Hammer's insight is valuable as usual, but...

You have to look at human nature. For most of us, airplanes are huge purchases, a decision made from a love for flying. They're so varied, even with this little niche of backcountry-esque aircraft, that our personalities gravitate to certain characteristics of different models. We can't divorce ourselves from the feeling of permanence when choosing a bird. It is very hard to be so objective.

I totally fall into this. I'm currently building a $100,000 airplane in my garage, with everything exactly how I want it; my forever airplane. It's taken years and it will take a few more. But I couldn't resist the moon shot, to follow the dream. Dreaming is free. Building is actually hard, hard work and costs a lot of money. Not just kits, but restoration or modification of certified aircraft projects too.

To ask someone to be so objective and resign themselves to owning a rental for a while, no matter what it is, is a big request. I agree it is good thinking. Hammer is right-- building can be soul-sucking. It can also be amazingly rewarding. But watching all your friends and people on this website having a ball while you're effectively sidelined just plain sucks.

My local friend @DistrictFab and I have recently been tossing around the idea of going partners on a cheap by airworthy Pacer or the like. Something rag and tube. Well, I went down the rabbit hole of Pacers. I started with being interested in the older O-290 powered ones you can find for $15K. But a couple nights of surfing later, I had myself talked into paying $28K for a PA-22/20 with O-320. Then, I talked myself into converting a PA-22 myself. I finally snapped out of it. I already have a project. I need something that flies. NO projects.

This is a good thread that started with a very honest question. The answer is never easy when you're flying at high elevations. It's like that saying about Good, Fast, Cheap...choose 2. In this case you have Engine, Elevation, Economy...choose 2. There is just no substitute for a more powerful airplane. But there's also no substitute for the experience of learning to fly an underpowered airplane in the mountains.

Really well said by both of you guys.

I'm not looking for a project right now. While that sounds like fun. Just isn't in the cards and like stated earlier, I need something that flies and is reliable. I'll be keeping my options open and I expect very much, IF I buy, it'll be inexpensive and underpowered. I see the benefits of learning that way. Small and light. Won't be any Backcountry performer, but I'll learn alot flying it and sell it when I move to AK.

Spdcrazy wrote:Really well said by both of you guys.

I'm not looking for a project right now. While that sounds like fun. Just isn't in the cards and like stated earlier, I need something that flies and is reliable. I'll be keeping my options open and I expect very much, IF I buy, it'll be inexpensive and underpowered. I see the benefits of learning that way. Small and light. Won't be any Backcountry performer, but I'll learn alot flying it and sell it when I move to AK.

There is a couple 172s for sale on this site. Great trainers, decent performers, and economical to run. Not a TW, but hrs...

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

I know they're not popular around here, (this is the Skywagons-only forum) but don't discount the lowly Cherokee 140/150/160/180 as an economical (to buy, insure and to maintain) time builder that is still a decent cross country machine. Every bit as good as a similar powered 172.

I feel compelled to jump in after going through this thread.

Spd, you're not yet a real pilot--you just soloed last month! I think that's great, but you're so far from being a real pilot that you can't even taste it yet. Once you get your private certificate (which truly is a license to learn), you have a long road ahead before you can do any "paying" work in Alaska or anywhere else. You'll need an instrument rating (although some avoid that only in Alaska--special rules apply to some--most employers will require it), and you'll need a commercial certificate. Take a look in the regs to see how many hours you need for just those. Then on top of that, you'll need to meet the minimum Part 135 hours, which is 500, and a slew of real cross country (don't recall how much).

Firstly, I don't usually recommend that students buy airplanes. You're spending a lot of time learning to fly; learning to own is another thing altogether, and it has a steep learning curve without a lot of formal training available. But that's my view; there certainly are pilots who bought airplanes to learn in, and it was a successful venture. But ownership is expensive, and there's no way around that, and nothing prepares you for owning an airplane.

Secondly, to be a good commercial pilot, you really don't need to have hours and hours of tail dragger time; you need hours and hours of real world flying time, and you can get that a whole let less expensively in a nose dragger--purchase price and insurance are the biggies. Maintenance for comparable airplanes (170 & 172, for example) is about the same. Remember that once they're in the air, comparable tail draggers and a nose draggers fly pretty much the same. A good commercial pilot needs flying experience, whether that's in Colorado or Alaska. A hundred hours of dealing with the vagaries of weather is much more valuable to a commercial pilot than a hundred hours of circling the patch, amassing 7- or 800 pretty landings.

FWIW, I had less than 100 hours when I left Alaska in May 1973, and the next several hundred were all in Wyoming, with a few long cross countries to the west coast and to the Midwest. Pretty soon I had the certificate and rating and hours to fly commercially, and I did that for about a decade part-time, along with some part-time instructing, all but one 135 trip in Wyoming or northern Colorado. Every bit of that time was in nose draggers. I finally flew a tail dragger when I took a basic aerobatics course in late 1980 and into 1981. Yeah, there's some romance associated with flying tail draggers, but don't get hung up on them, for purposes of flying commercially--it's just not necessary. Even in Alaska, the most ubiquitous 135 aircraft are C206s and C207s, with one outfit that I know about using PA32s.

