Waco UBF 2, UMF 3, UPF 7 Pirep and Comparison

I've enjoyed writing a couple of Pireps on the Cessna 120 and Fairchild F24W so I thought I'd do one on my favorite airplanes, the Waco F series. I know this is long, apologies for that, but I'm trying to be fair to 4 different airplanes.

Waco biplanes are very popular with pilots both for their beautiful lines and their performance. The open cockpit versions of the 1930’s especially have been preserved in fairly large numbers and the YMF 5 has been produced, in a slightly different form than the originals as I’ll detail later, since the late 1980’s. I currently own and fly the UBF2 of 1933, the only UMF 3 still flying built in 1934 and a 1940 UPF 7. I have owned an early version of the Waco Classic YMF 5 built in 1989 and am currently restoring a Waco YMF 5 originally built in 1935 which has not flown since 1956. Based on my experiences I’ll attempt to describe what it is like to own and fly these airplanes and describe their differences.

It's helpful to look at their specifications side by side in table form I think, and reference this, as we consider each model:

UBF 2 UMF 3 YMF 5 Classic YMF 5 UPF 7
Engine R670 R670 Jake 755B Jake 755B2 R670
Horsepower 210 210 225 275 210
Top Speed 132 143 148 100* 128
Cruise SP 116 128 130 122 114
Landing Sp 42 47 47 59+ 48
Initial Climb 1500fpm 1100fpm 1250fpm 800fpm 850fpm
Span 29 7 30 30’ 30 30
LOA 20’6” 23’ 1.375” 23’3.625” 23’10” 23’ 1”
Height 8’9” 8’ 5.375” 8’ 5.375” 8’6” 8’5.375”
Gross Wt. 2300lbs 2500lbs 2500lbs 2950lbs# 2650lbs
Empty Wt. 1376lbs 1485lbs 1540lbs 1985lbs 1540lbs
Gear Widt 72” 74.5” 74.5” 74.5” 74.5”

Notes: * this is from my recollection it’s not published by Waco Classic, ^from my recollection, #early versions were 2650 lbs and increased over time, +this is the published power off stall speed which can stand in as a substitute for landing speed. However, note that the landing gear geometry on the Waco Classic after serial #10 was changed by lowering the main landing gear 3 inches making a full stall landing theoretically impossible and obviously the increased airplane weight drove up stall speeds.

Waco Aircraft made a number of “F” model open cockpit aircraft beginning with the RNF, INF, MNF model in 1930 (the first letter of the model’s designation denotes which engine is installed. R=Warner, I=Kinner, M=Menasco, U=Continental R670 and Y=Jacobs generally speaking. If you want to twist off into minutiae these planes used at least 2 different Warners, 3 different Continentals and 2 or 3 different Jacobs engines). I haven’t flown and do not yet own a R/I or MNF so I haven’t included one of them here. So, essentially there was a 1 (RNF), 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 model produced. Of those the 6 is virtually identical to the 5 with some engine differences in planes produced for different users. The 3 and 5 are for all intents and purposes identical. Originally, the 3 model had smaller tail feathers but all were returned to the factory for larger empennages and the model designation changed because it was then 1935. There are some differences in the 2 model as well with different wing root designs, empennage changes and other tweaks. Confused yet? Welcome to Waco’s!

All versions of the F model’s used the Clark Y airfoil which was a fairly efficient design with benign stall characteristics and which was used by a number of other competing designs. All F models used a similar fuselage though it’s obvious from the table above, and from photos or physical inspection that the fuselages got progressively longer and heavier as the models progressed. This is most noticeable from the RNF (the “little F”) to the F2 model. There is also reportedly changes in the distance between the main gear wheels and tail wheel over time with the earlier “F” models more short coupled.

When you put an F2 model side by side with an F3/5 model and F7 the planes seem to grow progressively larger though from the table it’s obvious that the length only changed 3 inches while the wings are identical, and height remained unchanged. Now, the Classic Waco is an exception as it did get longer in an attempt to provide more cockpit space. I have a photo of my UMF 3 sitting next to a Classic YMF 5 and you can clearly see the difference in fuselage rake angle due to the modified gear on the Classic.

