A few of my co-workers (airline pilots, I know it doesn't mean anything good) and I are thinking of going into a partnership on a light airplane in south central AK, probably to keep at lake hood. We don't have any specific mission requirement other than being able to operate on the 2200 ft gravel strip at lake hood, survive a tie down there, and carry 2 adults + 1 child. It's just to fly around for fun/sightseeing and maybe some leisurely cross country trips in the region. We would probably be stupid to try any off-airport stuff for awhile. We're taking mountain flying courses from some of the local trainers, educating ourselves on the area etc.

I have't flown GA much in years, 10K hours but all airline garbage. I'm still a CFI, only a dozen hours tailwheel time from decades ago in Stinsons/Super Decathlons. Partners have similar credentials.

We are looking at things like super cruisers and cessna 170's. Would even go up to something lilke a Maule M5. I think my partners want to keep the acquisition cost under $100,000 (at some point it seems kind of stupid to spend more than this on something subjected to a tie down). I would spend more if we had better storage for it than a tie down.

My concern is the structural integrity of these 70+ year old airplanes that have been sitting in the elements for decades. I realize a good pre-buy from a mechanic that we hire independently will be crucial. Where is the fine line between a ragged out airframe and something that's still safe but not so pretty that you're losing a lot of value keeping it on a tie down?

Another concern is the viability of these very light, sub 150 HP airplanes in mountainous areas with the sometimes gnarly turbulence. Obviously this can be mitigated to a degree by not flying on turbulent days, but one of my partners has expressed a bit of uneasiness regarding the lack of power in his 172 checkouts so far....which is probably considerably more powerful than a 170 or super cruiser.

For all these reasons I kind of gravitate toward a solid 30-40 year old-ish 182. A 180 would be cooler, but.....old. Part of me would find it lame to have a 182 in AK though. A maule would certainly scratch the itch a bit better.

Anyway, thoughts and recommendations appreciated. I've always wanted an airplane and think this would be fun, but I need to make it safe (and legal so as not to put my job in jeopardy). Really just kind of putting feelers out and what to look for and what to avoid.

Knowing a tube and fabric plane’s maintenance history will help address your concerns about 70 year old structures. And having a thorough pre-buy will also help. Some aircraft will be eliminated from consideration as their maintenance history will be unavailable.

If it’s going to be left outside year-round, with long periods of inactivity or being unattended, my choice would be an aluminum plane rather than a rag wing for the durability factor. It’s harder to poke a hole in aluminum than in fabric. Something like a C-170 with an O-360 or a C-180 would be on my short list.

Seriously consider a 182, great airplane for what you describe.

Kurt

I feel like "Buy a 182" is such an easy thing to say, but it fits the bill exactly for the purpose stated. That, or a 180hp 172, but they cost about the same these days it seems. Unless you need the tailwheel, you might find a nose gear is easier to stay proficient in if you're only flying for the occasional recreational flight.

No doubt a 182 is a pretty good fit for what you are proposing.

But then again, so is a Maule. The Maules were covered in Razorback fabric (fiberglass cloth) starting in 1973 with the introduction of the M5 until they switched to Ceconite in 1981. The Razorback is heavier than Ceconite and the weakness of either is going to be what the sun and elements do to the paint. Being tied down outside will still take it's toll but not to the degree that historic fabric covered aircraft have a reputation for. The other issue is how well rain water is deflected and/or allowed to functionally drain preventing accumulated water from causing rust on the airframe. Aluminum skinned aircraft suffer from this as well.

You will find fabric covered aircraft that have been recovered with a modern synthetic fiber and that have been tied down outside will have paint issues. How you decide to deal with peeling or cracking paint will determine your interest. Some folks would rather recover the aircraft rather than deal with peeling paint even though the fabric is still serviceable.

Insurance for the Maule is an issue that will be raised shortly after I post this reply. I'm here to tell you that although the rates may be higher for the Maule vs a Cessna anything the annual cost savings vs a Cessna alone for the Maule will more than offset the higher premiums.

DeltaRomeo wrote:
Insurance for the Maule is an issue that will be raised shortly after I post this reply. I'm here to tell you that although the rates may be higher for the Maule vs a Cessna anything the annual cost savings vs a Cessna alone for the Maule will more than offset the higher premiums.

Can you elaborate on this? What are the annual cost savings?

Just go buy a straight tail 182 and be done with it. The insurance will be affordable, maintenance costs reasonable and it will haul a load. It will go 90% of the places most sane people would attempt to operate out of. Aluminum airplanes do just fine tied down at Lake Hood. Max bang for the buck.

Fabric can always be replaced, though it's an expensive job. I've hardly seen any tube and fabric aircraft that lived outside that didn't end up with some corrosion in the lower rear longerons and sternpost, so I would check that. (And I fixed many.) But that is the beauty of steel tube; it's easily repaired.

If you find some rust damage and bad fabric, you're in a really good bargaining position. Provided you can do some of the work yourself. All depends on your budget.

Other than that I would have no qualms about flying an aircraft simply because of its age.

Welcome. Lots of options at that price. Look at the power difference between light airplanes and your day job airplane. Low vs high AGL altitude orientation and techniques will serve you well. A large percentage of mountains flying in small aircraft is maneuvering flight. We don't leap buildings in a single bound and we have to miss stuff down low.

Steel tube and fabric planes are very easy to make “like new” again. It’s just time consuming and expensive if you’re paying someone to do it.

