Editor’s note: This column originally appeared on ByDanJohnson.com.

Recreational flying fans: I don’t know about you, but I’m getting pretty tired of studying MOSAIC [FAA’s Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification proposed regulation]. It’s been on my mind every day since the FAA issued it on July 24 just before EAA AirVenture Oshkosh started.

I’ve studied this pretty closely—thanks so much to Roy Beisswenger, founder and proprietor of Easy Flight, for his effort to make a study guide. This is not an easy read, but it has much we want plus a few things we question or want changed.

If you want some part changed, you have to comment. I can comment and many others have. That’s good, but the FAA needs a loud response. With 39 days left at posting time, 389 pilots have commented. Your comment is still needed.

The FAA’s comment period for the MOSAIC Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) will close on October  23.

A series of master class videos on MOSAIC may be found here.

To ensure my facts were as accurate as possible, I consulted several other experts, each focused on specific areas of interest.

Linked with my own experience — serving on the ASTM committee for many years, going to visit the FAA in its government offices in Washington, D.C. (several times), and discussions with the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association (LAMA) board, plus numerous other aviation leaders—the video below provides the best information I can offer at this time. 

Is it a perfect understanding of all things MOSAIC? No, I keep uncovering new tidbits buried in this lengthy document. Others have often pointed out things I missed.

The video below provides as much detail as possible as quickly as possible in a form not too difficult to consume. It also draws attention to areas where people have found problems or have unresolved issues with what is presented. The video tries to illustrate these simply and clearly. I hope you’ll have a look.

Where Are the Comments?

If you get through all 45 minutes of the video presentation below, you will discover that the Q&A portion does not appear. This portion of our discussions went on nearly as long as the formal presentation. It simply got too long and took too much editing.

I was fascinated when during Q&A discussions erupted on their own. Being particularly passionate about a part of MOSAIC and our privilege to fly, attendees often spoke to one another without my input. This was invigorating to witness, but it was sometimes challenging to hear what people said, and not in every case could I keep up with the conversations. In short, I think you’d find it less useful than what I will present.

I am going through all of those comments carefully and will summarize them in printed form, which I think will be much easier to consume.

While I work on that, I encourage you to do what the video suggests: Go up to the search bar at the top of this page and type in MOSAIC. That will bring up everything I’ve written about the NPRM in chronological order. A few articles on Mosaic Light Sport Aircraft will be sprinkled among rule-oriented articles, but all have some useful information.

A few of those articles generated lots of comments. In fact, at the time I gave these two talks, this website had generated more total comments than the FAA’s website—a fact I hope will change dramatically in a new direction soon. I know people tend to wait until toward the end to act, but pilots shouldn’t cut the deadline too close.

If the FAA’s new rules are important to you, I urge you to watch this video. 

Helpful Links

• USUA/LAMA MOSAIC NPRM study guide, download a PDF document with bookmarks and helpful organization
• A MOSAIC study guide
• Make a comment, direct link to FAA’s comment page
• Read what other commenters have said, FAA comment page

The post FAA’s MOSAIC Comment Window Is Soon Closing appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Editor’s note: This article appeared on Plane & Pilot.

At Midwest LSA Expo day two, I gave my first talk about the FAA’s Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC ) regulation rulemaking to an SRO room. The video turned out well, so following some editing on the Q&A session that followed, I pledge to get this up next week.

My presentation was a distillation of 318 original pages into a 45-minute presentation. Some described it as “drinking out of a fire hose.” The question and answer session added 30 minutes. Pilots in the audience helped me better understand this MOSAIC monster. I hoped that would happen, and I’m pleased it did.

After going through the entire document twice and multiple times for some portions, more is yet to be discovered (though I’m getting weary of studying it).

• READ MORE: A MOSAIC Study Guide

Beyond MOSAIC

After a vigorous discussion about the FAA’s new rule, I was keen to get outside among the airplanes I enjoy. In particular, I wanted to get a closer look at Direct Fly’s Alto NG. This is not an entirely new airplane to Americans—we’ve seen Alto 100—but the brand suffered from ineffective representation and was in danger of fading from the scene in the U.S.

In swooped Ken McConnaughhay from Searcy, Arkansas, on the same airfield as longtime Aeroprakt importer Dennis Long. Long has been assisting McConnaughhay as he takes over importing, sales, and service of Alto NGs.

McConnaughhay is a multitalented pilot who has done crop dusting for many years and flies a King Air 350 as a corporate pilot. He admits that the light weight of Alto NG was a learning experience, but he is very impressed with the machine.

• READ MORE: Pilots, Aircraft Manufacturers Connect as Midwest LSA Expo Opens

While I’d say Alto NG is a bargain, that’s one of those loaded phrases like “affordable.” So let’s state right up front that as equipped as seen in the pictures accompanying this article, Alto NG sells for $147,500.

Finding that price affordable is a subjective evaluation. You buy what you can afford, of course. Yet an aircraft that looks this way and costs $147,500 in 2023 could be compared to perhaps $120,000 only a few years ago. You know everything costs more today than it did in 2018. 

Airplanes are no different. Producers have been tossed around by inflation, supply chain challenges, shortages of materials and labor, war, and increasing regulation, along with many other expenses that are troubling all kinds of businesses.

That explanation may not help you afford Alto NG, but $147,500 for a handsome, well-equipped aircraft with a large Dynon SkyView, Dynon radios, ADSB in and out, and Dynon autopilot is fairly priced in today’s market. Alto NG comes standard with the Rotax 912 ULS, and a three-blade Kiev ground-adjustable composite prop.

• READ MORE: FAA’s MOSAIC Preview Has Major Implications for Helicopters, eVTOL

The interior was color-matched by Direct Fly to coordinate with the exterior paint scheme. Clearly, Direct Fly is accomplished at painting and other finish work. The closer you look at this airplane the more you notice the details.

When I asked McConnaughhay to describe some of the performance criteria of the airplane, he summarized: “It’s not the fastest airplane in the LSA fleet, but neither is it the slowest.” He related that he commonly flies at altitudes of around 7,000-8,000 feet, and at that altitude he will see 108 knot cruise from his power setting of 5,000 rpm, and he reported burning about 6 gallons per hour. Long advised McConnaughhay that operating at 4,700 or 4,800 rpm brings burn rates closer to 4 gallons per hour.

“The advantages of Alto lie in its simple and comfortable piloting, which is guaranteed by the design of the wing” Direct Fly said. “The rectangular wing plan and the profile with a blunt leading edge provide predictable stall characteristics and behavior.”

“It’s suitable for a beginner pilot because of its gentle flight qualities,” McConnaughhay added. “However, I’m proof that it’s also satisfying to an experienced corporate pilot.”

With good looks and a beautiful finish, benign and satisfying flight characteristics, and what must be described as a fair price tag in 2023, I suspect we will see more Direct Fly Alto NGs in the future.

Why wait two years for a MOSAIC aircraft of your dreams (which will probably come at a significantly higher price), when you can have this beauty today? If you’d been at Midwest LSA Expo, you could’ve bought this handsome airplane and flown it home.

Technical Specifications

Direct Fly Alto NG (All information supplied by the manufacturer)

• Length: 21 feet
• Height: 7.4 feet
• Wingspan: 26.9 feet
• Wing area: 114 square feet
• Cockpit width: 43.3 inches
• Fuel tank capacity: 24.3 gallons
• Powerplant: Rotax 912ULS
• Take-off distance over a 50 foot obstacle: 1,345 feet
• Landing distance over a 50 foot obstacle: 968 feet
• Empty weight: 705 pounds
• Maximum takeoff weight: 1,320 pounds
• Never Exceed Speed: 140 knots
• Cruising speed: 97 knots (Ken commonly achieves 108 knots at 5,000 RPM)
• Stalling speed, landing configuration: 41 knots
• Stalling speed, clean configuration: 47 knots
• Load factor: +4/-2
• Maximum Climb Speed: 1,000 feet per minute

The post Direct Fly’s Alto NG a Beautiful Bargain appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Van’s Aircraft recently updated its customers regarding reports of cracked parts found in some of the company’s kits. 

Van’s published a notice about the problem and followed with a live update last week at EAA AirVenture, reported KITPLANES.

The cracks affected certain parts with rivet holes that need to be dimpled for flush riveting during assembly. The company said the defects resulted from changes in the process of laser-cutting parts. During the period from February 2022 through June , Van’s had an outside vendor produce the parts with laser-cut rivet holes instead of using the traditional press-punch method employed previously.

Van’s said the change was meant to boost production and relieve a backlog affecting kit deliveries. Company president and chief engineer Rian Johnson said the company’s  thinner parts were outsourced for the laser cutting and most were in noncritical parts of the airframe. According to Van’s, it has discontinued the use of laser-cut parts and has acquired a new, larger press-punch machine.

Apparently the cutting of rivet holes resulted in overheating of the metal in certain places, Van’s said. Builders reported the defects, including cracks that appeared after the holes were dimpled. 

During his AirVenture presentation in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, Johnson described the testing taking place at the factory to address the defects. The company has told customers to stop building with the laser-cut parts for now, and Johnson asked them to be patient for the estimated 45- to 60-day period Van’s will need to finish testing.

The bottom line for builders of the affected kits is that while some parts will be acceptable for low-stress applications, others will have to be replaced. Van’s said it is setting up a process for providing customers with replacement parts.

The post Van’s Updates List of RV Parts Reportedly Forming Cracks appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

CubCrafters debuted its newest aircraft design—the Carbon Cub UL— at the 2023 Sun ‘n Fun Aerospace Expo held in Lakeland, Florida this week.

The Carbon Cub was first introduced in 2009 and quickly became a favorite of the backcountry aviation set. The newest Cub variant made by the Yakima, Washington-based light sport aircraft (LSA) manufacturer was also designed to capture a larger share of the European ultralight market, the company said. 

The aircraft is also the first to be powered by the Rotax 916iS engine.

The aircraft on display at Sun ‘n Fun was flown across the country to the airshow by Brad Damm, CubCrafter’s vice president of sales and marketing. Prior to the journey, Damm—an accomplished pilot—primarily had experience flying CubCrafter aircraft powered by Lycoming engines.

• READ MORE: Behind the Scenes at CubCrafters, Crafting a Cub

“It was my first real experience behind the Rotax, and now I am part of their big fan club,” he said. “The Rotax 916iS is a 160 hp turbocharged engine. It can handle density altitude. It can make takeoff power up to 17,000 feet.”

Damm carried supplemental oxygen on the trip, allowing him to safely climb up to 17,500 feet.

“My true airspeed was 150 mph. I had a nice tailwind, so my ground speed was showing as 230 mph.”

The trip to Florida is a warm-up before the intensive aircraft testing begins. When the airplane gets back to Washington, it will be put through rigorous testing to fine-tune the design.

“I’d say you are looking at 70 percent of what to expect,” Damm said, adding that testing is expected to be completed by 2023, with deliveries to follow in early 2025.

About the Airplane

The Carbon Cub UL was made possible through a collaboration of CubCrafters and BRP-Rotax, the makers of its new 160 hp turbocharged engine. The engine manufacturer makes two- and four-stroke engines that power everything from sport aircraft and snowmobiles to watercraft.

CubCrafters said the aircraft reflects their goal of creating a new airplane that features multi-fuel technology (mogas and avgas) and fully meets (American Society for Testing and Materials) ASTM standards while carrying two adults with a full fuel load and a reasonable amount of baggage at a takeoff weight of 600 kg (1,320 pounds).

“The new 916iS engine is lighter, more fuel efficient, and can produce more power than the normally aspirated CC340 engine on the Carbon Cub SS in higher density altitude scenarios,” Damm said.

The Carbon Cub UL has full authority digital engine control (FADEC).  “There is no mixture,” Damm explained. “A computer monitors the engine, which makes it very efficient. Instead of burning 12 gallons an hour, it burns closer to eight or nine.”

While the production version of the latest aircraft is slated to be initially built, certified, and test flown as a LSA, it will also meet ultralight category requirements in many international jurisdictions, according to the company.

“The aircraft can remain in the LSA category for our customers in Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and even the United States, but it can also be deregistered, exported, and then re-registered as an ultralight category aircraft in many jurisdictions in Europe, South America, and elsewhere,” Damm said. “Our kit aircraft program has always been strong in overseas markets, and now we are very excited to have a fully factory-assembled and tested aircraft to offer to our international customers.”

The post CubCrafters Unveils Carbon Cub UL appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Gather a few thousand Cessna 150 pilots and ask them how they’d improve the airplane, and the resulting feedback would be both consistent and predictable. More cabin space would likely top the list. Better visibility from the cockpit would also be mentioned. Additional fuel capacity would likely come up, and some might mention a desire for a more modern design. Back in the early- to mid-1970s, Cessna dominated the primary training market and accordingly, the company had a target on its back. Cessna’s competitors wanted a piece of the pie, and the process started with thorough, competitive analysis. After compiling a list of the most desired improvements, both Piper and Beechcraft went to work developing their own modernized entries into the primary trainer market and came out with new models. Here, we explore Beechcraft’s take, the Model 77 Skipper.

In terms of outward appearance, the Piper PA-38 Tomahawk and Beechcraft Skipper look nearly identical. The visual differences are few and minor, and differentiating them requires some attention to detail. The Tomahawk has square side windows and a full wraparound rear window, for example, while the Skipper has trapezoidal side windows and two separate triangular rear windows.

The Tomahawk’s vertical stabilizer extends above the horizontal stabilizer while the Skipper’s is a true T-tail, resembling that of its big brother, the Beechcraft King Air. This was intentional on Beechcraft’s part; in print ads, the Skipper was touted as using “the T-tail design of the Super King Air turboprop.” And while theTomahawk’s gear attaches at the wing, the Skipper’s is slightly narrower and attaches to the fuselage’s belly.

Beyond those differences, the two models are near carbon copies in terms of appearance. While the competitive environment in those days was rather cut-throat and corporate espionage has been suggested as the reason for the similarity, inherent technical constraints likely played a large part.

Tasked with utilizing the same power plant (the 112-to 115-hp Lycoming O-235), carrying two people, and offering comfort and visibility superior to the Cessna 150 in a low-wing configuration, it’s perhaps not surprising that both Piper and Beechcraft arrived at the same general layout when designing their new trainers.

In the case of the Skipper, the design goals seem to have been achieved. Cabin space is noticeably more accommodating than the 150/152, and outward visibility is similarly superior by virtue of the low wing and large windows.

Overall, the Skipper’s cabin indeed feels like a more ergonomic, pleasant place to be when compared with the 150/152.

Model History

Unlike other types that were produced over many decades and were offered in dozens of subtypes, the Skipper is simple and uniform. Only the Model 77 was produced, with no special editions or improved versions ever offered. Accordingly, Skippers are consistent in specifications, amenities, and stock panel layouts.

The prototype first flew in 1975, two years after the Tomahawk’s first flight. After lengthy experimentation with various engines and tail configurations, production started in 1979. Beechcraft built a total of 312 Skipper examples through 1981.

At that time, the market began to soften and Beechcraft suspended production, reportedly pending an improvement in market conditions. No such improvement occurred, however, and some unsold Skippers were offered as 1982 models.

Market Snapshot

When it comes to assessing the current market value of the Skipper, its rarity makes it more challenging to evaluate than others. Combing through the offerings of over a half-dozen sources for three months, we were only able to find six examples listed for sale. This includes regular scouring of Craigslists nationwide as well as eBay. Few Skippers were built to begin with, fewer remain today, and naturally, only a handful are listed for sale each year.

Of the examples we found, the least expensive was listed for $30,000 and the most expensive was listed for $45,000. The median price came to $34,000, and the median total airframe time was 4,900 hours. Among 1980s-era aircraft, it’s one of the most affordable.

Flight Characteristics

The Skipper stands out on most ramps. A relatively unique design compared with traditional Cessnas and Pipers, the Skipper’s larger and taller cabin creates greater ramp presence than a 150 or 152, as does he T-tail. When it’s time for the preflight, the T-tail becomes more of a nuisance than a benefit, as close inspection and snow/ice removal are far more cumbersome than with a conventional low horizontal stabilizer.

With a cabin that places the seat 7 inches higher than the 150’s, boarding the Skipper feels quite a bit different. Rather than ducking beneath an eye-level wing to enter a relatively claustrophobic cabin, one climbs up onto the Skipper’s wing and steps through a comparatively massive, welcoming door.

After settling into the seat that’s perched atop the low wing, the outward view is open and bright. Headroom and shoulder room are ample, and with 5 additional inches of cabin width compared to the 150, husky occupants needn’t inhale deeply to shut the doors. This additional space also allows occupants to wear multiple layers and winter coats without feeling too cramped.

Beechcraft engineers began with a clean sheet when designing the cabin and panel, and accordingly, the ergonomics are outstanding. The panel is clean and uncluttered, the circuit breakers and radios are all positioned above the level of the yokes, and the engine instruments are intuitively organized immediately above the throttle and mixture levers.

Stepping on the brakes and handling the controls, it becomes evident that those same engineers wanted to make the diminutive Skipper feel like a larger Beechcraft. The yokes are substantial and exhibit none of the flex inherent in the Tomahawk and 150. The rudder pedals are large aluminum affairs, solid and beefy. And most of the touchpoints are similarly reinforced to provide an overall feeling of quality compared with other bargain-basement types.

Performance-wise, the most limiting aspect of theSkipper is the meager useful load. With 30 gallons of fuel capacity, the full-fuel payload is only 400 pounds. With the addition of optional avionics and typical cabin items, a Skipper pilot must be vigilant about passenger weights and may consider leaving some fuel behind for shorter flights.

With 115 hp on tap, the reality of always operating within a few hundred pounds of maximum takeoff weight makes for a relatively lazy takeoff roll and half-hearted climb performance. The book claims a climb rate of 700 fpm is achievable at gross weight, but as with many types, an aging engine and airframe make such numbers appear rather optimistic in reality. Taking off and climbing are not what it does best.

