Short on hanger space so it has to go. 1948 Luscombe 8A. 1740 TTAF 149.3 SMOH Continental C-85-8C with 100 HP STC. PM me for details. Bob Z. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
That little airplane is one of the best! The only thing that I found a little bit negative was the tight cockpit but that is a lovely airplane to fly. If I was 70 years younger I would love to have that.
Asking $17,000.00 but will consider offers. Annual performed in October, 2016 - next due November 1st, 2017.
The heel brakes work well on the ground handling at taxi speeds when they are used in conjunction with the rudder pedals. I was always impressed that the Luscomb had better performance with a 65hp engine than the C-120 did with an 85hp engine. Really a great flying little bird.
Beautiful aircraft, Bob... Good luck with the sale. Would that make a good 'First' plane for someone? Mike
As far as I'm concerned , that would be a great first airplane. With proper training in handling a taildragger on the ground and in the air, it would make a good pilot.
Not to brag , just listing what happened. I think that I flew every light plane that was available when I worked at the airport as a kid. I can go back to a 1930 Brunner-Winkle Bird, a 1931 Pietenpol, a Rearwin, and pre-war Airnockers and J-2's. The best of the bunch is the Luscombe. Well balanced and responsive controls, smooth in all respects, and simply smooth and comfortable except for the tight cockpit. It does more on a 65hp Cont. then a C-140 does with an 85 Cont. They can be a bit touchy on the ground to one who is not properly trained but no vices. It's a great little airplane ! I would not hesitate to purchase this bird if I was 70 years younger and richer.
AGREED! I own a 1946 Cessna 120 with the 90 hp STC. Metallized wings and full electrical system as well as full avionics. It is not near as nimble as the Luscombe in the air but I like the ground handling of the Cessna better.
