Hi guys, I'm a new member and a fairly new pilot, about 120 hr. I'm looking for a taildragger to finish my tailwheel endorcement and build time in, with the notion of learning to fly a spray plane. The Cruisair looks like a good candidate and I am talking to a fellow about his '46, N74260. I see that this plane had been discussed a bit on the forum when it was listed on e-bay, and that is when I first made contact with the owner. He recently called me up and is quite interested in selling it. It seems to me that he has spent a lot of time and money on it and now was tired of the proccess and wants out. Lots of recent work ,10 hr. on rebuilt 165, alt conversion , clevelands,rebuilt starter and carb, cover and paint in about '96(not the best job on the paint). He is willing to bring it to Webers for a prebuy-annual and I'm wondering if I should have him do so. I don't want to waste his time and money if it turns out the plane can't pass without many thousnds of dollars being spent. Just before the owner called with his offer I had been dealing on a '46 140 Cessna wich is in annual and flying. The offer I made on the 140 is now acceptable to the owner of that plane and about the same price as the Cruisair. I'm looking for a little advice as being quite new to aviation I am not very familiar with these aircraft, though I'm trying to study as much as I can. Is a Cruiseair as practical as the Cessna in the long run? I enjoy cross country trips, and the cruise speed and lack of cabin space has me a bit turned off on the Cessna, the Cruisair sure looks cool and has impressive numbers but it looks like they can really turn into money eaters. Thanks Richard
New Guy
- Thread starter guzziduck
- Start date
cruiseair74372
New member
Don't look at an airplane as an investment. Look at it like a boat. You will put money into it weather it needs it or not. I have flown both and I would take the Cruiseair over the 140 anytime. Some say they cruise around 160 mph I have flown beside 2 and there airspeed inducators were off. I have a Lyc 180 in mine and flight plane 150 mph from stop to stop. I leave full power in on climb and full power till I hit in the yellow on decent. I would not take anything for my 14-13-2. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Jonathan Baron
New member
What a strange month this has been in this forum. First we have a fellow comparing Cruisemasters to Mooneys, and now we have a Cruisair compared to a Cessna 140. Lord, saints, and The Daily Show preserve us!
Let's see...I own a Luscombe and a Cruisemaster. The Luscombe is much like the Cessna 140 except it doesn't suck and is not a docile copy of an altogether better airplane. A Cruisair is not a knock-off of anything. It's a refined expression of a singular genius with delightful, light controls (unlike the 140), an astonishing roll rate (unlike the 140), speed (yeah, try to get that in a 140), flaps that actually do something, retractable landing gear (the 140's gear will retract if you land hard enough), and simple systems. The gear and flaps are manually actuated. There is also the vanity factor. People don't see a Triple Tail very often, and they have extraordinary lines and good looks...the airplane I mean. Most people who hang around airports tend to look quite ordinary. The 140...well...it's a 140 and about the best thing you can say about it is that it's a nice copy of a Luscombe (or a "Cesscombe" as the folks at the factory called it when it was first built).
I'm kidding of course...well...not about the Cruisair being a fine airplane if it's in good condition. The 140 a pretty good and very dependable airplane that seldom delivers any shocking maintenance surprises. A light taildragger, like the 140, will teach you a LOT about flying. This is all beside the point, Richard. If you've made the man an offer on his 140 then that, as they say, is that. After all, you don't want to start out in aviation and aircraft ownership by being a douche-bag.
Jonathan
Let's see...I own a Luscombe and a Cruisemaster. The Luscombe is much like the Cessna 140 except it doesn't suck and is not a docile copy of an altogether better airplane. A Cruisair is not a knock-off of anything. It's a refined expression of a singular genius with delightful, light controls (unlike the 140), an astonishing roll rate (unlike the 140), speed (yeah, try to get that in a 140), flaps that actually do something, retractable landing gear (the 140's gear will retract if you land hard enough), and simple systems. The gear and flaps are manually actuated. There is also the vanity factor. People don't see a Triple Tail very often, and they have extraordinary lines and good looks...the airplane I mean. Most people who hang around airports tend to look quite ordinary. The 140...well...it's a 140 and about the best thing you can say about it is that it's a nice copy of a Luscombe (or a "Cesscombe" as the folks at the factory called it when it was first built).
