Newbie stupid questions about restoring a vintage tail dragger

I have been learning about my building/restoring options over in the homebuilder forum. I have arrived at the conclusion that I an a restorer that likes to fly rather than a flyer that likes to restore. I am 63 years old and have run out of interesting cars and motorcycles to restore. Why not a cool old airplane? I am anal about my restorations and all my projects are more reliable than new. I am retired, have time, and a modest portfolio. If I could sit on Santa's lap... what would I want for Christmas? Given my wish list below... what models should I look at?

1. It has to be a significant aircraft, worthy of being returned to the air. Piper, Aeronca, Champion, Bellanca, Stinson, Taylor, Luscombe, etc. - Upper-wing tail-draggers seem like a lot of fun, significant aircraft milestones, and affordable.

2. I want to do much of the non-technical work myself with the over-sight of a certified FAA mechanic. That being said, I don't want to spend the next three years building a kit from scratch.

3. My shop is at my lake house. I need to be able to trailer the finished plane to the air field.

4. Airplane specific user forums, plans, and documentation will be important.

5. I want to fly low and slow, but want good STOL and climb performance. (Local IFR flying with a few cross country trips.) Mild aerobatic capability would be nice.

6. I need cockpit room and carrying capacity to carry myself and an instructor or occasional passenger. Open to tandem seating. What's the catch? I am 300lbs, 6' tall, with wide shoulders (4x shirt).

7. The plane needs to be easy to fly. I flew with my father when young and have had lessons, but will be completing my pilot's license while working on the plane. I'm a newbie. A forgiving plane is on my wish list.

8. The plane needs to be a reasonable financial investment. (stop laughing) All the flying members of my family spend stupid money on very nice production planes built by somebody else. They fly all over the country. This is not me. I usually come close to break even on my vintage sports cars and motorcycles. Even my boat is a 16 year old COBALT that will never be worth less than I paid for it. I would like to restore a vintage plane for $25-30k that is worth at least what I put in it.

My apologies if any of this sounds like pie-in-the-sky. It's always been this way. I get an itch to restore something and then start learning everything there is to know about it. It's a process.

Any suggestions for specific aircraft and models I should check out?

Thanks
Brock

Old Citabrias might fit.

cabin width on a Citabria is 30", useful load is about 600#, full 39 gallon tanks = 234#, your 300# means no passengers.....or an instructor. Perhaps a Cessna 172 or similar 4 seat craft would work out better? Not as 'significant' an airplane perhaps, but at least it can easily carry you, an instructor and some luggage with full tanks.

As a solo pilot, an Aeronca Champ would work. None of the side by side legacy aircraft are likely to be wide enough for you and a full sized passenger.

A light Citabria might be the ticket. With you at 300 lbs, any of the two seaters are going to be gross weight challenged.

The aircraft market is not the same as cars, motorcycles, or boats. While it is possible to make money on a sale, don't count on it. Restorations cost money and it's difficult to recoup anything beyond market value. IOW the cost of restoration can easily exceed what the market will bear.

As others have stated, frankly, your mission parameters have some mutually exclusive elements based upon the aircraft listed.

Go get your medical and complete your training--IMO it's better to get this out of the way up front rather than trying to do it concurrently, although it really helps you are retired. Getting back to flying will really help you fine tune your mission requirements which will in turn help you narrow down your aircraft search.

Getting an A/P to come to your house to oversee your project may or may not be problematic-- just depends on who you know and how remote your house is.

In many ways restoration can be way more challenging and time consuming than building from scratch--just saying. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss building a kit or from plans as it can expand the airframes that could meet your stated mission requirements.

This would be my choice

https://barnstormers.com/classified_...complete+.html

I am glad that no one took a video of me trying to get my 250# carcass into a high wing two seater at AirVenture 2016. lol

A Vintage Cessna 175 with a geared engine and 90" prop will lift off in about 300 feet solo.
About the cheapest to buy also. Parts and maintenance are a bit more than a Vintage C-172. More fuel also.
The C-170 has a tailwheel but will cost double and won't match a C-175 for climb and takeoff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auburntsts

The aircraft market is not the same as cars, motorcycles, or boats. While it is possible to make money on a sale, don't count on it. Restorations cost money and it's difficult to recoup anything beyond market value. IOW the cost of restoration can easily exceed what the market will bear.

