2nd airplane

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Based on a posting by newps, I started thinking about what the perfect
2nd airplane should be assuming the 1st aircraft was purchased for
longer all-weather cross-countries. In other words, if the first
aircraft was a Navion, or Bonanza, or even a Sierra or Arrow (newer
aircraft excluded because we want to be able to afford a 2nd bird) then
what would I want for a puddle-jumper.

Personally, I'm partial to aircraft with the 3rd wheel on the right end
of the airframe so an O-1 Birddog comes to mind, but even a C-120 or
C-140 might be a lot of fun.


-----------------------------------------
Kindest regards,
James A. (Jim) Carter, ANS #8215
Rogers, Arkansas

Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we
play for keeps.
- Ernest K. Gann

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 26, 7:56 pm, "Jim Carter" > wrote:
> Based on a posting by newps, I started thinking about what the perfect
> 2nd airplane should be assuming the 1st aircraft was purchased for
> longer all-weather cross-countries. In other words, if the first
> aircraft was a Navion, or Bonanza, or even a Sierra or Arrow (newer
> aircraft excluded because we want to be able to afford a 2nd bird) then
> what would I want for a puddle-jumper.
>
> Personally, I'm partial to aircraft with the 3rd wheel on the right end
> of the airframe so an O-1 Birddog comes to mind, but even a C-120 or
> C-140 might be a lot of fun.

I'm in the same situation. My primary plane is a Mooney, with known-
ice-and turbo that's about as all-weather at GA gets. For a secondary
plane I was originally looking at an Aeronca Champ but realized that
some champs go for $30K and the rest are junk (i.e. need wings
rebuilt, etc, most do not feel the spar AD requirements but somehow
gets signed off every year). I'm also thinkihng C-140. I learned to
fly in a C-140 and my boys are just a few years away from being old
enough to solo and I thought a C-140 would be an easy plane for them
to solo in.

-Robert

[xyzzy]

On Aug 26, 10:56 pm, "Jim Carter" > wrote:
> Based on a posting by newps, I started thinking about what the perfect
> 2nd airplane should be assuming the 1st aircraft was purchased for
> longer all-weather cross-countries. In other words, if the first
> aircraft was a Navion, or Bonanza, or even a Sierra or Arrow (newer
> aircraft excluded because we want to be able to afford a 2nd bird) then
> what would I want for a puddle-jumper.
>
> Personally, I'm partial to aircraft with the 3rd wheel on the right end
> of the airframe so an O-1 Birddog comes to mind, but even a C-120 or
> C-140 might be a lot of fun.

For me it would be an Ercoupe. My flying club has Mooneys, 172's,
etc, and quite a few members own planes like Aeroncas or Swifts, etc.,
for fun flying, using club planes for more serious aviation. It's a
good compromise.

> Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we
> play for keeps.
> - Ernest K. Gann

While it's true that quote came from Ernest's book, he didn't say it.
The airline captain who was training him said it after the "matches
under the nose" incident.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 27, 11:00 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> I'm also thinking C-140. I learned to
> fly in a C-140 and my boys are just a few years away from being old
> enough to solo and I thought a C-140 would be an easy plane for them


Rumor has it that the Cessna 140 is just about to have an STC finally
approved that limits the max gross weight to 1320 lbs for legal
operation in the light sport category, and gets around the "unless
previously certificated at a higher gross weight" issue for the C-140.
This STC was shot down earlier, but the scuttlebutt I just heard this
past weekend says that the feds finally caved in and reversed their
original stance and now the STC will be allowed to go forth. I hope
this is true, as the 140 is a very nice aircraft and should be allowed
as an LSA. I have 2 hours logged in one back during my tailwheel
training days and it was a pleasure to fly.

[Margy Natalie]

Jim Carter wrote:
> Based on a posting by newps, I started thinking about what the perfect
> 2nd airplane should be assuming the 1st aircraft was purchased for
> longer all-weather cross-countries. In other words, if the first
> aircraft was a Navion, or Bonanza, or even a Sierra or Arrow (newer
> aircraft excluded because we want to be able to afford a 2nd bird) then
> what would I want for a puddle-jumper.
>
> Personally, I'm partial to aircraft with the 3rd wheel on the right end
> of the airframe so an O-1 Birddog comes to mind, but even a C-120 or
> C-140 might be a lot of fun.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Kindest regards,
> James A. (Jim) Carter, ANS #8215
> Rogers, Arkansas
>
> Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we
> play for keeps.
> - Ernest K. Gann
>
>
>
Well, I think my "next airplane" will be a quicksilver on floats. Of
course I will have to learn how to fly a plane on floats, but it is the
exact opposite of the Navion. It's completely open, slow and a good
putz around the lake plane.