I'm kidding of course...well...not about the Cruisair being a fine airplane if it's in good condition. The 140 a pretty good and very dependable airplane that seldom delivers any shocking maintenance surprises. A light taildragger, like the 140, will teach you a LOT about flying. This is all beside the point, Richard. If you've made the man an offer on his 140 then that, as they say, is that. After all, you don't want to start out in aviation and aircraft ownership by being a douche-bag.
Jonathan
Jeez,didn't think I'd get called a douche bag right off the bat. The offer on the the 140 was initially declined and I thought that was the end of it. About a month later the broker called me and said that the owner of the plane would take the offer. That was after the fellow with the Cuisair had called and I had begun dicussions with him. As far as discussing dissimilar planes, since I,ve never flown either one of these aircraft I thought I'd ask questions of those with more experience. Richard
Jonathan Baron
New member
Sorry, Richard, but if you read your post it has every appearance that you'd made an offer and the owner accepted it. I had no idea a broker was in between and that things were tentative. Plus I stuck a smiley after douche-bag...though clearly that did nothing to soften the remark. Plus I didn't mean it to sound like I was calling you a douche-bag. Rather I consider people who make verbal deals and pull out of them as that. You've not purchased an airplane yet, much less reneged on anything.
Please accept my apology. I'd hate for this place to resemble the Super Cub forum <wince> That's one tough crowd.
Getting serious instead of flippant. I was never a duster but I have a close friend who was one for many years and tells me about it in great detail. It's difficult to view a well mannered traveling airplane like a Triple Tail as duster trainer. They're fun to fly, very capable, and probably the easiest landing of all taildraggrers. Everything I've heard about dusters involves edge maneuvers, and working off of short, temporary dirt or less than ideal grass strips. Few things in aviation are more beautiful than watching a skilled duster at work, but so much goes into it. Pulling up at the end of each pass, and dropping the plane over on the edge of a stall to keep the distances between passes tight, maintaining constant speeds on every pass because the nozzles and rate of spray are set for ideal dispersal at a given speed...all of it involves skill beyond my reach and barely within my comprehension.
I don't know how people train for that. These are no longer modified Stearmans. They're special built, single seat affairs, many with turboprop power plants. Best I can reckon, a good light taildragger would be useful for the stick and rudder skills. Falling out of a pull up, stall flirting maneuver, often means unintended spins and hammerheads - things you'd practice at altitude of course because you will not survive them so close to the ground as you'd need to fly. The Crusair is not certified for spins. Thus the 140 would seem a better choice, but I'd ask a lot of questions from a lot of dusters before I'd choose any airplane.
Keep in mind that building time, in and of itself, has limited value in preparing for a specific, high skill flying goal. Plenty of low total time people have become capable aerobatic pilots for example, but they trained in aerobatic airplanes. It's not the total time, it's the type of time. Maybe you should be looking a a Citabria, or some other sort of airplane. I don't know. As I said, ask these guys what they flew before they took that job on. The Cessna 140 was indeed based on the Luscombe but it was designed to be a more docile version of a similar airplane that was pure stick and rudder rather than a more sedate aircraft with a yoke and an automotive interior aimed at a larger market. Dusters have sticks, not yokes. Even a Champ may be more suited.
In short, I'm not sure either aircraft would be the best choice to help you achieve your goals, Richard. Take your time.
Jonathan
Please accept my apology. I'd hate for this place to resemble the Super Cub forum <wince> That's one tough crowd.
Getting serious instead of flippant. I was never a duster but I have a close friend who was one for many years and tells me about it in great detail. It's difficult to view a well mannered traveling airplane like a Triple Tail as duster trainer. They're fun to fly, very capable, and probably the easiest landing of all taildraggrers. Everything I've heard about dusters involves edge maneuvers, and working off of short, temporary dirt or less than ideal grass strips. Few things in aviation are more beautiful than watching a skilled duster at work, but so much goes into it. Pulling up at the end of each pass, and dropping the plane over on the edge of a stall to keep the distances between passes tight, maintaining constant speeds on every pass because the nozzles and rate of spray are set for ideal dispersal at a given speed...all of it involves skill beyond my reach and barely within my comprehension.