As others have stated, frankly, your mission parameters have some mutually exclusive elements based upon the aircraft listed.

Go get your medical and complete your training--IMO it's better to get this out of the way up front rather than trying to do it concurrently, although it really helps you are retired. Getting back to flying will really help you fine tune your mission requirements which will in turn help you narrow down your aircraft search.

Getting an A/P to come to your house to oversee your project may or may not be problematic-- just depends on who you know and how remote your house is.

In many ways restoration can be way more challenging and time consuming than building from scratch--just saying. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss building a kit or from plans as it can expand the airframes that could meet your stated mission requirements.

---

Well presented. You make several valid points. Do I expect to make money on a restoration? No. I tend to over-restore my projects and seldom break even. Do I want to have a finished project that holds it's value with the possibility of appreciation? Yes.

Secondly, I started out looking at kits hoping to find an unfinished project I could finish. Seemed like a Kitfox IV with a 100hp Rotax and the wide cockpit might be an affordable option. I will keep my options open regarding vintage and kits until I can get some flight time and enjoy many more conversations. I am also not locked into a tail-dragger.

I also need to decide if I will ever have a passenger in this plane. My lovely wife has never been on the back of one of my motorcycle and a plane won't be much different. Thinking about it, I hate hauling passengers on my bikes because it ruins the performance of the motorcycle. Again, extra weight in a plane is even worse.

I guess it is time to get back in shape. Every pound I lose will show up in performance for a light plane. Thanks for the candid advice. Please keep the suggestions coming.

Brock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joen6171b

This would be my choice

https://barnstormers.com/classified_...complete+.html

---

Good suggestion. I assumed that Piper Cubs and derivatives would be out of my budget. A PA-12 with the right engine would fit my requirements nicely. Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Berson

A Vintage Cessna 175 with a geared engine and 90" prop will lift off in about 300 feet solo.
About the cheapest to buy also. Parts and maintenance are a bit more than a Vintage C-172. More fuel also.
The C-170 has a tailwheel but will cost double and won't match a C-175 for climb and takeoff.

---

Did not realize older Cessna's were so inexpensive. I'll add the 175 to my research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbutler455

Did not realize older Cessna's were so inexpensive. I'll add the 175 to my research.

---

If you buy one, buy the best example you can find because once you start investing in restoration or upgrades, you'll never see a return of more than 40 cents on the dollar .

I always bought the cheapest I could find for restoration. An out of annual airplane usually sells for about half.
With slight damage maybe about 1/4 of the flyable average Trade-A-Plane prices. The idea is to have fun in the restoration and in a year or two of flying it then get bored and sell it and look for another project. Should get back all the cash spent but nothing for labor.
I like complete aircraft. Hate scrounging for parts.

Maybe it won't be as "historically significant", but consider that a used experimental will always be more bang for the buck than any standard certificated aircraft. No A&P needed except for the condition inspection, no requirement for original/TSO/STC'd parts, change anything you want, etc...

IIRC the C-175 has the geared engine which has its own set of issues...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Berson

I always bought the cheapest I could find for restoration. An out of annual airplane usually sells for about half.
With slight damage maybe about 1/4 of the flyable average Trade-A-Plane prices. The idea is to have fun in the restoration and in a year or two of flying it then get bored and sell it and look for another project. Should get back all the cash spent but nothing for labor.
I like complete aircraft. Hate scrounging for parts.

---

Bill, that's sound like my experience with sports cars and motorcycles. Started when I was a kid buying clapped out Austin Healeys and XKEs. Couldn't afford the nice ones but I made them reliable and enjoyed them. I have time which most people don't.

Dana,
I am leaning towards ELSA. I just want to play around with a cool used plane with the minimum of hassle. Solo is how I ride motorcycles, why not planes?

I’d say there are a few “historically significant” expiremental airplanes out there. The Stits Playboy comes to mind with its ties to the Vans RV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dana

Maybe it won't be as "historically significant", but consider that a used experimental will always be more bang for the buck than any standard certificated aircraft. No A&P needed except for the condition inspection, no requirement for original/TSO/STC'd parts, change anything you want, etc...