After leveling off, the Skipper can cruise at 105 knots at 2,700 rpm and about 95 knots at 2,450 rpm, numbers on par with many other two-place aircraft in the 100-hp range.

In flight, the Skipper is defined not by any particular performance number, but rather by the quiet competence with which it handles. The solid-feeling controls are smooth and effective, relaying a feeling of robust quality. Handling is entirely predictable and unremarkable, with no unusual traits or characteristics. One simply asks the Skipper to pitch, bank, or stall, and the airplane does as expected without comment or complaint.

Regard the T-tail with some caution, as it has the propensity to act differently during takeoff and landing than conventional tails mounted lower on the empennage. That said, the effect was less noticeable in the example we flew compared with the Tomahawk. Once again, the Skipper generally does as asked with-out complaint.

Ownership

Without question, the single most challenging as-pect of Skipper ownership is the rarity of the type. With such a small fleet size, airframe parts can be difficult to source, qualified and experienced instructors can be hard to find, and support from other owners is not nearly as robust or commonplace as with other types.

The problem is significant, and it’s not getting better. In 1982, most if not all of the 312 examples built were flying. Twenty years later, reports offered that roughly 210 Skippers were active on the FAA register. Today, after another 20 years have passed, only 118 examples appear on the register. If this trend continues, the Skipper will be virtually extinct by 2042.

Accordingly, a prospective Skipper owner must be willing to become a parts-sourcing enthusiast, seeking out and procuring parts before they’re needed. This may involve saving keyword searches on eBay to receive notifications when parts are listed and monitoring salvage websites for wrecked Skippers from which parts can be taken.

There’s a fine line between stockpiling and hoarding, however. To serve as a responsible steward of the type, one should engage with other owners and be willing to sell or exchange spare parts as needed. Making spare parts available to the entire owner group helps to keep the remaining Skippers airworthy and flying, and establishing such goodwill also helps to ensure you will be able to find and obtain parts in your own time of need.

With a 2,400-hour engine TBO and a fuel burn of 6 to 8 gph, ongoing operating expenses are minimal and so are the insurance premiums. One owner reported that with a $25,000 hull value, the annual premium to cover a zero-time pilot was $1,100. This year, when the policy was adjusted to a $35,000 hull value and all covered pilots had more advanced ratings, the annual premium dropped to $700.

Perhaps because so few Skipperswere produced, few airworthiness directives (ADs) apply to the airframe. Of the 11 applicable ADs listed on the FAA database, only one involves a repetitive inspection. It’s fairly straight-forward in nature, requiring a dye penetrant inspection of the nosegear fork axle assembly every 500 hours, and a visual inspection of the assembly every subsequent 100 hours.

Although some 165 supplemental type certificates (STCs) are approved for the Skipper, most are relatively minor. With the exception of those that modernize the panel and avionics, few will have an appreciable effect on the value of an individual airplane. Nor will any of the approved STCs increase horsepower or performance as the vast majority are related to instrumentation, LED lighting, oil filters, and ADS-B installations. Accordingly, most Skippers are largely unchanged from their factory configuration today.

The Beech Aero Club is the official type club of the Skipper. A well-organized and vibrant group, it serves as a source for technical documents and forums in which owners can ask for and provide advice. Like the aircraft itself, however, Skipper owners are correspondingly fewer than owners of other types, and even within the type club, some effort is required to locate experienced owners and maintainers.

The Skipper is one of the few ways to obtain a well-refined, nicely-flying, 1980s-era aircraft in the mid-$30,000 range. The low price of entry reflects the scarcity of airframe parts and type expertise. But with a popular, commonly-found engine and the ever-increasing reach of online networking, the Skipper’s most significant weakness can be manageable with appropriately-adjusted expectations.

In the end, a well-maintained Skipper will likely serve as an enjoyable personal airplane for decades to come.

BEECHCRAFT SKIPPER

Price: $30,000 to $45,000

Powerplant (original): Lycoming 0-235, 115 HP Max Cruise

Speed: 105 mph 

Endurance: 4.9 hours 

Max Useful Load: 580 lbs.

Takeoff Distance Over a 50-ft. Obstacle: 1,350 ft.

Landing Distance Over a 50-ft. Obstacle: 1,300 feet ft.

Insurance Cost: Low

Annual Inspection Expense: Low

Recurring ADs: One Minor

Parts Availability: Poor

Stalls are Very Adequate for Teaching Purposes 

Beechcraft took nearly six years to develop its new trainer, the Skipper, using the GAW-1 airfoil that Cessna had initially tapped for the Model 303 Crusader. The result was a stately if unexciting ride that the company promoted extensively in FLYING’s pages in the early 1980s. Beech tested the airplane with both a conventional tail as well as the T-tail it eventually delivered with. In the September 1979 issue, Richard Collins described flying the new take on training aircraft.

“A Beech design goal for the Skipper was to develop an airplane that would stall cleanly and not fall off and start to spin without provocation. The airplane is approved for spins, but Beech wanted it to spin only when the pilot demanded it, not accidentally, at the drop of a wing.

“Their goals have been met. Aerodynamic warning of a stall is good, without an excessive amount of tail buffeting. The Skipper also has what must be one of the world’s loudest stall-warning horns. The airplane can be held in a stall without tending toward an instant spin; while it is stalled, you can hold the wings level by using ailerons alone and not provoke the airplane. The stalls are very adequate for teaching purposes.”

The post The Increasingly Rare Pleasure of the Beechcraft Skipper appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The Caterham Seven. The Ford 8N. The BMW R69. Some of history’s most iconic machines embraced mechanical simplicity, and achieved continued success by sticking to the original plan. By resisting the urge to add features and increase complexity, manufacturers discovered that sometimes less is more.

Such was the case with the Piper J-3 Cub. Devoid of an electrical system, flaps, radios, and just about anything that can be considered a creature comfort, it provided only the bare minimum necessary to function as an airplane. Fortunately, such simplicity translates to light weight and increased reliability, so when Piper presented the Cub as an ideal trainer, the formula worked very well.

As is often the case, the question of how well the Cub’s recipe of pared-down simplicity serves the needs of a new first-time buyer depends entirely on the individual’s preferences and future plans. For someone interested in longer-distance travel or load-carrying capability, it comes up short. But for someone interested in fair-weather adventuring to nearby pancake breakfasts and exploring grass strips, it just might be the perfect machine. 

Here, we take a closer look at the iconic J-3 Cub and explore what it’s like to own, fly, and maintain.

Design

The J-3’s design can be traced back to the Taylor E-2 from the early 1930s. The original E-2 looked similar to the J-3, but was equipped with a 37 hp Continental A40 engine and a non-steerable tailskid—and it had no brakes.

When the Taylor Aircraft Company filed for bankruptcy in the late 1930s, William T. Piper purchased it and utilized the E-2 as the basis for the Piper J-3. The Piper design introduced more powerful engines with the 65 hp Continental becoming the most popular. Brakes and steerable tailwheels were added, and the company offered a floatplane version.

The resulting design has proven durable, and the Cub remains one of the most imitated in GA.

Model History

Although the J-3 could be considered a success in the late 1930s and into the 1940s with nearly 2,000 sold in both 1940 and 1941, much of the J-3’s success can be attributed to fortunate timing. With the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and the U.S.’ subsequent entry into World War II, the military suddenly required a large number of light aircraft for reconnaissance, observation, and liaison duties.

Piper came through, producing several thousand examples of the L-4 Grasshopper, which was essentially a J-3 Cub with additional windows and different paint. While the sale of so many L-4s was a boon to Piper, the subsequent boom of postwar sales was even more so. At a price of $2,195 (the equivalent of just under $30,000 today), the J-3 was both affordable and appealing to soldiers returning from the war. Accordingly, Piper sold around 7,000 J-3s in 1946 alone. Ultimately, nearly 20,000 were produced between 1938 and1947, and 3,796 Piper J-3s remain active on the FAA aircraft registry today.

Market Snapshot

The market value of the Piper Cub reflects more than the sum of its parts. Compared to similar types like Taylorcrafts and Aeroncas, the Cub’s historical significance and cachet elevates its value substantially. For a buyer only interested in an airplane’s performance and utility, other types that aren’t as sought after will likely provide better value. But for a buyer that is enchanted by the Cub’s legacy, there is no substitute.

A recent analysis of 19 J-3s listed for sale revealed a median price of $43,900. The roughest examples were listed for around $30,000 while the finest, fully-restored examples topped out at $85,000. With comparable types starting out at $20,000 to $25,000, this reflects a premium of about 20 to 30 percent for the J-3. “The Cub Premium” aside, the variance in price within the type reflects the overall condition of the individual aircraft as well as the STCs and modifications in place. While a 100 percent original restoration offers value to traditionalists, more powerful engines and basic electric systems offer value to those interested in additional performance and usability.

Anecdotally, we’ve seen several examples that have been discounted by as much as $10,000 after sitting unsold for a month or two. This could be the result of some overly-optimistic initial prices, but it could also be a sign that the market is beginning to soften a bit.

Flight Characteristics

With a relatively snug cabin and a particularly tiny front seat, larger individuals may need to sacrifice some comfort to take up a Cub. In cold weather, the combination of a drafty cabin and lackluster heater can make these tight accommodations even more so as the occupants add layers of clothing. Snug-fitting, narrow-toed shoes are critical in a J-3. Bulkier footwear like boots can become caught on the cables and structural supports adjacent to the rudder pedals, and the lack of feel through thick soles can make it difficult to discern where the small heel brake pedals are located. Minimalist shoes with thin soles reward a J-3 pilot with deft freedom of movement and great feel.

Some thought is necessary for overnight trips, as well. The J-3’s baggage compartment, such as it is, provides little more space than a car’s glove box. Some owners leash bags into the front seat when flying solo, but extreme care must be taken to ensure the bag and all of its straps are perfectly secured lest something become jammed in the flight controls. The solo pilot must also ensure the altimeter is set before strapping in, as they will not be able to reach it with the belt fastened. Once settled in, the occupant of the rear seat will experience a near-total lack of forward visibility. Using S-turns on the ground and peripheral vision during takeoff and landing becomes necessary. This is all good practice, as the J-3 may only be flown solo from the back seat. One benefit to flying from the backseat is the additional feel it provides with regard to coordination. As the occupant is positioned farther away from the center of rotation, uncoordinated flight feels more pronounced and is thus more noticeable than it is from the front seat.

In airplanes that lack electrical systems, hand propping is necessary. Quality instruction from an experienced teacher pays off here, and the J-3’s relatively low engine compression enables just about anyone to do it safely and successfully. Some owners have in-stalled a starter and a battery without an alternator to ease starting while saving weight. When the battery becomes depleted after a few months of use, they simply plug it into a wall outlet to recharge it. Radios are another concern with versions that lack electrical systems. Most owners tend to install a handheld radio with an external antenna and an intercom to enable the use of headsets. These are typically battery powered, as are any iPads and any other handheld devices.

Most J-3s are able to get off the ground relatively quickly, but after becoming airborne, a 65 or 75 hp machine will provide its occupants with a rather ponderous climb rate. Hot days, high elevations, heavy passengers, and departure-end obstacles should all be carefully taken into account. In the air, the J-3 is all about fun. The upper and lower doors may be left open in flight, providing a panoramic view of the countryside below. The sparse instrument panel provides basic information without demanding attention. The open lower door also serves as a handy stall indicator—when the airplane reaches the brink of entering a stall, the lower door will flip up and flutter in the turbulent air.

In cruise, a 65 hp J-3 will sip fuel at a rate of about 4 gph while returning a cruise speed of about 70 mph. More powerful engines will burn an additional 1 to2 gph, but the added power tends to improve takeoff and climb performance more than cruise speed. A J-3 equipped with the Continental C90, for example, will leap off the runway but will only achieve about 75 mph while burning about 5.5 gph.

Flight controls are well-positioned and easy to reach. For those accustomed to flying a Luscombe or Grumman, roll control is downright lazy; the Cub feels like the aileron hinges have been overtightened and the cables replaced with rubber bands. The rudder and elevator are responsive, however, and after spending a bit of time learning the optimum blend of control inputs, the J-3 is simple and straightforward to fly. While the J-3 still runs you the risk of ground loops, it’s considered to be forgiving. The landing gear is suspended by bungee cords, and though there’s a difference between the results you get landing with fresh bungees versus aging ones, the system is quite robust and shrugs off even the firmest landings.

Ownership

On one hand, the Cub is one of the simplest certified airplanes available. But on the other hand, the airframe incorporates fabric-covered steel tubing and, depending on the model year, may also incorporate a wood wing spar. Like a violin or cello, the airplane demands care and attention, and a Cub that’s been neglected can become very expensive to bring back to life.

Owners report quotes of around $40,000 to have all of the fabric replaced on a J-3. While some of the expense goes toward addressing airframe issues that are discovered during the process, fabric replacement is lengthy and tedious. When evaluating a Cub, a wisebuyer takes the fabric’s age into account and maintains a fabric reserve to more easily absorb the cost.

For a 75-plus-year-old airplane produced in such numbers, the J-3 has few airworthiness directives (ADs). The most notable requires the periodic inspection of the wing struts and strut forks, but this AD can be eliminated by replacing those parts with modernized versions. Other ADs are either one-time or easily addressed.STCs, on the other hand, are plentiful. A wide variety of engine options exist, from the original 65 hp Continental to the 85 and 90 hp versions, as well as the 100 hp O-200. When shopping for a J-3, sticking with the J-3C version makes it easier to later switch to different engine models. It was originally equipped with a Continental engine, so an owner can install a C75, a C85, or a C90-8 with a logbook entry from their A&P. The process is far more tedious when attempting to install one of these engines on a J-3F originally equipped with a Franklin engine or a J-3L that originally came with a Lycoming.

Like any steel-tubed taildragger fuselage, a thorough pre-purchase inspection pays close attention to the lower fuselage longerons for rust or corrosion. It’s also smart to closely inspect the jackscrew that operates the elevator trim; if play is detected at the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer, the jackscrew might require replacement. The fabric must be cut to access it.

Airframe parts are easily sourced from a number of companies, and unlike some types, the J-3’s airframe doesn’t require any parts that are particularly difficult to find. Owners report annual inspection costs of around $1,000 if no issues are found. Owners report relatively reasonable insurance premiums, as well. One 18-year-old with 150 hours of total time and only 20 hours of tailwheel time paid $1,380 for a year of coverage with a $30,000 hull value. An experienced ATP with significant tailwheel time paid about half that for the same hull value. The type club J3-Cub.com is highly regarded among owners as a place to ask and answer questions, and Clyde Smith at cubdoctor.com is considered by many to be the guru of fabric Pipers.

What a J-3 lacks in speed, capacity, and ergonomics, it makes up for in personality, simplicity, and fun. Like swinging a leg over a vintage Ducati or sliding into a Porsche 356 Speedster, the experience is sublimely raw and unrefined. The J-3 commands a premium over other types, but it holds a correspondingly higher resale value. Its simplicity makes it relatively inexpensive to own, fly, and maintain. The mix of legacy and economy is compelling, and rare’s the J-3 owner that regrets their purchase.

PIPER J-3 CUB

When FLYING reported on the Piper J-3 Cub in its October 1946 issue, the U.S. was just one year out of World War II, and pilots returning to the civilian world were converting to private pilot certificates—then licenses—in droves. FLYING noted the J-3’s top speed 83 mph and range of more than 200 sm as benefits to the pilot seeking an easy trip into the sky. Thirty years later, in 1976, contributor John Olcott waxed nostalgic about the airplane: “Breathes there the pilot, with soul so dead, who never to himself hath said, ‘I want a Cub that’s Piper bred?’

“The low stalling speed and soft stall characteristics make the Super Cub an easy taildragger to land, although students seem to master landing sooner in the J-3 Cub,” Olcott went on to write. “The CG of the J-3 required pilots to solo from the rear seat, which forced them to look out the side of the Cub at precisely the angle that was best for executing a proper landing.”

The post Piper J-3 Cub’s Heritage of Simplicity, Reliability appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

As a missionary in Peru, sport pilot CFI Jake Leonard learned quickly that aviation was going to be extremely beneficial in his effort to reach deep inside the jungle and preach the gospel to previously unreached people groups. He started flying in Peru to cut the two- to three-day, 400-mile boat trip (one-way) from Iquitos to his remote destinations, but Leonard realized he gained immense satisfaction from teaching others to fly, so he earned his sport instructor certificate.

With approximately 500 hours now in his logbook, Leonard is busy teaching sport pilot students from McKnight Airport (5OI8) in Johnstown, Ohio, operating from the field’s two turf runways in a Quicksilver Sport 2S, a 1938 Taylorcraft BC-65, a 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D, and a pair of Aeroprakt A22 LSAs. Teaching under the banner of Heavenbound Aviation, Leonard is able to reach a wide spectrum of sport pilot students as well as certificated students who desire to earn a tailwheel endorsement or receive Part 103 ultralight training.

In speaking to FLYING, Leonard makes it abundantly clear that when it comes to teaching zero-time sport aviation students, there is a long list of variables that can determine the time and cost of training for each student.

Let’s dive deep into this topic, and view the career of a sport pilot CFI, from an instructor’s perspective.

• READ MORE: An Inside Look at Modern LSA Ownership

Understanding the Mission

Before the first lesson, Leonard digs into the student’s mission to determine just why they are seeking to earn their sport pilot certificate (which he calls an “SPC”). “We interview every potential student and try to establish what their aviation goals are,” Leonard said. “Being that we train in multiple different aircraft (Taylorcraft, Aeroprakt, and Quicksilver), knowing what the student's goals are is very important in determining what aircraft they train in. Also what aircraft the student wants to own/fly after they get their license is important in determining what aircraft we train them in.”

