C-85-12 Mod on a Champ

Keep flying that Champ and you’ll find you land straighter with any airplane. It just amazes me how many high time pilots can’t land without a side load on the gear.

 

The Chief is worse. The big fin on the Champ helps. Have to wake up your feet and keep the nose pointed in the right direction. Why I like the Cubs better. You would like my SSSC, took a lot of work, but with a bank up to 20 degrees the ball stays centered by itself. Everyone that has flown it says its one of the best flying airplane they have flown. I started to get everything dialed in at about 32 hrs of test flying.
Most older airplanes out there are very much out of rig. Even most C-150-172-182's.

 

That’s odd, the Champs I’ve flown have been total sweethearts in the air and on the ground. So nice I’d like to start a school with one or two.

 

I did everything I normally would do to fix the situation and it would make it worse! This was a nice one too. Will I get it, yes. But it’s not doing what expect it to do. I was about to start laughing it was so bad.

 

1965 first solo in 7AC N1314E last registration in Hondo TX. That plane and every other Champ I ever flew was loose. The Cubs felt more “hooked up”. Cubs more stiff legged and too small inside, I finally quit instructing in them. Champ softly squatted and easier on the rollout to me. Like landing your recliner. I hadn’t flown one in many years... had been flying Pitts, One Design, Acro Sport etc. Then flew N1314E and broke out into a big involuntary grin when it softly squatted and more/less rolled itself out.
I’ll take a Champ over a Cub anyday. + 10 TAS, more comfort, bigger inside, nicer landing...the Champ always had a smile on his face

Edit: the Champ wants a lotta rudder. Busy feet may cure a lotta perceived rigging problems

 

You are correct, the Champ has a softer landing gear than the Cubs with the bungies. The Cub is harder to make a landing without balancing. Easy for the rebound of the bungies to put you to balancing. Yes, the Champ is a little faster than the Cubs, more comfort and I don't like flying from the rear seat on the J-3's but to me the Cubs feel far better on the controls in the air and like you said, more "Hooked up ". Maybe we all tend to like what we were trained on in the beginning the best. My training for my PP started on a 150 hp, Super Cub that was a tow-plane for a sailplane club were I was working in the ground crew on weekends. Think I have flown all the PA model Cubs there are. The reason I like the Bearhawk so well. I got to fly the prototype Bearhawk and it handles just like a great rigged, strong 150 HP, PA-18 Super Cub, but with 4 seats and with far better LG with the oil dampened die-spring shock struts.
BTW-- Have flown in formation with a Champ with my SSSC, exactly same cruise speed but couldn't come close to my 1200+ ROC hauling my 230 lb fat butt.

 

Yeah Pops
Our J5 flew nice, light on the controls. Neighbor’s PA11 was stiff. Tweak the control cables with a finger and see the PA11 was tight. I thought too tight and so stiff.
If it’s stiff, loosen the cables and see what you got. Obvious, huh?

 

"Similar to overhauling the C65 with C75 parts often was not noted as changing to 75 HP".

This confused me a bit. Continental never made a C65 engine (they did make an A65). But they did make both an A75 and a C75, so when you refer to putting C75 parts in a C65, are you actually referring to putting C75 parts in an A65, or are you referring to the conversion of an A65 to an A75? A75 and C75 are two entirely different engines, though some parts do interchange.

 

Yup.


BJC

 

I think most of the bad handling Cubs, Champs, T-Crafts, etc, are the result of being out of rig and incorrect cable tension. I got my IFR rating in a FBO's C-172 that was terrible. Wings level and the ball was half a ball to the right. Center the ball and you were in a 1/2 standard rate turn. It was very high time airframe and been rode hard all its life.

 

That’s why I bought my Champ (the first of more to come)... to start instructing in them. Gentle nature, but will still teach stick and rudder work. The 85hp will be for dual instruction. The others can be 65hp for student solo work, and having two or more means I can still instruct if someone managed to bend something. It’s cheap in fuel usage too, so I can give affordable instruction.

I like Cubs too and my early flying and solo was in a Cub, but 50 years later, climbing into a Cub is not as easy as it used to be.

 

Think I need something with cargo doors so I can be rolled in .

 

I actually flew a Super Cub this morning. It’s been many years since I’ve flown a bungee gear. I like the power but the Champ handles better and there is more room.

 

You think you were confused, I was obviously confused.
You are correct, A65 to A75 though changing internals but noted as a75 in the logs, this was th situation on the T-Craft as well as my ,at a later date, Champ which had the big tail.
When we update our 170A's Continental 145 to 0-300 standards it was noted in the log as being an 0-300

 

I am a volunteer with the Air and Space Museum in San Diego. We are putting back to orginal a L3B which had a 75hp installed. IAs that I have takled with are not ready to sign this plane off with that engine, seeing as the TCDS has the 65HP. So, I am looking for a STC or a DER who is willing to help with this. So far the frame is repaired, the wings have new ribs, and all flight controls are covered.

It will be a beauty once we get the right engine. Any thoughts?

Mark

 

When I started flying in I think it was '65 the Champ was $8hr solo wet; $12 dual.
The 172 was $12. No way any of us could afford that. Outrageous!

Pops, I know the millenials roll their eyes when we start telling our old days BS.

LOL

 

Yes, I know. But, a dollar was worth a lot more back when we were young. I started driving on the highway in 1954 and drove a 18 months without a drivers license and still got the license when I was 15 years old ( I was 6'x 200 lbs) and gasoline was between .17 to .22 cents a gallon. Could buy a J-3 Cub in good condition for $250. But when you were making .75 cents an hour that was a lot of money. In 1955, I was loafing at the local airport, (Beaver, PA) and a man bought a T-6 Texan for a couple hundred dollars that summer and flew it for a few weeks and pulled in over in the high weeds and left it. Said it used to much gas. Was scraped out. I got some of the instruments.
My two buddies and I would get to go cruising with one of our fathers 1937 and 1938 Cords (Look that up), on a Saturday night and each had one dollar. We each put .50 in gas in the car and each had .50 cents to buy a great big hamburger with everything on it and a order of fries and a 16 oz RC cola with the other .50 cent.
Dollar just worth a lot less now. Then gold was $32 an ounce and the dollar was backed by gold.

 

On the Museum L3B, this is a shot; is the engine a C-75-12? Or appears to be? The case of a C-75 can be used on a A65 which Is called a A-65-14 which in the notes. The notes say that is equivalent to a -8. I guess it comes down to the logs of the C75. Most parts for the 75 are ok in the 65. I think the true main difference is RPM so they updated the oiling. I think the 75 spins a smaller prop to get the 75 hp. If it has no logs, turn it into A-65-14.

 

There is a gentleman, previously mentioned in this thread, Bill Pancake. He can answer anything Aeronca and loves helping anyone interested in the types. 304.788.1974.

 

"but 50 years later, climbing into a Cub is not as easy as it used to be".

Why is that? I too, have been flying Cubs for over 50 years, and it still takes less than two seconds from flipping the prop to strapping into the back seat. I can't think of an easier plane to enter.