I don't know how people train for that. These are no longer modified Stearmans. They're special built, single seat affairs, many with turboprop power plants. Best I can reckon, a good light taildragger would be useful for the stick and rudder skills. Falling out of a pull up, stall flirting maneuver, often means unintended spins and hammerheads - things you'd practice at altitude of course because you will not survive them so close to the ground as you'd need to fly. The Crusair is not certified for spins. Thus the 140 would seem a better choice, but I'd ask a lot of questions from a lot of dusters before I'd choose any airplane.
Keep in mind that building time, in and of itself, has limited value in preparing for a specific, high skill flying goal. Plenty of low total time people have become capable aerobatic pilots for example, but they trained in aerobatic airplanes. It's not the total time, it's the type of time. Maybe you should be looking a a Citabria, or some other sort of airplane. I don't know. As I said, ask these guys what they flew before they took that job on. The Cessna 140 was indeed based on the Luscombe but it was designed to be a more docile version of a similar airplane that was pure stick and rudder rather than a more sedate aircraft with a yoke and an automotive interior aimed at a larger market. Dusters have sticks, not yokes. Even a Champ may be more suited.
In short, I'm not sure either aircraft would be the best choice to help you achieve your goals, Richard. Take your time.
Jonathan
Good morning, I'm not sure either plane is a good trainer for aerial application either, in fact I not sure I've got the guts to do it at all, I think I do but reality may be harsher than I expect. One of the main reasons I'm looking for a time building taildragger is for insurance purposes, they won't even consider you without 100-250 hr. of taildragger time , depends on company. Have been trying to attend a spray school in Aberdeen SD' but as I farm here in MN and he sprays, our schedules don't match too good, the winter is good for me but its hard to spray when its below zero.Been pestering all the old sprayers in the area, not many, they all say fly as often as possible and close to the ground. I like the idea of the Bellanca because if the spray thing doesn't work out I'd at least have a very cool plane that in my opinion would be more useful for cross country flights than the little cessna. The deal on the Cruisair looks almost too good on paper and I'm a bit concerned why the owner would expend so much time and effort and then fly the plane so little. I want to be sure that if he bring it up for an inspection and its OK it's the plane I buy. If he goes to the trouble of bringing the plane to me and I tell him that although the aircraft is as he decribes, I don't think its the plane for me that WOULD make me a douche bag, a big one. Well I,m late for chores, wish I could type faster. Richard
Dan Cullman
New member
I would say the best trainer for your situation would be a Cub or Champ. You could consider their later siblings the Supercub and Citabria. Both have the throttle in the left hand and stick on the right. No one will touch you for employment unless you have many hundreds or thousands of hours conventional gear time. I started my commercial aviation career as a swamper and flagger for both fixed and rotary wing crop dusting. I spent a lot of time working on an odd schedule in the heat and dust handling chemicals that had their origin with wartime nerve gas. My Dad had cropdusting business in California for years - eight airplanes and four helicopters. The romance may still be there for you, but I'll tell you that it's a tough job. Dad was happy to sell out when he did. As marginal as farming can be, I'd stick with that and fly for fun. By the way, I've had a Cessna 120 since '66 and my first Bellanca in '70.
mhackens
New member
Dan has given you very good advice. I think I may be able to add to it from, been there did that, as well. First of all drop the crop duster title, there aren’t any successful “CROPDUSTERS” anymore. The aerial application business is now a highly regarded profession. The old romance of flying a Stearman all-day and drinking all night is long gone. Then drop the aerial from that and you have what you will wind up with if you want to be successful. An APPLICATOR, some years you will end up in a ground rig more than in the air. (One of the major reason I moved on to a flying job.)
I won’t go on and bore this fine group, with the stories of success and failure, I had an application business in western SD for 15 years when I moved on to greener pastures??? My brother kept part of the customers and ran a very successful business along with his farm/ranch business. If you would like to come over by Rapid City we can give you some pointers and dual in one of his C140’s, maybe sell you one if you are interested. On the way to that champ or cub Dan was talking about. We also have a J3 and Super Cub available. (Not for sale)
I will finish with a story as a I seem to always do;
When in the business you always have young pilots asking, "can you really make money as a crop duster”? I usually told them about going to NE with a wore out Ag truck. Flying 11 days for another operator and grossing $18,400, back when a dollar was a dollar. (I will tell YOU also of the years of hanging on by my fingernails, and a few pointers hopefully to avoid them.)
