Thought experiment - school taildragger [Archive]

Genghis the Engineer

24th Jan 2012, 15:58

I'm not likely to do this - I haven't got enough spare cash.

However, let's say I'm interested in buying a taildragger to lease back to a flying school. Creating a bit of teaching work for myself, as well as availability when it's not being used by the school of a machine I can have a bit of fun in.

Requirements:

- Reasonably inexpensive: I need to buy and insure it after all.
- Challenging and interesting to fly, without being so challenging that the average PPL won't crack it.
- Doesn't need hangaring.
- Obviously, dual controls.
- And inevitably, on a CofA.

So, assuming I had the money to do this - what would I buy?

G

shortstripper

24th Jan 2012, 16:07

I suppose a converted C150 would fit the bill as it would be relatively cheap and weather hardy .... Better something with a stick, but I can't think of one that fits your criteria unless perhaps a Chippy with a non Gypsy engine presents itself?

SS

Genghis the Engineer

24th Jan 2012, 16:17

Which bit about a C150 is "interesting to fly" ?

Isn't there some fabric on a chippie?

G

Crash one

24th Jan 2012, 16:18

Cessna 185???

shortstripper

24th Jan 2012, 16:20

Well a tailwheel would go some way towards making it interesting to fly :p

Genghis the Engineer

24th Jan 2012, 16:26

I've thought about C180/C185, but they seem a bit expensive on the very rare occasions one comes up. That said yes, I can see a C180 on AFORS that would fit the bill quite well.

Sorry, but a tailwheel is nowhere near enough change to make a C150 interesting to fly!

Any advance on a C180?

G

Pilot DAR

24th Jan 2012, 16:39

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Aircraft/IMG_9010.jpg

It awaits your students Genghis!

Half the purchase and operating cost of a C180/185, will land in the water more than once, and the student gets retractable and constant speed propeller time too!

BackPacker

24th Jan 2012, 16:40

Cap-10C? Not only a taildragger, but also a very reasonable aerobatics machine. Needs to be hangared though.

Genghis the Engineer

24th Jan 2012, 16:54

Hmm, looking at prices:

C180 about £40k
C170 about £30k
C140 about £20k

Hard to see why the C140 is that much less fun for everybody than the 170 and 180, and they're all just as good looking.

I think that fun 'though the Thurston Teal looks, Silvaire's C140 does sound like a jolly good option. Presumably similar running costs to a C150, but nice?

G

austerwobbler

24th Jan 2012, 17:40

How about an Auster ?

Austerwobbler :ok:

jxc

24th Jan 2012, 17:54

Stop messing about

Cessna 195 Business liner !
Cessna 195 Businessliner - Image by Pete Morgan-Lucas from Airports - Photography (21615335) | fotocommunity (http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/display/21615335)

Ok so it might not tick the right boxes but fun it would be :)

Rod1

24th Jan 2012, 18:08

Most 120’s are permit, 140’s are CofA. The 140 was designed for what you have in mind and is Ideal based on my experience of them. An aerobatic machine would be great but would greatly increase your costs.

Rod1

Mickey Kaye

24th Jan 2012, 18:11

I thought exactly the same thing and I came to the conclusion that currently there isn't a suitable taildragger for flight training.

120/140 are all pretty long in the tooth. There isn't a huge number of them around. Alot are on permit and those that are not the engines are out or high on time.

150/2 taildraggers again they aren't many around and of the ones that I am aware of are well and truly worn out.

I even emailed American Champion to see if they would be interested a putting a 80hp rotax in the champ but they never replied. Now that would be a good training aircraft.

Jan Olieslagers

24th Jan 2012, 18:18

To most recreational fliers, a taildragger has nothing but disadvantages (harder to land, more expensive on insurance, less common thus more expensive on maintenance)
To be successfully rented out, it must be commercially viable, so must fit a niche. Two options I can see:

-) good looks & rent out for hard cash to those who have it, and fall for good looks. Example: Extra 300. Added advantage: instructor hours offered at stiff rate too.
-) affordable cost, though not minimal, for those who want something special once in a while, whether looks or aerobatics or both. Here, a microlight like the FK12 Comet might do best.
-) compromise could include vintage trainer, most of which would be aerobatic too: Chipmunk, Zlin, Tiger Moth, SV4

For all options, I think it might be hard to rent out legally - weren't for instance microlights supposed to be never operated for profit? But a clever lawyer/accountant might find a loophole there.

