BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2023, 23:32

The later model Luscombes (E's and F's) are pretty good planes. They have electrical systems, fuel in the wings (not behind your head, which always scared the crap out of me), nice D windows behind the seats, and a few other creature comforts. Don't believe the hype about being squirrely on the ground. They are no worse than most other taildraggers of the era. They fly nice, are quick for the power, and the sticks are fun. If you find a good deal on one you won't be disappointed.

That being said, if all things were equal I'd take a 140. It's a more modern, more civilized plane. Especially if you can find a 140A, which is basically a 150 with tailwheel (and therefore cooler).

Things common to both: Flaps are useless and add weight. The 90hp engine is the most desirable engine, followed by the 85hp. Both have metal and fabric wing options. The general consensus is the fabric wings fly better (lighter). All these airplanes have corrosion issues and need to be inspected very carefully. It's not a matter of if, but how much and where.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2023, 23:51

Username Protected wrote:

Sarge is a pretty rare item in terms of condition and pedigree... Definitely a nice one.

I don't know if you have any taildragger time - I had precious little when I started on my "classic taildragger" journey earlier this year. I had heard lots of bad things about the ground handling habits of the Luscombe Model 8. So far they appear to mostly be Old Wives Tales.

I opted to buy a 1940 Model 8C which had been upgraded to 8E configuration with metal wings, a C85 with starter and a modern alternator, a decent radio, intercom, ADSB-out etc. Mine has some history, a story which includes damage which caused a rebuild of significant enough extent that the rebuilt aircraft qualified under the then-current rules to be registered as an Amateur-Built. So here I have what in every respect is a Luscombe 8E, but that's not what its data plate says it is! My maintenance costs benefit significantly from being able to do the work myself.

I quite enjoy the handling of the Luscombe. It's much more direct and immediate than many of its contemporaries. Still, it's a rudder airplane - no doubt about that. It three points amazingly well - just get the stick all the way back and hold it there and it lands perfectly. Now that I've found the magic recipe it also sticks wheel landings in some pretty ugly winds.

The original Luscombe seating surfaces are, well, rudimentary. Some artful application of modern seat-making technology goes a long way to making the airplane more comfortable. My airplane has standard baggage with the full hat rack level with the D windows - lots of space to store stuff.

There was an earlier comment about the Luscombe 8 having a fuselage-mounted fuel tank. If you've been looking at the 8E you will, no doubt, have learned that wing tanks are standard on that model, giving 25 gallons of tankage. Mine is an oddball in that it somehow ended up with 28 gallons. Nope, I'm not complaining!

The Luscombe has some significant maintenance items that are really worth investigating. The ugliest one is spar corrosion - this resulted from improper heat treatment at the time of manufacture. This was a single batch of material, not common to all Luscombes but only to those that received these spars. Most have been replaced but it's always good to have a look when doing a pre-buy. The other ugly spot is the rudder cables; they fray as they go around a small-diameter pulley in the belly. It's an item one has to keep an eye on at every inspection. They seem to go a long time in service without problems but diligent inspection is the key to safety.

There's a good support network with parts available from Univair and Classic Aero. Doug Combs at Classic Aero knows the airplane inside out.

I really enjoy being able to taxi with my elbow out the window - I feel like I should be wearing a 1940's business man's suit and a fedora when I do this! There's no need to do S-turns while taxiing as over-the-nose visibility is quite good.

Oh, I should mention mine has hydraulic heel brakes. These have received a bad rap in the rumor mill - ignore those Old Wives Tales - if you're accustomed to hydraulic brakes in other airplanes you'll have no trouble modulating brake pressure.

Here's wishing you great success in your quest. If I can be of help with "what's it like to be a new owner" kind of info, please feel free to reach out.

Awesome write up, thank you!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2023, 23:51

Username Protected wrote:

The later model Luscombes (E's and F's) are pretty good planes. They have electrical systems, fuel in the wings (not behind your head, which always scared the crap out of me), nice D windows behind the seats, and a few other creature comforts. Don't believe the hype about being squirrely on the ground. They are no worse than most other taildraggers of the era. They fly nice, are quick for the power, and the sticks are fun. If you find a good deal on one you won't be disappointed.

That being said, if all things were equal I'd take a 140. It's a more modern, more civilized plane. Especially if you can find a 140A, which is basically a 150 with tailwheel (and therefore cooler).

Things common to both: Flaps are useless and add weight. The 90hp engine is the most desirable engine, followed by the 85hp. Both have metal and fabric wing options. The general consensus is the fabric wings fly better (lighter). All these airplanes have corrosion issues and need to be inspected very carefully. It's not a matter of if, but how much and where.

Great thoughts Dennis!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2023, 11:32

I have a rag wing 1946 140 with a O200A (100hp) engine upgrade. It’s light and fast (69x50 prop). I’ve had a Luscombe in the past. I agree with most of the comments here, 120/140 is roomier inside, Luscombe can/will challenge your Tailwheel skills, etc.

Any BT’ers who woul like to try it, reach out.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2023, 14:47

I have time in a Luscombe 8F and got my tailwheel endorsement in one. It had all of the STCs installed and used to be owned by Moody Larsen, a Luscombe guru of old.

When looking for my first taildragger to buy, the 8A/E was high on the list, but i didn’t find one in the right condition/price and ended up with a J3.

My takeaways on the Luscombe were:

- ground/rollout handling seemed fine, no worse than other small tail draggers. they all need good footwork
- interior is definitely not wide, but i’m not either, so it was fine.
- For me, control sticks were a must have, so i didn’t consider 120/140’s
- the handling of the Luscombe is really precise, unlike a lot of old tail draggers. sort of like the difference in Bonanza vs brand P, the pitch and aileron feel are very precise. when you move the stick, the plane responds right away. very different from other tail draggers
i’ve owned/flown. it’s hard to explain, but you should try to experience it if you can.
- they are not particularly short field planes. of course it’s highly variable with pilot skill, but it did seem to use more runway than much slower J3/champ type planes.
- the first time i landed on a grass runway (with instructor) i thought i had destroyed the plane. the landing seemed fine but as soon as the tailwheel touched, it sounded like the back of the plane was coming off. i looked at the instructor. she said “What?”. i said “ did you hear all that racket back there? what broke?”. she said “ nothing. that’s normal”
that big metal tail cone really amplified the sound of the tailwheel on the rough ground. so i guess it’s a lot louder than a fabric empennage plane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Dec 2023, 19:44

I'll just drop in here as another satisfied Luscombe operator. The Luscombe's controls are light and delightful in flight. The airplane is very responsive to rudder inputs, and the landing gear is a bit stiffer than it's peers like the Cub (bungee gear) or Champ (oleo gear)- which is where it probably gets it reputation. I don't have any experience in the 120/140, so I can't give a comparison to the Luscombe; but I'm sure it's a fine airplane. As has been said earlier in the thread, many of the undesirable items associated with early Luscombes can be modified out or even avoided by a discerning buyer- wing tanks, hydraulic brakes, starter/electrical system, etc.

C140 or Luscombe 8E???