About six months ago I noted that I was looking for a triple tail and got some very positive comments from a number of people. Need a couple of bits of information . I have owned both a Cruiseair and a Cruisemaster in the past and am looking for either a 14-19-2 or a 14-13 (The 190 HP Lycoming always seemed to be nothing more that an expensive cabin heater though I'm sure others would disagree-of course the 14-19's have the prettiest front cowl of all the models (IMHO) Anyhow-the questions--1)What is the deal with the Harzell vs. MacCauley propellers. Are the Mac's unusable??2) What autopilots are legal on the plane (assuming there isn't a one-time-field approval in the books) I'll think of other questions, but let me throw out these to start my information search petersch@exwire.com
I'm still looking to buy and have a few easy questions
- Thread starter peterdeon
- Start date
Peter,I have wanted a Cruisemaster since childhood and finally got one and have not been disappointed. It is an absolute joy. The Hartzel prop had a corrosion problem, Im told, that requires recurrent inspections. The Mac has no such problem. I recently had my O470 overhauled to new factory specs. I had the ECI titan cylinders put on and these are great. Last oil change, 25 hr, showed 1.5 quarts used.
I am told the sound is wonderful but I am always flying so I cant enjoy the full resonance. Everyone tells me though that they know when 91B takes to the sky.
Good luck it took me 5 years to finally get mine.
David
Alain1
New member
Peter,
same time last year you would have told me I'd be flying a Cruisair today, I'd say : what the hell are ya talking about.
I had a beautiful Bakeng Deuce I was doing a cylinder job in my garage at home after owning the beast for 9 years.
Loved the plane. I flew Champs, little bit of Tiger Moth, Tried Jodel, Stinson, Chief, Luscombe, Super Chipmunk, Cherokees, Cessna tri-gear, All kinds. Even a big 10A at one point.
My Deuce was something to my wife and me. Then, back in the air in the summer, I realised I had to sale because we are now 3 in the familly. Have a beautiful 2 and half year old girl. Can't fit all in the Deuce. So it went in no time. To our great sadness.
Then I was looking for something classic, good looking, taildragger and with some cruise but on a budget. My familly was not related with Bill Gates. And being an employee on maintenance for an airline is not bringing millions. Well at least not here in Montreal.
Had lots of choice from Pacer to Stinson passing by some homebuilt and suddenly this 14-13-2 1947. Made some research on origin of the model and on Bellanca, This was the best move I made. Brought it from 1000 miles away and it was great.
Pacer was almost the one but my Honey said I'd be looking like driving a plymouth valliant! as for the Bellanca, I'd be looking like driving something with real spirit. Mine has the 165 Franklin with very low time on cylinders. The sound is just tremendous. When I fly it, the guys at the club just say it, god Alain what a sound you've got there. What kind of engine is that?
But the fun is that it does not suck gas like a Hummer, the cruise is good and for my familly and myself, payload is just right. The plane is actualy easier to fly then my Deuce. Except for the visibility. Can't beat open cockpit.
I think it is the perfect combinaison. As for the prop, it will have the wooden sensenich one from the 150 h.p. which will be just right. Have a climb prop for now and cruise 130 m.p.h. but it red line too easy. I just love the darn thing. So whatever engine you get, If you get it for a good price, there is all king of powerplant you can put in there.
same time last year you would have told me I'd be flying a Cruisair today, I'd say : what the hell are ya talking about.
I had a beautiful Bakeng Deuce I was doing a cylinder job in my garage at home after owning the beast for 9 years.
Loved the plane. I flew Champs, little bit of Tiger Moth, Tried Jodel, Stinson, Chief, Luscombe, Super Chipmunk, Cherokees, Cessna tri-gear, All kinds. Even a big 10A at one point.
My Deuce was something to my wife and me. Then, back in the air in the summer, I realised I had to sale because we are now 3 in the familly. Have a beautiful 2 and half year old girl. Can't fit all in the Deuce. So it went in no time. To our great sadness.
Then I was looking for something classic, good looking, taildragger and with some cruise but on a budget. My familly was not related with Bill Gates. And being an employee on maintenance for an airline is not bringing millions. Well at least not here in Montreal.
Had lots of choice from Pacer to Stinson passing by some homebuilt and suddenly this 14-13-2 1947. Made some research on origin of the model and on Bellanca, This was the best move I made. Brought it from 1000 miles away and it was great.
Pacer was almost the one but my Honey said I'd be looking like driving a plymouth valliant! as for the Bellanca, I'd be looking like driving something with real spirit. Mine has the 165 Franklin with very low time on cylinders. The sound is just tremendous. When I fly it, the guys at the club just say it, god Alain what a sound you've got there. What kind of engine is that?
But the fun is that it does not suck gas like a Hummer, the cruise is good and for my familly and myself, payload is just right. The plane is actualy easier to fly then my Deuce. Except for the visibility. Can't beat open cockpit.
I think it is the perfect combinaison. As for the prop, it will have the wooden sensenich one from the 150 h.p. which will be just right. Have a climb prop for now and cruise 130 m.p.h. but it red line too easy. I just love the darn thing. So whatever engine you get, If you get it for a good price, there is all king of powerplant you can put in there.