Sir George Cayley

24th Jan 2012, 18:33

Citabria.

SGC

'India-Mike

24th Jan 2012, 18:54

Keeping a tailwheel aeroplane outside is a non-starter....

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll121/602fan/Prestwick%20030112/IMG_1902.jpg

Of course it would help if those responsible for one's aeroplane secured it properly. Note 'tiedowns'....

Doodlebug

24th Jan 2012, 19:12

Ghengis, maybe a Rallye 235 would fit the bill? Made of tin, so relatively weatherproof, dual controls, not too tricky, lots of spares?

fwjc

24th Jan 2012, 19:22

Genghis - if you can compromise your spec to include hangarage, you'll open up a whole raft of additional options. Cub, Jodel, Chippie, even a Tiger(!) etc, but I would agree with previous posts recommending a Citabria, or it's sportier brother the Decathlon. Tailwheel, stick, good performance, good ground handling and aerobatic.
If not, nice 140 or 170 or 180 are lovely but not cheap, and in deference to their age, I wouldn't choose to leave them outside either.
Just imo.

Echo Romeo

24th Jan 2012, 19:28

The picture of the poor Chipmunk is a heart breaker:sad:

Pilot DAR

24th Jan 2012, 20:09

'Shame about the Chipmunk, though I hardly think that it's being a taildragger was a factor in it's blowing over. Any aircraft which can generate a few thousand pounds of lift in a 40+ MPH wind, is going to get blown over it it's only held down by 150 pounds of stuff in pails! It sure is a shame that people who tie down planes don't learn this lesson much earlier, and save a lot of planes from being wrecked!

less common thus more expensive on maintenance)

I would not rush to judgement that maintaining a taildragger is more expensive. Oleos can cost a lot more to maintain than a tailwheel, and are much less tolerant of being "somewhat" airworthy. Nosewheels in general are also much more costly when you break one off!

sherburn2LA

24th Jan 2012, 20:40

Sherburn had a C140 for quite a while but even in happier times with a bigger membership and cheaper flying they could not make it pay. I think it was less ph than even the 150s.

Pittsextra

24th Jan 2012, 20:50

Maybe the money is getting chunky but I'd have thought a VANS RV-8 was the thing?

Genghis the Engineer

24th Jan 2012, 21:48

It happens that I work on an airfield where hangerage is ludicrously expensive and inconvenient. (In common with most of the rest of the south of England sadly). Hence my spec - there are loads of great aeroplanes if you can keep them hangared. But you need a hangar.

A VANS-RV8 on a CofA ?

I've seen a PA38 clear a 10 foot hedge with concrete blocks similar to those on India-Mike's Chipmunk attached. Nothing should be tied down in the winter that badly.

I must admit I know nothing of Rallyes - tailwheel or otherwise. Enlighten me?

G

Mark1234

24th Jan 2012, 22:14

To most recreational fliers, a taildragger has nothing but disadvantages (harder to land, more expensive on insurance, less common thus more expensive on maintenance)

Those seem like downsides to someone who is *operating* it for rental, but I'd have to say as a 'recreational flyer' myself, I've hardly flown (rented) anything other than tailwheel since getting my rating - it's just more fun/satisfying/involving. Maybe I'm not most..

Another thought: Extra 200. Unless you're seriously good in the aeros department it's more aeroplane than you'll ever need, but cheaper to operate than a 300. Cambridge aero club have (or used to) have one on their rental fleet. Blew my socks off, that's for sure.

Doodlebug

25th Jan 2012, 18:20

What Silvaire says.