When you place a UPF 7 next to a F3/F5 the F 7 just feels like it is larger when it actually isn’t. Part of that comes from the movement of the rear cockpit further back in the fuselage. This changes the pilot’s perspective looking forward as well. It also changes the weight and balance of the aircraft and required some additional, not obvious to the eye, changes in the airframe. The UPF 7 empennage is made out of wood and not steel tubing. Some think that is because of wartime needs for metal but the truth was that these airplanes were largely constructed before the war started. The real reason was to reduce weight in the tail. That is also the reason the “turtledeck” baggage compartment is dramatically smaller than the earlier models and limited to 25 pounds rather than 50 pounds.

Looking again at the chart it is apparent that there are significant performance differences between the models in terms of climb speed, top speed, landing speed (and though I did not show it in take off and landing distance as well). Again, consulting the chart you see that the primary culprit was gradually increasing weight. The F2 has always been considered the “sports car” equivalent in the series, all of which are stellar performers for their time. That’s all in the power to weight ratio. My UBF 2 practically leaps off the ground and the deck angle seems impossibly high in comparison to all the others as it climbs. On the other end of the spectrum is the UPF 7 which gained a lot of weight due to increased structural members in the fuselage in response to the military RFP for training aircraft while retaining the same R670 engine.

In comparison to the antiques the Classic is rather portly. It’s massively increased weight are due to an abundance of radio and avionics equipment (that for the life of me I see as nothing but marketing as a rationale), cockpits fully lined with leather and larger fuel tanks (Mine held 80 gallons!). That massive (22% compared to the UBF 2) increase in weight is partially compensated for with a 275 horsepower motor (and even the 755A2 at 300 hp is available) and sometime installation of a constant speed propeller but it still performs more sluggishly than the antique models. What doesn’t show in the chart is the “feel” of the plane which is definitely more sluggish in a Classic – though still a joy to fly.
You do need to take the top speeds in that chart with a grain of salt. None of them, in my experience, get that kind of speed. The F2 is certainly the fastest and can literally fly rings around the F3 and F7 as we've done that. The F5 with its original 225 HP Jacobs was clearly quicker but the handful of YMF 5's that have been restored use the 275 hp Jacobs 755B2 engine as the 225 hp version was a greaser. The only "greaser" restoration I'm aware of is a UMF 5 with a greaser Continental.

With this background allow me to discuss some other features of the planes starting with the interior arrangements of the cockpits. The F2 has the smallest holes. The passengers sit up front in all the planes and all are certificated for 2 passengers and 3 people overall. Getting in the front compartment is through a tiny door on the left side and as the wing sits lower over the front hole than on the others its quite a challenge. Once in though it’s relatively comfortable for the short legged. If you’re six feet or more, like me, flying from the front is painful as the rudder pedals are very close. Even with an insulated firewall it also gets quite warm in all these planes as the engine isn’t far away and the oil tank is literally inches away on the other side of the firewall. On the other end of the spectrum the cockpits on the UPF 7 are the largest and while the front still takes some interesting maneuvers to get into both holes are quite comfortable.

For pilots all the rear cockpits are snug. The cockpit opening got bigger as the models progressed with the F7 seeming quite large in comparison. But these places were designed for smaller people than are typically flying them today. Classic attempted to deal with the upright seating position that results by first putting heel recesses or cups in the cockpit floor. I had those and hated them as my feet would occasionally get stuck. They then started lengthening the airframe to make the cockpit longer. That does make the rear hole more comfortable but screwed up the geometry of the airplane.

What many restorers have done to help make the plane more comfortable to fly is to install toe brakes in lieu of the heel brakes that were added to many of the planes when they were first restored in the 1950’s through 1980’s. Originally, the planes came with a handbrake, rudder pedal, combination which is now just about impossible to find. Getting rid of heel brakes, and moving the pedals forward and inch or two, along with adjusting pilot expectations has made the flying experience safer and more comfortable. I have toe brakes with rudders moved forward slightly in all my planes and fly for three hours with no issues. All the seats are adjustable up and down on bungees, which also helps.

One advantage of smaller holes is less wind. All the planes are comfortable in that respect. The seating position is far enough back from the panel to see everything easily at a glance. This isn’t necessarily the case in other types of this period. The Great Lakes, for example, has the panel so close I can’t read anything without cheaters.

The original planes had hand brakes on the throttle as I mentioned. This makes the throttle lever about 10-12 inches long which is unusual. The elevator trim is actually not trim but moving of the entire horizontal flying surface. That’s accomplished by crank, which comes from an antique Ford I believe, on the right side of the cockpit in all but the UPF 7 where its on the left (its cable driven on all but the UPF 7 which uses a chain).