There are many things to consider before a plan to train a student is made. Leonard asks if, for example, the student plans to fly a Kitfox, a Zenith, an RV-12, or maybe a low-mass, high-drag ultralight? Do they plan to fly tailwheel or nosewheel? What avionics do they want, touchscreen and autopilot or old-school steam gauges? “Once we have figured out what their overall mission is, we ask if they just want to fly on calm evenings and enjoy the sunset, or do they want to travel and do a lot of cross-country flying? Are they going to be flying off of a 5,000-foot paved runway, or their own 600-foot farm strip with a barn at the end? We try very hard to determine the best fit for each student and train them in the way that would be most helpful in their mission. Everyone receives the same fundamental training, but once they have their basics down, we press forward with training suitable to what their mission is,” Leonard explained.

• READ MORE: You Can Be 'Hands-On' With Developing Future LSA Standards

Your Cost and Time May Vary

While the FAA has set a minimum number of training hours to earn an SPC, Leonard said he sees wide variations in the actual number of hours it takes to prepare his sport students for their practical test (check ride).

“It all depends on the learning ability of the student, and how well they are able to absorb and then apply the information that is being given to them,” Leonard said. “I would say the two biggest variables to this are age and determination. If the student is a young and determined 30-year-old, they have a really good chance of completing their SPC at minimums. If the student is 60-plus, then they might have close to 50 hours to get their license.”

The training is the same for all students, Leonard said. “Typically we are going to spend the first 5 to 10 hours just on air work (ground reference maneuvers, steep turns, slow flight, and stalls) because I really want the student to know how to feel the airplane. We often will cover up the airspeed indicator on practice landings because I believe acquiring the skill of ‘flying by the seat of your pants’ can be life and death in aviation. After that, we move on to landings, and usually whatever time it takes to master the air work is about what it's going to be to master the landings. Once the student solos, we start planning their cross country and doing checkride prep.”     

The frequency of lessons is, just like students earning a private ticket, a key factor in the total time it takes to pass a check ride. “The 65-year-old students that are only flying one hour a week are going to be way over the minimum hours required, while the motivated 25-year-old flying 3 to 4 hours a week has a good chance of getting it close to minimums,” Leonard said. “I would say the average is 25 to 40 hours depending how often they fly, what aircraft they fly, and how quickly they learn.”

Leonard added that the sport pilot written test can be one of the biggest inhibitors to people getting their SPC. “If a student doesn’t start their ground school until after they start flight training, they usually put it off because all they want to do is fly. If a student comes to us and they already have their written test done, usually we can get them through their SPC pretty quick. It all comes down to motivation and determination,” he said.

• READ MORE: Across the USA in an LSA

First Solo Flights

For any CFI, a student’s first solo can be a moment of elation or trepidation, and sometimes both. “I can feel both joy and anxiety watching my student lift off on their first solo,” Leonard said, “because it is an incredible feeling! Seeing their face when they climb out of the airplane with their big smile is truly awesome! I love being able to be the first one to shake their hand and congratulate them on their solo. Being able to share a passion that I love so much, and seeing it become their passion after their solo, makes all the heart-thumping rough landings worth it!”

Leonard knows that these first solo flights can sometimes lead to great things, far beyond just enjoying the privileges of an SPC. “We have had a few students that went on to much more advanced ratings and certificates,” Leonard said. “One of our newest started training while he was in high school, and is currently at Bowling Green University in Ohio enrolled in the aviation program with plans to go on to commercial, CFII, and hopefully onto a charter operation. Another recent student is now enlisted in the U.S. Naval Academy and is hoping to fly fighter jets.”

As a man of faith, Leonard’s career as a sport CFI is closely related to his missionary work in South America. 

“I never try to push my faith in Jesus on anyone, but when my students ask how or why I got into aviation, it brings up the conversation of my faith,” he said. “You get to know someone pretty well when you are in a small plane together for 20-plus hours.”

The post Inside the Career of a Sport Pilot CFI appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Deciding on an airplane type with a limited budget is an exercise in balancing strengths and weaknesses. One type might provide great cruise speed or pay-load, but less expensive examples might come at the cost of a high-time engine or old fabric. For the same price, it might be possible to find a different type that has been freshly restored with a low-time engine, although chances are, it will have fewer seats and less capability.

But what if one type’s perceived weakness is some-thing that can be addressed with awareness and ap-propriate training? In the case of the Piper PA-38Tomahawk, its unique stall and spin characteristics resulted in accidents and a poor reputation early in its production run. The reputation lingers today, but owners agree that if one is willing to train and fly appropriately, it becomes a non-issue—and a non-issue that enables a prospective owner to obtain a lot more air-plane for a lot less money than other types.

Design

Back in the late 1970s, the field of training aircraft was dominated by legacy types that traced their designs back to the 1930s and 1940s. The popular Cessna 150and 152 were based upon the old 140, Cubs and Aeroncas had changed little over the years, and—whether equipped with a nosewheel or a tailwheel—most trainers also had high wings, cramped cockpits, and limited visibility.

When Piper set out to claim market share from Cessna in the primary trainer category, it took a fresh approach. Rather than build an updated Cub or a smaller Cherokee, Piper surveyed thousands of flight instructors across the country to determine what characteristics were most desired in a training aircraft. It solicited input on what features the perfect one should have and how it should fly. The instructors provided plenty of input.

Having spent decades in cramped cabins, they asked for more space and comfort. Having dealt with huge blind spots in the form of a high wing positioned at eyelevel, they asked for more visibility. And they wanted an airplane with a sharper, more pronounced entry into stalls and spins. They reasoned that a student cannot fully understand or properly learn spin recovery in an airplane that will automatically return to normal flight when the controls are released.

Piper got to work and created an airplane that me teach of these demands in the form of the Tomahawk. It built the airframe around the popular 112 hp, four-cylinder Lycoming O-235. Although the low-wing de-sign necessitated a fuel pump, Piper positioned the fuel selector in a location on the panel that’s both easy to see and easy to reach. And, like so many other models in that era, they opted for the style of a T-tail.

Model History

The result of the research was a new training air-craft that was thoroughly modernized and differentiated from the legacy trainers of the day. In the end, Piper would sell nearly 2,500 examples between 1978and 1982.In those four years of production, the Tomahawk line remained simple and uncomplicated. The vast majority of Tomahawks are the initial model, known simply as the PA-38 Tomahawk. During the last two years of production, Piper introduced the Tomahawk II variant, with minor improvements to the cabin: heating, ventilation, and soundproofing. The company also made a few smaller improvements to the interior to provide more comfort to those on board.

Market Snapshot

A survey of Tomahawks listed for sale at the time of this writing found eight examples ranging in price from $25,000 for a particularly rough example to $69,000 for one with a freshly overhauled engine and updated avionics. The median price of the group was $30,500, and the median airframe time was 3,717 hours. A total of 444 Tomahawks are presently listed on the FAA registry.

Because many Tomahawks have been used for flight training at busy schools, it pays to be discerning. Air-frame total time is something to note, as is the condition of an aircraft that might have led a hard life at the hands of primary students. However, an airplane that has been used regularly over the years tends to accumulate fewer issues in general than one that has been a hangar queen, so don’t discount a former school model.

Flight Characteristics

The Tomahawk’s T-tail makes it easy to spot from across a ramp. Like the T-tails Piper fitted to the Arrow IV and Lance, it is said to have been chosen by the marketing department for its looks, but it has more drawbacks than legitimate performance advantages. A Tomahawk pilot must retrieve a ladder to perform a thorough preflight inspection, and to clear ice and snow off of the horizontal stabilizer in the winter or remove bugs from the leading edges in the summer.

Fortunately, the Tomahawk’s other design elements offer legitimate benefits that are immediately apparent. If the cabin size and layout of the Tomahawk had been the accepted norm and the competition had all waited until the late 1970s to introduce their cramped cabins with limited visibility, their airplanes might not have done so well in the marketplace. Indeed, the Tomahawk’s roomier cabin feels downright luxurious compared to an early taildragger or Cessna 150, and the outstanding visibility comes as a pleasant shock to everyone except possibly Ercoupe pilots.

Most two-place trainers endowed with engines in the 100-hp range require discipline with regard to loading, and the Tomahawk is no exception. With full fuel, anyone much over 150 pounds would be wise to consider the weight of the other occupant before de-parting—a survey of 18 owners found that the aver-age full-fuel payload was 303 pounds. Fortunately, the 30-gallon fuel capacity is larger than that of many competing models, and this provides some flexibility with regard to payload.

Piper Tomahawk: By the Numbers

The post The Piper Tomahawk: A Lot More Airplane for a Lot Less Money appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Study aircraft types long enough and you begin to realize that for each mission there are typically a handful of suitable options from which to choose. Each offer sits own individual blend of strengths and weaknesses. Narrowing the field becomes a matter of choosing the blend that seems most appealing to you.

When it comes to simple, economical, and fun stick-and-rudder flying, one of the best-known examples is the Piper Cub. The Cub is a well-loved, fabric-covered airplane with tandem seating. More than 20,000 Cubs have been built. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, though, and for nearly half the price, similarly fun stick-and-rudder flying can be had in the Luscombe 8. Less popular than the Cub—but still relatively common—nearly 6,000 in the series have been produced since 1937, and more than 1,400 remain on the U.S. aircraft registry today.

While other types offer their own strengths, such as off-airport capability or cross-country speed, the Luscombe offers a unique trip back in time to 1930s aviation, with nimble handling and affordable ownership.

Design

In Airman’s Odyssey, author and aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote, “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” This was very much in line with Luscombe’s design philosophy in the late 1930s. With a single fuel tank mounted in the upper fuselage behind the pilots, spartan interiors, no flaps, and no electrical system, only the bare essentials were included in the purchase price. Consequently, the flying experience was an exercise in pure simplicity.

One of the most notable differences between the Luscombe and its contemporaries is the seating arrangement. Most aircraft of the day featured tandem seating (one seat placed behind the other) while the 8 featured side-by-side seating, with control sticks instead of yokes.

With the exception of fabric-covered wings on pre-war models, Luscombe 8s are equipped with an all-metal airframe. Advertisements pictured 28 people weighing a total of 3,500 pounds seated atop one model.

Model History

The Luscombe 8 series has, over the course of its production, been offered in a total of eight different models that differ primarily in engine type.

The 8, 8A, 8B, 8C, and 8D were equipped with various engines ranging from 50 to 75 hp. Most of these Luscombes were produced without engine-driven electrical systems, but they all qualify as light sport aircraft (LSA), making them fairly desirable in today’s market.

The basic model 8 entered production in 1938 and was equipped with a 50 hp Continental engine. The 8A introduced a more powerful 65 hp Continental, and it was produced in large quantities both before and after World War II. Today, nearly 900 8As remain on the U.S. register.

The 8B was originally built with a unique 65 hp Lycoming. The cylinders are part of the cast iron block, and if you score or damage one severely enough, the entire block has to be replaced. Parts are relatively difficult to find, and the powerplants on most B models have been replaced with more common engine types that are easier to maintain.

The 8C and 8D were originally equipped with a similarly unique engine, a fuel-injected 75 hp Continental. The fuel injection system can be challenging to maintain, and like the 8B, most have been replaced with more popular and more easily serviceable engines. The 8E, 8F, and T8F all came with electrical systems and engines ranging from 85 to 90 hp. Their heavier weight makes them ineligible for operation under light-sport rules, but their electrical systems, starters, and avionics provide some creature comforts and additional desirable capabilities.

The T8F is the most unique and recognizable version of the type. It was designed for civilian aerial observation and aerial application (crop dusting) duties, and it sports tandem seating with a massive bubble canopy for the rear passenger. Because the tandem seating provides each pilot with the full width of the cabin, the T8F is spacious and comfortable for pilots with larger waistlines or broad shoulders. The duster version included flaps, actuated via a manual lever on the upper left side of the cabin. One of the rarest Luscombes, only 24 currently appear on the U.S. registry.

As noted, all pre-war Luscombes were built with fabric-covered wings. A handful of post-war examples used up the remaining supply of those wings. By mid-1946, all came from the factory with metal wings. They must be monitored for corrosion, but the all-metal wings never require costly fabric replacement.

Market Snapshot

A survey of Luscombes listed for sale found 16 active listings. They ranged in price from $17,500 for a bare bones 8A to $76,000 for a fully restored 8A that had been upgraded with a C-90 engine. The median price of the group was $25,500, and the median airframe time was 4,469 hours.

Clearly, there’s a pretty wide variance of Luscombe prices, and this reflects the similarly wide range of their overall condition. You can expect to pay top dollar for a museum-quality restoration, or you can find a scruffy specimen for the price of an entry-level economy car. The sweet spot seems to be the $25,000 to $30,000 range. Here, it’s possible to find well-sorted examples and some that have been upgraded with more powerful engines. They’re not award winners, but they’re not priced like them either.

Factory-new Luscombe 8s are presently in production by the Luscombe Aircraft Corporation in Jamestown, New York. All are LSA-compliant and are equipped with the 100 hp Continental O-200. The combination of light weight and relatively high power results in an impressive 600-foot takeoff roll and 128-mph cruise speed. Prices range from $130,000 to $200,000, depending on options.

Flight Characteristics

Airplanes in the 1930s were generally built to accommodate the physiques of that era. That said, they are snug by today’s standards. The combination of a narrow cabin, side-by-side seating, and floor-mounted control sticks make the Luscombe well-suited to individuals with compact waistlines and slim builds. Conversely, long legs or thick thighs will constantly battle the control sticks for space, and when conditions are gusty, the area beneath the instrument panel can become a busy, crowded place. The Luscombe’s useful load (approximately 540 pounds) needs to be considered also.

For pilots who fit comfortably, however, the cabin is perfectly adequate, and has visibility on par with most other small, two-place, high-wing types. Many models incorporate overhead skylights, which help to make the compact cabin feel more open and bright.

Most Luscombes use heel brakes. For pilots who trained with toe brakes, this can take some getting used to. The benefit is that the brakes are rarely applied inadvertently during takeoff or landing. Bulky footwear and boots are to be avoided in the interest of dexterity.

When equipped with the lower-powered engines, the Luscombe provides rather leisurely takeoff performance. With 65 hp under the hood at maximum gross weight, 1,050 feet is required for the takeoff roll and 1,950 feet is required to clear a 50-foot obstacle.

With the 85 hp engine, this goes down to 850 feet and 1,850 feet, respectively, and these distances are further improved with the Continental C-90. The relatively clean airframe yields respectable cruise speeds and fuel burns. One owner reports achieving 105 mph on 4.5 gallons per hour with his 65 hp machine.

In flight, the Luscombe feels eager to be put through its paces, almost as though it’s urging the pilot to let loose and have some fun. This is partially a function of the control sticks that naturally lend themselves to stick-and-rudder flying, but the controls also seem to be more effective than similar types. A pilot accustomed to flying a J3 Cub or Cessna 140, for example, might initially be chasing the ball while trying to keep his or her turns coordinated. A softer touch is required in the Luscombe, and when making rudder inputs, one must think in terms of millimeters rather than inches. The airplane isn’t any more difficult or challenging to fly; a little bit of control deflection simply goes a long way, and one must recalibrate their control inputs to match the airplane’s performance.

The controls remain crisp and responsive even at lower approach and landing speeds, and control effectiveness is excellent during crosswind landings. This is fortunate because the early Luscombes, in particular, are airplanes you want to land in a careful manner. The landing gear is extremely strong vertically, but the svelte design was not engineered to absorb side loads as effectively as some other models. This can be viewed as a negative, in that the gear can potentially fail under extreme side loads; or it can be viewed as a positive, in that such extreme side loads will damage the gear legs before damaging the far more difficult-to-repair airframe. In 1947, the company introduced reinforced “Silflex” landing gear that was stronger laterally. This gear could be retroactively installed on earlier model 8s.

Landing gear notwithstanding, the airplane is enormously fun to fly. Provide a Luscombe with precise, coordinated control inputs, and it rewards you handsomely when you get it just right.

Ownership

Two of the most important elements of a good ownership experience are parts availability and a vibrant community of owners. In both of these respects, the Luscombe 8 comes through in spades.

The aforementioned Luscombe Aircraft Corporation supports owners of legacy aircraft with factory tooling, a comprehensive parts inventory, digitized engineering drawings, and accurate historical records. Companies like Univair stock most airframe parts. Should you struggle to find a part, the type was produced in enough numbers that sourcing the most difficult-to-find items is typically a matter of posting a request in one of the online owners forums and networking with its enthusiastic members.

Luscombe 8A

Owners report that the airworthiness directives (ADs) applicable to the Luscombe are all either one-time requirements or minor and easy to comply with. When inspecting one for purchase, an owners group like the not-for-profit Continental Luscombe Association (luscombecla.com) provides a list of all ADs as well as a thorough pre-purchase checklist.

Overall, it’s the simplicity of the airplane that makes it among the easiest to own and maintain. Annual inspections are relatively quick and affordable. Troubleshooting is equally straightforward. Virtually no parts are prohibitively expensive to replace, and for the ultimate in simplicity, one can select an early model that lacks an electrical system altogether.

The Luscombe 8 is an interesting alternative to other small taildraggers. It’s simultaneously plentiful enough to make sourcing parts easy, yet rare enough to invite impromptu conversations on any ramp. It’s easy to fly, yet challenging to fly well. A fully restored, museum-quality Luscombe can be had for the price of an extremely average Cessna Skyhawk or Piper Archer. Alternatively, less-perfect examples are among the most affordable aircraft on the market, costing about as much as a new Yamaha sport touring motorcycle.

For a prospective new owner, this is an airplane that will welcome you to the sky but will never allow you to become bored. It will challenge you to refine your stickand-rudder flying skills, and will make you feel like a superstar when you rise to the challenge.

