Not too often we hear about any LSA flying for business.
Lets here some stories. here's mine from this morning.
Flew the PA-11 from Tunkannock to a little farm strip north east about 35 miles this morning. Cold and windy but the cabin heat worked. Odd thing it warms the entire right side of the cabin wall. I felt heat coming out under the throttle. Flew about 600-800 AGL whole trip. climbing with the terrain. Looking more down than up at houses, trees, other strips, turkeys, deer, around Elk Mt. etc. I took a bunch of tools, compression tester and mag timing light. Tossed them in the back in a cardboard box. Flew over checked the biplane wind tee and landed. Strip just wider than the gear, up hill, trees on end and side, strong crosswind, muddy and has a pond on one side. The old 11 slipped in over the trees and plopped down on the mains. I added power and taxied up hill with the nose gear in the air until I found a dry patch to set it down. You can hold the nose off at walking speed. Parked just over the runway crown for a negative angle of attack. (wind deterrent) Chocked it in place and went in the hangar to work on a Cub. Mechanics can make house calls.
Came out later. It had dried up some. Turned her around, hit the starter and taxied down the hill, Slowly around the pond, turned 180 with the tail and wingtip sliding over the brush. Poured on the coals. Dog leg right around the little pond. Just a little back pressure to lift the nose and hold the angle of attack in the sweet spot. Controls come alive quickly. No airspeed is needed. The old fat wing tells all. Flew away in around 250ft with the cross wind. 85 hp. metal prop. No flaps installed. 15 gallons fuel. Indicated airspeed around 90 at 2300 RPM on the way home. What a neat airplane. Magical quality of control harmony, visibility and stability. Almost hands off all the way home. Bumps just seem to be a temporary disruption. Airplane takes care of itself. The oil temp came up. A challenge in any Continental during colder weather. Mind wanders. Always paying attention but... Look at that field. I could put a strip there. Let's see what color should the new hangars be. Every color combination of steel buildings are available for viewing. Settled on white walls with red roofs for visibility. Look at that lake. Big enough for floats maybe. There's the Railroad beds. And the old road, and the new road, and the interstate. Seems they would just use the same route. Here I am looking at this progress in a 1947 airplane. Airplane has the same instruments it came with in 47. Working fine. Wonder how it would be to fly this thing across the country. I'd do it from this altitude. Wonder if Piper had though of a maneuvering speed back then? never saw one listed. Same redline and structure as the J-3 but it cruises much faster. Hey look down there can we get in that field later this winter on skis... hmmm. glad no phone rings in the airplane. I'm glad to be up solo with nobody to instruct or explain things too. My course looks like piece of spaghetti as we wander from one colored steel building to another. basic flying the airplane is not given a thought. Only go over here, go over there and control pressures. I'd rather just hop from one strip to the next all day long but there is a list of things waiting.
Daydreaming when flying alone. Probably should not teach that one to the students but it happens.
Back home the pattern has two Vagabonds and one Cub practicing. Nobody has a radio but who cares. We drop to pattern altitude two miles out and slide in behind the cub. He lands on the grass and is taxing back. I take the pavement. Roll out and turn off without any brakes. Back to the shop to fix a delaminating Grumman tail, more instruction and a few rides.
Fun.
LSA business flight
Moderator: drseti
I'd rather fly any day than drive. I usually make the wife drive because I make her nervous. I park 20 ft from anyone and make wide turns. coast in using brakes at the last min to possibly avoid stopping, Look out all windows at things, pointing out landmarks and constantly fiddle with the radio. bad driver.
The LSA style airplane offers a lot of capability even in it's simplest form. If your creative in using it and the weather cooperates.
Now we need a nice little motorbike to strap on and take along on solo flights. Street legal for a way into town. Something not too sissy looking.
Or an extra 200K for a terrafugia.
I use the airplanes like pickup trucks. Hauling stuff everywhere. Engines, cylinders, parts, doing prebuys or maintenance house calls. Luckily in PA there are a lot of private strips and airports around so you have places to go.
If I bought a little helicopter I'd be arrested in the first week. I'd never drive again. go to the mall. big parking lot... go for pizza field out back.... etc.
The LSA style airplane offers a lot of capability even in it's simplest form. If your creative in using it and the weather cooperates.
Now we need a nice little motorbike to strap on and take along on solo flights. Street legal for a way into town. Something not too sissy looking.
