Aeronca Chief?

[Terryd23]

Hey all -

I've been flying for about 8 years and had a sweet 1976 172 for most of that time. Money got a bit tight over the past few years further unjustifying the already financially unjustifiable (but somehow still worth it!) cost of flying and bye bye 172. A little time has passed by and frankly I am going through airplane withdrawal. My mission is simply evening and weekend flights either solo or with the wife around the countryside. I love just putting around and landing on grass strips. I never used the 172 for travel. Been thinking lately of going sport pilot and in the interest of affordability have been looking at the Aeronca 11ac Chief. (Wife prefers the side-by side seating) I see them available for 20 - 25K. I've never flown one before but they look cool (always liked the old classics) and are really simple birds, which I'm hoping translates into low maintenance costs. I'm interested in opinions on this bird? Has anyone here owned one? Pluses? Minuses? How do they handle gusty crosswinds? Is the cost of upkeep more than one might expect or are they reasonable? I am in the very early stages of this but any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[mr scout]

My neighbor has one and she loves it. It looks like a new airplane, when they brought it back from Wisconsin it was pretty tired and ratty. A coffee can full of cash and its good as new. She has no problem with cross winds and always tells us its more forgiving than the Cub.
It runs a few hundred dollars a year to maintain, and sips fuel.

[Littlecub]

Good question.......
I had a Champ that was a real peach to fly. I'll add a question. Does the Chief have the same flight characteristics as a Champ? Does it have the same wing? How does it compare 'flying wise'. I personally prefer two 2 window seats, and understand that is personal taste, but that is why I never researched the Chief.
I don't want to hijack the thread, just expand it a tad......

lc

[EZFlap]

I have a Chief project for sale if you want to rebuild one from the ground up. Contact me by PM. The Chief and Champ use the same wing, but the pre-war wings and the post-war wings are different.

[littlewheelinback]

The Chief is a few mph slower but other wise very similar to the Champ. Remember this is a 65 horse aircraft with no starter or generator unless it has been modified. Hot days at gross have very little performance. Range is limited unless there is an aux tank, but if you fill it you will run up against weight limits quickly. This is the same for all the 65 horse planes, cub-tcraft-luscombe. That said, if you want a fun to fly, cheap to fly, spinable, certified, side by side aircraft, it is down to the t-craft or the Chief (Luscombes are great but less forgiving) and you can't go wrong with either one. The t-craft is also a very fine ac and cruises faster and lands slower.

[denalipilot]

A friend of mine has a 85 HP Chief. Says it is fairly short-coupled compared to other similar taildraggers. He says that makes it a little squirrelly at times on roll-out. He's had it and flown it for many years, and finds it fun and an affordable alternative to flying his 206's.

[Littlecub]

65 hp is why I no longer have that 'peach'. It couldn't maintain alt. in a moderate downdraft encountered at a very low altitude (and low airspeed.......) by a new pilot-and encountered trees.
I wouldn't recommend a very marginally powered aircraft for mountain flying 'within' the mountains. High overhead with low winds and good judgment (born of experience) would be fine.

I would hastily add that great judgment and experience trumps a lot of handicaps (see: BCP senior career bush/Ak pilots-for example)

lc

[senior]

I happen to have a Chief (for sale) & a T-Crate I just rebuilt.
Contrary to above post Chief's are faster (marginally) than Champs (acknowledged on Areonca site-those guys would know). Marginally is the key, Chief-Champ are 80-85mph cruise planes. Mine operates out of a 1100' strip with 50' tree's at about the 1300' mark with two people (350lbs) & full header tank (12gl). I average about 3.5gl per/hr. Chief's are very under appreciated planes, built light they perform very well short field. They are not mountain planes but what 65hp is @ 3.5gl per hr burn They are much easier to get in & out of than my T-Crate & MUCH more leg room once inside. All the taildraggers are rudder planes, something that takes a little getting used to, but my Chief is a joy to fly! I have actually been thinkin seriously about selling Crate & keeping Chief to recover. Biggest downfall of Areonca's in general is Oleo landing gear. If it's in good shape no problem, rebuilding a set takes more time & $$ than most other landing gear systems.
Terry-I would recommend a good Chief any day, annuals will be 1/2 your 172 price or less, 1/3 your fuel burn, maintainance is basically oil changes. Best go try one on for size, none of those old birds really fit bigger people, I'm 6' & would think that's about the limit in most old birds with the Chief capable of handling the taller guys. Width is a problem on all of them I think about 42" is average cabin width. Champs have a certain appeal if your a "window" guy, but center of gravity is much more consistant with SxS seating birds, tandoms tend to load the tailwheel much more when two-up, to each to their own.

Hope that helps

[Littlecub]

Senior-
Thanks for the informative post.......
The reason I highlighted 'not good mtn. plane' is this is a 'backcountry' site and SOME peoples vision starting on here might be mtn.s for a newly purchased plane.
The Champ is a wonderful (within limits) airplane, and my assumption is/was the Chief is also.......