Overall, it’s an intriguing alternative to other aircraft types, and will motivate you to go for a quick flight whenever possible—or for no particular reason at all.

The post The Luscombe 8 Offers a Unique Trip Back in Time appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

One of the very first steps in an aircraft purchase involves determining what capabilities we’d like our airplane to have, and it’s laughably easy to check the boxes as we go down the list. Cross-country range? We’ll take it. Load-carrying ability? Absolutely. Short-field performance? Sign us up. A five-digit price tag? Yes, please. An airframe built in the 1990s? Sounds great.

Before long, our wish list becomes as overloaded as a college student’s plate at an all-you-can-eat buffet, and we eventually realize that compromises must be made. STOL aircraft rarely provide long-distance speed and range, for example, and certificated types less than 30 years old are typically fairly expensive.

The Maule, on the other hand, seems to provide most of these strengths with few compromises. Takeoff rolls of 300 to 500 feet are routine, and yet many provide cruise speed and range that approach even some types with retractable gear. Four adults and full tanks can be carried aloft at the same time. For just over $100,000, it’s possible to buy an example that’s newer than the first Apple iPods.

Surely, I thought, there must be a catch. So, I took a dive into the world of Maules to investigate further and evaluate their suitability as an approachable aircraft.

Design

When company founder B.D. Maule designed the M-4 in the 1950s, he emphasized a few key values, including utility, durability and short-field capability. The initial examples rolled out of the factory in the early 1960s, and this basic formula has remained largely unchanged.

The Maule family is straightforward in a broad sense and more intricately detailed when it comes to the little things. Six basic models have been produced since 1960. All are high-wing aircraft with side-by-side seating, yokes, great load-carrying capability and fantastic STOL performance. All have steel-tube, fabric-covered fuselages, and with the exception of a handful of early models that had fabric-covered wings, all Maule wings are metal. Other than the five-seat M-7 and M-9 series, all have four-seats.

It’s a recipe that has proved to work well. For more than 60 years, the various models have undergone incremental improvements and have utilized a wide variety of engines without losing sight of the original mission. The company is still owned and operated by the Maule family, and they still build airplanes designed with utility, durability and short-field capability in mind.

Model History

Though all Maules have retained the same basic characteristics, the company’s model-number and naming structure becomes quite complicated when all the minor differences are taken into account. A comprehensive explanation of every model number and name used since the introduction of the type would require spreadsheets, footnotes and possibly also a decoder ring. For the sake of brevity, we will cover some broad characteristics among the models and avoid detailing every defining feature.

The M-4 was the initial model, introduced in 1962. It’s easily distinguished by the rounded tail that resembles a Piper Pacer. It was initially equipped with the 145 hp Continental O-300 engine and fixed-pitch propeller, and was later upgraded to more-powerful Continental and Franklin engines with constant-speed propellers. The first M-4s were produced for approximately 10 years, and a modernized M-4 briefly returned to production in the mid-2000s.

Because it’s the oldest model, the M-4 tends to be the least expensive. The combination of a smaller vertical stabilizer and larger ailerons makes it superior to other Maules in crosswinds. Downsides include less compatibility with modification kits offered by the factory and a less impressive fit-and-finish compared to later models.

The M-5 and M-6 improved upon the initial model by introducing a larger tail, larger flaps, a larger wingspan and higher gross weights. They also incorporated improved airframe systems, such as the M-6’s flaps that are actuated with lower-maintenance torque tubes rather than the original cable system.

Models that are currently in production include the M-6, M-7, MX-7 and M-9. The 7-series Maules use a series of prefixes and suffixes to denote the configuration. An X in the model name indicates a slightly smaller fuselage, and the presence of a T indicates a tricycle-gear configuration. An MXT-7-180, therefore, is a small-fuselage 7-series Maule with tricycle gear and a 180 hp engine.

The -7 series also offers taildragger fans a choice of main landing gear; the traditional oleo gear with shock absorbers that dampen rebound; and spring aluminum gear with fewer moving parts and slightly less drag. The spring aluminum gear legs are wider and offer greater stability, but the oleo gear neatly fits into the tracks of two-track dirt roads for easier off-airport access. Finally, the M-9 series is simply a version of the -7 series that incorporates an increased gross weight and a number of structural reinforcements.

Market Snapshot

A survey of Maules listed for sale at the time of this writing found 30 examples ranging in price from $35,000 for a 1973 M-4-220 in need of an engine overhaul to $199,000 for a low-time 2001 M-7-260C. The median price of the group was $87,950, and the median airframe time was 1,321 hours.

Compared with other types, the average airframe time of Maules is quite low. This is partially a function of a fleet that is younger than most other types, but even among the oldest examples, it’s rare to find a Maule with more than 2,500 hours on the airframe.

Flight Characteristics

By the numbers, the interior of a Maule is fairly spacious. The 42 inches of width at the front seats is equal to that of newer Cessna 182s. But because the fuselage provides less vertical space, the seats are mounted lower and give a feeling of sitting closer to the floor like a Cessna 150 or 152. Visibility over the nose is better than many types but still might require a bit of a stretch to see forward.

Takeoffs are completed fairly quickly, even in the lower-powered models. The ample rudder and vertical stabilizer provide positive control throughout the takeoff roll, and it rarely requires more than 500 feet to get off the ground. Deck angles during climb-out can become alarmingly steep in lightly loaded models with higher horsepower engines, and departure-end obstacles are long forgotten by the time you pass overhead.

In the air, a Maule exhibits few notable characteristics, save for the interconnection between the ailerons and rudder. At cruise speed, this enables the pilot to more easily remain coordinated in turns.

Many Maules incorporate two optional auxiliary fuel tanks outboard of the mains. The larger aux tanks of several models each hold up to 21 gallons of fuel, bringing the total fuel capacity of these models to 85 gallons and providing excellent range.

The example we flew while researching the type for this article was equipped with vortex generators. The owner explained that these noticeably softened the stall, and sure enough, stalls were relatively docile with ample tactile warning.

Few owners use words such as “docile” and “forgiving” to describe the landing characteristics of their tailwheel Maules. While they generally avoid describing the airplane as difficult to fly, nearly all caution new owners to exercise an extra measure of discipline and respect with regard to ground handling in general and landings in particular.

Just as an airplane with benign stall characteristics will lazily and gradually mush into a stall—offering the pilot ample warning and ample time to recover—a tailwheel airplane with benign ground-handling characteristics will follow suit, providing the pilot with ample opportunity to recognize and correct a landing that’s in the process of going wrong.

This is not the case with a tailwheel Maule. The window of opportunity to correct a tail that’s slewing sideways is shorter compared with similar tailwheel types like the Cessna 170. An inattentive or inexperienced pilot not receptive to the sometimes-subtle visual and tactile cues of an uncoordinated touchdown or ground roll is susceptible to a ground loop.

Owners attribute the less-forgiving landing characteristics to multiple factors. Compared with other types, a Maule places more of its weight on the tailwheel and, thus, positions more mass behind the main gear with more potential to swing outward. Beyond a certain point, it becomes impossible to correct this, and as inertia builds, the point of no return can be reached more quickly than with other types. The benefit is that the heavier tail enables heavy braking with less risk of a nose-over incident.

• READ MORE: Jason McDowell Archive

Aileron authority also comes up in discussions with owners. When flying an approach and landing on the backside of the power curve, the large vertical stabilizer in the propeller slipstream ensures rudder effectiveness, but at low speeds, aileron authority can erode significantly. Combined with gusty conditions and lighter weights, positive roll control can become reduced, and this can quickly become the first link in a chain of events that lead to a loss of control. In addition, the aforementioned aileron/rudder interconnection works against the pilot when intentionally cross-controlling the airplane during a crosswind landing.

Finally, the STOL capability of the Maule can lure some newcomers into a sense of invulnerability. These pilots reason that because the airplane is so capable, challenging conditions and landing sites must be correspondingly easier to negotiate—and some soon get in over their head.

One owner summed it up nicely: “My Maule is a fairly straightforward airplane to fly—but a very nuanced and difficult airplane to fly well. I am constantly working on improving our relationship.”

Ownership

Talk to any group of Maule owners, and they will invariably shower the airplane with praise, raving about many of the same things. Load-carrying ability is a favorite attribute, with useful loads hovering around 1,000 pounds and cavernous cabins that are easily accessible via the large rear doors. All owners appreciate being surrounded by a steel cage and express confidence in the robust airframe.

Performance is another favorite aspect of the airplane. With legendary short-field performance, respectable cruise speeds and a healthy range, the airplane unlocks a wide variety of destinations.

Owners also appreciate the great factory support. In addition to providing excellent parts availability and friendly service from the Maule family, aftermarket parts pricing is considered to be more reasonable than with other manufacturers.

Maule also offers a wide variety of “mod kits”—parts kits that enable a Maule owner to upgrade their airplane to various different wings, fuel tanks, and other components that have been improved in later aircraft versions. Engine conversions can be accomplished without the messy STC and paperwork processes required by other types.

Virtually all Maule downsides are attributed to the tailwheel versions. Namely, the handling which many describe as less forgiving than other tailwheel aircraft as well as relatively high insurance premiums. The insurance cost can be minimized through the use of a broker with Maule experience, and both of these downsides can be avoided with the selection of tricycle gear.

One ownership concern common to all Maules is the fabric fuselage covering. Fabric is light and easy to repair, but it has a shorter lifespan and is expensive to replace. Although modern covering systems last for several decades, complete replacement can cost $45,000 to $50,000 when paint, labor and associated work are accounted for. An owner would be wise to create an hourly fabric fund as many do to fund future engine overhauls.

ADs are all relatively minor and not overly burdensome. One of the most significant involves the replacement of wing lift struts, which is a reasonably simple fix. Factory support makes it easy to address ADs, as does advice from other owners on maulepilots.org, a vibrant message board and owners group where owners can network and exchange tips and advice.

The entire series of Maule aircraft does indeed seem to check many boxes at once, providing access to short strips, solid cross-country capability, and excellent factory support for less cost than many comparable types.

The hidden gem, in our opinion, is the 180 hp MXT-7. Examples built in the 1990s have recently been selling for $75,000 to $85,000 and offer Maule’s legendary STOL capability, with the economy and simplicity of tricycle gear and a fixed-pitch prop. All the benefits of a modern Maule with sure-footed ground handling and notably less insurance expense.

Regardless of which model you choose, the benefits are numerous and legitimate. In the end, the Maule provides a number of strengths with relatively few compromises.

Maule’s Comet, From 1997

In the September 1997 issue of FLYING, we took a look at the “basic airplane at an affordable price,” and little has changed in the intervening 24-plus years.

The 180-hp, tricycle-gear Maule Comet elicited kind words from former editor-in-chief Richard L. Collins, who picked that model out of the lineup in part for its similarities to another favorite of his, the Piper Tri-Pacer, but “with better lines.”

“All the tricycle Maules (160, 180, and 235 hp) have the aluminum leaf gear and all have the same size tires on all three wheels. That does give the airplane the appearance of a puppy with big feet, but it also enhances the rugged nature of the airplane.”

“The Maule seems to have superior low-speed handling qualities,” said Collins. “I did a stall, and it was gentle. On final approach, the recommended speed is 65 mph—you can go slower if you want to—and the airplane feels solid as a rock at that speed.”

Editor’s note: This article originally appeared in the December 2021 issue of FLYING.

The post Choose Your Mount—The Maules Do it All appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

When Piper introduced its popular four-place PA-28 Cherokee in 1960, it didn’t take long for the company to realize that a significant number of customers (and potential customers) had a need for more space and more load-carrying capability. By 1963, Cessna had responded to that market segment by introducing its six-place 205, and Piper followed suit in 1965 by introducing the PA-32 Cherokee Six.

The Cherokee Six was designed with simplicity and utility in mind. While it later evolved into the Saratoga, Lance and “Six”—all with various blends of retractable gear, turbocharged engines, T-tails and tapered wings—we’re focusing on the original version, built from 1965 to 1979.

With fixed gear, a normally aspirated engine and the traditional non-tapered “Hershey bar” wing, this generation of Cherokee Six is prized by owners as the most economical means of transporting a large amount of people and cargo. Here, we investigate what the Cherokee Six is like to own, maintain and fly.

Design 

The design process for the Cherokee Six was straightforward: Using the existing four-place Cherokee as the starting point, Piper added approximately 4 feet in fuselage length and 7 inches to the cabin width. To handle the additional size and weight, the engine was upgraded to a larger, six-cylinder Lycoming. Though a small number were built with fixed-pitch propellers, virtually all have since been upgraded with constant-speed propellers.

The massive rear cabin is what sets the Cherokee Six apart from the rest of the Cherokee family. It accommodates four passengers in a club-seating configuration or, alternatively, two rows of forward-facing seats. With the latter configuration, a small seventh seat can be added between the two second row seats for a child or small adult. The forward-facing rear seats are easily configurable and can be installed or removed in seconds without tools.

Baggage capacity is outstanding, with a dedicated forward baggage area between the instrument panel and firewall, as well as a larger baggage area aft of the third row of seats. Both areas have a 100-pound weight-carrying capacity. A large two-part door provides access to the rear cabin and aft baggage area, making it easy to load and unload oversize items.

Overall, Piper engineers exercised restraint when designing the Cherokee Six and successfully created an airplane nearly as basic and straightforward as the existing PA-28 Cherokee—but with far more space and power.

Model History

The Cherokee Six family is a simple one. The initial PA-32 that was produced prior to the advent of the Lance and Saratoga came in only two variants, and they differed only in horsepower.

The original Cherokee Six was given the designation PA-32-260 and came equipped with the carbureted 260-horsepower Lycoming O-540. Later, enough buyers requested more power that Piper acquiesced and offered the PA-32-300 with the fuel-injected 300-horsepower Lycoming IO-540. Both engines are well-liked by pilots and maintainers, but those who own the 300 hp version invariably appreciate having the additional power.

Market Snapshot

A survey of Cherokee Six models listed for sale at the time of this writing found 17 examples ranging in price from $67,000 for a 260 with dated paint, interior and avionics to $225,000 for fully restored examples with thoroughly updated panels. The median price of the group was $129,900, and the median airframe time was 5,150 hours.

It’s becoming increasingly rare to find a Cherokee Six for less than $100,000. One charter operator who owns, restores and maintains several of them reports that it’s becoming nearly impossible to find clean, trouble-free examples for under $125,000. The type nevertheless remains one of the most economical means of transporting such a volume of passengers and cargo, particularly when compared to twins.

A total of 1,647 Cherokee Sixes are presently listed on the FAA register, made up of 661 PA-32-260s and 986 PA-32-300s.

Flight Characteristics

One owner jokingly advises, “During preflight, make sure nobody left a baby grand piano in the rear cargo area.” In fact, Piper did run advertisements showing an actual piano being loaded into the cabin to demonstrate the airplane’s ability to swallow oversize cargo.

The ability to carry a vast amount of weight can transform the airplane’s flight characteristics entirely, however. Lightly loaded, a Cherokee Six behaves like an overpowered muscle car, firmly pressing occupants into their seatbacks during the takeoff roll, climbing out at 1,300 to 1,400 feet per minute, and responding enthusiastically to blips of the throttle.

Heavily loaded, the airplane demands attention and a thorough understanding of how greater weight and inertia can affect performance. Owners strongly recommend seeking out an experienced CFI, then training at both ends of the weight-and-balance envelope to learn just how differently the airplane flies when fully loaded with an aft center of gravity. While never precarious or dangerous, trim requirements become vastly different, and one must think further ahead when making power adjustments.

A look at the 260 and 300 information manuals reveals admirable takeoff and landing performance even at the 3,400-pound max takeoff weight—listing 1,400 to 1,500 feet required to clear a 50-foot obstacle at sea level on takeoff and only 1,000 feet to do so on landing.

When it comes to fuel burn, no Cherokee Six will ever be described as thrifty. At typical cruise speeds of 135 to 145 knots, fuel burns of approximately 14 to 17 gallons per hour can be expected. Powered back for maximum economy, however, owners report seeing fuel burns as low as 11 to 12 gallons per hour.

If there is an aspect of the Cherokee Six operation that is prone to error, it’s the fuel system. While it isn’t overly complicated, it is somewhat clumsy from a design perspective and requires special attention. Two tanks per wing (inboard and outboard) hold a total of 84 gallons. The outboard tanks should always be filled first, and all weight in excess of 3,112 pounds must be in fuel weight only. The 1979 Cherokee Six went to a simpler two-tank system with a 94-gallon capacity.

To prevent an imbalance in flight, many owners opt to switch tanks every 15 to 30 minutes, emptying the mains before the outboards per the flight manual. Each main tank provides roughly one and a half hours of endurance, and each outboard provides about one hour more.

Cherokee Six owners stand by their decision to stick to the fixed-gear PA-32 over its retractable gear cousins, reasoning that the increased speed offered by the retractable gear is negligible. One owner whose Cherokee Six is outfitted with an aftermarket cowl and wheelpants reported that when flying side by side with a friend in a Piper Lance, the Lance was only able to cruise about 5 knots faster despite having retractable gear. When we add the additional insurance premiums and maintenance expenses to the equation, it seems the retractable gear struggles to make a compelling case for itself.

The size, weight and inertia of the airplane make it an ideal instrument platform, and the conventional tail provides familiar, predictable handling during takeoff and landing, particularly compared with the later T-tails in the Lance series. If speed is allowed to decay on final approach, the sink rate will quickly increase, and the airplane will rapidly slice through ground effect to an abrupt end. The long nose can obscure forward visibility in the flare, but landings are otherwise simple and straightforward.