Also, the 235 was the only model they wheeled out of the factory-gates as a taildragger, intended as a tug and ag-duster. Has a proper stick, not one of these huge ugly yokes, and 4 seats. The tatty ones start at around 25K Euro, but there aren't that many around. I believe that there is a mod available, however, with which one can take one of the dozens of available cheaper, smaller-engined tricycle-geared Rallyes and convert it to a taildragger. 180 hp springs to mind, which means less fuel-flow, but still ample oompf.

Genghis the Engineer

26th Jan 2012, 07:37

Is it me, but is the Rallye the second ugliest aeroplane in history after the Shorts Skyvan?

G

jxc

26th Jan 2012, 08:09

They ain't pretty !
They also have the slats on the front of the wings which I suppose is good though

Auster Fan

26th Jan 2012, 11:24

How about an Auster ?

Austerwobbler
I thought they were all on Permits now and hence not able to be used for commercial training? Apologies if I am wrong....:O

Auster Fan

26th Jan 2012, 11:25

Is it me, but is the Rallye the second ugliest aeroplane in history after the Shorts Skyvan?

G
And the Wilga.....

Mickey Kaye

26th Jan 2012, 13:17

Well my take on all of these comments is that there isn't a flying school suitable taildragger on the market.

Ghengis which one are you going to go for?

Genghis the Engineer

26th Jan 2012, 13:36

Well as I said at the start, I don't have the money - it's a thought experiment.

I think that an aeroplane should look nice to persuade people to rent it - which frankly does eliminate the Rallye.

Cubs and Austers are fabric covered, so out.

The Chippie is a gorgeous aeroplane, but I suspect may frighten many PPLs, the Gypsy is a bit of a nightmare to own, and also could do with hangaring. On the other hand with covers on the control surfaces - and a Lycoming engine, it would be great. Then again, a Lycoming engined chippie - if I can find one - would cost me £30k+, and I might get lynched by the historic aircraft community if it got damaged by a careless PPL.

My instinct at the moment is that if I had the money, £20k spent on a Cessna 140A would be the best option. It's a good price, parts should be readily available, Cessnas are easy to look after, and a 2 seater doesn't provide any real handicap for training and renting.

Although - I also wondered about doing the microlight thing, and going for a relatively new Thruster T600T...

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/396535_344961442189566_100000271394563_1337393_1968626886_n. jpg

?

G

Pittsextra

26th Jan 2012, 13:39

Really why you think a Chipmunk would frighten PPL's? Isn't it the entry level for most starting on a tail wheel?

Genghis the Engineer

26th Jan 2012, 13:47

Really why you think a Chipmunk would frighten PPL's? Isn't it the entry level for most starting on a tail wheel?

In terms of renting it out to them, I think it might - plus it's expensive to run, and expensive will scare off most PPLs.

I don't know, what is most tailwheel training on nowadays? Super Cubs? Citabrias?

G

BackPacker

26th Jan 2012, 14:06

Hang on. You're dismissing the Rallye because of its looks, but will consider the Thruster? I know, "eye of the beholder" and such, but honestly, the Thruster over a Rallye?:confused:

Cows getting bigger

26th Jan 2012, 14:20

Genghis the Engineer

26th Jan 2012, 14:27

If it was me, I would bite the bullet and get some hangarage. I would then get a basic Citabria (7ECA). Relatively cheap to run and a reasonable basic intro to aeros.

PS. Have you ever had a go in a Thruster? Awful little thing.

I see your point - but if doing a deal with a school that limits you to schools that have hangerage, or where you could put one up.

Thrusters - lovely little aeroplanes. I have a little over 100 hours across the variants.

G

Cows getting bigger

26th Jan 2012, 14:32

100 hrs and how many engine failures? :)

I took me a while to figure that closing the throttle gave a pitch-up and opening it the opposite. I stand by my "awful" comment. ;)

Mickey Kaye

26th Jan 2012, 14:35

The chipmunk cross wind limit is low and needs care when taxing.

It might not be such a problem in the military days using a big field or having excess to 3 runways. But when you have only got one and its not south westerly in direction then there is too many days that aren't flyable.

Also parts arn't too a penny either.

I agree with Ghengis a140a would probably be the best bet.

