find them in the 25K range.

In article <3B745A42...@charter.net>,

[Roger47949]

Go with the T-craft, you will save enough money on operating, repair, and
insurance to pay for a nice hanger. I got my TW endorsement in a Citabria and
bought a 46 BC-12D, I love this plane its pure fun, starts on the first blade,
fuel cost is about $4.85 hour ($1.27 mogas), and she reliably gives me 91 MPH
ground speed at 2150 RPM. The purchase price should be significantly less than
the Luscombe or the 140, and thats not all, at 1200 pound gross it qualifies
for the sport pilot license class.......

[Henry Bibb]

Luscombe 8 series is a viable contender, too. I learned in a Champ, years
ago,
got the bug, and bought a Luscombe 8F after not flying for 20 years. It's
not
as squirrelly as people want to tell you it is, and it's a lot of fun to
fly. Downside
is it's a bit tight across the beam if you've got 2 large folks in there,
but then again,
so are most of the others. Although aluminum, I'd be a bit wary of leaving
it
outside, depending on your climate - the Luscombe aileron cables exit the
wings
through slots about 3-4" long by about 1/4" wide. That could let in a lot
of water
if its rainy where you live.

Hope it helps,
Henry Bibb

[Rodney Anderson]

Thanks, everybody. That gives me more information to go on as I look for a
plane. I'm finding that tailwheel planes are fun to fly, more challenging
than my Dad's Cherokee by far.

Rodney