Ownership

A significant number of Cherokee Six owners began their primary training in smaller, four-place Cherokees and later progressed to the Six as their needs evolved. Because the handling characteristics and systems are fairly consistent among the PA-28 and PA-32 fleets, the progression from the smaller models to the larger ones is considered to be straightforward and easily accomplished with proper training.

Because of the six- to seven-seat capacity, insurance premiums are quite a bit higher than comparable four-seat aircraft. Some lower-time owners have been able to negotiate a reduced rate with their insurance provider by agreeing to remove two passenger seats, thus limiting their airplane’s total seating capacity to four. After logging enough time in type to bring their premiums down to a more reasonable level, the insurance company reinstated the original policy, and the owners returned the airplanes to their full seating capacity.

The seating capacity can also present a challenge to Cherokee Six pilots wishing to operate under BasicMed. Because the airplane has the potential to carry seven with the additional center seat, it’s possible to interpret this as exceeding BasicMed’s six-seat limitation. Fortunately, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and Aeronautix have created inexpensive STCs that restrict the airplane to six seats via paperwork, qualifying it for operation under BasicMed. If the owner later wishes to utilize all seven seats, the STC can easily be removed.

• Get FLYING Magazine delivered to your home with a subscription. Click to subscribe

Unlike some less-common types that demand technicians with specialized knowledge and experience, the popularity of the Piper Cherokee family makes it easy to find parts and service for both the airframe and powerplant. ADs are fairly straightforward, the most serious of which concern corrosion and the relatively recent wing spar AD that applies to many Pipers.

Owners and maintainers alike praise the Lycoming O-540 and IO-540 engines for their reliability and parts availability. Both engines boast a lengthy 2,000-hour TBO, though the O-540 is considerably less expensive to overhaul. A survey of several engine shops found that, at $30,000, the average overhaul cost of the less powerful O-540 is $12,000 lower than that of the injected version.

Many owners only typically transport four passengers but enjoy the airplane’s ability to also transport as much baggage as those individuals ever want to bring along. The low aft cabin door and ease of entry makes the Cherokee Six a favorite of passengers with limited mobility, and the close proximity of the aft baggage area provides a convenient place to store wheelchairs and mobility aids.

Most Cherokee Six airplanes boast useful loads in the 1,400-pound range, with early lighter models approaching 1,500 pounds. With a fuel capacity of 84 gallons, this equates to full fuel payloads in the 900- to 1,000-pound range. The 1979 model has a 94-gallon usable-fuel capacity.

Owning a Cherokee Six is like owning two airplanes at the same time. Empty and light, it is effectively a very powerful and roomy PA-28 Cherokee that loves to accelerate and climb. Fully loaded, it’s a personal airliner, capable of bringing enough friends and luggage for comfortable weekend trips away.

Large-cabin utility doesn’t come cheap in aviation and most often comes in the form of light twins. With fixed-gear simplicity and the utilitarian reliability of the Cherokee family, the Cherokee Six is perhaps the easiest and least-expensive means of attaining that level of capability.

From The FLYING Archives

From FLYING’s report in the July 1965 issue, managing editor Richard Weeghman waxes eloquently about the Six’s charms—and ability to carry odd-size loads.

“Cleopatra wrapped in a rug, 17 skis and poles, one grandfather clock, three fishing poles, a full-grown tuna fish, and maybe my Great Dane. That’s what Piper Cherokee Sixes are made of.

“To fly the Cherokee Six is to displace a great cylindrical column of air—but at an airspeed quite respectable for a fixed-gear airplane. Cruise speed (at 75 percent power, 7,000 feet gross weight) is 137 knots (158 mph). To fly in hazy weather is to peer out over an engine nacelle without end.

“To land the Cherokee Six is to invite the drumroll of little feet upon your wing after you have parked, the press of nostrils against the plexiglass, and the moist touch of curious hands upon the rear door.”

A true “throw anything into it” kind of airplane.

The post The Practical Endurance of the Piper Cherokee Six appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Most pilots are introduced to tailwheel flying in small, two-place types such as the Piper Cub, Aeronca Champ and Cessna 140—airplanes that are perfectly suited to initial training and short pleasure flights. But as they build experience, more than a few pilots begin to recognize the limitations of these bantamweights and begin searching for an airplane that offers the satisfaction and fun of a taildragger with the flexibility and utility to unlock a wider variety of flying adventures. Lately, more and more are arriving at the conclusion that the Cessna 170 provides an optimal blend of qualities. Here, we explore what the 170 is like to own and what those owners enjoy most about it.

Design

In 1948, World War II had come to an end, soldiers had returned home to the postwar prosperity of the United States, and consumers weary from years of rationing were buying airplanes as quickly as factories could build them. Cessna was selling thousands of its small, two-place 120 and 140, as well as seeing success with the larger, radial-powered 190 and 195 that seated five people. The jump from one to the other was significant, however, and it didn’t take long for the company to identify this gap in their product offerings.

To address this, Cessna opted to stick with a proven formula. The company created a larger, four-place version of its existing 140 and named it the 170. The two types shared a number of features, including spring-steel landing gear, an aluminum airframe, toe brakes, a large floor-mounted flap lever, and control yokes rather than sticks.

So successful was the design, the 170 would go on to evolve into the wildly popular tricycle-gear 172, and initially, the landing-gear configuration was one of the only differences between the two. At first, they were built side by side on the very same assembly line. Although taildragger production quickly faded in favor of the 172 and other tricycle-gear types, Cessna achieved its goal of effectively bridging the gap between its two existing single-engine product offerings.

Model History

Three variants of the 170 were produced between 1948 and 1956: the 170, 170A and 170B.

The initial version is called the 170 and is commonly referred to as the “ragwing” or the “straight 170.” It was produced for one year only (1948) and is essentially a larger version of the 140. From a distance and without a sense of scale, the two types look nearly identical, with a fabric-covered constant-chord wing, dual wing struts, and a vertical stabilizer that lacks the curved dorsal fin of the later 170s. A total of 714 were built, and these examples tend to be the least expensive means of becoming a 170 owner.

The original fabric wing is characterized by light, crisp roll authority and docile, predictable stall qualities. It’s highly regarded by those who own them, but when evaluating a 170 with a fabric wing, a prospective owner must consider the age and condition of the fabric. Though modern covering systems can last decades when properly cared for, a 170 that’s due for new fabric can cost $8,000 to $10,000 to bring up to date. In such a case, it might make more sense in the long term to pay the premium for a 170A or 170B that, with their all-metal wings, will never require such service.

The 170A was built from 1949 to 1951, and the all-metal wing was indeed the primary change from the 170. The wing has a tapered design with squared-off wingtips, and a single wing strut on each side. The flaps were enlarged, and the maximum flap setting increased from 30 degrees to 50 degrees. Fuel capacity increased from 37.5 gallons to 42 gallons, and the dorsal fin was added, giving it a resemblance to the 190 and 195. A total of 1,522 170A models were built.

The final 170 variant was the 170B. Of the 2,900 examples that were produced from 1952 to 1957, the primary change was the wing. It introduced 3 degrees of dihedral and larger, semi-Fowler flaps. The improved flaps are hugely effective; at gross weight and standard conditions at sea level, the 170B requires only 65 percent of the distance required by the 170A to land over a 50-foot obstacle. And because the flaps produce more lift at smaller settings, takeoff distance over a 50-foot obstacle is reduced by nearly 200 feet.

At their maximum 40-degree setting, the huge flaps can disrupt airflow over the tail surface during slips, which can cause the airplane to pitch down suddenly and severely with potentially fatal results. Accordingly, the 170B flight manual includes a warning that with full flaps, slips are to be avoided. Fortunately, the maximum flap setting enables such a steep approach, owners agree that slips with full flaps are never necessary.

In addition to the improved flaps, the 170B also introduced a balanced horizontal stabilizer and elevator that provide lighter control forces and reduce the need for trim adjustments as speed and configuration changes.

All 170s came equipped from the factory with the 145 hp, six-cylinder Continental C-145, which later became known as the O-300. The relatively modest power means that most 170s are capable of getting into airstrips that they might not be able to get out of, but as the engines are essentially O-200s with two extra cylinders, they’re well-regarded for their reliability and smoothness.

Market Snapshot

A survey of 170s listed for sale at the time of this writing found 21 examples ranging in price from $38,900 for a 170A with a bad cylinder to a $135,000 heavily modified 170B with an upgraded engine and propeller. The median price of the group was $65,000, and the median airframe time was approximately 3,700 hours.

The least expensive 170s tend to be 1948 models with the fabric wing, while the B-models are listed at an average price of $81,000. Predictably, the examples that have been upgraded with more-powerful engines top the range, commonly reaching six figures.

• READ MORE: Previous Editions of Approachable Aircraft

The value of the 170 has increased notably in the past several years, and this appears to be at least partially attributable to a lower inventory. The popularity of tailwheel aircraft in general and backcountry flying in particular has made 170s of all varieties quite desirable, and their value seems to have outpaced other types.

Flight Characteristics

Climb into the cabin of a 170, and one of the most significant strengths of the design becomes immediately apparent—visibility over the nose is fantastic. This makes taxiing easy and straightforward, and no S-turning is necessary to see where you’re going. The airplane is reasonably easy to maneuver on the ground, and when full rudder doesn’t result in an immediate turn, a light tap of the brake ushers the tail into the direction you desire.

The spring-steel gear legs have a fair amount of flex and do a good job of soaking up bumps. While taxiing on lumpy, uneven surfaces, the airplane tends to wallow just a bit as the wing gently rolls left and right. Later B models feature slightly stiffer gear legs, which minimize the sway to a degree.

Compared with smaller types such as Cubs and 140s—which are invariably flown within a few hundred pounds of gross weight—the 170 can be a very different airplane from one end of the weight-and-balance envelope to the other. Flown solo at sea level with a bit of fuel burned off, the 145 hp Continental provides sprightly takeoff performance, often returning takeoff rolls in the 500-foot range. Loaded to maximum takeoff weight, however, one must expect a 60 percent longer takeoff roll, followed by a rather laborious climb rate that requires 1,820 feet to clear a 50-foot obstacle.

Once in the air, the 170 is as unremarkable as the 172 into which it evolved. Climb performance is sufficient but not impressive; stalls and handling are docile and predictable; and depending on the propeller, cruise performance hovers around 100 to 120 mph, with most owners reporting a fuel burn of 7 to 8 gallons per hour. Useful loads are generally around 850 pounds, leaving roughly 600 pounds for people and gear with full tanks.

Like most taildraggers, landing demands vigilance. The 170 is more docile than many, but the spring-steel landing gear lacks damping of any kind, and this requires a careful, controlled touchdown. Unlike Piper Pacers and Stinson 108s that are equipped with oil damping to slow the rebound, a firm touchdown in a 170 will cause the gear legs to snap back and enthusiastically return the airplane back into the sky.

For those using their 170 to venture out to bumpy strips or off-airport, however, the benefits of the tailwheel configuration quickly become clear. There’s no chance of damaging a fragile nosewheel or firewall on rough ground, and prop strikes are far less likely thanks to greatly increased prop clearance.

Ownership

With more than 5,000 examples produced, most parts are easily sourced for the 170, and it’s not difficult to find qualified mechanics who are familiar with the type. A relatively small number of airworthiness directives on the airframe helps to simplify pre-purchase inspections; other than recurring ADs on the seat tracks and Bendix mag switches, most are either one-time inspections or applicable only to the engine and/or engine accessories.

Ownership is made even easier with a vibrant type club, the International Cessna 170 Association, where members gather online and around the world to share tips and knowledge. Owners actively collaborate to identify and address emerging maintenance issues among the fleet, adding a great layer of safety to the ownership of an aging aircraft.

After the purchase, the 170 is something of a blank canvas. An owner can install original wheelpants and polish bare aluminum for a bit more speed and a classic 1950s look, or they can install a STOL kit and tundra tires for backcountry adventuring. Similarly, the interior can be restored to recapture the original 1950s style, or the upholstery and rear seat can be removed altogether to save weight and maximize cargo space.

Owners with significantly larger budgets are able to completely transform their 170s by installing a larger engine, such as the 180 hp Lycoming O-360. This transforms a stock 170 with its mediocre climb rate into a powerful machine that can much more easily handle short runways with departure-end obstacles. This performance also unlocks capability at high altitudes, particularly when paired with modern composite propellers. While such performance doesn’t come cheap at approximately $50,000 to $60,000 to start, the desirability in today’s market is such that it tends to return a corresponding increase in the aircraft’s resale value.

Inertia-reel shoulder harnesses are a popular modification. Unlike basic fixed shoulder harnesses that require the pilot to constantly loosen them to lean forward and reach the floor-mounted flap handle, the inertia-reel harnesses enable the pilot to reach the flap lever unencumbered and undistracted.

The 170 strikes a great balance of being easy to handle yet never boring. It’s common enough for service and most parts to be easily sourced, but it’s unique enough to turn heads on any ramp. And while the technical differences between the various 170 subtypes are notable, most owners agree that pilot proficiency and skill can easily make up for most of those differences.

Capable of being flown on wheels, skis or floats, the 170 enables adventures of all kinds. The payload falls short of a 180 or 185, but so too does the fuel burn and operating expense. For the pilot who wants a relatively economical taildragger with the ability to take a friend and a pair of bicycles on weeklong camping trips, the 170′s unique blend of strengths make it a particularly attractive approachable aircraft—and a ticket to further adventures.

This story appeared in the August 2021 issue of Flying Magazine

The post The Cessna 170 Is a Ticket to Adventure appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Have a look at the various aircraft types parked on the ramp of a busy general aviation airport, and the mission of each quickly becomes evident. Lancairs and Mooneys utilize their sleek lines to achieve speed and efficiency. Well-worn flight school aircraft spend their days enduring all the various lessons learned by the steady stream of students. Stately business jets stand at the ready to whisk their VIPs off to faraway destinations. And should you happen to spot an Ercoupe standing apart from the crowd with its distinctive retro design and open canopy, it becomes clear that it was designed with fun flying in mind.

But fun is only part of the Ercoupe’s formula. When it was designed in the 1930s, it introduced a number of safety features that were, at the time, as futuristic as the Buck Rogers comics of the era. Even today, the Ercoupe enjoys an enthusiastic following.

Design

In the late 1930s and early 1940s, aircraft designers stuck with similar playbooks. For the most part, light general aviation aircraft took the form of fabric-covered taildraggers with tandem seating and control sticks. The formula worked, but stall and spin accidents and ground loops were commonplace, and aerodynamicist Fred Weick began experimenting with aircraft designs that would eliminate them.

In 1936, Weick teamed up with a company called ERCO, which stands for the Engineering and Research Corp. He was tasked with designing a new two-place general aviation airplane and was given the freedom to take an innovative approach that challenged the existing norms.

To increase stability on the ground, he introduced steerable tricycle landing gear. To reduce the number of stall and spin accidents, he combined the aileron and rudder controls and eliminated rudder pedals altogether, making it impossible to fly in an uncoordinated state. The pilot would use the yoke to steer the airplane on the ground as well as in the air. Finally, he packaged it in a sleek aluminum fuselage with twin vertical stabilizers and a clever canopy that could be opened in flight.

The result was an airplane that the Civil Aeronautics Administration—the predecessor to the FAA—proclaimed “characteristically incapable of spinning,” and it earned a reputation as a fun, safe and easy means of getting in the air.

Model History

Ercoupes of various permutations were manufactured by a handful of different companies between 1940 and 1970, but the vast majority were built by ERCO. They built the first 112 examples of the Ercoupe in 1940 and 1941 and called it the 415-C. There was no 415-A or 415-B; the C simply indicated that it was powered by a Continental engine, and the number indicated that the Ercoupe was ERCO’s 415th product.

After a pause in production during World War II, 1946 to 1950 brought mostly minor changes to the airplane, and the various ERCO models (415-C, 415-CD, 415-D, 415-E and 415-G) differed mainly in horsepower and gross weight. In today’s market, the most noteworthy ERCO models are the 415-C and 415-CD. These have a gross weight of 1,260 pounds and are the only Ercoupes that qualify for LSA rules, meaning no standard medical certificate is required to fly them.

From 1958 to 1959, a company called Forney resumed production, renaming the airplanes the F-1 and F-1A Aircoupe. These were equipped with the Continental C-90 engine and had metalized wings. Approximately 25 F-1As were produced by Air Products Co. when the company changed hands. A total of 163 were built.

After another pause, Alon Inc. continued production with the C-90-equipped A-2 Delux. The Alon models utilized a bubble canopy that slid back to provide access to the cockpit, which was slightly wider than previous Ercoupes. All had metalized wings, and some utilized spring-steel main gear legs in place of the traditional trailing-link main gear. A total of 297 examples were built between 1965 and 1967.

The final manufacturer of the Ercoupe family was Mooney, which built 59 examples of the M-10 Cadet between 1969 and 1970. The Cadets are perhaps the easiest variants to pick out of a crowd because they eschewed the original twin-vertical-stabilizer arrangement in favor of the trademark Mooney vertical stabilizer with traditional rudder pedals.

Check Out More: Approachable Aircraft

Market Snapshop

A survey of Ercoupes listed for sale at the time of this writing found 15 examples ranging in price from $15,500 to $30,000, with a median price of $22,250. The median airframe time was a relatively low 2,259 hours.

The vast majority of examples on the market were 1946 to 1948 models built by ERCO, and most were equipped with the 85-horsepower Continental C-85. Because Ercoupe listings are scattered among all the various manufacturers that built them over the years, it’s important to scan through the listings and search for those names. Doing so can reveal a handful of Alon-, Forney- and Mooney-built Ercoupes cataloged separately from the more commonplace ERCOs.

Flight Characteristics

An Ercoupe’s distinctive design makes it stand apart from most other airplanes parked on a ramp, and unique features become apparent as you climb into the cockpit. Instead of doors, the Ercoupe has two flexible plexiglass windows that are pulled up from each side to meet in the middle in a manner similar to the cover on a roll-top desk. To enter, simply pull down one of the windows, hop in, and then pull it back up to the center position over your head. The airplane can be flown with both windows down at any speed, giving it the feel of an open-cockpit airplane.