The aircraft manufactoring industry really is in a mess when it doesn't even have a suitable aircraft available on the market.

And the rf I'm associated with does have a Chipmunk on the books. 160 solo 185 dual if anyone is interested.

Genghis the Engineer

26th Jan 2012, 14:37

100 hrs and how many engine failures? :)

I took me a while to figure that closing the throttle gave a pitch-up and opening it the opposite. I stand by my "awful" comment. ;)

Surprisingly enough, none - although I'll admit to several in different types with the same engines :}

You sat there looking at an engine in front of you and 2 feet above your head and expected a pitch up with increasing power?

Possibly I find the experience relatively comfortable since I got to solo in a different fuse-tube construction aeroplane - the good old Spectrum, 5 of which I think are still flying!

http://www.bmaa.org/upload/U200262_spectrum.jpg

G

Mickey Kaye

26th Jan 2012, 14:40

A Thruster now your talking. Although can't say I'm overkeen on any of the engine options.

Them thar hills

26th Jan 2012, 17:44

Genghis
Bring back the trusty Condor I say !
But no, it's a cloth bomber so it needs hangarage, therefore it won't fit the wish list. Pity as they're a good aeroplane, albeit not quick. Plenty of teeth though !
I agree the Cessna 140 would be good. But because it's only 85 horsepower and is no rocket ship it needs plenty of attention to become airborne in an orderly fashion. Stick or yoke doesn't really matter, but a stick is preferable.
Being 85 horsepower, the hourly price won't be too silly.. (OK, shouldn't)
Sherburn had a 140 but no-one loved it, I suspect because it was too basic.... Anyway it went on to a better life.
Similarly their CAP10 proved to be a very wrong choice and wasn't cheap to hire, despite it being fun to fly.
As said before, the ideal aircraft is one that needs a roof over its head. 'Owt else would be second best...:)

'India-Mike

26th Jan 2012, 18:04

The Chipmunk is no problem for a motivated an-initio student. We've had 3 in the past 4 years; two middle-aged and one teenager. The teenager soloed at 16, so it can't be that difficult.

It does have a low crosswind limit (10 knots) but in military service it was 15 so the aeroplane is well inside its comfort zone in civvy life.

It's bloody cold for the instructor in winter though....

austerwobbler

26th Jan 2012, 18:08

i think there are one or two still on C of A, you could allways put one back on C of A "if you really really REALLY wanted to" :eek:

Austerwobbler :ok:

bingoboy

26th Jan 2012, 19:34

The Rallye might look a bit individual but you could earn money tugging gliders and it would make a great shortstrip teaching machine.

There are also a few CofA Cubs/Vagabonds, in fact any new imports would have to be.

Aerobatics - either Cap or Citabria/Decathlon.

Piper.Classique

26th Jan 2012, 20:04

I know nothing about the type, but would a lower powered PZL Wilga be suitable? That would be the one with the radial engine that burns 60 litres per hour. Depends how much money you have, I suppose. Slower than a supercub, but it does have four seats and a built in ladder to get in to the cabin. You might need to persuade your mechanic that it was a good idea.

Dan Winterland

27th Jan 2012, 03:45

This thread sums up the state of GA aircraft available today. The criteria Ghengis stipulated shouldn't that limiting, but there just isn't anything out there on the market which fits all the requirements. Accepting that anything bought will be a compromise

The requirement "a machine I can have a bit of fun in" to my mind means it must be aerobatic. You would also want to be able to go somewhere two up with a bit of baggage. (I don't necessarily mean the wife!). So now we're looking at only a couple of aircraft.

The Chippy is an obvious choice, but expensive to run with a costly engine and lots of TDs. Also, handling is perfect in the air, but prone to damage on the ground. It shouldn't scare off potential renters - they should want to fly it! It doesn't deserve it's reputaion as being tricky. I have sent lot's of ab-initios solo in them with about ten hours total time.

CAP10s are great, but again expensive and the wooden spar ones are getting problematic. The carbon spar aircraft are very expensive to buy.