Enough of my rambling. Keep at it--there is so much yet to learn, that you've barely scratched the surface.

Cary

Cary wrote:I feel compelled to jump in after going through this thread.

Spd, you're not yet a real pilot--you just soloed last month! I think that's great, but you're so far from being a real pilot that you can't even taste it yet. Once you get your private certificate (which truly is a license to learn), you have a long road ahead before you can do any "paying" work in Alaska or anywhere else. You'll need an instrument rating (although some avoid that only in Alaska--special rules apply to some--most employers will require it), and you'll need a commercial certificate. Take a look in the regs to see how many hours you need for just those. Then on top of that, you'll need to meet the minimum Part 135 hours, which is 500, and a slew of real cross country (don't recall how much).

Firstly, I don't usually recommend that students buy airplanes. You're spending a lot of time learning to fly; learning to own is another thing altogether, and it has a steep learning curve without a lot of formal training available. But that's my view; there certainly are pilots who bought airplanes to learn in, and it was a successful venture. But ownership is expensive, and there's no way around that, and nothing prepares you for owning an airplane.

Secondly, to be a good commercial pilot, you really don't need to have hours and hours of tail dragger time; you need hours and hours of real world flying time, and you can get that a whole let less expensively in a nose dragger--purchase price and insurance are the biggies. Maintenance for comparable airplanes (170 & 172, for example) is about the same. Remember that once they're in the air, comparable tail draggers and a nose draggers fly pretty much the same. A good commercial pilot needs flying experience, whether that's in Colorado or Alaska. A hundred hours of dealing with the vagaries of weather is much more valuable to a commercial pilot than a hundred hours of circling the patch, amassing 7- or 800 pretty landings.

FWIW, I had less than 100 hours when I left Alaska in May 1973, and the next several hundred were all in Wyoming, with a few long cross countries to the west coast and to the Midwest. Pretty soon I had the certificate and rating and hours to fly commercially, and I did that for about a decade part-time, along with some part-time instructing, all but one 135 trip in Wyoming or northern Colorado. Every bit of that time was in nose draggers. I finally flew a tail dragger when I took a basic aerobatics course in late 1980 and into 1981. Yeah, there's some romance associated with flying tail draggers, but don't get hung up on them, for purposes of flying commercially--it's just not necessary. Even in Alaska, the most ubiquitous 135 aircraft are C206s and C207s, with one outfit that I know about using PA32s.

Enough of my rambling. Keep at it--there is so much yet to learn, that you've barely scratched the surface.

Cary

I am well aware I have much to learn. Thanks.

This thread is a mirror unto ourselves and our flying experiences, and for some it's a rearview one.

Today I wanted a warmed up Cessna or Piper pushed out of a hangar to go fly in...third wheel location unimportant. Instead I looked at my snowed in cold Taylorcraft on skis and decided to forget it...short daylight (about 4.5 hrs), flat light, and I've seen it all before. The trip wasn't worth the roundtrip destination.

But as sunlight returns to Alaska it'll be worth getting back out and having a look around.

But for a new pilot like Spdcrazy today at +13F would have been a fun adventure to get in some short light flying time and experience dealing with winter and small planes parked outdoors.

Gary

Av8r3400 wrote:I know they're not popular around here, (this is the Skywagons-only forum) but don't discount the lowly Cherokee 140/150/160/180 as an economical (to buy, insure and to maintain) time builder that is still a decent cross country machine. Every bit as good as a similar powered 172.

I don't have, nor do I want s Skywagon. Can I have a say?

Zzz wrote:

Av8r3400 wrote:I know they're not popular around here, (this is the Skywagons-only forum) but don't discount the lowly Cherokee 140/150/160/180 as an economical (to buy, insure and to maintain) time builder that is still a decent cross country machine. Every bit as good as a similar powered 172.

I don't have, nor do I want s Skywagon. Can I have a say?

I come here for knowledge, so let me know what ya think!

Zzz wrote:Hammer's insight is valuable as usual, but...

You have to look at human nature. For most of us, airplanes are huge purchases, a decision made from a love for flying. They're so varied, even with this little niche of backcountry-esque aircraft, that our personalities gravitate to certain characteristics of different models. We can't divorce ourselves from the feeling of permanence when choosing a bird. It is very hard to be so objective.

I totally fall into this. I'm currently building a $100,000 airplane in my garage, with everything exactly how I want it; my forever airplane. It's taken years and it will take a few more. But I couldn't resist the moon shot, to follow the dream. Dreaming is free. Building is actually hard, hard work and costs a lot of money. Not just kits, but restoration or modification of certified aircraft projects too.

To ask someone to be so objective and resign themselves to owning a rental for a while, no matter what it is, is a big request. I agree it is good thinking. Hammer is right-- building can be soul-sucking. It can also be amazingly rewarding. But watching all your friends and people on this website having a ball while you're effectively sidelined just plain sucks.