Or an extra 200K for a terrafugia.
I use the airplanes like pickup trucks. Hauling stuff everywhere. Engines, cylinders, parts, doing prebuys or maintenance house calls. Luckily in PA there are a lot of private strips and airports around so you have places to go.
If I bought a little helicopter I'd be arrested in the first week. I'd never drive again. go to the mall. big parking lot... go for pizza field out back.... etc.
depending on engine installed. Here's what I've been getting with these
The J-3 cruises with the A-65 at 76 mph. draggy with uncovered gear legs and safety cables. std McCauley metal prop. 4.2 GPH at 2150 rpm
PA-11 with nose gear, metal prop electric start, lights and 85 hp installed cruises 87-92 depending on RPM. 4.6 GPH at 2300 RPM 5.2 at 2450 rpm. PA-11 numbers are approximate and I'll have to get some exact numbers next flight. It was a little faster with the tailwheel installed but not much.
J-3 numbers are accurate at gross weight. metal or wood prop did not make much difference. metal has a little better climb on hot days.
Both have the same 122 mph redline. the later J-3's and all PA-11 have a gross weight of 1220. The J-3 is lighter at around 700-720 lbs.
PA-11 has 18 gallons fuel, J-3 has 12
I would expect the 65 hp PA-11 to be around 85 mph.
The rate of climb is much better in the PA-11 even with the drag of the nose gear.
The difference between the airframes aerodynamically is the PA-11 has longer chord wing struts (less drag) more streamlined pressure cowl, streamline bungee covers, more sloped windshield. Other than that it's the same airplane externally.
Inside the PA-11 has one wing tank and a small header tank behind the panel. Fuel selector is on the left side along with carb heat, cabin heat and mag switch. I like the J-3 control locations better.
The PA-11 front seat is different and has a lot more leg room. the view from the front seat is much better than the J-3.
For personal use I'd probably pick the PA-11 over the J-3. The only drawback is the 11 is cleaner and floats more on landing.
For a flight school the PA-11 is too clean. If your a little fast it will float. the nose gear added enough drag that this one works well.
The J-3 glides like a battleship and just pull the power and point it where you want to go. I have the 74 inch metal prop to help kill the glide.
With the J-3 we usually use 55 mph for climb, 60 for glide. 1500 rpm on approach till final. (keeps it warm)
Slips are easy and fun. No problem holding them right into the flare.
The controls on both are great and well balanced. the airframes give no trouble and take a real pounding.
A stock airplane flies better than one really modified. avoid the modified wings and tips unless you really need them. VG kits are ok and a good addition.
I would avoid putting the balanced tail on like a super cub. It is not needed and just makes it fly strangely.
The cub clones on the market today are copies of the PA-18 (Super Cub) wing incidence angles and structure. They do NOT fly like an original J-3 or PA-11 even though they are yellow. Instead they are smaller copies of a super cub.
Weight is always the key. The lighter airframes fly better. I have added extra washout to the struts on our J-3. It's hard to explain but it is a little more spin resistant and the stall progression is slower across the wing at the expense of some rate of climb.
The stock piper rigging specs are just fine and you'd probably be happiest with them.
Mods I have installed on the J-3
Scott 3200 tailwheel or bushwheels clone (cheaper)
welded grease fitting on horizontal tail pivot tube
Atlee dodge safety cables (for instruction only)
Metal prop
univair composite gas guage float
sigtronics battery intercom
univair sealed struts
recording tachometer
aircraft spruce highspeed (aerobatic) inspection plates
oil quick drain. (safeair)
EBC portable ELT
Ceconite fabric
Stay with a 1946 or later metal spar airframe.
A light PA-11 with lightweight starter, alternator and battery would be really fun and be fairly conventional to fly. Good visibility, ok cruise, better cabin comfort and no hand propping.
Fly them both and see what you think.
The J-3 cruises with the A-65 at 76 mph. draggy with uncovered gear legs and safety cables. std McCauley metal prop. 4.2 GPH at 2150 rpm
PA-11 with nose gear, metal prop electric start, lights and 85 hp installed cruises 87-92 depending on RPM. 4.6 GPH at 2300 RPM 5.2 at 2450 rpm. PA-11 numbers are approximate and I'll have to get some exact numbers next flight. It was a little faster with the tailwheel installed but not much.
