Why an Aeronca?...

[kyleb]

Why an Aeronca and which one is the question. Also, why not something else?

As I've stated elsewhere in this forum, I'd like to take on an Aeronca project. Preferably a postwar airplane. I like the outward visibility and the interior space of the Champ. But I think the Chief looks better sitting on the ramp. Chief projects are priced lower, but they sell for less when they are done.

But I'd also be OK with a Luscombe. And Taylorcrafts have their good points too - in particular there seem to be some good projects out there that are reasonably priced.

So how'd each of you choose what you're flying? Are you an Aeroncaphile? Or did you just find the right deal on the right airplane?

Enquiring minds and all.

And if you know of a good project for restoration, lemme know...

[Carl Prather]

Kyle,

It's simply a matter of preference and affordability. There's a lot good natured ribbing about the virtues of Champs and Chiefs, Aeroncas and Pipers and on and on.

The most important thing is to go out and fly. Every pilot and aircraft owner makes GA that much stronger.

When you find your plane, you'll know it.

Carl

[flyingfool]

For me it I got an Aeronca for three reasons:

1) I soloed in a '46 Champ so I was innoculated with Aeronca blood early in my aviation life at 16 years old!

2) LSA- Not all other antique or smaller type airplanes are LSA

3) Affordability - For me this meant a '46 Chief even even over a Champ. There was nothing else that I could afford at this stage in my life. (I just bought it last August) A Chief was $5,000 to $10,000 less expensive than other airplanes in the same general age & condition.

Taylorcrafts are faster than a Chief and also generally more expensive at least in my experience. Besides, I still like the looks of a Chief better than a T-Craft. But that is totally a personal preference thing.

[SFC Hiatt]

Check the NTSB crash reports.............they don't kill people.........and they are very fun to fly...........and they actually look like an airplane........and, and, and...........I'm an Aeronca guy for life. Just wish they would have built a biplane.

[WWhunter]

Little off topic but isn't there a strut AD on the Taylorcrafts that is expensive or hard to get replacemnet struts? Maybe I am thinking of another small plane...??????

[Dennis]

I think you are correct about the strut AD. Recently I was hanging out at the local NDT shop on our field and someone brought in T-craft struts for x-raying. I was told that the owner was complying with an AD. It was expensive for him but I guess cheaper than new ones.

Dennis

[Paul Agaliotis]

About a year and a half ago a Taylorcraft seaplane in Oregon lost a left wing. The struts and the fuselage fitting are now being looked at. It's a good thing that Aeronca used a different method of manufacture and engineering for their struts.
Paul

[Mnflyer]

Hi Keith, you are right there is a very expensive strut AD on the Tcraft's new struts run about $3500.00 to $4000.00 when all said and done and yes they can be NDT'd no idea what that cost.
I really like Tcraft's but the visibility is much better in a Champ or Chief and getting in and out is much easier with the Aeronca's, plus the engine choices and STC available for the Aeronca's are ten times better than the Tcraft's. Parts are also much better for the Aeronca.

[David Johnson]

Kyle, I started in Champs because that was what was available. I kept going in Champs for several reasons. 1) the airplanes are puppy dog friendly. If you learn about rudders and yaw. Otherwise I would not be here typing this. 2) me and all my family are Average +++ size. I fit in a Champ real nice. 3) sitting in front is great. If I can see something I can fix it. In a Cub I could run over a 747 and not see a thing(always have a skylite). 4) in my opinion they are one of the strongest built planes of that era. 5) Aeroncas, even the nicest ones, get flown a lot! David J.

[jc pacquin]

Personally I have owned 2 taylorcrafts, 1 85 HP Champ and a Cub. The Champ, for me, 85HP (no less) is the one! GOOD visibility, great front seat command of the aircraft and surrounding sky, takes off well and EASY to land. The cub was the least fun to fly for me. Hard to see, cramped, noisey, just a drag. (Super Cub is an entirely different story!) I had a great Champ and wish I hadn't sold it but just couldn't put up with 13 gallons of gas. Never had enough gas and landed where a gas pump was closed up or no body around. If I'd Had a wing tank, I'd still own it. 85HP is the one to have as far as I'm concerned. All those old airplanes were underpowered. The T-Craft, once again, 85hp, is a nice little aircraft but visability is not as good, I have to bend down to see out the side. Carrys more gas and IS a little faster but overall I like the Champ. (I learned in one.) JP

[Holcombe]

People who have Aeroncas love them.
Other people love their planes too but they just aren't as cool as we are.
The main thing is find a plane, buy the plane, fly the plane.
There are enough Aeroncas around so there are after market parts.
They are fun and easy to work on.
They are fun and easy to fly.
And I have a 7CCM with a fresh "Mighty Ninety" and five extra gallons in the wing. It's a way cool plane.

[Captgrumps]

I'll bet that CCM was originally in the Dakota's via Canada. Right or wrong?

Doug

[Holcombe]

Yes
A guy there, had done a great job of getting the plane rebuilt and recovered. The motor had taken some abuse from the harsh conditions and there was some checkered history I discovered from way back. That was taken care of with a total rebuild and the plane is now very close to original. A venturi/turn and bank, hydrolic brakes, and Scott Tailwheel are about the only "upgrades".
Two trips to OSH, one to the East Coast, it is great to have a long legged cross country machine.
Cheers