Speaking of brakes, most restorers, and Waco Classic, have replaced the original expander tube type with modern Cleveland STC’ed versions. There are mixed opinions about this. One school of thought is that the Cleveland’s are too powerful for these planes. And there are lots of photos of planes on their noses or backs to demonstrate what happens with too much brake. The original Hayes brakes, the same ones used on Model A cars, are never loved and do have their haters. I find that when properly adjusted they work fine. I have them on two airplanes and Cleveland’s on several. The key with any tail wheel airplane is not to use them!

All right, that’s enough history. Let’s fire these beautiful birds up and go flying!

Well, first let’s preflight. This should take a great deal of care and not inconsiderable time! These planes vibrate. A lot! And perhaps you’re operating off grass – which is enormous fun – but which vibrates everything even more. So, do your walk around with a screwdriver and wrenches in your back pocket as you’ll likely need both. Carefully look at every nut and bolt you can see and tighten the obviously loose. Make sure every castle nut is still either safetied or has its cotter pin still there. Move the control surfaces carefully and listen. Run a poly rag over all the wires while you also inspect them looking for scratches, cracks or dings. Make sure the wheel pants are tight. Look for missing inspection covers. Use a flashlight to look at the back of the engine looking for more than usual oil or other issues.

Now climb up on the wing and double check that the master and mags are off. Now pull the propeller through seven complete compression strokes. That should be 14 half turns. STOP if you feel too much resistance! How much? You’ll know. IF that happens, you’ll need to pull the front plugs of #4 and probably #5 cylinders. Then pull the prop through again, clean up the mess and reinstall the plugs. Just a note here that I’ve found if a Continental gets too much oil in the cylinders it backs all the way up into the intakes and now, you’re going to have to start the engine with a couple of plugs out. Do it and shut down quickly. No matter how fast you are you’ve got a hell of a mess to clean up.

Now we can go fly. Climb up, climb in and strap in. You wear the airplane so get comfortable! Four to six shots of prime, master on, mags off and three or four blades around on the starter and flip the mags to both. With luck the engine fires right off belching a cloud of smoke, you have oil pressure and can begin to warm things up. While that’s going on get ATIS, set altimeter, and think about what you’re going to do. You’re going to taxi slowly. You’ll use brakes if you don’t have tail wheel steering (I have it both ways). You’re going to make a lot of S turns. Head for the runway.

Run up is standard stuff. At the hold short line cock the plane sideways so you can see approach. As you’ve already figured out you can’t see anything in front of you! As you take the runway stick back, ailerons correct you need to engage the tail wheel lock if you have one. I have on some planes on not others. They help keep you straight in a cross wind and you’re gonna need all the help you can get!

Power up and release back pressure on the stick. Properly trimmed the tail will come up quickly. Fly off at about 60. It works on all these planes. In the UBF 2 you can start pulling baby! You think you’re going straight up! In the others be a little more judicious and aim for 80 mph. That will be pretty quick, and you still have time to give the tower a friendly wing rock as you go by. Just listen to the glorious sounds your engine is making. Feel the wind tickle your face. See the ground when you look down as you think about turning crosswind. My God, does flying get any better than this?

After a couple thousand feet level off and pull the throttle to idle. Pitch to the horizon and wait. Eventually a bit of a buffet. Look to your left or right and you can see the pressure on the fabric before the stall. All these planes stall pretty gently if you have the ball centered. Even a power on turning stall isn’t too big a deal. Stall speed varies up to the fairly fast 59 or so on the Classic. Let’s go do some Dutch rolls.

Straight and level in cruise pick a point on the horizon and start trying to roll the wings about 30 degrees back and forth while keeping the nose straight. Good luck with that! It takes practice as these things set the standard for adverse yaw. How about a wingover? Power up, pitch up and bank. With the wing down look to your left and behind you. You can’t see anything but the ground. Glorious!

Want to do some light acro? You’ll need to dive to get 120 on all but the F2 for rolls or loops. You can do a loop in the F2 from straight and level flight.

As you turn, twist and roll around you’ll notice that the four ailerons mean it’s pretty light in bank and the elevator forces are not heavy either. Handling is precise but not sharp. The F2 feels sportier and in the Classic handling is more sedan like. But if you think it, it seems to happen like magic.

