PT-26 vs. L-3 Questions

[bluehawk15]

People in the wing are talking about trying to get something that low-time pilots can fly and build some tail-dragger time in. Two planes that are being looked at are a PT-26 and L-3.

Anyone know the fuel burn for each? Other operating costs?

Anyone want to express a preference of one over the other and your reason(s) for the choice?

Myself, I am leaning toward the PT-26, given the number of South Beach challenged members we have!

[bipe215]

Don't know about the 26, but the L-3 is going to burn about 4 gph and be considerably cheaper to operate and maintain. It will also be flown more often in the winter.

Steve G

[Taylor Stevenson]

IMHO The L-3 is better for low time pilots with little to no Taildragger time. It is stable and forgiving. The PT series have some bad tendencies if you get them in nasty situations i.e. stall spin characteristics. Also, an L-3 would be much more economical: 3-5gph, 20-40k purchase price in comparison with a PT that can be upwards of 70k. Now, if your pilots want to fly T-6 and above, a PT-26 might very well be worth the price. It would train them for the heavier taildraggers more so than an L-3. Hope that helps.

[RyanShort1]

I would consider that the South Beach challenge is significant - and would definitely suggest the PT, assuming the wing can afford either one. On the other hand, you could look at this as a "recruiting" opportunity to get some more young folks involved. If you want to look at an L-3, you ought to send some of the guys down to Cannon. We're in the process of restoring one right now.

Ryan

[Obergrafeter]

Hey Cuz unless you are training midgets to fly you better get the 26. The L-3 makes a pretty good one place airplane and thats about it. The 26 is simple, easy to fly, has flaps, so should make a pretty good tail dragger trainer. Of course if you want to train guys to fly the T-6, get a Mustang. When they get proficient in the Mustang they are just about ready for the 6.