My local friend @DistrictFab and I have recently been tossing around the idea of going partners on a cheap by airworthy Pacer or the like. Something rag and tube. Well, I went down the rabbit hole of Pacers. I started with being interested in the older O-290 powered ones you can find for $15K. But a couple nights of surfing later, I had myself talked into paying $28K for a PA-22/20 with O-320. Then, I talked myself into converting a PA-22 myself. I finally snapped out of it. I already have a project. I need something that flies. NO projects.

This is a good thread that started with a very honest question. The answer is never easy when you're flying at high elevations. It's like that saying about Good, Fast, Cheap...choose 2. In this case you have Engine, Elevation, Economy...choose 2. There is just no substitute for a more powerful airplane. But there's also no substitute for the experience of learning to fly an underpowered airplane in the mountains.

Good points Zzz, and spot on...aside from that bit about my insight being valuable. Remember, I'm a 13-year-old poser who wears a aviation headset at the computer...

But if I recall, you flew/rented/owned a aircraft or two, or three, prior to your currently garaged moon-shot. You knew what you were getting into, as much as anyone does, anyway.

The problem with buying something is that thing is what commands your interest, and it's startlingly easy to over spend on it because it's all you think about...for now. Houses are probably the biggest trap, but airplanes and cars come in a very close second (sometimes first) for people who actually pay their fair share of taxes.

Pilot Ryan is a pretty good example. Unless his pockets go all the way down to his ankles, he got fixated on something and spent about 30 times what was prudent. Might be the best thing he ever did, but I'll bet it wasn't...bet he'll regret it, in fact. No matter to me and I don't judge him, cause it's his rodeo. But the world is full of traps, and keeping out of them is half of living.

People love the romance of flying, and it's real. But the reality of flying is also real, and it's real expensive. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but if you do it, you have to give up a whole lot in exchange. I don't think we, the people who've been through it, do any sort of service to obfuscate that fact.

I've always considered myself fantastically lucky to have gotten into aviation and not regretted the money spent, 'cause it's absurdly easy to end up on the other side of that equation.

You have had great advice from all the the members. I don't normally fly with any low wing aircraft, however, that is some thing to look into!! Piper has some nice metal low wing aircraft that you can get for a great price. They are not what most think of for a bush plane, but if you go to the west in alaska pilots like a low wing because of the wind!!! If you are flying/landing everyday on runways in 30-40 mph winds every bit helps. Fabric aircraft tend to show age but they fly just as good as the day they came out of the paint booth even 20 years later. Troy takes a tripacer to places in Alaska most pilots only dream of!! So I would head his advice well. Getting instrument rating and aerobatic training are both important!!! I would not buy a plane with that in mind. But That would be the next step in training. I could go back and look at all your old posts but just to save time does the wife come from a flying family in Alaska?? If so I would just ask her what to do.
DENNY

Good thread...

I've owned several airplanes over the years and, like you, when I was in a position to buy my first plane it had to be a taildragger. So I bought a 2002 Maule. I loved the plane and put about 1000 hours on it. I did a ton of backcountry flying in the airplane and, looking back, there was never an instance where I landed that plane someplace that a nose dragger couldn't have landed. Over time I found that having the Maule limited my flying because of x-winds. Many TW pilots will tell you they can land any place a nose wheel driver can, and maybe that's true. My minimums wouldn't allow for that.

So I sold the Maule and bought a V35B. Never once regretted the decision. In fact, it opened up flying for me in a way I didn't expect. Along the way I picked up an RV-7a for fun flying. When I retired, I sold to Bo (didn't need it for work anymore) and picked up my 172.

As for projects: I love airplane projects! I did a full avionics upgrade on the Bonanza and am now converting the 172 into a serious back country performer and full avionics, exterior and interior redo. Am I going to get my money back out of it; NOPE! Do I care; NOPE! Aviation and projects are about passion. If you have the means to take on a project and understand that you are going to lose money in the end; do it!

Keep up the flying!

Jim

jaudette wrote:Good thread...

As for projects: I love airplane projects! I did a full avionics upgrade on the Bonanza and am now converting the 172 into a serious back country performer and full avionics, exterior and interior redo. Am I going to get my money back out of it; NOPE! Do I care; NOPE! Aviation and projects are about passion. If you have the means to take on a project and understand that you are going to lose money in the end; do it!

Keep up the flying!

Jim

That's what it's all about!

And Denny, she isn't from a flying family but local Alaskan.

Av8r3400 wrote:I know they're not popular around here, (this is the Skywagons-only forum) but don't discount the lowly Cherokee 140/150/160/180 as an economical (to buy, insure and to maintain) time builder that is still a decent cross country machine. Every bit as good as a similar powered 172.

Very true. My little Cherokee 140 will do everything a 172 will and it was FAR less expensive to buy.

It feels a little sacrilegious to say this since i'm from Wichita, but I think the Cherokee might be better built. I sure heaped some abuse on mine learning to land but she kept coming back for more.