IIRC the C-175 has the geared engine which has its own set of issues...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbutler455

Dana,
I am leaning towards ELSA. I just want to play around with a cool used plane with the minimum of hassle. Solo is how I ride motorcycles, why not planes?

---

I have a few friends who fly two seat airplanes on the SP ticket. I asked them how often do they fly with someone in the other seat. They all told me maybe 1% of the time. If you look over into that seat it is usually empty. The people I know who got the SP certificate did this to be legal to fly their ultralight style airplane. It may be two seat but it is basically an ultralight. This is what the SP ticket was aimed at anyway IMHO. Those whom just wanted to fly to be flying. But we have those whom believe this ticket is a means to transverse this nation in an airplane. I myself do not see it as such. That should be left to a PP. IMHO. SP is for the sport of flying. How I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

I have a few friends who fly two seat airplanes on the SP ticket. I asked them how often do they fly with someone in the other seat. They all told me maybe 1% of the time. If you look over into that seat it is usually empty. The people I know who got the SP certificate did this to be legal to fly their ultralight style airplane. It may be two seat but it is basically an ultralight. This is what the SP ticket was aimed at anyway IMHO. Those whom just wanted to fly to be flying. But we have those whom believe this ticket is a means to transverse this nation in an airplane. I myself do not see it as such. That should be left to a PP. IMHO. SP is for the sport of flying. How I see it.

---

That is a very narrow view of the Sport Pilot privileges and one that is not grounded in FARs or reality. Tell the many RV-12 (and similar aircraft) pilots who fly their planes all over the country that they are only supposed to be flying around their local airport (the FAA certainly won't tell them that...). Traversing this nation with a Sport Pilot license is a fantastic way to use the certificate and enables many who could no longer gain a Class Three certificate to continue using an aircraft for transportation (often with a a passenger) to far-flung destinations.

An RV-12 is faster than a Cessna 172 and with its glass panel is better equipped than most and is completely Light Sport compliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

I have a few friends who fly two seat airplanes on the SP ticket. I asked them how often do they fly with someone in the other seat. They all told me maybe 1% of the time. If you look over into that seat it is usually empty. The people I know who got the SP certificate did this to be legal to fly their ultralight style airplane. It may be two seat but it is basically an ultralight. This is what the SP ticket was aimed at anyway IMHO. Those whom just wanted to fly to be flying. But we have those whom believe this ticket is a means to transverse this nation in an airplane. I myself do not see it as such. That should be left to a PP. IMHO. SP is for the sport of flying. How I see it.

---

In my humble opinion, your humble opinion is simply wrong. I have the right seat occupied for well over half my flights. Family members, Young Eagles and friends. My wife and I use it to go places. My new co-owner plans to do the same once he passes his checkride and has his Sport Pilot certificate. Neither of us would try to tell others how they should use their airplanes.

Actually both views are correct.
The original intent of SportPilot was to provide rules for the two seat ultralight category. (Not intended for transcontinental travel)
The final rule was so broad that it allowed a wide range of GA type airplanes. (180hp Cubs, etc.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Berson

Actually both views are correct.
The original intent of SportPilot was to provide rules for the two seat ultralight category. (Not intended for transcontinental travel)
The final rule was so broad that it allowed a wide range of GA type airplanes. (180hp Cubs, etc.)

---

Not to argue the point but while closely following the Sport Pilot/Light Sport discussion in very early stages I recall the main push was to allow a path into aviation for new pilots that was less involved than the Private certificate which would also allow pilots with some medical difficulties to continue to fly light aircraft. The selling point was how there was going to be a multitude of $30K aircraft for all the budding pilots to purchase. We know how that turned out....

The two-place "ultralight" exemption was just a way for the FAA to phase out an irritating corner of aviation they really didn't want to mess with.

But the original reasons, whatever they were, are meaningless now. Sport Pilot's biggest challenge now is BasicMed.

Yes, the original intent was for a $30k "Consensus Approved Light Sport Aircraft" to replace the previously affordable $17k two seat "exemption" aircraft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Berson

Yes, the original intent was for a $30k "Consensus Approved Light Sport Aircraft" to replace the previously affordable $17k two seat "exemption" aircraft.

---

The good thing is there are still a lot of $17k legacy LSA qualified airplanes.