J-3 numbers are accurate at gross weight. metal or wood prop did not make much difference. metal has a little better climb on hot days.
Both have the same 122 mph redline. the later J-3's and all PA-11 have a gross weight of 1220. The J-3 is lighter at around 700-720 lbs.
PA-11 has 18 gallons fuel, J-3 has 12
I would expect the 65 hp PA-11 to be around 85 mph.
The rate of climb is much better in the PA-11 even with the drag of the nose gear.
The difference between the airframes aerodynamically is the PA-11 has longer chord wing struts (less drag) more streamlined pressure cowl, streamline bungee covers, more sloped windshield. Other than that it's the same airplane externally.
Inside the PA-11 has one wing tank and a small header tank behind the panel. Fuel selector is on the left side along with carb heat, cabin heat and mag switch. I like the J-3 control locations better.
The PA-11 front seat is different and has a lot more leg room. the view from the front seat is much better than the J-3.
For personal use I'd probably pick the PA-11 over the J-3. The only drawback is the 11 is cleaner and floats more on landing.
For a flight school the PA-11 is too clean. If your a little fast it will float. the nose gear added enough drag that this one works well.
The J-3 glides like a battleship and just pull the power and point it where you want to go. I have the 74 inch metal prop to help kill the glide.
With the J-3 we usually use 55 mph for climb, 60 for glide. 1500 rpm on approach till final. (keeps it warm)
Slips are easy and fun. No problem holding them right into the flare.
The controls on both are great and well balanced. the airframes give no trouble and take a real pounding.
A stock airplane flies better than one really modified. avoid the modified wings and tips unless you really need them. VG kits are ok and a good addition.
I would avoid putting the balanced tail on like a super cub. It is not needed and just makes it fly strangely.
The cub clones on the market today are copies of the PA-18 (Super Cub) wing incidence angles and structure. They do NOT fly like an original J-3 or PA-11 even though they are yellow. Instead they are smaller copies of a super cub.
Weight is always the key. The lighter airframes fly better. I have added extra washout to the struts on our J-3. It's hard to explain but it is a little more spin resistant and the stall progression is slower across the wing at the expense of some rate of climb.
The stock piper rigging specs are just fine and you'd probably be happiest with them.
Mods I have installed on the J-3
Scott 3200 tailwheel or bushwheels clone (cheaper)
welded grease fitting on horizontal tail pivot tube
Atlee dodge safety cables (for instruction only)
Metal prop
univair composite gas guage float
sigtronics battery intercom
univair sealed struts
recording tachometer
aircraft spruce highspeed (aerobatic) inspection plates
oil quick drain. (safeair)
EBC portable ELT
Ceconite fabric
Stay with a 1946 or later metal spar airframe.
A light PA-11 with lightweight starter, alternator and battery would be really fun and be fairly conventional to fly. Good visibility, ok cruise, better cabin comfort and no hand propping.
Fly them both and see what you think.
That's a fantastic reply, thanks so much! I printed it out.
I actually wrote some letters to PA-11 owners here in my area (sent about 7 out, got 3 responses from people wanting to sell). I am going to do a road trip and check them out very soon. However, during this time, I was doing some training in a J3 Cub, 1946/metal spar. It's a pristine Cub and my instructor let me know it was for sale, but he's asking 38k. For that price range, I began to wonder about the PA11s. When I heard cruise speed was around 90+ (that's what the owners told me), I started to think that they could make practical cross-country airplanes.
Do all PA11s have that gas tank in the nose? One phobia I have with nose tanks is crashing, breaking my legs, and being burned alive.
if you had to decide between a practically brand new J3 (65hp) or a PA11 in decent shape (lets say 85 or 90hp), which would you choose? It seems the 2 PA11s im looking at were recovered in the mid 1990s...so I dont' know how much life is left on the fabric.
I actually wrote some letters to PA-11 owners here in my area (sent about 7 out, got 3 responses from people wanting to sell). I am going to do a road trip and check them out very soon. However, during this time, I was doing some training in a J3 Cub, 1946/metal spar. It's a pristine Cub and my instructor let me know it was for sale, but he's asking 38k. For that price range, I began to wonder about the PA11s. When I heard cruise speed was around 90+ (that's what the owners told me), I started to think that they could make practical cross-country airplanes.