Margy

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 27, 10:22 am, wrote:
> On Aug 27, 11:00 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > I'm also thinking C-140. I learned to
> > fly in a C-140 and my boys are just a few years away from being old
> > enough to solo and I thought a C-140 would be an easy plane for them
>
> Rumor has it that the Cessna 140 is just about to have an STC finally
> approved that limits the max gross weight to 1320 lbs for legal
> operation in the light sport category, and gets around the "unless
> previously certificated at a higher gross weight" issue for the C-140.
> This STC was shot down earlier, but the scuttlebutt I just heard this
> past weekend says that the feds finally caved in and reversed their
> original stance and now the STC will be allowed to go forth. I hope
> this is true, as the 140 is a very nice aircraft and should be allowed
> as an LSA. I have 2 hours logged in one back during my tailwheel
> training days and it was a pleasure to fly.

I'm 220lbs so I'm thinking the STC isn't going to be an option.
However, I don't see how the LSA would benefit me anyway since I'm
only 35. If I bought a C-140 with the STC would I be able to remove it
so I could fit 2 people in it without being over gross?

[EridanMan]

Off the cuff 2nd plane criteria:

- Cheap to operate (0-320 or smaller), especially if my 'main' bird
had an 0-540 up front. Big engines are great for covering distance in
a hurry, but I've had many pilots look at my little 140 and lament "I
miss owning those little birds... I used to fly so much more than I do
now, but its just so much more expensive..."
- Get in and out of places my main bird cant. Self explanatory.
- Does stuff my main bird can't. Aerobatic... open cockpit, just
something different.

I guess that would be the main thing for me... My biggest fear owning
multiple planes would be having missions where both planes would be
equally suited for the task, because thats where I feel the redundency/
waste would be. If I'm going to go to the trouble and expense of
having two ships, I want to be able to cover the broadest expanse of
aviation experiences possible with those two birds.

All IMHO;)

(BTW, I'd suggest a Citabria, but I don't know the ins and outs of
maintaining them or Champs).

[David Lesher]

"Jim Carter" > writes:

>Based on a posting by newps, I started thinking about what the perfect
>2nd airplane should be assuming the 1st aircraft was purchased for
>longer all-weather cross-countries. In other words, if the first
>aircraft was a Navion, or Bonanza, or even a Sierra or Arrow (newer
>aircraft excluded because we want to be able to afford a 2nd bird) then
>what would I want for a puddle-jumper.


I know what Ron would say.... A Fly Baby!
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Newps]

EridanMan wrote:
> Off the cuff 2nd plane criteria:
>
> - Cheap to operate (0-320 or smaller), especially if my 'main' bird
> had an 0-540 up front. Big engines are great for covering distance in
> a hurry, but I've had many pilots look at my little 140 and lament "I
> miss owning those little birds... I used to fly so much more than I do
> now, but its just so much more expensive..."



But not necessarily because of the engine. My Bo runs at 45% power at 8
gph and gets 150 mph indicated with the 520. Around the local area,
which is probably 75% of my flying I'm burning about 35% less gas than
the 182 I used to have(8 vs 12.5 gph).

[[email protected]]

Newps > wrote:


: EridanMan wrote:
: > Off the cuff 2nd plane criteria:
: >
: > - Cheap to operate (0-320 or smaller), especially if my 'main' bird
: > had an 0-540 up front. Big engines are great for covering distance in
: > a hurry, but I've had many pilots look at my little 140 and lament "I
: > miss owning those little birds... I used to fly so much more than I do
: > now, but its just so much more expensive..."



: But not necessarily because of the engine. My Bo runs at 45% power at 8
: gph and gets 150 mph indicated with the 520. Around the local area,
: which is probably 75% of my flying I'm burning about 35% less gas than
: the 182 I used to have(8 vs 12.5 gph).

Well-said. Just because something has the horsepower doesn't mean you need to use it. NOR does
it inherently mean that you're going to lose much speed. The drag of the airframe determines how fast
you go. The amount of horsepower you're using determines how much fuel you burn. As I've said in
previous posts about this, compare the numbers for different engines on the same airframe (e.g. PA28 or
PA24). In a PA-28 for instance, you can go from 10 gph to 7.5 gph and only lose 5-10 mph. With
something like a 182 I'm sure it's even more.