The Deacthalon is a good choice. Easy to fly, aerobatic, touring is an option and reasonable maintenance cost, especially if it's a standard with a fixed prop. But it's very stable and nowhere near as good as a CAP10 or a Chippy for aeros - albeit inverted capable.

But these all require hangaring. Which leaves the Rallye and the C150 Aerobat. I never considerd the Aerobat as a proper aerobatic mount. More of a spam can that can do a loop and a barrell roll. Tailwheel versions are available in the USA, but I wouldn't consider them. I've never seen the taildragger Rallye before, I think that would be fun. I used to own a Rallye 150ST and it's a much maligned aircraft. It's well made, handles nicely, the ST is aerobatic and has great short field performance - as well has having four seats. But they do suffer corrosion problems, particularly on the tailplane spar. Hangaring them is a good idea.

Not an easy task. Can't you get your students to design and build a suitable aircraft?

Sam Rutherford

27th Jan 2012, 15:08

I learn't to fly in a Chippie. I'm sure I'd have worried more if anyone had told me that it was more difficult because it was tailwheel - ignorance is a wonderful thing.

There are some pretty cheap, fun, Maules out there, though perhaps I'm biased. :ok:

No aeros, but seeing how short you can land is a great way to pass some time.

Fly safe, have fun, Sam.

Piper.Classique

27th Jan 2012, 16:41

The Sinus? Tailwheel Glassfibre microlight motorglider. Only 29:1 glide angle but two seat, sips 98 UL but not aerobatic. Pleasant to fly, feathering vp prop. Looks sexy.

Dan the weegie

27th Jan 2012, 18:31

Citabria with an 0-320 fixed pitch prop (Mogas STC) a metal spar and hangarage.

It's on Annex 2, it's cheaper to buy than a cub but more powerful and also you don't need a CAMO if you run it on mogas it's even cheaper. Has good spares support and rugged undercarriage, it's also easy to land and keep control on the ground so you don't need to worry too much that people will groundloop it.

To be honest, there's only a very few people that will pay the premium to fly nicer planes, they say they will of course right up until the point where the get to choose between £110 for the Tomahawk or £180 for something fun.

Still if I was to own a certificate aircraft of that type it would be that very plane, there was a chap in Ireland selling one a while ago but I couldn't bring myself to wear the cost of the annual year in year out.

Pittsextra

27th Jan 2012, 18:35

Actually there are choice if you are choosing something for personal flying it's when you add in the CofA things get screwed. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know why this.

Edited to add I'm currently flying Pitts specials and extra aircraft both fun tail draggers

Mark1234

28th Jan 2012, 17:15

I learn't to fly in a Chippie. I'm sure I'd have worried more if anyone had told me that it was more difficult because it was tailwheel - ignorance is a wonderful thing.

Quite, and you probably learned a lot more as a result! I think there's a certain parallel with driving: Today they teach you to operate a car. If it doesn't have a slew of acronyms to keep you from harm it's dangerous. Aeroplanes a little the same perhaps?

I did an hour in a chippie and loved it, however you should've heard the spiel from one of the instructors about it being the training aircraft for a spitfire, having the handling traits to go with it, zero visibility , nasty swing, and on and on - he built it up to be quite a monster.

In the event, the guy I flew with (older) was altogether zero drama. Only issues were some funny up-lines due to me failing to adapt to the engine rotation, and incessantly checking the brakes 'cos of the little note about spins and limiting rudder travel(!)

Have also flown a Cessna 180 (never got on top of, found quite a handful on go-around), Decathlon (a fair bit, love it), S2A (now that has visibility issues..), and the EA200 (briefly). Of all of them, I'd buy a decathlon for the do-it-all aeroplane, but there's the issue of where to house it..

P.S. There are very few fun&practical do-it-all cars either. They're all nosewheel drive too :(

EDMJ

28th Jan 2012, 19:37

How about a Dornier Do 27?

From what I hear engine parts are scarce, but the airframe seems incredibly robust...

Sciolistes

29th Jan 2012, 01:46

Which bit about a C150 is "interesting to fly" ?
The little Cessna is completely transformed sans nosewheel. I absolutely loved the texas taildragger.