Again, good post.

lc

[steve]

I used to have a landlord that had a Chief and have been in his several times (including when he ground looped it once). The plane seemed to handle fine and did about as much as you could expect for the HP. For me, the cabin was plenty cramped for my 6 ft 3 inch frame and the hand propping was not a plus. I assume some have been converted to a starter. If it was not for the need of a side by side, I think you would prefer the Champ. Steve

[Terryd23]

You guys are giving me some great information. I really appreciate it! I'm also going to check out the Vagabond. Does anyone know if the Vagabond has better or worse flight characteristics?

And Steve! LOVE that pic of you and that stringer of fish with the plane behind you. That's a dream shot!

[Jaerl]

Terry I PM'd you a link to a 150 I am selling. If you want to fly cheap you can't beat them because every part you ever need is for sale on Ebay for pennys on the dollar. Not a taildragger or a classic but still fun to fly and would get you in the air.

[88H]

Senior:

Terry:

Been a few years since i have flown TCrafts or Chiefs, but I have quite a bit of time in both. Only one thing I might add to Senior's post. I suspect if you have equally equipped planes (i.e. same strength and size of engine, same prop pitch, both very light planes with no added electronics or other contrivances), the TCraft would beat the Chief out of the hole. I also believe it might be just a touch faster, but probably not much. Remember with 65hps, there are so many small things that can impact the performance How is the fabric job and the type of covering, fairings and tin work, strength of the engine, etc.?

Another really fun old side by side taildragger is the Luscombe. That is probably the slowest to get off the ground, but quickest in the air. Also probably the smallest cabin size. I had both a Chief and Luscombe and enjoyed flying the Luscombe much more. It is more sensitive. They developed a bit of a reputation as a ground looper, but my experience was just that they are more sensitive and quicker controlled so you have to be on them quicker. Vagabonds are cool, but smaller wings so again they are a little slower getting off.

I agree on Senior's assessment of cabin size, but frankly, all of them are sardine sized, which I suppose is part of the fun.

That said, what small 65hp puddle-jumper isn't a hoot. Take your flavor, they are all fun and certainly an advantage over sitting on the ground.

Either way, you won't go wrong.

The 150 is certainly a cheap mode of transportation and you will not have any problem finding bunches of them around in all price ranges. But for my money, the fun factor just isn't as good. There is nothing wrong with them and everyone walks to a different beat, but at a minimum I would recommend that you go out and try a few birds and get a sense of them first. I don't think you would be sorry with any of the old taildraggers.

Good luck with your decision.

Regards, Larry

[dirtstrip]

This guy could have answered all these questions. Gone now but thought it should be somewhere in an Aeronca thread.

url=http://www.backcountrypilot.org/gallery/albums/userpics/13108/P7310294.JPG][/url]

[Jaerl]

How about this one? A 1948 tricycle Gear Stinson 108-3. I think he'd take $15,000. I'll have to look for his number if your interested.

http://s720.photobucket.com/albums/ww20 ... 20Stinson/

[Zzz]

How about this one? A 1948 tricycle Gear Stinson 108-3. I think he'd take $15,000. I'll have to look for his number if your interested.

http://s720.photobucket.com/albums/ww20 ... 20Stinson/

Oh, you're looking for an Aeronca Chief? How about this?

[d.grimm]

Vagabonds are nice little airplanes, they are going to be a little
Quicker on the ground but also sportier in the air with nearly
full span ailerons. 85 HP and some extra gas make very desirable
modifications. Some downsides are one door and low useful
weights. Vagabonds are great airplanes with good parts availability
but I may be biased.
Dave

[EZFlap]

A 1948 tricycle Gear Stinson 108-3.

No No NO!!! How many times do we have to go over this... you are supposed to REMOVE nosewheels, not ADD them!!! Other than perhaps an F-104, I can see no exceptions tot his rule

It's going to take a while to get that image out of my head

The nosewheel on my 172 knows full well that its days are numbered (as soon as I can afford to buy the STC legalizing the amputation).

[scout]

85 chief on Barnstormers. Big big dif between a 65 and 85. Not LS though for this one. Cheaper than a champ by 7-10K comparing similar cond. and equipped a/c...A good value in the market place but the more ponies is fairly important IMOH. A taylorcraft does way better on 65 than the chiefy.

This on on BS now
http://barnstormers.com/tmp_images/a7/a ... t_left.jpg

[dirtstrip]

Aeronca 11 CC Super Chief has 85 hp.


Aeronca 11 CC Super Chief

Horsepower: 85.0000

Top Speed: 89 kts

Cruise Speed: 83 kts

Stall Speed (dirty): 44 kts

takeoff

Over 50 ft obstacle: 720 ft

Gross Weight: 1350 lbs

Empty Weight: 820 lbs

Fuel Capacity: 15.00 gal

Range: 190 nm

landing

Over 50 ft obstacle: 800 ft