Schmokey wrote:Jason: Can you provide a link to this? I can't find any evidence of this on google yet.

Nope, it was just in an email in the Stinson group with no link backing it up, so not sure if it's real or not.

MTV:

My mistake. Times are 2700TT, 600SMOH. Good advice on the checkout. Happen to know of any pacer instructors in the PNW you'd recommend? What's your recommendation for a guy with a $45k budget looking for a solid backcountry taildragger?

What is it about pacers and maules that make them less than ideal in crosswinds? Simply the fact that they're short coupled? Large cross section? Aileron size/placement?

Schmokey wrote:MTV:

What's your recommendation for a guy with a $45k budget looking for a solid backcountry taildragger?

LOTS of good backcountry aircraft in that price range. Unless you're a big tailwheel guy, I'd add a good ol' early model Cessna 182 to the list. It's just hard to beat (for a non tailwheel plane).

I'm an Stinson guy myself, and for a first plane, this seems like a wonderful deal (I don't know anything about it other than the listing). http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_ ... 108-3.html (curious what the empty weight is)

A little reiteration I guess, speaking from personal experience with the aircraft I've owned, the M4 210 C was the funnest and it was definitely the power to weight that made it so. The M5 180 C was better than the 4 to land, but only slightly better. The take off performance just wasn't exciting, 200' landings, 600' TO. The 150 HP Citabria was less fun than either, back to the power issue. For back country especially with any sort of DA issue, power is where it's at. The conntinental motor is expensive to overhaul, no way around it, fuel injection, a new VAR crank and six cylinders all eat money. And, Maule insurance is expensive, no idea about the Piper but Maules love insurance money like crazy. In summary, from my experience, everythings is a compromise, buy the most power you can, don't forget it's a buyers market and deal hard! Good luck again!

I know where there is a really nice 108-3 with 165 HC with about 100 hrs since ground up rebuild for sale for a lot less than your budget. 1100 + useable.

Right now $45K should buy an awful nice plane! Like these guys said, keep looking. I wouldn't consider a high time engine if I was in your place. Money talks right now and don't hesitate to make a low ball offer. If you buy it and the engine goes out, your going to have to dump a bunch into it or give it away. And even that's not an option if you have a loan. You'll be making payments on a grounded plane.

If you want a tailwheel and a backcountry plane why not a 170 with the O-360. You can get one under your $ limit with a lot of life left in it and still have money to fly. You can always move up later and the insurance won't be so bad on a Cessna.

I haven't seen any O-360 C-170s out there going for less than 45K... If there was I would have bought one.

Well it looks like getting insurance for a Maule with really low times is basically impossible. That's what I'm basically being told by the brokers. What's strange is that if a carrier won't quote hull coverage, they won't consider quoting just liability coverage. This doesn't make much sense .. the probability of paying out liability claims must be far less than hull claims. You'd think if they decline to quote hull, they might be open to liability only. I don't have the balls to fly w/o liability insurance. Too many things can go wrong. Looks like flying away in an insured Maule won't happen until I get more hours under my belt. Thanks for the help, guys .. the hunt goes on!

You wont get a 180hp 170 for that, but you might get a strate tail 172 or 175. there was a really nice 175 tail dragger on barnstormers lately with a mid time 0-360 new paint and a avion pannel for 49000. nice plane and easier to land and Im sure they would insure you in a cessna

Unprecedented. You started off with interest in a Maule and the gang now has you in a mid sized Cessna.

James on the site has one and he could give you some Ideas of cost to fly as he fly's the heck out of his.
What ever you get Fly it and be Happy with it! It's yours!! That's the best part!
They are both damn good airplanes, but completely different aircraft!
Good luck, hope it all works out for you!
GT

Hello,
I have a 1974 M-4 210C and really like it! What I found is that what people are asking for thier airplanes and what they sell for are two differnt things. The guy was asking $53K for my M-4 with 1795 TTSN, 150 hrs on a P-Ponk reman & 50 hours on a new prop. I bought it for $42K. It is IFR, with VGs and has the sealed wing struts too. I wouldn't pay more than $25K for a run out M-4 with the old struts. Just shop around, its a buyers market these days. The power to weight ratio on the M-4 with the 210 hp does a great job. Good luck.

James

Geared up for Alaska and head out tomorrow morning

So you're the lucky guy who snagged Kevin Stalder's plane ... nice

I'm looking at Stinsons and maybe a Cessna taildragger. The thing with Cessnas is they seem expensive for what you get. They do hold their value quite well, however. Still considering the Pacer. Everybody said Maules were a handful, but after flying a Kitfox that M4 seemed very docile based on an hour of flying. I'm sure in a stiff crosswind, it's another story!

I'm not necesarily a big Maule fan (although I do like the round-tailed M4's), but the pics of James' airplane all loaded up with the doors open show one good reason to own one. Just keep in mind that if you spend all your money buying an airplane, you won't have any left to fix anything that breaks.
In my experience, airplanes with 210-230 horspower generally cost about 50% more to operate than 150-ish horsepower airplanes. Everything but the hangar just costs more. That's why I never stepped up from a C170 to a C180, although I came close a couple times, and in fact sorta side-stepped into a C150/150TD. It's fun to fly, but will never compete with the C180 or Maule in the freighter department. I would put a good 150-160 horsepower Pacer in the same category as a Stinson 108 or a C170 in terms of usefulness, plus they are pretty sporty to fly.
In discussing the close-to-TBO status of the M4 in question, no one's addressed the fact that it has only 50 hours since being topped. The cost-effectiveness of topping an engine that close to TBO aside, seems to me like it oughta be good to go for quite a while.

To be fair, go chop on an old tube & fabric airplane sometime. I'm betting that thin-wall tubing won't hold up much better to an axe than did the cessna. Not really a good test of survivability IMHO.
FWIW you reduced the vintage airplane count by one more, plus blew a chance to recoup some $$ by selling off the C140 fuse to someone by chopping it in half. It's no big trick to put some dunnage under a bulkhead partway back, and leave the tail hanging off the end of the trailer-- been there, done that with a C170.

There are a few mods that really make a Pacer perform. I would stay away from a metalized one. Put as big of tires as are necessary for your mission and a borer prop and it will go a lot of fun places. Shop for one that already has the wing tips squared off.

Just to balance the scales a little............

Back seat in, 4 people and all our gear (okay, maybe not 4 "FAA Size" people, lol!)

OregonMaule wrote:I would buy the biggest most powerful STOL plane you can afford and afford to insure and maintain. AFFORD! If you can't afford to fly it get something less expensive. Bigger is always better IMO.

If I could afford one I would be in a Caravan, Palatus Porter, Twin Otter, Kodiak, Beaver or a DC-3. But I can't so I fly a Maule.

Cheers...Rob

Let's not forget that a Pacer and a Stinson had to fly into Gewey Moore and redirect most of the water off of the runway so that the Maules could land.......

[quote="highroad"]There are a few mods that really make a Pacer perform. I would stay away from a metalized one. Put as big of tires as are necessary for your mission and a borer prop and it will go a lot of fun places. Shop for one that already has the wing tips squared off.
[\quote]

Why avoid metalized if the final weight isn't too bad? Does it cause problems? This particular metalized pacer I'm looking at is around 1220#.

This M4-220 looks a lot like a M4 that was in Washington State a few years ago. It also looks a lot like Yellow Maule's bird.

Don't know the prevailing thoughts on Franklins but this one looks to have a lot of hours left on it.

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?s-t ... 5&s-page=1

TomD it is. George K. flew it over there with the new owner..

Looks like it is Mike's former bird. It was well cared for while he had it.