Do all PA11s have that gas tank in the nose? One phobia I have with nose tanks is crashing, breaking my legs, and being burned alive.
if you had to decide between a practically brand new J3 (65hp) or a PA11 in decent shape (lets say 85 or 90hp), which would you choose? It seems the 2 PA11s im looking at were recovered in the mid 1990s...so I dont' know how much life is left on the fabric.
All the PA-11's have a small 1 gallon header in front of the panel. Also Aeroncas, Citabrias, Super cubs, etc. They are in the most protected place and I've never worried about them. In all the survivable crashes I have seen I have not seen one break. Or even that part of the fuselage deform.
I'd be more worried about any airplane having the firewall mounted gascolator fall off it's seat and pour fuel out while. Or an airplane with a both selection feed fuel into an opposite wing tank and run fuel out the wing vent.
another way to look at it is during a crash usually at least one wing falls off. The lines are severed and leak. Nose tank won't do that.
Bad stuff either way. With wing tanks the PA-11 has a welded aluminum tank which is strapped to the wing structure. The wing spar can deform or bend without compromising the tank. Not so with a wet wing.
Also the wing struts can break and the wing bend up and down on the fuselage fittings. The rubber hoses in the wing root will flex and not allow fuel to leak. Unlike airplanes with hard lines connecting the fuselage to wings.
Also the tank is behind the spar so the spar shields it from impact. Leading edge tanks compress spraying fuel everywhere.
Safest are rubber bladders behind the spar but they are heavy.
100 LL does not explode or burn as readily as car fuel.
If I wanted a fun airplane for sunny days I'd pick the J-3. Cheaper to operate and just a classic airplane.
If it was to be my only airplane and used for some travel then I'd pick the PA-11. Both have good resale value. The J-3 has more useful load but the 11 has better performance.
Add up the cost to do the mods I have suggested. Then look and see what each airplane has installed and get a total price.
Send me some photos and specs of what your looking at and I can maybe help. [email protected]
Stits, Ceconite, Airtech, Stewart, Superflight covering systems will all outlast the primer and paint on the tubing. Our Stinson was covered in 1974 with Ceconite and dope and is still fine. Even though the polytone or dope is not as shiny I like how they can be repainted and patched easily.
wood prop is fine if you stay out of the rain.
If done properly a rebuild should last 30 years. Depending on climate or storage. Hangar is really a must in the east for any airplane not just fabric. Sun, wind, rain, pollution takes a toll.
fly both and see what suits you.
I'd be more worried about any airplane having the firewall mounted gascolator fall off it's seat and pour fuel out while. Or an airplane with a both selection feed fuel into an opposite wing tank and run fuel out the wing vent.
another way to look at it is during a crash usually at least one wing falls off. The lines are severed and leak. Nose tank won't do that.
Bad stuff either way. With wing tanks the PA-11 has a welded aluminum tank which is strapped to the wing structure. The wing spar can deform or bend without compromising the tank. Not so with a wet wing.
Also the wing struts can break and the wing bend up and down on the fuselage fittings. The rubber hoses in the wing root will flex and not allow fuel to leak. Unlike airplanes with hard lines connecting the fuselage to wings.
Also the tank is behind the spar so the spar shields it from impact. Leading edge tanks compress spraying fuel everywhere.
Safest are rubber bladders behind the spar but they are heavy.
100 LL does not explode or burn as readily as car fuel.
If I wanted a fun airplane for sunny days I'd pick the J-3. Cheaper to operate and just a classic airplane.
If it was to be my only airplane and used for some travel then I'd pick the PA-11. Both have good resale value. The J-3 has more useful load but the 11 has better performance.
Add up the cost to do the mods I have suggested. Then look and see what each airplane has installed and get a total price.
Send me some photos and specs of what your looking at and I can maybe help. [email protected]
Stits, Ceconite, Airtech, Stewart, Superflight covering systems will all outlast the primer and paint on the tubing. Our Stinson was covered in 1974 with Ceconite and dope and is still fine. Even though the polytone or dope is not as shiny I like how they can be repainted and patched easily.
wood prop is fine if you stay out of the rain.
If done properly a rebuild should last 30 years. Depending on climate or storage. Hangar is really a must in the east for any airplane not just fabric. Sun, wind, rain, pollution takes a toll.
fly both and see what suits you.