Enough messing around, let’s go do some landings. Enter the pattern and slow to 80. Use a lot of trim. Now, keep it in pretty tight on downwind. These things fly like a brick with the power off! Don’t believe me? Try it. You’ll learn to turn immediately for the runway no matter where you are. Ok, you’re at the point where you need to pull power to 1200-1300 rpm, get the carb heat on and start heading downhill. Don’t get to far from the runway if you can help it. As you descend make a gradual, graceful turn from downwind to final. That square pattern is not for you because flying blind is just for IFR practice not landing a big biplane!

Too high? Slip. Too short? Add power. Just keep adjusting all the way downhill while you’re targeting 75 mph (The F2 likes 70 better as does the F3. The F7 seems to like a bit more to feel right. Use 1.3 times whatever your stall speed was. This is important as you don’t want to be slow. But you also don’t want to be fast. Fast over the numbers means a lot more work to get it down under control without the need for brakes).

Over the runway as you are settling get the power out for a 3 point. And you’re probably going to need to pitch the nose higher than you think as all these planes, except the Classic, have a pretty steep rake angle. Pin the tailwheel and start pedaling down the runway. Stay off the brakes! Those are for emergencies, run ups and maybe ground steering.

If you’re doing a tail wheel landing, which I prefer on concrete, hold a flatter attitude which just a tiny amount of power until the mains squeak on. Power out and pedal keeping the nose straight while you feed in forward stick to keep the nose up. Just when you think you can’t keep it up any longer gently lower the tail to the ground and pin.

All these lovelies land very well and very similarly. As you'll note from the chart the F7 has a much wider main landing gear spread. This was designed to make landing easier and all the Waco models got it beginning in 1937. It does make handling crosswinds easier but otherwise I don't notice a difference.

Don’t forget to get the tail wheel lock unlocked as you slow down. It’s a royal pain on the F3 to get it unlocked after stopping. And in the F7 and F5’s you need to get it off to get off the runway.

Taxi back to the hangar, avionics off, run the motor up to 1200 or so for a bit to scavenge and pull the mixture out. Don’t forget the mags and master. Unstrap, climb out and go get your cleaning gear! There will be more than bugs on your plane. I typically plan to spend about 2 hours cleaning and prepping for every hour flying. That may seem like a burden to someone who has never done it. But during that entire time, I am enjoying looking at, feeling, smelling and thinking about one of aviation’s masterpieces. Every one of them a work of art.

So, that’s it. That’s most of the Waco F series. Which one should you buy? I say the one you fall in love with first. They are all incredible. There are a lot more UPF 7’s than anything else and prices tend to reflect that. The F2 series (UBF and QCF) are the most sought after and again that’s reflected in the prices. Waco Classics tend to be a bit more expensive than UPF 7’s and if you really want to fly IFR in an open cockpit that’s your plane. Good luck finding an antique F5. I couldn’t so I’m building one. An F3? Well, there are two in the world. One in the Waco Museum on static display and mine. Mine’s not for sale.

Tony, thanks for sharing!
I found it interesting as I think Waco’s are incredibly attractive airplanes. They’ve always been on my short list should I ever expand my personal fleet to own an early model biplane.

Thanks for this detailed PIREP, Tony. It's easy to see just how smitten you are with these old girls!

Another fabulous write up Tony. Please do one on the TravelAir!

Years ago got to fly a UPF7. Beautiful airplane. Like it much better than the Stearman that was also flying about the same time. Heretical probably to say that since Stearmans are canonized.

Thanks Tony, Any pirep on the QCF-2?

I've always been curious about the various cabin models also. One day a SRE will come up for sale again.

This fine and arguably quite practical (much cheaper than an experimental 4 place Super Cub) 1932 UEC cabin bi-plane WACO is for sale in the UK.

https://www.nc12467-1932-waco-biplane.co.uk

Probably not as sporty as the open cockpit versions but nevertheless a fine airplane.

I will but it will take a couple of years as it won't be finished until just before the Barnstormers Tour in 2025.

Robert, that's a nice looking airplane and it is quite rare. I have a 1936 YKS 6 which I bought last year and haven't flown yet. It's getting a new engine and I needed to overhaul the landing gear so it's been ripped apart the last year. I'll post a Pirep on that when I get to fly it this spring. Cabin Waco's have always had highly complimentary comments on their flying qualities and they are usually significantly less expensive than the open cockpit models. There are several nice examples for sale in the states right now as well.