-Cory




--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 29, 12:13 pm, wrote:

> Well-said. Just because something has the horsepower doesn't mean you need to use it. NOR does
> it inherently mean that you're going to lose much speed. The drag of the airframe determines how fast
> you go. The amount of horsepower you're using determines how much fuel you burn. As I've said in
> previous posts about this, compare the numbers for different engines on the same airframe (e.g. PA28 or
> PA24). In a PA-28 for instance, you can go from 10 gph to 7.5 gph and only lose 5-10 mph. With
> something like a 182 I'm sure it's even more.

As a current Mooney owner and former Aeronca and J-3 pilot I can
assure you that you cannot do Aeronca./J-3 type flying in a Mooney.
The problem is that the comfortable flying speed is so much higher
that you need to be higher off the ground and have less ability to
just play around. When you're going 2 or 3 times faster you cover more
ground and have more terrain, etc to worry about. In the J-3 flying at
300 feet over farms was no big deal because you were doing 50 mph.

-Robert

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert M. Gary ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:22 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: 2nd airplane
> Subject: Re: 2nd airplane
>
> On Aug 29, 12:13 pm, wrote:
>
....
>
> As a current Mooney owner and former Aeronca and J-3 pilot I can
> assure you that you cannot do Aeronca./J-3 type flying in a Mooney.
> The problem is that the comfortable flying speed is so much higher
> that you need to be higher off the ground and have less ability to
> just play around. When you're going 2 or 3 times faster you cover more
> ground and have more terrain, etc to worry about. In the J-3 flying at
> 300 feet over farms was no big deal because you were doing 50 mph.
>
> -Robert

Exactly what I was thinking; it would be very difficult to get a Bo, or
Mooney, or even a 172 down and stopped in under 300' on grass like you
can with a Birddog or Cub or Airknocker. I didn't intentionally mean to
ponder only about high-wing aircraft in my original post, but now
realize I did. It seems to me that downward visibility would also be
important if I was just futzing around at 60 to 90 kts. Even the O-1 can
be made to sip fuel if you don't push it too hard. I really think it
just converts everything over 8 gph or so to nothing but noise anyway.

[dave]

EridanMan wrote:

>
> (BTW, I'd suggest a Citabria, but I don't know the ins and outs of
> maintaining them or Champs).
>
I had a citabria before I got my bonanza. It was the 7ECA model with
the o-235 lycoming. The only maintenance problem I had that was
difficult was locating a replacement fuel shut off valve. Kind of an
odd thing to break but once it did, it took me a month to find one.
Everything else on it seemed to be pretty straight forward. I averaged
around 6 gallons an hour at 90knots. I can fly at modest speeds with
low fuel consumption in the bonanza but it's really not the same.
Dave
M35

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 29, 3:34 pm, "Jim Carter" > wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert M. Gary ]
> > Posted At: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:22 PM
> > Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> > Conversation: 2nd airplane
> > Subject: Re: 2nd airplane
>
> > On Aug 29, 12:13 pm, wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > As a current Mooney owner and former Aeronca and J-3 pilot I can
> > assure you that you cannot do Aeronca./J-3 type flying in a Mooney.
> > The problem is that the comfortable flying speed is so much higher
> > that you need to be higher off the ground and have less ability to
> > just play around. When you're going 2 or 3 times faster you cover more
> > ground and have more terrain, etc to worry about. In the J-3 flying at
> > 300 feet over farms was no big deal because you were doing 50 mph.
>
> > -Robert
>
> Exactly what I was thinking; it would be very difficult to get a Bo, or
> Mooney, or even a 172 down and stopped in under 300' on grass like you
> can with a Birddog or Cub or Airknocker. I didn't intentionally mean to
> ponder only about high-wing aircraft in my original post, but now
> realize I did. It seems to me that downward visibility would also be
> important if I was just futzing around at 60 to 90 kts. Even the O-1 can
> be made to sip fuel if you don't push it too hard. I really think it
> just converts everything over 8 gph or so to nothing but noise anyway.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's true. I used to go in and out of grass fields with the Aeronca
and J-3 that I would *never* take the Bo or Mooney to. Some of the
fields had gopher holes that would rock you pretty good. Dropping a
nosewheel into a 1' deep hole and then back out again doesn't sound
good.

