Luscombe and starter motors

[Danny Deger]

Does anyone know which Luscombe models have starter motors? I am looking
for a Sport Aviation airplane with a starter motor and apparently only the
8, 8A, 8B, and 8C are Sport Aviation airplanes.

Danny Deger

[Don Tuite]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:43:43 -0600, "Danny Deger"
> wrote:

>Does anyone know which Luscombe models have starter motors? I am looking
>for a Sport Aviation airplane with a starter motor and apparently only the
>8, 8A, 8B, and 8C are Sport Aviation airplanes.
>
The 8E was the first to come with the C85 as stock, but I gather there
was a lot of retrofitting. The sentiment seems to be that changing
the engine does not change the model -- the question for LSAs, is:
does it change the gross weight.

Just learn to hand-prop; it it's no big deal.

OTOH, I think the fuselage tank is bad, because it makes you pull carb
heat on takeoff -- to prevent you from pitching up so much that you
uncover the fuel intake port.

Don

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-01-29, Don Tuite > wrote:
> OTOH, I think the fuselage tank is bad, because it makes you pull carb
> heat on takeoff -- to prevent you from pitching up so much that you
> uncover the fuel intake port.

I'm curious - how does carb heat stop you pitching up? Surely just not
pulling the stick quite as far back will do the same job without the
reduction in power?

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 01:41:30 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>On 2007-01-29, Don Tuite > wrote:
>> OTOH, I think the fuselage tank is bad, because it makes you pull carb
>> heat on takeoff -- to prevent you from pitching up so much that you
>> uncover the fuel intake port.
>
>I'm curious - how does carb heat stop you pitching up? Surely just not
>pulling the stick quite as far back will do the same job without the
>reduction in power?

As I understand it, (I only flew an 8E.) the objective of pulling carb
heat on takeoff in the C65-powered birds was to reduce engine power --
less airflow over the horizontal stabilizer, less pitch-up capability.
This was only done at low airspeeds close to the earth.

In power-on stalls at altitude, Luscombes stall fairly abruptly and
with incipient spin tendencies if the controls are uncoordinated. It
was in an 8E that I had the classic cross-control stall demonstrated
to me. *Very* interesting. (Explicitly, the airplane rolls abruptly
toward the inside wing and you find yourself starting a spin
semi-inverted. You can do it in any plane, but the :Luscombe's fast
break is distinctive.)

While I may still have the attention of the fellow who wanted a
Luscombe as an LSA, let me also call his attention to the main gear.
Not only is the track relatively narrow, requiring attention to the
rudder at all times, but there is virtually nothing to prevent the
gear from collapsing inward if the plane is drifting sideways in a
crosswind landing.

Also I have witnessed a person stand an 8E on its nose by applying
both brakes simultaneously during landing rollout. After that repair,
the rule for those of us who flew the plane was to apply brakes
alternately.

Luscombes are wonderful, fun planes -- far more fun to fly than, say a
Taylorcraft or a 150 -- But you need a comprehensive checkout.

(And if I weighed now what I weighed 30 years ago, I'd go out and buy
one in a New York minute. That was the most fun -- including flying
to Bryce and the Grand Canyon, that I've had in any airplane.)

Don

[Edwin Johnson]

On 2007-01-30, Don Tuite > wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 01:41:30 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:
>
>>On 2007-01-29, Don Tuite > wrote:
>>> OTOH, I think the fuselage tank is bad, because it makes you pull carb
>>> heat on takeoff -- to prevent you from pitching up so much that you
>>> uncover the fuel intake port.
>>
>>I'm curious - how does carb heat stop you pitching up? Surely just not
>>pulling the stick quite as far back will do the same job without the
>>reduction in power?

I owned a Luscombe 8A for about 17 years. The reason the requirement for the
carb heat on takeoff, as I understand, was actually the gravity flow fuel
system in the 8A from the tank behind the seat. The gravity flow would not
provide enough fuel to satisfy the FAA fuel flow specifications and rather
than redesign it or add a pump of some sort, the addition of carb heat
reduced the power of the engine, hence fuel needed, and then met the FAA
specs. I don't know whether or not this applied to the 8E, which often had
tanks in the wings.

There is a wonderful book outlining the history of Luscombe, "The Luscombe
Story", by John C. Swick (pub SunShine House). It begins with the factory
before the advent of the 8A and has pictures of many designs they actually
built, but never entered production.

Just as a bit of trivia, there was a four place plane built and tested
called the Colt. This was _not_ the Sedan or model 11. The Colt looked
identical to the 8A/B/C series but had 4 seats. The only remaining Colt
prototype was bought by a gentlemen who has an airport south of Ft. Worth,
TX, and who refurbished it. I flew down to the grass strip and saw this plane
along with several other Luscombes. He said there were a few mistakes in the
above mentioned book, but otherwise a good history of the company.

The Luscombe is a great airplane and a pleasure to fly. It got a rather
undeserved reputation, but you must remember it was a 'hot' airplane for its
day along side planes in its size group. As with any plane you must fly it
within its boundaries, but is a real joy to fly.

I always regret selling mine (don't we always) and would enjoy having
another, if I could keep my present Maule, also. :)

....Edwin
--
__________________________________________________ __________
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes
turned skyward, for there you have been, there you long to
return."-da Vinci http://bellsouthpwp2.net/e/d/edwinljohnson