My specialized training is only a starter to tell you and me if you want to continue. I take it very seriously, as I would expect you to.
If you are interested give me a call at 605 754-6210.
My log book says I have over 20,000 hrs. in taildraggers, but the only relevance hours have is the experience gleaned and the size of your rear.
My instruction is not cheap---------but the bulls—t stories are free!!!!!!
I won’t go on and bore this fine group, with the stories of success and failure, I had an application business in western SD for 15 years when I moved on to greener pastures??? My brother kept part of the customers and ran a very successful business along with his farm/ranch business. If you would like to come over by Rapid City we can give you some pointers and dual in one of his C140’s, maybe sell you one if you are interested. On the way to that champ or cub Dan was talking about. We also have a J3 and Super Cub available. (Not for sale)
I will finish with a story as a I seem to always do;
When in the business you always have young pilots asking, "can you really make money as a crop duster”? I usually told them about going to NE with a wore out Ag truck. Flying 11 days for another operator and grossing $18,400, back when a dollar was a dollar. (I will tell YOU also of the years of hanging on by my fingernails, and a few pointers hopefully to avoid them.)
My specialized training is only a starter to tell you and me if you want to continue. I take it very seriously, as I would expect you to.
If you are interested give me a call at 605 754-6210.
My log book says I have over 20,000 hrs. in taildraggers, but the only relevance hours have is the experience gleaned and the size of your rear.
My instruction is not cheap---------but the bulls—t stories are free!!!!!!
Jonathan Baron
New member
Good to see your face! Adds a lot.
I hope you forgive my wisecracks about the Cessna 140
Jonathan
I hope you forgive my wisecracks about the Cessna 140
Jonathan
Good morning, The application I would do by air would be for myself. The way row crop farming has gotten these days we plant in the spring and pretty much do nothing to the crop except spray it numerous times till harvest. I don't know if it's good or bad but that is certainly how it's gotten. I've been spraying with pull type sprayers for almost 40yrs. now so exposure to these chemicals is nothing new to me, everyone seems much more cautious about being exposed now,I certainly am, and truthfully the products we use are much safer than the old 2-4-Ds and such that I used to get covered with spraying from an open tractor. But I'm sure you're well aware of the the changes in chemistry. With the increased reliance on post-emergence pesticide applications and my love of flying its seem worth at least considering the idea of getting good enough to spray by air. Even the best ground rigs of course are useless in an extended wet spell and these applications can be quite timing critical, when one farmer needs the plane everyone needs him so hiring an aerial applicator can be dificult . Have certainly considered Citabrias and Super Cubs and such', infact my first idea was to get such a plane and have a belly tank installed for spray season and then remove it and have a G A plane in the off season, as Sorenson srayers is right down the road and they still have some systems for sale. After talking with some spray pilots it seems that it would be more sensible to use an airplane that was designed for the task if one is to spray by air. The whole spray thing might not happen at all, but I still have the itch to buy a plane, infact supposed to look at a Cruisair this morning so I'd better get going,besides my fingures are cramping up,don't spend much time typing. Thanks for the advise guys, this is the discusion I was hoping for. Richard
For reasons not understood by anyone on this forum, your money will get you a lot more plane when you buy triple tails than c-140's. The 140 is a solid great unexciting plane and everyone who wants a simple taildragger wants one and so the prices are pretty high. Good triple tails are relatively cheap. There just isn't the market for them despite their being absolutely great planes. Having flown both, I find the Bellanca ten times easier to land and a heck of a lot more fun to fly. The Bellanca is faster, bigger and probably just a little more to maintain if you get one that's in good shape. If you get one that just needs a new recover, or some minor problem-run!