At approximately 39 inches wide, the cabin has just a bit more space than comparable two-place aircraft of the era, and the lack of rudder pedals provides quite a bit more legroom. It’s still a small airplane with cozy accommodations, though, and the baggage area behind the seats is relatively shallow. Extended trips require careful packing.

While the earliest Ercoupes lack electrical systems and, therefore, must be hand-propped, the vast majority are fully equipped, and the startup process is no different from any other airplane equipped with a small Continental engine.

Taxiing, however, is very different. Because the aileron and rudder controls are interconnected, one simply steers the yoke in the desired direction and uses the single foot pedal to apply the brakes. No differential braking is available, but steering on the ground is easy and precise.

At gross weight from sea level in standard conditions, the 415-E requires 2,100 feet to clear a 50-foot obstacle, and with most Ercoupes weighing around 900 pounds empty, the full-fuel payload can be modest in the LSA-compliant models.

Cruise speeds vary by engine, but 100 to 105 mph is common. One owner upgraded his C-85 engine with an O-200 crank to achieve a relatively brisk 117 mph cruise speed while burning about 5 gallons per hour.

In flight, the Ercoupe’s handling is well-mannered and unremarkable. Steep turns are easily performed, and the ball stays perfectly centered throughout the maneuver. While power-on stalls occur with a mild break, power-off stalls have no break at all and amount to a high sink rate with noticeable buffeting. Positive roll control is maintained throughout slow flight and into stalls.

The stall and spin resistances of pre-E-model Ercoupes are achieved in part by limited upward elevator travel, so it’s important to maintain speed on final in those models. This will ensure the elevator has sufficient authority to arrest the rate of descent and properly flare.

The 415-G manual calls for an approach speed of 72 mph, and landing is simply a matter of reducing power, leveling off a foot or two above the ground, and allowing the airplane to settle onto the runway.

Crosswind landings are surprisingly unremarkable given the lack of rudder pedals. The Ercoupe’s landing gear was engineered to touch down in a crab, and doing so doesn’t generate the harsh side loads one might expect. Instead, the trailing-link main gear simply nudges the nose into alignment with the runway, and the airplane settles onto the ground without complaint. The small size of the vertical stabilizers greatly reduces the airplane’s tendency to weather-vane.

A number of Ercoupes have been modified with rudder pedals to replicate the controls of a traditional airplane. While this might sound appealing to pilots who prefer traditional controls, owners report that the modification lacks rudder authority and effectiveness.

Ownership

Provided an Ercoupe’s airframe has absolutely no corrosion, it can be an easy airplane to own and maintain. Because a reasonable number were built, parts are plentiful. Univair owns the type certificate and produces new parts, and usedercoupeparts.com is a highly regarded source for used parts.

There are 26 airworthiness directives that apply to Ercoupes of all types, viewable on Univair’s website. Approximately eight are recurring, and these are considered to be relatively simple and easily addressed by an A&P.

Corrosion is the most significant concern, however, and any prospective owner should ensure a mechanic familiar with Ercoupes thoroughly inspects the wing spar with a borescope to confirm that no corrosion exists. A wealth of information and support is available from the Ercoupe Owners Club.

When evaluating various types of aircraft for purchase, most of us tend to take a technical approach. We collect metrics, assess performance figures, and carefully calculate the precise operating costs inherent to each type in an effort to determine which is most perfectly suited to our needs.

The Ercoupe is unique in that some of its most significant strengths aren’t easily quantifiable and won’t show up in spreadsheets. The 1930s-era retro-futuristic look, the relaxed confidence of sure-footed crosswind landings, and the feeling of resting your arm out the window as the scent of freshly cut hayfields swirls through the open cockpit on a summer afternoon make it truly special.

For the pilot who values these sorts of qualities and has less need for cruising speed, payload and short-field capability, the Ercoupe delivers on the dream of aircraft ownership in spades.

This story appeared in the April/May 2021 issue of Flying Magazine

The post Approachable Aircraft: Ercoupe appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In the early 1960s, general aviation was experiencing tremendous growth, and Beechcraft wanted a bigger slice of the pie. The competition’s ever-expanding product offerings were not going unnoticed, and Beechcraft decided to expand into new market segments. It developed a new, lower-cost training-and-touring airplane that provided stable comfort for long trips, the sturdiness necessary for a trainer, and even limited aerobatic capability. And thus, the Musketeer was born.

Over the following 20 years, the Musketeer would evolve into a wide variety of subtypes. More than 4,000 examples would be built, including the more powerful Sundowner and the retractable-gear Sierra. Here, we’ll explore the fixed-gear variants of the Musketeer family—and evaluate whether the combination of Beechcraft quality and refinement, at a price comparable to a basic Cessna or Piper, remains as attractive today as it was then.

Model History

Presented as a simpler and less expensive alternative to the popular Bonanza, the Musketeer was launched as a 1963 model following a particularly speedy development process. Beechcraft took the concept from a blank sheet of paper to full FAA type certification in only 16 and a half months.

The Musketeer family was marketed as something of a Swiss Army knife of GA aircraft, able to fill multiple roles from training to longer-distance touring. Perhaps as a result, few general aviation aircraft have as confusing an assortment of model numbers, subtypes and names. The Musketeer Custom, for example, became the Sundowner in 1972, when midway through production, Beechcraft changed various names and model numbers. Similarly, the A23-19 was configured as a two-seat trainer and became the B19 Sport. Later models added—at various points—a third side window, a second door, electric flaps, a wider cabin, and even an aerobatic kit that permitted basic aerobatic maneuvers. Other models were available with two small seats in the rear baggage area, for a total of six seats.

Over the 20-year production run, entry-level models were equipped with the 165 hp Continental IO-346 and 150 hp Lycoming O-320, while the more upscale models sported the 180 hp Lycoming O-360 and 200 hp IO-360, some with constant-speed props. Gross weights range from 2,200 to 2,550 pounds, depending on the specific model and whether the aircraft has been modified with a gross-weight-increase kit. Useful loads range from 800 to 1,050 pounds, again depending on the model.

Two books that have covered the type (Kites, Birds & Stuff: Beech Aircraft by P.D. Stemp and The Fabulous Flight of the Three Musketeers by Gene Nora Jessen) each dedicate multiple pages to outlining all the various permutations of the type in comprehensive lists that specify production numbers and serial-number ranges.

The IO-346 Engine

It’s rare for an engine manufacturer to design and build an engine for only one aircraft type, but that’s precisely what occurred with Continental and the IO-346. Produced for only five years, the 165 hp engine has a 1,500-hour time between overhauls and is essentially a four-cylinder predecessor to the popular six-cylinder IO-520.

The engine has some significant strengths. Owners regard it as reliable and well-designed, and many feel it produces more power than the rated 165 hp. But the availability of parts and maintenance is a concern. As of this writing, Continental has only one part listed in its entire system for the engine (cylinders), so owners are forced to scour eBay and other classified listings for parts, scooping them up for future use whenever they become available.

Only 540 examples of the engine were produced, and with an ever-dwindling number of camshafts, crankshafts and crank cases in existence, the scarcity of parts will become only more challenging as they’re used up. So, while the engine itself provides good reliability and performance, prospective owners should carefully consider the pros and cons before buying.

Market Snapshop

A survey of Musketeers and Sundowners listed for sale at the time of this writing found 18 examples ranging in price from $26,500 to $68,000, with a median price of $39,900. Most had midtime engines, and the median airframe time was a relatively low 3,300 hours.

The Musketeer family is one of the least expensive means of obtaining a certified aircraft equipped with the 180 hp Lycoming O-360. Based upon a survey of online listings, they can presently be had for tens of thousands of dollars less than Cessna 172s and Piper Cherokees equipped with the same engine.

Early 150 hp Musketeers are sometimes shunned by prospective shoppers in favor of the more powerful examples. This can be a mistake, as the lower weight of the 150 hp models maintains a comparable power-to-weight ratio. Additionally, the entire Musketeer family is equipped with 60-gallon fuel tanks. Compared with the 40- to 50-gallon tanks of comparable Cessnas and Pipers, this adds flexibility. Pilots can fill the tanks for long-range flights or leave some fuel behind for improved takeoff and climb performance.

Check Out More: Approachable Aircraft

Flight Characteristics

Despite the brash, swaggering image of its name, the Musketeer is anything but a swashbuckling daredevil. In terms of flight characteristics, the name “Engineer” or “Consultant” might be more fitting because the airplane is defined by quiet competence as opposed to snappy bravado. The airplane simply does what is asked of it with little complaint.

A second, left-side door was optional in the early years and eventually became standard, simplifying entry into the cabin. Once inside, Beechcraft’s goal to provide Bonanza quality at a lower price point becomes evident because the yoke, pedals and other touch points have a solid feel, devoid of any creaking or flex that can be found in some other types.

Like any other aircraft model, takeoff performance varies based on engine type. The performance charts, however, can be misleading at first glance; under identical conditions, the 180 hp Sundowner is listed as requiring approximately 10 percent more distance than the 150 hp Musketeer. A closer look reminds us that the more powerful airplane also includes a 250-pound greater maximum takeoff weight. A buying decision must therefore take into account the whole picture, considering not only horsepower but also fuel burn and useful load.

Visibility from the cockpit is fantastic, with the wing positioned far enough aft to provide a nearly unobstructed view downward from the front seats. The airplane is stable in cruise and remains stable in bumpy conditions. Handling is unremarkable, the controls delivering what is asked of them with the expected results, predictable feedback and no complaints. Beechcraft added an aileron-rudder interconnect to reduce the likelihood of stall or spin accidents, and it goes largely undetected during normal flying and maneuvering.

As comfortable as the Musketeer is on cross-country flights, owners concede that they will never win any air races; cruise speeds hover around 110 ktas in 150 hp airplanes and 120 to 125 ktas in 180 hp examples, burning 8 to 9 gallons and 11 to 12 gallons per hour, respectively. With the aforementioned 60 gallons of fuel capacity, the 150 hp models boast a maximum endurance of nearly nine hours and a still-air range of more than 900 miles.

The modest cruise speed isn’t far from the 95-knot limitation of the flaps, so a slight power reduction makes it easy to set up for an approach with 30 to 35 degrees of flaps available, depending on the model. Actuation varies as well, with some models sporting a manual floor-mounted lever and, on others, an electric, three-position switch adjacent to the power quadrant.

The trailing-link landing gear does a good job of absorbing firm landings, and the rubber discs minimize the tendency to bounce or rebound. Crosswind landings are made easier with main gear that, at nearly 12 feet apart, is spaced almost 2 feet wider than a Cherokee and more than 3 feet wider than a 172.

Musketeers have earned a minor reputation of being tricky to land well, and a survey of National Transportation Safety Board reports does reveal an assortment of incidents stemming from porpoising and improper flaring. Owners report that this is at least partially related to a CG that trends toward the forward limit. With two larger occupants in the front seats and nothing in the rear seats and baggage area, it’s easy to find oneself outside of the CG envelope, and with a forward CG, the elevator can run out of authority in the flare. This is further exacerbated during a flight because the CG moves forward as fuel is burned.

To remedy this, many owners make a habit of keeping supplies and even bags of sand in the rear luggage compartment. Midway through production, Beechcraft offered an optional 10- or 22-pound tail weight to counter the forward CG, which owners report improves the landing characteristics immensely. The Beech Aero Club offers detailed plans and specifications to fabricate a tail weight for aircraft lacking one.

Ownership

Compared with some other types, the Musketeer family is easy to own and maintain. With 4,460 examples produced, airframe parts are plentiful, and while it’s always worth seeking out a mechanic familiar with the type, maintenance is by the book, with no significant traps or pitfalls to newcomers.

Aside from the usual avionics upgrades, a freer-flowing exhaust kit and a well-respected vortex-generator kit, most Musketeers remain largely unmodified from their original factory configuration. While a number of ADs apply to each model, few are recurring and most are straightforward to address.

Shock-absorption duties are provided by simple rubber discs, and owners enjoy their trouble-free simplicity. While pricey at $4,000 to $5,000 (or around $1,000 via a third-party supplier), they last approximately 10 years and require zero maintenance. Most owners have replaced the corrosion-prone, black-colored ductwork that routes air through the cabin with modern, orange-colored ductwork. This is considered to be a particularly important modification that requires approximately $450 in parts and 10 to 12 hours of labor to convert.

Every owner would be well-advised to become a member of the Beech Aero Club. This well-organized type club provides a wealth of expertise, arranging social events, and renting specialized tools to members for low rates. Even prospective owners would benefit from membership; a continuously updated pre-purchase inspection guide is available, outlining all type-specific concerns to address when inspecting an aircraft.

Compared with more-popular types such as the Cessna 172 and Piper Cherokee, the Musketeer family offers a compelling set of strengths and few weaknesses for a relatively low price. Over the years, the type has quietly delivered refinement and reliability to its owners while going largely unnoticed by the masses.

Though a Musketeer will cruise about 10 knots slower than a Cessna 172, the additional 20 gallons of fuel capacity might enable it to reach the destination first if a fuel stop can be omitted. With a relatively large fleet size, few onerous ADs, and an enthusiastic and engaged owner’s group, the Musketeer family offers real merits that make ownership a pleasure for those who own, maintain and fly them.

This story appeared in the March 2021 issue of Flying Magazine

The post Approachable Aircraft: Beech Sundowner and Musketeer appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

On the spectrum of popularity, various aircraft types ebb and flow from decade to decade, and the most sought-after models become easy to spot. Cessna 170s and Carbon Cubs are currently among the most desirable types, and while their popularity and reputation are not necessarily undeserved, the resulting prices often stretch out of reach for many.

Less obvious are the underappreciated and undervalued airplanes that hide in the less-traveled corners of classified listings, and one that presently seems to be lurking there is the Stinson 108. The 108 is a four-place, steel-tube-and-fabric 1940s-era taildragger powered by a variety of engines. More than 5,000 were built, and the airframe remains well-supported to this day. We examine here its strengths and weaknesses, as well as explore how the 108 ranks as an approachable aircraft.

Model History

The 108 was first offered in 1946, and a total of 5,261 production aircraft were built through July 1948. Four primary subtypes were available: the 108 (or “straight 108”), 108-1, 108-2 and 108-3.

The “straight 108” was the initial model. It came equipped with a 150 hp Franklin engine and a gross weight of 2,150 pounds. The 108-1 saw an increase in gross weight to 2,230 pounds. The 108-2 came equipped with a 165 hp Franklin engine and bungee-based rudder trim.

The 108-3 was the first model that differed visually. The tail was increased in size and stood a foot taller than the preceding models. Unfortunately, the rudder itself was only slightly enlarged, and many pilots complain that the 108-3 is more difficult to handle in crosswinds and while taxiing in windy conditions. Rudder trim was provided via a trim tab, and the gross weight grew to 2,400 pounds.

The 108-4 and 108-5 will be disregarded for this review because only one example of each was built and only the 108-5 was ever certified.

Two trim levels were offered. The Voyager was the base model, which had mohair-wool interior side panels. The “Flying Station Wagon” came with wood interior panels that resembled the “woody” cars of the era and added a structurally reinforced rear floor that raised the weight capacity from 350 to 600 pounds. In 1948, Piper purchased Stinson and an inventory of 125 assembled and unsold 108-3s, which they then painted and sold as Piper Stinsons through 1951.

Market Snapshot

It has been said that every Bellanca Viking costs $150,000. The implication is that you’ll spend that amount in one of two ways: either in the form of repairs, making an inexpensive example safe and airworthy, or in the form of purchasing a pristine model in the first place. To a certain degree, the same logic can be applied to the Stinson 108.

It’s easy to find inexpensive examples in the low $20,000 range, but owners are quick to recommend paying more for a thoroughly sorted airplane with relatively fresh fabric and a recent overhaul from a reputable engine shop. The higher acquisition price can be difficult to stomach, but many have discovered the hard way that it’s costlier to individually tackle all of the issues that make an inexpensive model that much more affordable. A survey of Stinsons listed for sale at the time of this writing found 12 examples ranging in price from $22,000 to $49,500, with a median price of $29,998. All were equipped with Franklin engines, though one airplane with the Lycoming O-360 conversion did previously sell for just over $60,000.

Many 108s have metalized fuselages, eliminating fabric entirely. While the prospect of never having to replace costly fabric is enticing, the metal conversions reportedly create a louder cabin environment and are also a bit heavier, which reduces the useful load. Like any older tailwheel aircraft with steel tubing, the aft longeron tubing should be closely inspected for any signs of rust prior to purchase. Likewise, the aluminum wing spars should be carefully inspected for signs of corrosion.

Engine Options

Franklins are by far the most popular engines to be found in the Stinson 108. Named for their rated horsepower, the 150 and 165 are the most common, with a 1,200-hour TBO. The more powerful 220 has a 1,500-hour TBO, and the relatively rare 180 has a 2,000-hour TBO.

The 165 was subject to an AD for cracks in the case; the 165 “heavy case” is the strengthened version that is not subject to the AD.

The Franklin engine can be a blessing for the buyer if the engine has been maintained by a Franklin expert. The unfamiliarity of the engine tends to scare many prospective owners away, which reduces the airplane’s value accordingly. Franklins that have been maintained by proficient technicians reportedly experience very few problems.

But that lower resale value becomes a curse when selling a Stinson, and a Franklin that’s maintained like a Continental or Lycoming will likely experience constant issues. Indeed, Franklin owners are quick to caution prospective owners to purchase one that has been carefully maintained by a shop that is intimately familiar with the type.