Jonathan Baron
New member
As you can see, Peter, you're not going to get anything but love for these airplanes.
Although I own an original Cruisemaster (the 14-19 was the last aircraft made by G.M. Bellanca and his secret army of Sicilian craftsmen) and have nothing but love for its Lycoming O-435 engine (you can get a bit more than 190hp with high compression pistons), Lycoming has nothing but amnesia for this overbuilt hunk of heavy machinery (it's an orphan). After having it majored last year and playing find-that-part, I cannot recommend this travail to others.
Mine is more a personal decision than a practical one. Heck, no aircraft owner can truly say their decision was practical, although they'll try....with their non-pilot friends, family, and just about every stranger to the world of three dimensions.
In short:
Cruisair - the most nimble of the line and if you're fortunate enough to find one with an Aeromatic prop, it's also the smoothest and quietest of the lot. The only aircraft engine I've ever heard that is smoother than a Franklin (one sweeeeeet engine) is the OX5 - the Rube Goldberg sewing machine, as I like to think of it. The downsides are simply typical of the era: small cabin, hand crank gear actuation (37 turns to raise or lower) and a lot of neglected junk on the market. This is true for all old airplanes and certainly applies to the models below.
14-19 Cruisemaster - larger, faster, can carry more, aileron actuation via rods rather the pullys, hydraulic gear and flap actuation (I like the manual flaps of the Cruisair better), more horsepower and a controllable pitch prop. Downsides: orphaned engine that also tends to cook its cylinder heads, venturi powered instruments (a plus for some but not ideal if you're taking off with the notion of filing IFR to penetrate a low cloud or fog layer) intense cabin noise, a prop that you have to adjust (controllable but not constant speed), plus an expensive AD on that prop. Anything on the market now will likely have had the AD done, plus the replacement prop clamps are truly heavy duty.
14-19-2 Cruisemaster - same airframe as the original, but with more modern systems: more powerful engine that remains in production, engine driven vacuum system, constant speed prop, 200lb gross weight increase, and a more reliable (and still available) power pack and fuel pump. In cruise the two types are pretty much the same, but the -2 climbs like the Dickens. Downsides - no objective ones.
As for your question about a George, both Cruisemasters have STCs for the several early ones, but the only one still being manufactured is the Brittain system. Mine has only the wing leveler, but you can add components for tracking headings. This single axis system does not offer alt hold. It works great but it adds FIFTY pounds in servos and such.
Finally, there were only two hundred Cruisemasters made, split pretty much evenly between the 1950-51 model and the 1957-58 ones. OTOH, 650 or so Cruisairs were built and are, thus, more available.
Jonathan
Although I own an original Cruisemaster (the 14-19 was the last aircraft made by G.M. Bellanca and his secret army of Sicilian craftsmen) and have nothing but love for its Lycoming O-435 engine (you can get a bit more than 190hp with high compression pistons), Lycoming has nothing but amnesia for this overbuilt hunk of heavy machinery (it's an orphan). After having it majored last year and playing find-that-part, I cannot recommend this travail to others.
Mine is more a personal decision than a practical one. Heck, no aircraft owner can truly say their decision was practical, although they'll try....with their non-pilot friends, family, and just about every stranger to the world of three dimensions.
In short:
Cruisair - the most nimble of the line and if you're fortunate enough to find one with an Aeromatic prop, it's also the smoothest and quietest of the lot. The only aircraft engine I've ever heard that is smoother than a Franklin (one sweeeeeet engine) is the OX5 - the Rube Goldberg sewing machine, as I like to think of it. The downsides are simply typical of the era: small cabin, hand crank gear actuation (37 turns to raise or lower) and a lot of neglected junk on the market. This is true for all old airplanes and certainly applies to the models below.
14-19 Cruisemaster - larger, faster, can carry more, aileron actuation via rods rather the pullys, hydraulic gear and flap actuation (I like the manual flaps of the Cruisair better), more horsepower and a controllable pitch prop. Downsides: orphaned engine that also tends to cook its cylinder heads, venturi powered instruments (a plus for some but not ideal if you're taking off with the notion of filing IFR to penetrate a low cloud or fog layer) intense cabin noise, a prop that you have to adjust (controllable but not constant speed), plus an expensive AD on that prop. Anything on the market now will likely have had the AD done, plus the replacement prop clamps are truly heavy duty.
14-19-2 Cruisemaster - same airframe as the original, but with more modern systems: more powerful engine that remains in production, engine driven vacuum system, constant speed prop, 200lb gross weight increase, and a more reliable (and still available) power pack and fuel pump. In cruise the two types are pretty much the same, but the -2 climbs like the Dickens. Downsides - no objective ones.
As for your question about a George, both Cruisemasters have STCs for the several early ones, but the only one still being manufactured is the Brittain system. Mine has only the wing leveler, but you can add components for tracking headings. This single axis system does not offer alt hold. It works great but it adds FIFTY pounds in servos and such.
Finally, there were only two hundred Cruisemasters made, split pretty much evenly between the 1950-51 model and the 1957-58 ones. OTOH, 650 or so Cruisairs were built and are, thus, more available.
Jonathan