At times, I am terribly given to dreaming and procrastination, and then I sneak into Barnstormers (like many of the rest of you! :)) and look at pretty airplane ads. There are so many neat planes to look at, and I like some of the older types from the 1940s as well as the beautiful Cessna 150. (I was also told that Aeronca Chiefs and Champs are easier to get in and out for the tall and stiff of limb than Cubs!!! Although I have to say that in terms of esthetics, I think the lines of the Cubs and 150s are much prettier and sleeker....the Aeroncas are a little tubby and squat, but from what I am given to understand, nevertheless still a very good airplane to fly. I found out too that there is chap in Ohio near the Saddlebred farm I am going to visit (more horse articles) who gives lessons in Champs! Off a grass strip!
All digressing aside: I couldn't help doing a double take on this one...a modified Chief, a plane of some historical interest but now with an O-200 engine as opposed to its original C-65. What would that do to its performance and weight, and would it be frisky to fly? How would something like this, given its different shape and design, be to fly compared to say a Cessna 150 tailwheeler? Or is that a silly question? Would this have been a good modification, or a mechanic's (and a certifier's) nightmare? With the newer engine, does that make it easier to get parts? The way they have pictured it makes it look like a "go anywhere, land anywhere kind of plane". After that pasture hopping experience in the cherry red Cub, the appetite is sure whetted for more of the same...it was so-o-o fun! It wouldn't matter what the airplane was as long as one could do those sorts of things in it!!!!)
(slow down, Dopey...gotta get your ticket first. Yup. First things first. Sigh....stupid bloody poet types, no sense and practicality, all dreams and stars and cobwebs....)
I am not sure how you make the direct link come up, so I am adding the word file I made of it. The wording of the ad comes at the end of the photos.
