G44 wrote:

jlacharite wrote:FWIW, just completed my first annual on my Cessna 140. Total cost was $418 and change. did all of the owner allowed items myself to save time and money. Got bored today and wanted to find out how high the 140 can go, and stopped at 12,500 feet. It could have kept going, but i had somewhere to be and had to start the lengthy descent. Granted, this is with a O-200 conversion, but still. As long as you respect the limitations of a Cessna 140, you will be surprised of what they are capable of. Just make sure you keep it light and be careful not to land somewhere you cant take off. I can land in under 300 feet, but expect the take off roll to easily double that (if not more). Just be aware, when it comes to these light two seaters, every ounce counts. The 140 with just myself is a totally different airplane than it is with two people.

All great points about the 140 but he is a big dude, he may not fit in the 140.

I am 6'1" and 220 lbs, and still fit rather well solo. when dual, it definitely gets a lot more crowded, but not terrible as long as you like your passenger

that being said, i still have one more notch of adjustment available on the seatback on both the top and bottom and could make a little more room if i needed to. A fun sidenote, my density altitude yesterday (finally got around to calculating it...) was 14,300 and still climbing at 300 fpm. Impressive for such a small plane!

My first plane was a 1941 Taylorcraft. $1800 and a basket case. 1.5 yrs later I had me a flying plane, that I knew inside and out. I started trading up from there. Forty odd years later I can put my finger on several planes depending on my purpose for flying that day. There is a lot to be said for a project plane, if you have the ability and burning desire to fly. Regardless, align yourself with a competent/realistic IA that's not afraid of his own shadow. That choice can make or break your aircraft ownership dreams. I have seen bad and/or in-experienced ones turn ownership into a nightmare, many times over.. it is vitally important.
T-carts and Chiefs are great planes but not for your size. And a Stinson is the first plane I lost money own. I bought one with the light crankcase : ( but good planes no doubt.
C175s are a lot of plane for the money true, but they have to be flown right with the geared engine. And overhaul cost is substantial.
Buck

saw this on Barnstormers ,. I have never flow a Christava , only read about them.

CHRISTAVIA MARK 1 • $18,000 • AVAILABLE • 385 smoh, 85 tt airframe, Built in 2000, Full electrical, Shoulder harneses Dual controls 100 h.p., • Contact Tom R. Mccarney, Owner - located Duluth, MN USA • Telephone: 218-390-8809 • Posted June 1, 2018 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser • Recommend This Ad to a Friend • Email Advertiser • Save to Watchlist • Report This Ad

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/k ... MK1MK2.php

•Number of Seats: 2 (MK-1 Tandem) OR (MK-2 Side by Side)
•Building Materials: N/A
•Building Time: ~2000 Hours
•Standard Engine: Continental A65
•Horsepower: 65-100
•Wing Span: 32.6'
•Wing Area: 146.25 sq ft
•Empty Weight: 750 lbs
•Gross Weight: 1500 lbs
•Takeoff Distance: 300'
•Landing Distance: 550'
•Cruise Speed: 105 mph
•Top Speed: 135 mph
•Fuel Capacity: 16 Gallons
•Range: 300 miles

Lots of posts regarding the OP's size, and I really don't think it's an issue. He mentioned he's flexible.

I'm 6'5", 200 lbs, with size 15 feet, and I fit in a C-140 just fine, providing I flew barefoot. Did a lot of long cross countries with my wife beside me and never minded the size of the cockpit. My tailwheel instructor was 6' and pushing 270, and while it was cozy with both of us in there, it worked fine.

We flew that airplane 600 hours, and I never remember feeling like it was too cramped.

SkyLarkin wrote:Two very capable aircraft that are often overlooked but have good power and more room are the Cessna 175 and the Stinson. There are some real nice ones out there at affordable prices but are often overlooked for not necessarily good reasons.

Agreed. Stinson 108's are available for 20-30k, and they are good sturdy aircraft. I bought a 108-3 as my first plane with zero hours in my logbook, I would do it again. Insurance is affordable and they are easy to fly.

I'm still on the hunt, and was wondering opinions on a Tri Pacer? I've never flown the flying milk stool, and I can't say I love the aesthetics, but the 150/160hp variants seem to be pretty good value for what you get.

IncipientSpin wrote:I'm still on the hunt, and was wondering opinions on a Tri Pacer? I've never flown the flying milk stool, and I can't say I love the aesthetics, but the 150/160hp variants seem to be pretty good value for what you get.

I love Pacers/Tri-Pacers. I used to be a Cessna guy and for some reason found the idea of the short wing Pipers just... unappealing. My opinion in recent years has changed, as I became friends with a group of local Tri-Pacer fanatics, and flew with a couple of them.

I was really impressed with the feel and control harmony of the shortwing. They are a really pleasant aircraft to fly, if you are comfortable with use of throttle in ever phase of flight. They've higher wing loading, so they're sinky when slow and off the power.

I'm not a fan of the hand brake on the Tri-Pacers. Either go with a tailwheel conversion or find one with toe brakes already installed. I rarely hear Tri-pacer guys actually complain about their handbrake but it seems goofy to me.

Right side door only. You get used to it, but I always find myself wishing there was a left side door.

They can haul a good load, and tend to weigh less than their Cessna 172 peers, so they enjoy a touch more performance on roughly the same horsepower.

The nosegear is stout and provides a lot of prop clearance. Or so I have heard...I would never actually subject myself to that problem.

Did this get linked yet? https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/ok-i ... c-172-9466

I was in a similar spot, and went for a Tri Pacer. I also had a $20-25k budget, and expanded it another $15k once I started looking and realized how much more expensive it'd be down the line to upgrade something rather than to buy what I wanted to end up with. Spending $30-35K will be well worth it.

