Which would be your pick purely for high density altitudes? I live in Denver and would desire to fly through some passes around here that are quite high (ex Rollings pass 11671ft)

assuming similar engines, condition, prop performance, loading, etc.

Cessna 170b -C145
Stinson 108-3 150hp franklin
Piper Pacer 150hp Lycoming

is it really as simple as finding the one with the highest service ceiling? or is there more to the equation?

how limiting would these options be for getting into the mtns around here?

honestly I would say none of the above I would get a 180 or 185. With that said of the three listed the the PA-22 is your best bet for performance

C180/185 ---- one day.

but until then, I'll keep it light, simple, and probably fabric covered.

I'd agree that none of those planes are going to be sparkling performers in that very high DA.

Of the three you noted, I'd look for a little different variant of the Stinson....one with a bigger engine. There are actually a fair number of those around for fairly reasonable prices.

The only real down side of the Pacers is lack of wing.....and density altitude performance likes a lot of wing.

MTV

I will of course look for more powerful options in these platforms but figured comparing pomegranates to kiwi's wasn't fair. Also maybe its worth mentioning that this would likely be my first plane. Only need it to build time while in AK (2years or so) and be functional for my intended purposes when I get up north (until I earn enough to justify a C180/beaver/turbine otter etc ), also it can't be a kit plane being I want to use it commercially.

I know none of these will be perfect for the mission, but the DA dilemma isn't near as big of issue in AK. the Pacer I know has all sorts of STCs avail for droop tips, extra ribs etc, so it has been on the top I do think, but I'm not sold on it yet.

I am a dreamer, so this is a bit far out on my 5 year plan, but questions bring answers, which brings more questions. all which brings knowledge, and knowledge I seek .

I would say if you want one of those 3 airplanes then I would seriously consider moving to a place that is lower in elevation.

I plan on it! my last response explains it further

but basically I'm in Colorado for a couple more years, then I'll be setting down roots back in AK. at sea level

Service ceiling and ROC: http://www.aircraftbluebook.com/Tools/A ... cations.do Some test pilot who knew what they were doing came up with the data. Older planes or younger pilots might not.

But it's hard to beat a Piper Cub's airfoil at altitude if the weight per wing area is reasonable. Bigger wing area is better and there's 160 hp to shoot for too.

The problem is climb vs any downdrafts or some such activity near terrain or within passes.

Good luck with your pursuit. Maybe ask some local flyers what they use and like of the choices you offered.

Gary

younger pilot right here
I figured the ceiling and ROC would be the major factors, downdrafts would definitely be something to figure into the mix as well.

But that's why I ask questions. I need to get out and shake some hands a bit more, but my local airport is full of pavement going low wings mostly. I have some feelers out to some locals, I do know of at last one Stinson, but its been neglected for a long time it seems.

Spdcrazy wrote:Only need it to build time while in AK (2years or so) and be functional for my intended purposes when I get up north (until I earn enough to justify a C180/beaver/turbine otter etc ), also it can't be a kit plane being I want to use it commercially.

If this is the end-game, I'd go with a Pacer. Gets you in the game cheaper with a pretty decent performance in cruise and short field. Not great at any of them, but not bad either - especially for the price.

I was in your shoes a few years ago and went with the 170b (long prop, sportsmans STOL, etc) and I love the comfort and view cospared to the Pacer. Still if I was in your shoes now I would lean toward the Pacer, which can be 100 to 200 pounds lighter than the 170b. Keep it light and it should perform better than the 170b at high DA even more so if you can find one with 160 hp.

The big flapped B's make it a bit more expensive the equivalent pacer usually as well.

How tall are you? A Stinson is fun to fly but not exactly roomy inside, i'm 6'3" and can't fly my friends 108-2 unless the seat is all the way back and my shoes are off. I also can't sit up straight in the back seat so that's a consideration if you want to use it commercially.