Charlie I'm going to break your question into two posts for ease of reply. I haven't flown a QCF 2 so I can't say for sure that the flying qualities are the same as the UBF 2 or not but that is what I've been told from a variety of sources. The biggest difference originally was that the QCF 2 had a Continental A-70-2 165 horsepower engine while the UBF 2 came equipped with the Continental R670 210 horsepower engine. All of the "Q's" that I am aware of have had their engines changed to the R670 as it is much more common due to its use in the war. There were 37 "Q" models originally produced and only 18 "U" models.

Of the 37 Q's there are still 24 on the FAA registry although clearly there aren't that many flying. Amazingly 15 of the 18 U models are still on the registry though, again, not all are flying. In fact I believe there are fewer U's flying than Q's. They certainly don't show up as often at fly ins. I believe the reason there are so many U's in existence today is due to my airplane.

A few decades ago the gentleman that owned my airplane, which was no more than a project, loaned it to Forrest Lovley who is a well know restorer, collector and antique expert. Forrest used measurements and drawing from my airframe to manufacture 10-11 airframe "kits" which he sold. Those kits, married with a valid set of paperwork, can be turned into airplanes.

Incidentally, there also 5 PBF 2's produced. The "P" model had the Jacob's LA-1 170 horsepower engine. And to round out the confusion Waco also made 3 PCF 2's made with the Jacob's LA -1.

Back to your question. There were wing root to fuselage fairings available for these planes as options and perhaps installed on the later versions as standard. The Q's typically didn't them though it's always possible that they get added during restoration. My UBF2 was parked next to a recently restored QCF2 at Airventure this summer and that was the only obvious airframe difference aside from the vertical stabilizer. The stabilizer on the U is slightly larger than the Q though you'd really need to know what you were looking for to see it. And, in restoration I can see where the use of the wrong drawing might mean a Q got "improved". The larger fin was added to improve spin recovery. That is the reason my friend Barry Branin had me looking for a U. More on that story in an upcoming EAA Vintage Magazine article by Budd Davisson this spring.

So, with all of that said, I'd say a Q today flies just like a U for all intents and purposes. The differences will be cosmetic. One difference to look for in all these old birds though is the brakes. Contintental or Hayes? Toe or heel?

Here is a link to my F2 and F3 flying over Airventure last summer:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=6940266525984640

and one to them taxiing in at Airventure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_MWx5GVetA

Charlie,

The SRE was the next to last Waco cabin model. They built 21 of them from 1939-1941 when the war quashed production. Only the VKS 7 F was produced later (into 1942). The SRE cost nearly 3 times as much as my 1936 YKS 6! It was certainly the epitome of Waco cabins.

Waco built their first cabin in 1924! It was called the Model Eight. Powered by a Liberty 6 engine with 250 horsepower one was made and it crashed and was destroyed in the 1920's.

The next effort was the QDC built in 1931. This was new Waco Chief Engineer A. Francis Archer's second design following the 1931 QCF 2. The QDC, based on the same basic design. Thirty seven were built. There are a few flying.

Next came the UEC in 1932 and OEC the difference being primarily the engine. The UIC came out in 1933. In 1934 the UKC had a lot of improvements and begin to really represent the sine qua non of executive transportation.

In 1935 Waco gave the C series two designations "Standard" and "Custom" with two price points with the Standard cabins slightly less expensive. The customs have a variety of differences but the easiest to spot are the extra cabin window. Standard cabins are designated like with an "S" in the end of the model designation and the Customs with a "C". There are many differences between the models including engines, props, bump or smooth cowls, seating, throw over or dual yokes, panel design, instrumentation, flaps or no flaps, landing spoilers (strut fairings that turn sideways to create drag and activated by a Johnson bar), separate luggage compartments, skylights and on and on.

In 1937 the cabins got the wider landing gear developed for the UPF 7. In 1938 they came out with the "N" model with nose wheel landing gear rather than conventional. Advertising claimed it was virtually "fool proof"! I think the N models look odd personally. I only know of one that's restored and its in the museum at Creve Coeur, MO and casually for sale.

Ray Brandley wrote a number of books on Wacos. They are a great resource for Waco enthusiasts as are the two type clubs, the National Waco Club and the American Waco Club (I am a member of both):

http://www.americanwacoclub.com

http://www.nationalwacoclub.com

Brandley's books Including: "Waco Airplanes", "The Versatile Cabin Series", "Waco Aircraft Production", "Taperwing Wacos", "The Famous F Series" and a couple of others can be found from time to time on Amazon. I've collected them all and use them frequently as they are a great resource on everything Waco.