-Robert

[Scott Skylane]

Robert M. Gary wrote:


> That's true. I used to go in and out of grass fields with the Aeronca
> and J-3 that I would *never* take the Bo or Mooney to. Some of the
> fields had gopher holes that would rock you pretty good. Dropping a
> nosewheel into a 1' deep hole and then back out again doesn't sound
> good.
>
> -Robert
>
Aww, you've just got the wrong Bo! Newps' Bo can haul 3000 lbs in or
out of a twenty foot boulder field, then cruise 1500 miles home at 350
kts while burning a cool 2.5 gallons (MoGas, that is) per hour...

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 29, 3:59 pm, dave > wrote:
> EridanMan wrote:
>
> > (BTW, I'd suggest a Citabria, but I don't know the ins and outs of
> > maintaining them or Champs).
>
> I had a citabria before I got my bonanza. It was the 7ECA model with
> the o-235 lycoming. The only maintenance problem I had that was
> difficult was locating a replacement fuel shut off valve. Kind of an
> odd thing to break but once it did, it took me a month to find one.
> Everything else on it seemed to be pretty straight forward. I averaged
> around 6 gallons an hour at 90knots. I can fly at modest speeds with
> low fuel consumption in the bonanza but it's really not the same.
> Dave
> M35

I used to fly and instruct in a Decathlon (which is mostly a
Citabria). Its hands down the easiest tailwheel plane to fly that I've
ever seen. However, you're paying (in $$$ and complex fuel/oil) for
the ability to fly inverted, etc. If you want to fly up-rigtht all the
time its probably not the best deal.

-Robert

[dave]

Robert,
I think you got some bad information. Most citabrias don't have any
inverted systems. Only the decathlons and 7KCAB's have inverted fuel and
oil. The 7ECA, GCA and others are about as simple as they come. You
can check the spec's of the new ones at american champion's website.
Other than the metal spars and a little higher gross weight, not much
difference between the new ones and the old ones.

Dave
M35


Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
> I used to fly and instruct in a Decathlon (which is mostly a
> Citabria). Its hands down the easiest tailwheel plane to fly that I've
> ever seen. However, you're paying (in $$$ and complex fuel/oil) for
> the ability to fly inverted, etc. If you want to fly up-rigtht all the
> time its probably not the best deal.
>
> -Robert
>

[Newps]

Jim Carter wrote:


>
> Exactly what I was thinking; it would be very difficult to get a Bo, or
> Mooney, or even a 172 down and stopped in under 300' on grass like you
> can with a Birddog or Cub or Airknocker.



You're right there. I need 550 feet to land or takeoff with the Bo. If
your aim is to fart around at 50-80 mph then a J3 may be for you.

[Newps]

Scott Skylane wrote:

> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>
>> That's true. I used to go in and out of grass fields with the Aeronca
>> and J-3 that I would *never* take the Bo or Mooney to. Some of the
>> fields had gopher holes that would rock you pretty good. Dropping a
>> nosewheel into a 1' deep hole and then back out again doesn't sound
>> good.
>>
>> -Robert
>>
> Aww, you've just got the wrong Bo! Newps' Bo can haul 3000 lbs in or
> out of a twenty foot boulder field, then cruise 1500 miles home at 350
> kts while burning a cool 2.5 gallons (MoGas, that is) per hour...

Correct, excpet not with mogas.

[EridanMan]

> But not necessarily because of the engine. My Bo runs at 45% power at 8
> gph and gets 150 mph indicated with the 520. Around the local area,
> which is probably 75% of my flying I'm burning about 35% less gas than
> the 182 I used to have(8 vs 12.5 gph).

Kind of an irrelevant point.

The idea was that for a second bird, I would pick specifications as
opposite as possible to my primary bird, if my primary bird fulfilled
my cruise mission, then there is absolutely no point in considering
cruise in my second bird and vice versa. He said he had a cruise ship
already, If I had such a bird (My poor 140 isn't;), I would then only
see two options, either getting an extraordinarily expensive, ultra
fun plane (Extra-300, Mig-17;)) or an extraordinarily cheap, fun
plane, depending on how deep my pockets were.

I assumed that this gentleman was not made of money, and hence, he
would choose as I would and go with the inexpensive option, which
would generally necessitate a smaller engine for thermodynamic/weight
reasons, hence an O-320 or smaller.