Check Out More: Approachable Aircraft

The availability of engine parts such as crankshafts can occasionally be a challenge, but with the dedication of companies such as franklinparts.com, even the most difficult- to-source parts can be found at prices comparable to Continental and Lycoming parts. Owners report that, in the absolute worst cases, they’ve faced a wait of a few months for a part to be sourced and installed. A hassle, to be sure, but the inconvenience is somewhat balanced by the relatively low acquisition cost of these Franklin-equipped airplanes.

Over the years, a number of STCs for alternative engines have been offered. Most Stinson owners agree that the Lycoming O-360 and Continental IO-360 are the most desirable engines, primarily because of their higher power, light weight, and the ease of finding parts and service. Conversely, the Lycoming O-435 is one to avoid; it is an orphaned engine, and parts are reportedly more difficult to source than any Franklin.

Flight Characteristics

While reviewing the obscure Miles Aerovan, writer David Ogilvy once reflected, “The absence of much structure in the front of the cockpit was a mild discomfort to an imaginative mind.” Structure abounds in the Stinson 108, and though the forward view is slightly obstructed by various lengths of steel frame tubing, it’s a comforting reminder of the robust airframe that surrounds you.

Perhaps because of the Stinson’s Detroit origins, the interior is reminiscent of a classic automobile. Many sport classy, art-deco-era instrument panels with side windows that slide back, providing a healthy blast of fresh air, and the woody-style side panels that adorn the interior of 108s in Flying Station Wagon trim.

Like many Piper elevator-trim systems, the 108 uses an overhead crank. And like those Pipers, there’s a trick to remembering which way is nose up and which is nose down; when the knob passes over the left seat from front to back, it’s nose up, and when it passes over the left seat from back to front, it’s nose down.

The 108 wing is versatile: It can carry a lot of payload, or it can provide great short-field performance at lower weights. With a single occupant and half tanks, expect takeoff ground rolls in the 500-foot range with the 165 hp Franklin, and count on landings shorter than that.

Takeoff performance suffers at maximum takeoff weight, increasing to around 2,500 feet to clear a 50-foot obstacle. But in exchange, most 108s will provide a useful load of 900 to 1,000 pounds. Speed varies by engine. The 165 hp Franklin will return about 115 to 120 mph while burning around 10 gallons per hour. More-powerful engines greatly enhance takeoff-and-climb performance but only increase cruise speed by 10 to 20 mph.

Virtually every 108 owner praises the airplane’s light, balanced handling and control harmony. Stalls are docile and amount to a mush with plenty of tactile warning and no discernible break or wing drop. Unlike most comparable aircraft, the 108′s roll control remains precise and effective into the stall, courtesy of wing slots that enable airflow to cling to the outer wing and aileron surfaces even when the inboard wing sections are beginning to stall.

Flaps are extended via a manual floor-mounted lever. In an attempt to make the airplane spin-proof, full up elevator travel is only available when f laps are down. When the flaps are up, a tab on the flap lever itself limits the maximum up elevator to approximately 9 degrees less than full up travel.

Firm landings are softened by the 108′s plush suspension design. Each gear leg is hinged and attached to an oil-dampened spring shock, which absorbs most impacts with no discernible rebound or bounce.

Ownership Experience

Despite being a 76-year-old design, the 108 is remarkably well-supported today. Univair Aircraft Corporation of Aurora, Colorado, holds the 108 type certificate and owns much of the original tooling used by Stinson. Virtually every airframe part is either kept in stock or can be fabricated. Owners of the 108 also enjoy an active owner community, primarily in the form of the International Stinson Club. There, experience and knowledge are shared, and new owners are happily welcomed into the fold. Airworthiness directives are few and straightforward. Only about five apply to the airframe, and most involve one-time fixes.

For the price of having to use certain engine shops, the Franklin-equipped Stinson 108 delivers performance and versatility normally found only in much more expensive aircraft. The unique engines provide discounted ownership of a capable four-place taildragger with outstanding load-carrying ability and short-field flexibility.

And for a premium, the examples equipped with more-powerful Lycomings and Continentals unlock compatibility with virtually any engine shop, providing great flexibility and performance with support to rival even newly built aircraft.

This story appeared in the January-February 2021 issue of Flying Magazine

The post Approachable Aircraft: Stinson 108 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Browsing the web in search of an airplane to buy is not unlike taking a stroll through your local bookstore; the newest and trendiest items tend to be featured prominently, with substantial fanfare. Carbon Cubs, Kitfoxes and Cessna 170s dominate social media and are featured front and center, while commanding ever-increasing prices on the usual classified sites. But hiding in the quiet, less-traveled aisles toward the back of the store, treasures can be found: older, less-flashy editions that, while frequently passed over, nonetheless faithfully continue to provide wonderful experiences.

Such is the case with the Piper Colt. Often overlooked as a lower-powered, less-capable version of the more common Tri-Pacer, it’s easily brushed aside by many shoppers. At first glance, its awkward-looking landing gear conveys an unbalanced, top-heavy presence. Further investigation reveals a capacity of only two people on board, with a baggage area in place of the Tri-Pacer’s rear seats.

While many write off the airplane as a contender at that point, an astute shopper takes a closer look, and the Colt reveals itself as a thoroughly underappreciated approachable aircraft.

Model History

When Cessna introduced the 150 in 1958, it didn’t take Piper long to realize they didn’t have a direct competitor and, thus, were losing potential sales. At the time, they lacked an economical two-place trainer with side-by-side seating, and with the introduction of the Cherokee 140 still a handful of years away, they needed a stopgap measure.

The Colt was their solution. Using the Tri-Pacer as the starting point, Piper got to work simplifying it in an effort to reduce costs and offer aggressive pricing. They kept the tricycle gear, but removed the rear seat and door and modified the shape of the rear fuselage. Out came the flaps, rear windows and second fuel tank. Sacrificing horsepower for thrift, they chose the 108 hp Lycoming O-235 in lieu of the Tri-Pacer’s 125 to 160 hp options.

The result was a lighter-weight PA-22 that, at $4,995, was nearly half the cost of a Tri-Pacer and was $2,000 less than Cessna’s 150. Piper ultimately built approximately 2,000 examples between 1961 and 1963 before bringing the Cherokee 140 to the forefront as their inexpensive two-seat trainer.

Market Snapshot

Because Piper produced so many fewer Colts in comparison to the commonplace Tri-Pacer, their presence in classified listings follows suit. Though they’re far less common, there always seems to be one or two listed for sale.

Fortunately for buyers—if not sellers—the Colt’s lower power and limited seating capacity is reflected in resale value. These factors tend to exclude the Colt from the searches of many, and it’s a slightly more difficult airplane to sell as a result. One former Colt owner reported having great difficulty finding a buyer for his, recalling that for a relatively small premium, many buyers opted for the additional power and seating capacity of the Tri-Pacer.

Prices for average examples commonly hover around the midteens, and one example with a high-time engine was recently listed at only $8,000. A wide variety of STCs and mods are available for the Colt, and those with larger engines and tailwheel conversions—as we’ve highlighted in the photos for this story—command higher prices. But, it’s hard to find one priced higher than $30,000.

• READ MORE: Previous editions of “Approachable Aircraft”

Cabin and Interior

For those of us accustomed to Cessna 150s and Piper Cherokees, sliding into the seat of a Colt is a very different experience, not unlike sliding behind the wheel of a vintage automobile. Rather than surrounding its occupants with creaky plastic trim, the Colt exudes vintage craftsmanship. Most surfaces are covered in upholstery or painted metal, and though the panel does have a few plastic trim pieces, many are adorned in a rich, glossy paint that’s reminiscent of classic Bakelite.

As you sink into the plush spring seat and reach for the door handle, you’ll find that the door requires only a fingertip to lightly pull shut as it secures with a satisfying click. No need to repeatedly slam it in the hopes that it actually remains shut throughout the flight.

The view outside is on par with that of a Cessna 150 or 172—though the combination of a slightly lower beltline and a slightly higher seat does seem to open up the outside view a bit. Forward visibility is similarly improved, courtesy of the instrument-panel design, which is lowered on each side of the primary flight instruments.

Flight Characteristics

Taxiing a stock Colt isn’t difficult, but it does require a short period of familiarization. While the rudder pedals steer the nosewheel as expected, the brakes are activated via a small lever attached to the underside of the panel; pull it toward you to activate the brakes. This applies the left and right brakes equally with no accommodation for differential braking. Fortunately, the gear and wing are both relatively compact, and it’s not difficult to smartly maneuver into a tight parking spot.

Takeoff performance of a Colt with the standard O-235 is on par with most other 100 hp two-seat trainers; it’s rather relaxed and not overly concerned about obstacles on the departure end of the runway. The modest power is somewhat balanced by a 2,400-hour time between overhauls and a fuel burn of about 6 gph while cruising at around 105 miles per hour. Operating economy is the O-235′s strong suit.

The Colt has good handling characteristics in flight. Control forces are light, and the only noteworthy aspect is the ceiling-mounted crank for elevator trim. To the uninitiated, it takes some time to learn whether nose-up trim requires clockwise turns or vice versa. It helps to remember: When the knob passes over the pilot’s head from back to front, it’s producing nose-down trim, and when it passes over from front to back, it’s nose-up.

While the Colt lacks flaps, the short wingspan can produce impressive descent rates, and altitude can be shed quickly when necessary. One owner compares the glide ratio to that of a set of keys and describes the Cessna 140 as gliderlike in comparison. Fortunately, this is easily manageable with some power and a bit of planning. Stalls are extremely benign, amounting to a gentle mush and increase in sink rate with no discernible break or wing drop.

Firm landings are softened by a clever and robust suspension design. The main gear is suspended by multiple bungees, and the rebound is slowed by Piper’s Hydrasorb shocks. The result is good shock absorption with little tendency to bounce back into the air after a firm landing.

Ownership Experience

Colt owners report few surprises with regard to the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of their airplanes. As an entirely fabric-covered airplane, Colt ownership does present inherently higher maintenance expenses as compared with fully metal types such as a 150 or Cherokee. While modern fabrics last for many decades, replacement cost is substantial. With a full re-cover easily costing $20,000 or more, a wise owner treats their fabric like an engine, setting aside a certain amount for every hour it’s flown to offset the future replacement expense.

Fabric replacement does include one very significant benefit: the opportunity to open up the airframe and fully inspect every inch of the underlying structure for otherwise hidden issues, such as cracks or corrosion. This is an item of particular importance in a Colt pre-purchase inspection; the flat metal frames around the door posts are prone to rusting and should be thoroughly inspected to confirm they are structurally sound. A log entry indicating that Service Bulletin 819 has been completed indicates that tubing has been inspected, replaced if necessary, and sealed with primer and protectant. Similarly, the integrity of steel tubing in the lower fuselage should be closely inspected because moisture can collect in those areas.

Fabric and fuselage structure aside, the Colt is largely devoid of significant maintenance concerns. An AD exists for the stock wing struts, requiring a recurring, biennial inspection for rust and corrosion. Sealed wing struts eliminate this inspection requirement, making them a popular upgrade.

Virtually all parts are plentiful and easily sourced, and every owner would greatly benefit by joining the extremely active Short Wing Piper Club for the group’s wealth of expertise, technical data and great camaraderie.

Most owners agree that the Colt’s most significant limitations are its low power and limited seating. But for prospective owners shopping for two-place 100 hp airplanes like the 150, 152 or Piper Tomahawk, it offers a compelling set of strengths that far outweigh its limitations—and the tailwheel mod delivers an intriguing alternative to more-expensive models. With a useful load of around 700 pounds, many examples equipped with the optional 36 gallons of fuel capacity—and an abundance of personality—the Colt rewards the pilot who looks a bit closer for an inviting airplane often hiding in plain sight.

This story appeared in the November 2020, Buyers Guide issue of Flying Magazine

The post The Piper Colt: A Real Contender appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

When you venture into the world of airplane ownership and evaluate different aircraft models for purchase, it quickly becomes clear that each offers various combinations of strengths and weaknesses. Some have outstanding payload at the expense of increased fuel burn. Some are capable of accessing very short runways at the expense of cruise speed. But very few offer the unique blend of qualities of the Cessna Skycatcher.

For the price of limited useful load and expensive, difficult-to-find replacement parts, the Skycatcher provides an airframe and engine that are less than 10 years old with reasonably sporty performance and modern avionics. Here, we explore these trade-offs and evaluate the ownership experience.

Model History

The Skycatcher story is an interesting footnote in general aviation history. Introduced in 2007 as a modern, low-cost airplane for training and personal use that adhered to the then-new light-sport aircraft category, it attracted more than 1,000 orders before the first delivery took place in 2009.

With an ever-aging fleet of 150s and 152s, private individuals and flight schools alike were attracted to the concept of an updated two-seat Cessna with more cabin space, modernized avionics, proven product support and a target price of less than $100,000.

At that time, the market appeared to be ripe for such an aircraft, and the 162 appeared to be poised to fill the void perfectly. And because it was certified as an LSA, it could be flown by sport pilots without a medical certificate. But for a number of reasons, it is considered to have been a failure in the general aviation marketplace.

By most accounts, this was primarily because of two closely related factors: failure to meet the original target price and the decision to assemble the aircraft in China. While Textron Aviation (then Cessna) thought the latter would enable them to sell more airplanes by tapping into the Asian market, this never happened, and the existing US market was forced to absorb costs that it would have otherwise never incurred. Engines, for example, had to be shipped from the US manufacturer to China for installation before the complete airplanes could then be shipped back to the US.

In order to maintain acceptable profit margins while such logistical expenses added up, Cessna was forced to raise the Skycatcher’s price accordingly, from an original target of $100,000 to a final price of $149,000. Buyers were soured by both the price increase as well as the decision to assemble the aircraft in China, and orders were canceled in droves. Ultimately, Cessna ended up building and selling 275 airplanes before canceling the program entirely.

Market Snapshot

As of this writing, nine Skycatchers were listed for sale in various places in the US. All but one was built in 2011. The average airframe and engine time of those listed was approximately 850 hours, and asking prices ranged from $39,500 to $69,950, with an average price of $53,950.

Among the examples listed for sale, only two had been upgraded with ADS-B. This is a significant concern when shopping for a 162 because the only ADS-B solution that has been approved by Textron Aviation at this time—the Garmin GDL 82—is an expensive one.

The GDL 82 itself lists for $1,795, and multiple owners surveyed reported a total bill of $5,000 to $8,000 for parts and installation. Such an expense must be taken into account when purchasing a Skycatcher without ADS-B, and the prices of unequipped examples will likely be affected accordingly.

Cabin and Interior

Though the Skycatcher shares similar general dimensions and layouts as the familiar 150/152, those similarities begin to fade as soon as you reach for the door handle. Entry to the cabin is easy because the wing strut is positioned behind the cabin door, so occupants are able to enter and exit the cabin without having to step over the main gear. This configuration creates less of a natural barrier between occupants and the propeller, however, so it’s particularly important to shut the engine down before allowing anyone to enter or exit the cabin.

The doors themselves swing upward, making entry easier still. Early on, however, many door latches failed, causing the door to pop open in flight. This isn’t typically a problem in most airplanes; traditional forward-hinged doors only actually open a few inches in flight. In the case of the Skycatcher, however, the gull-wing doors catch the wind, blow open and become damaged beyond repair.

Cessna later offered a secondary door-latch modification to prevent this from occurring. It proved to be a good investment, with multiple owners reporting being quoted a staggering $5,000 for a replacement door from Textron Aviation.

Settling into the cockpit, it quickly becomes clear you’re in a modern airplane. Gone are the antiquated greens, oranges and tans from the 1960s and ’70s vintage trainers. In their place is a stripped-down, utilitarian interior, completely devoid of any extraneous trim or upholstery. The floor and walls of the cabin are more reminiscent of a high-quality fishing boat, with rivets, lightening holes and a durable, anti-slip paint visible in absence of any carpet or molding.

Read More: Approachable Aircraft

This minimalistic interior is intended to lighten the airframe as much as possible and enable the airplane to meet the strict maximum LSA weight limit of 1,320 pounds. While not unpleasant to look at, the interior is devoid of any extraneous comforts such as heat and sound insulation. This becomes very apparent on cold days because any throttle setting below maximum cruise results in a very chilly cabin temperature. Applying carb heat further robs you of cabin heat, making winter pattern work in colder climates a very chilly experience.

Fortunately, the generous cabin width provides some space for warm jackets. Compared to a 150, the Skycatcher provides an additional 8.6 inches of width at the shoulders. The cabin is even a full 4 inches wider than a Cessna 172N.

The Skycatcher doesn’t do much better in particularly hot climates. Neither side window opens, leaving the two wing root vents tasked with cooling the entire cabin.

The instrument panel is very clean and modern, with the Garmin G300 taking the place of traditional analog instruments. When it comes to training, pilots starting out with this avionics suite will find the transition to the G1000 to be a smooth one.

Because the flight instruments are all found within the G300′s primary flight display, a total electrical failure—possible, though certainly uncommon—could leave the pilot landing without an instrument-based airspeed reference. A good checkout in the airplane should include flying an approach without referencing the G300, to practice landing the airplane using its significant aerodynamic, aural and visual cues. The experience is not unlike landing an old Piper Cub.

Also notable are the control sticks. Combining design aspects of both sticks and yokes (and thus earning the nickname “stokes”), they feel much like a traditional control stick but are attached to the underside of the control panel rather than the floor.

This design frees up leg space, and most pilots find it to be an easy, intuitive transition from standard yokes. An electric trim switch is mounted atop each stick. The Skycatcher has no manual trim, and trim position is indicated on the PFD.

Snapshot of Flight Characteristics

While the Skycatcher’s low weight creates some compromises in certain areas, it provides significant improvements in others. Like many LSAs, it can be a handful to fly in gusty, bumpy conditions. But that low weight also provides noticeably better takeoff-and-climb performance compared to a 150 with the same engine. The takeoff ground roll is 13 percent, or 95 feet shorter at 640 feet, and owners report takeoff rolls of approximately 300 feet when flying solo at light weights.

