Thought experiment - school taildragger
 

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

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

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

Isn't there some fabric on a chippie?

G

Cessna 185???

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

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

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/o...t/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!

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

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

How about an Auster ?

Austerwobbler :ok:

Stop messing about

Cessna 195 Business liner !
Cessna 195 Businessliner - Image by Pete Morgan-Lucas from Airports - Photography (21615335) | fotocommunity

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

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

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.

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.

Citabria.

SGC

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


http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/l...2/IMG_1902.jpg


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

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

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.

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

'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!

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!

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

G

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

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

And the Wilga.....

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?

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/hphot...68626886_n.jpg

?

G

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

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:

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

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. ;)

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.

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

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