Huge benefit if you can find a pacer/tri pacer with the skylight up top - I'm 6', and would've felt mighty cramped in that plane without having a view up above....really opens up the cockpit feel. Took a little getting used to the hand brake but I don't mind. Extended tips help with the "floats like a brick" reputation, and the short wing handles turbulence much more pleasantly b/c of the high wing loading, and the roll rate is snappy which makes it a blast to fly.

+1 on the tri-pacer. It was my first plane and flew me and my family all over the country for 5 years. You can find decent versions for <20k easy... I have a pretty good idea how the market is since I sold mine several months back.

simple and reliable and a good 2+2 for bigger guys or camping trips. You will get more plane per $ than a 172 or 170.

Sounds like if you throw some VG's on it and a 57/58 pitched prop, it's a decent little plane for light off airport ops. I really like the idea of one day converting it to a PA22/20, even if it's obscenely expensive. Seems to be the best fit for my budget and mission type... I'd love a 182, but I'm not able to swing that just yet. Besides lower door corrosion and it being a tube and fabric plane, are there any other gotchas I should look out for when searching? Obviously an extremely thorough pre-buy is a given.

IncipientSpin wrote:Sounds like if you throw some VG's on it and a 57/58 pitched prop, it's a decent little plane for light off airport ops. I really like the idea of one day converting it to a PA22/20, even if it's obscenely expensive. Seems to be the best fit for my budget and mission type... I'd love a 182, but I'm not able to swing that just yet. Besides lower door corrosion and it being a tube and fabric plane, are there any other gotchas I should look out for when searching? Obviously an extremely thorough pre-buy is a given.

I love my Tripacer.

Just came back from moose hunting.

IncipientSpin wrote:Sounds like if you throw some VG's on it and a 57/58 pitched prop, it's a decent little plane for light off airport ops. I really like the idea of one day converting it to a PA22/20, even if it's obscenely expensive. Seems to be the best fit for my budget and mission type... I'd love a 182, but I'm not able to swing that just yet. Besides lower door corrosion and it being a tube and fabric plane, are there any other gotchas I should look out for when searching? Obviously an extremely thorough pre-buy is a given.

Keep an eye out for the method of compliance for the AD on the wing struts - AD 2015-08-04 (often referred to by its old name, 99-95-01 in older threads)- better to have compliance via replacement with the beefed up struts/bolts vs. just inspection - know some great pilots who won't get into an airplane that was complied with via the inspect portion of the AD after having friends lose a wing.

evanr42 wrote:

IncipientSpin wrote:Sounds like if you throw some VG's on it and a 57/58 pitched prop, it's a decent little plane for light off airport ops. I really like the idea of one day converting it to a PA22/20, even if it's obscenely expensive. Seems to be the best fit for my budget and mission type... I'd love a 182, but I'm not able to swing that just yet. Besides lower door corrosion and it being a tube and fabric plane, are there any other gotchas I should look out for when searching? Obviously an extremely thorough pre-buy is a given.

Keep an eye out for the method of compliance for the AD on the wing struts - AD 2015-08-04 (often referred to by its old name, 99-95-01 in older threads)- better to have compliance via replacement with the beefed up struts/bolts vs. just inspection - know some great pilots who won't get into an airplane that was complied with via the inspect portion of the AD after having friends lose a wing.

Plus, it's not that expensive to comply by replacement. I have 2 sets of univair struts in my hangar for cheap if anyone else needs them.

After reading all the above comments, I'm thinking a Pacer/TriPacer is the plane for me. 2 up with gear for dirt ops, and wife and kids back and forth from BOI to North Idaho. I realize I don't get to go fast for the budget I have, so I'm totally content with that. Guess I need to start looking for a good one.

I've read a bunch of other threads on similar topics and will be following this one since your requirements are pretty damn close to mine!

I'm *only* 6'3" but that's enough to have dashed some of my simple cheap dreams involving LSAs and J-3s and so on, I think. I'm flying in a 172 now with room to spare. Meanwhile could not comfortably fit in a Skycatcher at all. Didn't feel like I'd be able to safely fly it for any real period of time.

One thing that keeps coming up in my searching is the Ercoupe -- but I've never even seen one in real life to be able to evaluate it for fit. Any thoughts on this?

That is a good point, when selling my PA22 i could tell it wouldn’t be a good fit for larger people after watching them climb in an sit down. Be sure to sit in one and see if you “fit”.

On the plus side, after spending 5 years in the PA22, the PA32 seems gargantuan in comparison.

I am 6'4"...everybody seems to think I should not fit in a PA22, but it really does work okay.

Troy Hamon wrote:I am 6'4"...everybody seems to think I should not fit in a PA22, but it really does work okay.

I'm 6'1" 200#, as is one of my closest friends (he's closer to 6'2") and we've sat side by side for hours in a PA22 w/ skylight without an issue. Once you takeoff and settle in, surprisingly easy to get comfortable.

evanr42 wrote:

Troy Hamon wrote:I am 6'4"...everybody seems to think I should not fit in a PA22, but it really does work okay.

I'm 6'1" 200#, as is one of my closest friends (he's closer to 6'2") and we've sat side by side for hours in a PA22 w/ skylight without an issue. Once you takeoff and settle in, surprisingly easy to get comfortable.

+1

The prolonged homoerotic implications are much more an issue than the dimensional constraints.

“Fit” in Avicenna airplane has more to do with your flexibility than your size. I’ve known some really large guys who flew Taylorcrafts, etc with no problem and relatively small guys who really struggled to get in one.

The best bet, as noted above, is to find one and see how well you boardand debark. And understand that some of these things take a little practice to get the technique down.

MTV