Rate of climb at sea level is 880 feet per minute, a 24 percent or 210 fpm improvement over the 150. Cruise speed is improved as well, with a 75 percent power setting resulting in 111 ktas at 4,000 feet, an improvement of approximately 8 knots over the 150.

Skycatcher owners report good handling qualities in flight, with no ill manners or unexpected traits noted. Both power-off and power-on stalls are benign and predictable, and occur without the sudden wing drop that is present in many 150s or 152s.

These refined handling qualities and flight characteristics reflect Cessna’s thorough testing and certification process. Though approved as an LSA, the airplane went through similar testing and processes as it would have if it had been built and sold as a standard category aircraft—completing a total of 533 spins during the program. Accordingly, it lacks any bad traits or idiosyncrasies that sometimes haunt other LSAs.

Pilots who are accustomed to making full-stall landings in a 150 or 152 will find that the Skycatcher has less tail clearance in the flare, and is thus more susceptible to tail strikes, particularly in gusty conditions. This is an airplane that rewards a flatter approach, good airspeed control and a less aggressive flare. To get a feel for the sight picture, you can sit in the left seat on the ground while another pilot positions the tail in the landing attitude.

Cessna’s weight-saving measures are apparent in various places, from the manual flaps operated by a bar between the seats to the free castering nosewheel, which requires the application of brakes during taxiing.

Overall, the Skycatcher is considered a lively, fun-to-fly airplane. While the lighter weight can make it more of a handful in gusty, bumpy conditions, owners describe it as a very enjoyable and sporty airplane to fly.

Ownership Experience

Overwhelmingly, Skycatcher owners caution that the cost and rarity of replacement parts is the most significant concern when it comes to ownership. Airframe parts can be expensive and difficult to find, and because of the small fleet size, no organized owner group exists where parts and expertise can be swapped. Partially offsetting this concern is the ubiquitous Continental O-200 engine, for which parts and expertise are widespread and plentiful.

The happiest owners are those based in temperate climates, because of the aforementioned lack of cabin insulation and ventilation.

Overall, Skycatcher owners truly enjoy flying an airplane that’s only 10 years old, devoid of many issues that are commonplace among the aging fleet of 50- to 60-year-old alternatives. They describe how spouses and friends who are otherwise nervous fliers are put at ease by the relatively new Skycatcher.

Only recently have Skycatcher prices decreased into the $40,000 range, and while the aforementioned ADS-B expense must be taken into account, few options provide such a new airframe and modern avionics for the price. If you can live with the compromises, the Skycatcher offers a very unique and intriguing balance of qualities.

This story appeared in the August 2020 issue of Flying Magazine

The post Cessna 162 Skycatcher appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The hierarchy of personal general aviation aircraft types has, over the years, come to be defined by certain mainstays. The Cessna 150-152 and light taildraggers have been the stalwarts of basic, entry-level aviation. The Skyhawk and Cherokee families have long served as the go-to solution for economical four-place aircraft—and more-powerful, complex machines like those from Mooney and Beechcraft have defined the top of the single-engine-piston market.

But, hiding in the gaps between those segments, there are some less common types that offer an intriguing blend of qualities. The four-place Grumman AA-5 family might be one of the better-kept secrets, offering the simplicity of a Cessna 172 while approaching the cruise speed of a similarly powered Mooney. This appealing blend can be found elsewhere, but few options supplement it with the robust network of parts, service and support enjoyed by Grumman owners.

With relatively few problem areas, ADs or areas of concern with regard to flying characteristics, the AA-5 family checks many of the boxes required to earn its place as an approachable aircraft.

Model History

The manufacturing history of the AA-5 series is a colorful one. The lineage began with Jim Bede’s homebuilt BD-1, which first flew in 1963. Bede designed the two-place BD-1 with an emphasis on speed and economy, and when it was purchased by American Aviation and developed into the AA-1 series, these qualities were carried over.

In 1971, when American Aviation became Grumman American, the company identified a need for a four-seat aircraft. It introduced an enlarged version of the AA-1, equipped it with a 150 hp Lycoming O-320 and called it the AA-5 Traveler. The airplane received minor aerodynamic improvements for the 1975 model year, which was its last year of production.

In 1976, the AA-5 Traveler was replaced with the AA-5A Cheetah. With the assistance of aircraft designer Roy LoPresti, the airframe was cleaned up to reduce drag, the horizontal stabilizer was enlarged to increase elevator authority and expand the CG range, and fuel capacity went from 37 to 52 gallons.

Topping the range is the AA-5B Tiger, which entered production as a 1975 model and differed from the Cheetah primarily by being equipped with the more powerful 180 hp Lycoming O-360. A number of these became known as Gulfstream Americans when Gulfstream bought the Grumman line and sold them through 1979.

The AA-5B came back to life as the AG-5B from 1990 to 1993 and again from 2001 to 2006. In the AG-5B, the 12-volt electrical system was replaced with a 24-volt system, and the refresh included several minor systems and aerodynamic improvements, plus improved corrosion coating. The AG-5B is uncommon, with only 150 produced as compared to more than 3,000 Travelers, Cheetahs and AA-5B Tigers.

Current Market

AA-5 prices can vary widely, but when we exclude the most extreme examples in a recent sampling of listings, the majority fall in the $30,000 to $60,000 range. Predictably, more-powerful, lower-time engines and modernized avionics are the primary drivers behind higher prices. As of this writing, 13 examples are listed at a median price of $48,500, with a median airframe time of 3,500 hours. Approximately half are ADS-B-compliant, and most have midtime engines.

A number of Cheetahs can be found equipped with the 180 hp O-360, which is available as an STC. This effectively provides Tiger speed and climb performance at the price closer to that of a Cheetah.

Flying Characteristics

Ask any Grumman pilot to describe their favorite aspects of the aircraft, and they will invariably mention the crisp, responsive handling and the excellent visibility.

Compared with those from other manufacturers, the Grumman design replaces many of the cables and pulleys with torque tubes. Accordingly, AA-5s are quick to convert a light nudge of the yoke into an instant change in attitude.

The reports of excellent visibility are not overstated: The wraparound windows, low beltline and low instrument panel provide a panoramic view. Additionally, the airplane can be flown with a partially open canopy, which improves the experience even further.

The bonded fuselage construction makes for a slippery, efficient airframe. Devoid of rivets and corrugated aluminum, it’s the secret behind the AA-5′s speed. Tiger owners report cruise speeds of 125 to 133 knots at 8.5 to 10 gallons per hour, while owners with 160 hp Cheetahs fly about 10 knots slower with a slightly lower fuel burn.

Read More: Approachable Aircraft

During climb and cruise, an AA-5 pilot would be well-advised to closely monitor cylinder-head temperatures, which can run high. Accordingly, a good, reliable engine-monitoring system is a wise investment, and with the proper adapter, savvy buyers can download engine-monitor data to observe how a seller has been treating the engine.

Like any aerodynamically efficient airframe, proper speed management is important on approach and landing. One maintainer reports that the majority of incidents he sees are a result of runway overruns that began with excessive speed on final approach.

New and experienced pilots alike enjoy Grumman’s fiberglass main gear, describing it as robust and forgiving. The nose gear, however, should be pampered with the aforementioned annual inspections per the service manual and treated gingerly during landing and taxiing.

While the early Travelers provide a slightly higher useful load than the other AA-5 models, often exceeding 900 pounds, Cheetah and Tiger owners enjoy increased pitch authority and a wide CG range provided by their larger horizontal stabilizers.

Ownership

The AA-5 family is largely devoid of any major ADs or technical issues. Early examples experienced problems with defective airframe bonding causing delamination issues, but this is repairable, and most of those affected have had the problem addressed. It is, nevertheless, an item to confirm during a pre-purchase inspection.

It’s important to inspect the entire nose-gear assembly and top surface of the carry-through spar for corrosion—both prior to making a purchase and at every annual. All spars are life-limited to 12,000 to 12,500 hours, underscoring the importance of having a detailed logbook history.

Otherwise, owners report that the AA-5 family is largely free of issues, and they enjoy great support and parts availability from companies such as Excel-Air Services in Indiana and Fletchair in Texas. Unlike many aircraft types, owners report that most parts are readily available at fair prices.

Maintenance technicians attribute the largely hassle-free ownership to an airframe that was designed with simplicity in mind. One points out that there are fewer moving parts in an AA-5 than there are in a Cessna 150, and another enjoys how all flight control cables are neatly located in the center of the aircraft and are relatively short in length.

Indeed, unlike most comparable aircraft, there are no moving parts inside of an AA-5′s wing—all flap and aileron actuation is achieved via easily accessible torque tubes upon which each control surface pivots. Additionally, the castering nosewheel is a simpler and lighter design than those used in most Cessnas and Pipers.

Among the most valuable resources available to Grumman owners are the bustling owners’ groups. The American Yankee Association is the original type club and holds regular events, including an annual convention. The Grumman Pilot’s Association and Grumman Gang are additional resources, and enthusiastic support is available to the owner community in the form of online forums and video tutorials.

The AA-5 series serves as an interesting alternative to the comparable Cessna and Piper models that make up the general aviation fleet. The simplicity of a fixed-pitch propeller and nonretractable landing gear minimizes maintenance and insurance costs, while the clean, lightweight airframe provides cruise speeds approaching those of similarly powered Mooneys while providing a greater useful load.

Combined with a panoramic canopy, nimble handling, relatively modest prices and thriving owners’ groups, the resulting blend of strengths makes these Grummans intriguing options for new and experienced owners alike.

The post Approachable Aircraft: Grumman AA-5 Series appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

It is often said that a first-time airplane buyer should buy his or her last airplane first. The reasoning is, it makes little sense to invest in an airplane the pilot will outgrow or become bored with. A more expensive option may, in fact, prove to be a better long-term value by serving as a more permanent solution to the pilot’s needs.

Still, a budget is a budget, and while mission requirements vary considerably from one pilot to another, one common goal is to find an airplane that remains interesting and fun while minimizing the cost of ownership. In this respect, the Cessna 120 and 140 offer an intriguing blend of qualities for the new pilot and/or first-time buyer.

Model History

The 120 and 140 were some of the most successful postwar light aircraft in the US. Nearly 8,000 were built between 1946 and 1951, and more than 2,500 remain on the FAA register today.

The 120 was developed as a budget version of the 140, initially lacking flaps, rear side windows and electrical systems. Over the past 70-plus years, however, most of the 120 fleet has been modified with electrical systems and other upgrades.

Today, the presence of flaps is the primary difference between the two models, and with many 140 owners reporting little difference in performance with flaps down, the 120’s lack of flaps should not be considered a significant disadvantage.

The most desirable variant of the family is the 140A. Introduced in 1949, it offered a metal wing with more effective flaps and a redesigned instrument panel. The 140A was also available as the Patroller model, which included Plexiglas doors, a message chute, and a whopping 42-gallon fuel capacity that provided an endurance of around seven hours.

Current Market

As of early 2020, there were 14 140s and two 120s listed for sale in various places, with a median price of $25,000. The most and least expensive examples were significant outliers at $40,000 and $16,000, respectively.

While all the typical factors such as airframe time, engine time since major overhaul and general condition affect these prices, two particular items affect the 120 and 140 more than many other aircraft types—fabric condition and engine type.

Excluding the aforementioned 140A with its standard metal wing—and other 120s and 140s that have had their fabric wings converted to metal at some point in their lives—most 120s and 140s are equipped with fabric wings. While good, modern fabric can last for several decades when properly cared for, it’s wise to determine the age and condition of the fabric as part of a pre-purchase inspection.

With owners reporting $8,000 to $10,000 costs to replace the fabric and address minor internal repairs that are commonly found during the process, fabric replacement can approach half the total value of many airplanes on the market. Accordingly, purchasing an airplane with old, deteriorating fabric is not unlike purchasing an airplane with an engine in need of overhaul, and the selling price should be adjusted appropriately.

There are multiple engine types found in the Cessna 120/140 fleets. The most common—and, typically, the least expensive—is the 85 hp Continental C85 that came equipped in most examples. The noticeably more powerful C90 is less common but very well-liked for its blend of low weight and higher power.

A popular upgrade is the ubiquitous 100 hp Continental O-200, but because the rated horsepower is only attainable at higher rpm, many owners prefer instead to upgrade their C85s with an O-200 crankshaft as an STC. This provides additional power at a lower, more usable rpm range than the O-200.

Finally, some examples are fitted with the more powerful 108 hp Lycoming O-235 and 125 to 135 hp O-290. While the additional power makes a 120 or 140 perform notably better on climbout, these engines are also heavier, and payload can suffer. Additionally, because the O-290 is no longer produced or supported, parts have become both difficult to find and significantly more expensive than the alternatives.

Current FAA records indicate 674 120s, 1,653 140s and 235 140As are on the registry. The relative rarity of the 140A combined with its more sought-after features commands a premium over the others, with prices that are commonly 20 to 30 percent higher than the rest.

Ultimately, the most desirable examples have a recently overhauled engine, newer wing fabric, a well-kept interior and a reasonably up-to-date, ADS-B-compliant panel.

Flying Characteristics

Because the 120 and 140 are essentially tailwheel predecessors of the first 150s, the flight qualities are very similar. Unfortunately, so is the limited useful load. The maximum gross weight for the 120 and 140 is 1,450 pounds, and 1,500 pounds for the 140A. All have a standard fuel capacity of 25 gallons and empty weights that range from 800 to 1,050 pounds, resulting in a rather-limited payload.

With a heavier O-290 bringing his airplane’s empty weight up to 1,050 pounds, one owner reports having only 250 pounds left over for people and bags, underscoring the concern about the heavier, more powerful engine options. Similarly, most pilots prefer the fabric wing because it tends to weigh 30 to 50 pounds less than those that have been metalized.

The tailwheel configuration is, of course, what makes the 120 and 140 so vastly different from the 150. And the relatively benign handling and ground manners make it a great introduction to tailwheel flying. Visibility over the nose is fantastic, and the effective rudder makes takeoffs straightforward.

Read More: Approachable Aircraft

Once in the air, the 120 and 140 do indeed feel akin to the 150, providing a typical cruise speed of 100 to 110 mph with similar cabin comfort, space and handling qualities. Fuel burn varies by engine choice, but 4.5 to 5 gallons per hour is common. The fabric wing provides nice flying characteristics, with a light, crisp roll and an exceptionally docile and predictable stall.

Full-stall, three-point landings are almost a nonevent in the 120 and 140. By the time you milk every last bit of lift out of the wing and settle onto the runway, the remaining speed and energy is so low, very little effort is required to manage the otherwise typical tailwheel characteristics as you roll to a stop.

Wheel landings require more attention, particularly on lumpy grass strips. While most bounces on landing tend to be the result of a misjudged flare or an effort to force the airplane onto the runway, the Cessna’s undamped spring-steel landing gear is quick to convert an errant runway lump into an unplanned trip back into the air.

Early on, the 120 and 140 earned a reputation of being prone to nosing over while braking. Though many blame this on the positioning of the landing gear, the belief was more likely a result of brakes that were unusually powerful for the time period.

In that era, other light-tailwheel-aircraft types typically came equipped with relatively weak, cable-actuated brakes activated by tiny heel pedals. The 120 and 140, on the other hand, came with much more effective hydraulic toe brakes. This resulting combination of leverage and power ended in nose-over accidents when unsuspecting pilots jammed on the brakes.

To address this, many 120s and 140s have been modified with gear extenders, which aim to prevent these incidents by placing the wheels slightly ahead of the gear legs. While these do help to reduce the nose-over tendency, some owners and maintainers complain that they also introduce torsional flex to the gear, which can weaken and fatigue the attachment points to the fuselage. It’s wise to inspect this area closely during a pre-purchase inspection.

Later 140s and all 140As addressed the concern with redesigned gear legs that were themselves slightly swept forward to help counteract any nose-over tendencies. The gear attachment points on these models were strengthened accordingly to handle the torsional loads from the forward-swept gear.

Ultimately, the 120 and 140 provide a great introduction to tailwheel flying. With predictable handling, a very effective rudder and sturdy landing gear, they are forgiving to newcomers while still providing the endless satisfaction that comes from mastering a tailwheel aircraft.

Ownership

Plenty of aircraft types provide a low operating cost on par with the 120 and 140, but few also offer the retro, 1940s-era character and tailwheel flair. Together, these characteristics combine to make every flight that much more interesting, rewarding and memorable than those in more common entry-level types such as the Cessna 150 and Piper Cherokee. Park one of the former on a ramp, and they’ll often go unnoticed; park a 140 on a ramp, and you’ll soon be making new friends as they meander over to swap stories and memories.

And while the 120 and 140 lack the necessary qualities for true STOL operations, many owners find it to be a rugged, reliable machine for accessing poorly maintained grass and dirt strips, particularly when larger tires are fitted. Indeed, without a relatively fragile nosewheel attached to the firewall, the simple and beefy main gear is poised to take significantly more abuse than tricycle gear counterparts. Additionally, pilots in colder climates can install skis to open up entirely different flying experiences and adventures.

It’s this blend of character and qualities that make the 120 and 140 stand out. Though easily surpassed in one measure or another on a spreadsheet, they demonstrate how an aircraft can fall short in many commonly held metrics while offering a wonderful blend of less tangible strengths. Provided an owner can live with a limited payload and leisurely performance, these are airplanes that keep their owners interested and enthusiastic for a long time. Indeed, many owners we know vow they’ll never sell theirs, and it’s not uncommon to hear those who have express regret that they did.

This story appeared in the March 2020 issue of Flying Magazine

The post Approachable Aircraft: The Cessna 120/140 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.