Luscombe 8F versus Cessna 140
 

I'd like to buy a classic aircraft for primary flight training and for future enjoyment, in case I decide upgrading to IFR and doing long distance travel isn't my cup of tea. I've seen two local examples of these aircraft, but have been unable to read much about them. Advice?

I have heard that the 8F has strange landing characteristics because the mains are so close together and relatively high off of the ground. This makes it subject to ground looping and thus not suitable for a low-time pilot. Please do not take this as gospel truth though--only what I have heard.
The 140 has no flaps. I wonder what that does to its short field approach? Anyone know?

------------------
Antonio

Luscombe is the most fun to fly of the 2 seat <100 hp postwar airplanes. Its landing characterists have been given way more print than it deserves. It has a light powerful rudder that might give ham handed (footed) pilots enough rudder to overcontrol. It is a very docile easy to fly airplane. Anyone who says it is hard to fly needs to access their taildragger skills. It is also probably one of the simplest airplanes ever built, BUT, they seem to get very poor care and very often repairs made have been questionable at best. Reskinning is very costly relative to the value of the plane, so work done is often either to "patch it up" or done by cheapskate ametuer owners who should take up yardwork as a hobby. That said, find a nice simple, light one and it will give you much enjoyment. If you want to fly IFR buy an airplane suitable.

Antonio said that the Cessna 140 has no flaps. He must have been looking at a Cessna 120. Both the Cessna 140 and 140A have flaps. The 120 and 140 have fabric wings and the 140A has a metal covered wing. You will find some 120's and 140's with metal covered wings but they were modified under an STC.

Glenn

The absence of flaps doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible to make a steep approach. Most planes without flaps (and with) can be sideslipped quite handily to achieve a steep descent. However, planes without flaps may have a SLIGHTLY longer ground roll on both landing and takeoff due to marginally higher stall speeds. However, general aviation singles built before 1950 generally didn't have flap systems that made more than 2-5 mph difference in power-on stall speed anyway. For most pilots, the difference in ground roll based on a 2-5 mph increment in stall speed would be insignificant. If you're flying in and out of strips where the last 5-10% of ground roll can make a significant difference, a Luscombe 8 or a Cessna 120/140 isn't the right plane for you, anyway.