Mickey Kaye

29th Jan 2012, 17:29

Genghis the Engineer

29th Jan 2012, 17:54

But there are very few C150 taildraggers about and those that are are well past there sell by date.

How about a Tecnam p92TD? Proven aluminium airframe with a proven and fuel efficient rotax engine.

Sadly not on the market yet

Given it only made it's first flight about 10 days ago, I think it has a little way to go - but if that comes certified, it does read like exactly what I'm after.

(Tecnam P92 Tail Dragger first flight - News - Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam (http://www.tecnam.com/it-IT/notizie/36/TecnamP92TailDraggerfirstflight.aspx))

G

Rod1

29th Jan 2012, 18:41

Does this have to be in the UK? Supplying Jodels to French flying clubs would work.

Rod1

'India-Mike

29th Jan 2012, 18:42

Hhmmm....I wonder if those main wheels will migrate aft with flight test experience?

I've only flown the Cessna 180 on floats but I thought on wheels it would be great. Nice compromise between lower and higher powered equivalents. Vp prop though so added expense there.

The500man

29th Jan 2012, 19:23

Requirements:

- Reasonably inexpensive: I need to buy and insure it after all.Ghengis do you think it will be reasonably inexpensive? New usually means expensive. I do like the the way they say there is an over 50% preference for tail wheel though. They really did their market research and designed a popular tail dragger!

EDIT: Guys watch this and tell me it doesn't make you want a Husky! :)

h2H3wC8iaSo&gl

Genghis the Engineer

29th Jan 2012, 19:35

Ghengis do you think it will be reasonably inexpensive?

No, but I also said that I haven't got enough money. By the time I have enough money, they may be available second hand !

Seriously, even if it's not going to be affordable for me, a new all-metal CofA taildragger is something that will make the aviation world just a little better place.

G

thing

29th Jan 2012, 20:26

Guys watch this and tell me it doesn't make you want a Husky!

I think that would be my ideal a/c. Unfortunately being terminally poor (I've spent £1736.35 on flying this month....which is why I'm terminally poor. Thank God I have an understanding wife.) I haven't a chance. Not being au fait with these things is it a Cub with knobs on?

Doodlebug

29th Jan 2012, 21:35

Super cub with knobs on, yes. 200 horses, I believe. Lovely.

thing

29th Jan 2012, 23:56

Crikey, 200 horses in a lightweight such as that, hardly bears thinking about.

NazgulAir

30th Jan 2012, 01:04

Ever thought about one of these?
To my mind, it's got everything... it's a taildragger, a very nice hotrod, a classic... the original 1946 Globe Swift with the smaller engine is the true classic and can be found for reasonable prices, the one in the pictures is a Super Swift which is an updated version with a IO360, flat panel, modern canopy, wheels and brakes etc and a bit more expensive. Luggage room is a bit limited, but they're very economical and great to fly.
Shame to keep it outside though.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c85/af224/600/plane-Swift_Super_Swift.jpg
LoPresti tried to revive production but only two LoPresti prototypes are flying, alas.

stickandrudderman

30th Jan 2012, 07:35

Now that is one sweet aeroplane:ok:
A bit like a taildragger Falco!
Me likey lots!

Rod1

30th Jan 2012, 07:42

Very nice!

Rod1

BristolScout

30th Jan 2012, 08:18

Thrusters are delightful, especially the original TST. And I do wish we could get away from this apocryphal myth that taildraggers are hard to land. They're not, if the pilot is trained correctly and is aware that crosswinds are a little more limiting.

Mickey Kaye

31st Jan 2012, 08:14

It's a sorry state of affairs when GA is in the doldrums with new piston aircraft sales falling and there isn't a single aircraft available on the market that's suitable for training.

We have had a load of suggestions for aircraft that are at least 50 years old/ With engine equally as old if not older and/or burn 30+ litres an hours of soon to disappear AVGAS rather than the cheaper MOGAS/UL91

I can't for the life of me understand why none of the manufacturers do anything about it. Such a shame.