It's said by a long time Waco expert that "it's impossible to spend more that $100,000 on a cabin". I think inflation has had its way with that fact but it is true that the cabins represent some of the best values in antique aviation. They aren't often for sale in large numbers because their owners love them but a half dozen or so get listed every year. More than that are sold but you have to know about them because they aren't advertised in the usual places but on club websites or by word of mouth. Which one to look for is really a matter of personal preference on cosmetics, engine or age and condition I think more than flying qualities. They all use the same airfoil and weight and power will be decisive with flying qualities. If you're looking for an SRE that's where you'll find one and the likely buyer will already know the seller personally.

I found mine plane while looking for a hangar. I saw a partially open door and a piece of a wing. I tried to bet the line boy $5 that it was a Waco in there. He wouldn't take my bet but told me the owner's name and I walked over to introduce myself. We became friends and in the fullness of time he sold me his airplane restored 22 years earlier but with only 58 hours on the tach. After the mini restoration I'm doing it will be good for another couple of decades. That's the way to find a Waco! I've done it through ads and once a broker but word of mouth or sleuthing work better (and is frankly more fun).

Thanks Tony. Really appreciate the true comparisons between them. I watched a QCF-2 at Old Rhinebeck a few years back and I was amazed by the performance. Yes it was updated to the 220 Continental. Fairings, tail size, gross weight etc are all good factors to consider. Sometimes cosmetic only but other times the factory was on to something and the changes make the airplane. It's interesting because flying one example may not represent the type at all. Even if the model is exactly the same they are all individual cases depending on the factory installations and restoration.

We have a customer who lives at higher altitude in Idaho and we built up a R-985 Stinson for him a while back. That airplane has worked out well for him. He has been making some noises about finding a open cockpit Biplane to fly around the valley where he lives and so I've been watching for what could possibly operate from there. But looking for something a bit smaller than a big engine Stearman or N3N.

Of course with the SRE it is one of the end set of golden age airplanes. Stinson SR-10F, G model Staggerwing, Howard and Spartan would be the others. All R-985 powered and basically the end of the era. With modern avionics and processes they still are legitimate cross country airplanes today.

But with rarity there is a huge amount of rumors, old factory performance claims and old wives tales to be put to rest. The only way is to fly them and compare. Which can be tough because there are so few out there. I'd like to just fly them all for an honest run to compare designs and handling with decent modern brake setup and after good restorations. I guess a trip to Poplar Grove sometime would be the best way to get close to an SRE.

Of course at my home altitude near sea level I'd give an RNF a try to see if I needed to make some hangar room for one.

Somewhere there is a Spartan Executive review on Youtube and it's hilarious because the reviewers are flying one of the most coveted Antiques. Yet part way through the flight they forget the Spartan and start discussing how much fun they had flying a Piper Apache on the previous flight. Kind of sums up sometimes the handling and performance are not worth the effort and expense. Other times it truly is worth it.

Charlie,

If you go to Poplar Grove be sure to reach out to Steve Thomas. They have an SRE IIRC and owner of the airport he knows everyone and what is in every hangar. There is are two really nice QCF's based there as well. Owners are both nice folks. I can put you in touch if needed. There are also a myriad of other great open cockpit flyers to see as well. There is also a really nice Waco Cabin with Wright motor that Steve and Tina restored and used to own based there that is for sale for a very reasonable price.

Walt Bowe commutes to work, or at least did when he was still at Sonoma Skypark, in his SRE. That is one beautiful airplane and the sound of the Pratt on takeoff is amazing.

As to RNF's, I know where a couple are that are for sale including one that was just finished this year before the owner passed away. It has an interesting history as well as being newly restored. Also several projects.

If you go do plan to stop in at Brodhead which isn't far away. And if you decide to come this summer let me know. I am sharing a hangar at Brodhead for the season and will have one of my planes there - probably the YKS 6.

Another great write up Tony. Someday, I would love to have a cabin Waco.

Your 120 review made me want to get my 140 flying asap.
It’s got to wait for my Champ to get done though. Too many projects.

Tony, what a fantastic and accurate recap! You must have a loving wife - if I was in your shoes, at this stage I would be talking with a lawyer…. jajajaja.

Do you keep all of these in OKC? I need to fly up this spring and visit.

Thanks for the invite Tony, Yes If I have a trip near Broadhead I will definitely be in touch. Another place I have always wanted to visit.