I don't know about the Pacer but a 170 has more leg and head room than a Stinson. Having said that there are lots of Stinson's out there with the 165 hp engine for what appear to be good prices and those Franklin engines are silky smooth.

A similar thread from about a year and a half ago when I was trying to figure out what my first plane would be, based in Boulder:
https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/170b ... -ops-19372

Lots of good recommendations there. I thought I couldn't afford a 180, but by the time I had been looking for a good 170B, I could afford a 180. Pacers are super cheap and were always very tempting to me. I strayed away because XC capability was a big desire of mine, rather than just pure fun buzzing around. Seems like a Pacer would be a good airplane to own, especially for the price.

When I was looking, I also really like some of the early Maules, like an M4-210. Can find ones for good prices, downside for me was that I couldn't fit very well (6'4", 225lb).

Good luck!
-Asa

Luckily I am of average height for the Stinson as is my wife. 510 and 508. I don't expect I'll have a tall person sitting in the back being I'd have a seat next to me but there are to many variables to say it'll never happen.

I've thought about the maule 210hp as well. But I expected the insurance to be a bit higher. I did however just request it on a quote so we will see. If it's not bad, that'll be a good contender as well.

The Stinson 108 seems like a fairly big airplane on the outside, esp compared to a Pacer.
It's surprising how small it is inside.

Re the Maule 210, should be a good performer.
There was one (M4?) on here for sale not long ago for what seemed to be a very reasonable price.

If I were in the market that you have identified, I would be looking for something a lot like this:

http://alaskaslist.com/1/posts/10_Trans ... _15AC.html

the sedans are nice! just not to many around. that one wouldn't be bad but its a tad far away for my level of experience in flying at the moment.

If I was based in AK already, i'd be on the boat to check out that one.

but i'll keep my eyes out for a sedan around here as well. kinda hoping to find one that hasn't been on big tires yet, in hopes of a more gentle past life before I get her. always worries me getting someone elses "project"

I’ve owned both an M4 and a Pacer. Worlds of difference in them... a Maule has a lot more room than a Pacer, I’m 5’10” and my head was in the headliner. 170 has a lot more wing than both but less HP so it’s still a trade off. Wing and HP determine DA performance, I don’t see a basic Pacer or 170 being a good option.

My vote, a Super Stinson (O-470) or Maule. You’ll never wish you had less airplane. FWIW my first year of insurance on the M4 was $2300 with 55 hours total time and about 30 of that being TW. My renewal was $1000 the second year.

Since you're only going to be at high DA for a couple years, I would just buy which ever airplane was the best deal over the long haul, and forget about high DA performance. You can fly damn near anything at high DA if you pick your time and load. A guy I used to share pants with flew Cessna 140's, possibly a couple hundred pounds over gross, from 7,900 DA airfields. Didn't really like it, and doesn't really recommend it, but with enough orographic lift it worked, and it eventually got that guy up to 13,000 msl to clear some bumps in the earth, time after time.

If you want high DA performance, forget about everything but displacement, of which you can never have enough, and which all your three picks are sorely lacking. If you're moving back to AK in a couple years, buy an airplane that will work there, and deal with the displacement limitations here.

Things you want to consider over the next decade:

Is it going to be parked outside?

Can you redo fabric (you need a long term hangar for that), or is a metal airplane infinitely simpler?

What's insurance costing you per year? That question alone eliminated several airplanes from my possible list...including Maul and Husky.

Whats the VOLUME of baggage you need to cary. Ever see a Cessna 170B with extended baggage? It has the volume of a mid-sized Khmer Rouge mass grave. Stinson and Pa22/20...not so much.

What's the best plane at the best price available to you when you are ready to buy? Again, forget high DA performance...all three of the planes you listed are going to suck. If you're staying in CO, look for different aircraft or add $60k to your engine budget. If you're moving back to AK, buy for there. You can still fly around CO with limitations, and you'll be a better stick for it.