Just got back from looking at a very nice gentlemans 14-13-2, the plane is not the one that I have been dealing on but was fairly local. I share your opinion that it is a heck of lot more plane than a 140. Thought I should at least sit in one before I asked the party I'd been talking to to ferry the plane here for an inspection. Had a little trouble getting my gangly legs under the dash but head space seemed adaquate. The owner of this particular plane had added a strip about 2 inches deep below the dash and put circuit breakers in it, hopefully I can get my legs under a stock dash. Any other long legged pilots out there can advise me about any seat mods etc. for more leg room? Thanks
Dan Cullman
New member
Forget about using a Sorenson part time and flying your wife or.........the other time. Your airplane will reek of chemicals. Years ago, my Dad bought a Champion 7GCB, equipped with a Sorenson system from Mid-Continent in Hayti, MO. We never used it as a sprayer, but it forever smelled of 2-4D.
Alain1
New member
Hi
About the original instrument panel for tall guy. I am 6'3'' and 240. The panel is not an issue at all. The only mod I made is extending the backrest piece/brackets that attach to the base so the back rest goes about another 2 inch aft. It created a small opening between the seat bottom and the lower backrest but it's no issue. Now I fit fairly comfortably to be able to dance properly on the pedal. Be careful not to position your foot on the entire pedal because you will have pressure on the toe brake because the angle of the leg/pedal, I lower my foot on the ''rudder bar'' to make sure I don't touch the brake when rolling for take off. Sometime I sit on the right when I clean the cockpit or pots around to fix something., I can see a big difference with the mod I made.
The panel is fairly high and I fit very easy under. my head touch the ceiling a bit but I did not installed the sling under the seat yet, it's a plywood with the cushion and that sits me a bit higher than what is suppose to be. about 1.5 in. too high. With the sling I will be OK.
Hope it works fine for you.
Alain. :wink:
About the original instrument panel for tall guy. I am 6'3'' and 240. The panel is not an issue at all. The only mod I made is extending the backrest piece/brackets that attach to the base so the back rest goes about another 2 inch aft. It created a small opening between the seat bottom and the lower backrest but it's no issue. Now I fit fairly comfortably to be able to dance properly on the pedal. Be careful not to position your foot on the entire pedal because you will have pressure on the toe brake because the angle of the leg/pedal, I lower my foot on the ''rudder bar'' to make sure I don't touch the brake when rolling for take off. Sometime I sit on the right when I clean the cockpit or pots around to fix something., I can see a big difference with the mod I made.
The panel is fairly high and I fit very easy under. my head touch the ceiling a bit but I did not installed the sling under the seat yet, it's a plywood with the cushion and that sits me a bit higher than what is suppose to be. about 1.5 in. too high. With the sling I will be OK.
Hope it works fine for you.
Alain. :wink:
lots said on this subject. bottom line I owned a 140 for several years and it is a great first plane for tailwheel time. it is not and never will be a 14-13 I am a lover of both types. the truth is if money is a factor the 140 will cost you less to own and will have less problems. parts are easy and everyone know how to work on one. if money is not a factor the 14-13 will be a great plane that will give you a lot of great stories later in life.
planebones
New member
Do Not buy any tailwheel aircraft to train in that does not have effective dual brakes. Most Cruisairs do not. Planebones
I was teaching an instructor how to fly/land tailwheels in my 14-13-2 and he landed it from the right seat and at touch down (with no brakes) said "OK, it's yours" In the quick move to get my flat feet into position, I discovered I didn't quite have the feel I would have had if I had landed it myself and imediately the plane took off "cross country". Tried to go right over a taxi light, but the tailwheel poppped up just in time to clear it. I agree-whoever lands it needs brakes.
cruiseair74372
New member
I sit in the right seat and land my 14-13-2 quit often when I am alone. On grass runways, just so when I let someone fly I am comfortable in that seat. If they start to lose it I am pretty quick at taking it over. I never let a low time or no time pilot in the left seat of the cruiseair. I have never meet an instructor that would instruct without full controlls on there side. I do not believe the FARs will allow it anyway. :lol: :lol:
There are lots of instructors who will instruct in aircraft with incomplete controls. I got my instrument ticket in a Bonanza with throwover yoke. (the instructor was killed instructing in a similar aircraft with throwover yoke about 6 months later) For a private pilot ticket, your observation might be true, but there are a lot more exceptions for further training, biannual flight reviews, etc.