Many of those old planes you’re talking about have already gone through something like this at some point in their lives, and if it was properly done it can take away a lot of the aging process you’re worried about.

Skip the straight tail and look for a 182-C model. Has the third window and more rear seat headroom having the same fuselage dimensions as a 185/180H. Manual flaps. Taller gear then the 182-D. Probably a touch faster than a straight tail. A really nice example will set you back $65-70k and others can be had between $45-60k.

Insurance will be more reasonable than a tailwheel and the only thing you'll really miss out on is ski flying.

A Cessna 205 would be the absolute ticket, having a stronger nosewheel structure and fuel injection, but can be tricky to find one for sale.

TradeCraft wrote:Skip the straight tail and look for a 182-C model. Has the third window and more rear seat headroom having the same fuselage dimensions as a 185/180H. Manual flaps. Center stack radios. Taller gear then the 182-D. Probably a touch faster than a straight tail. A really nice example will set you back $65-70k and others can be had between $45-60k.

Insurance will be more reasonable than a tailwheel and the only thing you'll really miss out on is ski flying.

A Cessna 205 would be the absolute ticket, having a stronger nosewheel structure and fuel injection, but can be tricky to find one for sale.

This is good advice.

I bought this 1100 hour TT 182D that was unairworthy for $6k, put $20k of in parts into it and recently sold it for $50k.

It helps if you or one of your close friends is an A&P/IA

What a fantastic plane for the money.

DeltaRomeo wrote:Insurance for the Maule is an issue that will be raised shortly after I post this reply. I'm here to tell you that although the rates may be higher for the Maule vs a Cessna anything the annual cost savings vs a Cessna alone for the Maule will more than offset the higher premiums.

While that may be true in the lower 48, He can expect a Shocking insurance premium on the Maule in Alaska.

Thanks for all the replies. The 182 does seem like the logical choice. A Maule or 180 has more sex appeal, having already spent a few hundred hours in a 182RG back in my flight instructing days. Then again I've never flown one, and the flying conditions in AK are challenging enough without throwing in any extra degrees of difficulty.

Luckily one of our partners is an A&P as well as an airline pilot, but I do not want to put undo burden on him with the partnership.

A1 Skinner wrote "Can you elaborate on this? What are the annual cost savings?"

In my conversations with Cessna owners and AP/IA's about annual costs I have found that annuals for 172's/FG 182's will cost $1200 to $2000 assuming they have no really big squawks. My annuals have been running roughly half that on the Maule (using 3 different AP/IA's) and this difference is about what I pay higher for insurance relative to 172 and 182 insurance premiums reported here on BCP. So essentially it is an economic wash. I say this not to spur angry responses but to point out that the Maule is a very affordable option in the aircraft market in spite of the the higher insurance premiums. I can't speak for market conditions in Alaska.

I'm hoping this does not derail the thread on behalf of the OP but this is relevant to possible aircraft considerations.

There's a lot going on here.

https://alaskaslist.com/-3/posts/10_Tra ... _180G.html

DeltaRomeo wrote:A1 Skinner wrote "Can you elaborate on this? What are the annual cost savings?"
In my conversations with Cessna owners and AP/IA's about annual costs I have found that annuals for 172's/FG 182's will cost $1200 to $2000 assuming they have no really big squawks. My annuals have been running roughly half that on the Maule (using 3 different AP/IA's) and this difference is about what I pay higher for insurance relative to 172 and …...

I'm curious as to why the big difference in inspection costs.
Pretty much the same amount of inspection is required for similar class airplanes,
whether it's a Cessna or a Maule.
Replacement parts / fabric repair vs re-skinning don't come into play except for repairs.

As an AME up in Canada I'm very curious of this as well. Not to derail the thread but I work on Maules and Cessna and an M7 or a C180 is very similar times for annuals. Maybe a smidge less for the Maule, but definitely not half.

Taking a few panels out of the interior and removing the inspection covers on a Maule reveals the entire aircraft, inside and out. Cables, pulleys, bell cranks, etc are easy to see and give maintenance to. Rag and tube aircraft are a more simple means of building an aircraft compared to stressed skin monocoque. The large cargo doors of the Maule mean that you'll never have to send someone into the tailcone. On the other hand, Aluminum skinned aircraft means that you'll never have to repair a stone induced hole in the fabric, but there are field means to deal with that.

Why the price difference between the two at annual? Maybe a local dynamic or because I provide some assistance, or just plain pity?

DeltaRomeo wrote:Taking a few panels out of the interior and removing the inspection covers on a Maule reveals the entire aircraft, inside and out. Cables, pulleys, bell cranks, etc are easy to see and give maintenance to. Rag and tube aircraft are a more simple means of building an aircraft compared to stressed skin monocoque. The large cargo doors of the Maule mean that you'll never have to send someone into the tailcone. On the other hand, Aluminum skinned aircraft means that you'll never have to repair a stone induced hole in the fabric, but there are field means to deal with that.

Why the price difference between the two at annual? Maybe a local dynamic or because I provide some assistance, or just plain pity?

Haha. You've obviously never had to go squeeze between the flap cables and cross bars to go down the tail of a Maule to adjust the rudder trim springs, or do other maintenance down there... still things to do down the tail, big cargo doors or not.

New fabric does past a long time, and if it's taken care of the tubing will he good as well. A good prebuy and I wouldnt discount and appropriately priced fabric aircraft.