Looking for opinions.....

[wyoranch]

I am contemplating getting back into aircraft ownership. I had been originally contemplating building, but at this point in my life it is not the best choice for me. I am looking at a LSA eligible certificated plane. I have been researching Cubs, Champs and the T-Crafts. All things keep leading me back to a T-Craft. Looks, performance (If you can call it that) and price keep pointing to them. I am soliciting personal experience you may have with them compared to Cubs and Champs. I do LOVE the nostalgia that come from planes of that era. I do have a ton of time in 'modern' planes, but almost none in antique/taildraggers.
Thaks
Rick

[Dana]

A T-Craft will outperform any of the other planes in its class. You'll learn to control airspeed on final if you don't want to float halfway down the runway. Read the pilot reports on airbum.com. There is an expensive wing strut AD.

But also consider a used experimental, you can save a ton on maintenance.

[wyoranch]

Dana,
I read Buds pirep on the T-craft and a few others I have stumbled on. Maintenance is the one issue of why I have not returned to the certificates fold. I really wanted to be able to maintain and perform my own condition inspections. Doesn't someone else building the plane prevent me from doing that? That is the rub, I would LOVE to do a T-Craft tribute to the old school aerobatic performers, but with a certificated plane, all of the mods and work would need to be performed by a a&p. So for now I would be content to just get back in the air.
I am open to ideas from all of you on here.
thanks
Rick

[Tom Charpentier]

I really wanted to be able to maintain and perform my own condition inspections. Doesn't someone else building the plane prevent me from doing that?

If you're referring to an experimental that someone else built, then it's maintenance yes, condition inspection no (for that you need an A&P or the builder with a repairman certificate - note the A&P need not be an IA). For standard category, no on both except that FAR 43.3(d) does allow for you to work under the personal supervision of an A&P.

If I was going for one of those '39-'46 trainers, I would probably either go for a T-Craft or a Chief. Seem like great value for money.

Tom

[wyoranch]

Tom,
thank you for the clarification. I do agree that the t-craft seems to be a good value for what you get. That is why I keep coming back to it. The reality of it is... While I would like to do a lot of things, reality is that usually does not happen. I am truly itching to get back into the air, and a very simple plane seems like the logical step.

[ssmdive]

What is your mission?
What is your budget?

If you want to be able to go places, a true Cub may not be the best option. If you just want to poke around, it may be perfect. If you want to go places and have a budget, a Vans RV12 would fit. Do you want to be able to do acro? You going to have a passenger? Side by side? Front and back? How much luggage?
You OK with two strokes?

Lots of info needed

[wyoranch]

Budget < $40,000+/-
Mission. Just getting up in the air. Enjoying the scenery.
i would like to have something than can do easy acro, I always enjoyed that, but it is not a necessity. 90% of the time I will be solo, but an extra seat would be nice, tandem or side by side is fine. Luggage, load carrying is not as significant as the primary purpose is local pleasure flying. I have to plead ignorance about 2 strokes, my opinion is based completely on what little I have read on the internet which seems to me to show them as unreliable. To give a little more background, I had slimmed my choices for building down to two aircraft. Zenith ch-650 and the Vans RV-12. The issue with the the latter is that I think I would be hard pressed to complete the plane for less than twice my budget and I know the zenith would be better but still stretch my funds beyond what I hoped.
Rick

[Floatsflyer]

Don't overlook a Luscombe. Best looking, most aerodynamic of the bunch and imo slightly out performs the T-Craft.

[wyoranch]

Don't overlook a Luscombe. Best looking, most aerodynamic of the bunch and imo slightly out performs the T-Craft.

Much like my ignorance with 2 strokes, I have read that they can be somewhat of a bear on the ground. I am new to becoming a REAL pilot by dragging my tail. That is the point of my original post. I am looking for insight and ideas about a good airplane to get started with. There was absolutely no slight intended to the Luscombe folks. :-) I am not sold on anything in particular.
Rick

[Frank Giger]

All things are relative - a "bear on the ground" will mean nothing to a pilot who gains experience in it, as he will just take the attention needed as rote after awhile.

In the certified world, I just fell in love with the Champ. There's something about its looks, its feel, and over all presentation in flight that just felt right to me from the first time I sat in one.