New to forum here. Looking to buy a do it all STOL airplane around 100K (less would be ideal haha) that will allow me to fly my family around (wife and 2 toddlers, we are pretty light people wife and I together is probably 290ish) as well as allow me to load up with my mountain bikes or camping gear and go on adventures.

Some history, just finished my PPL with plans to get IFR cert and possibly aerobatics and tailwheel at some point.

Mission: Planning to fly my family around the midwest and 1-2 times a year much longer trips out west or down to florida. Ideally id love to fly like these bush pilots on youtube however in Michigan (where I live) and throughout the majority of the midwest there doesn't seem to be much bush flying other than remote grass airstrips which might have some bumps at the most but nothing a C172 couldnt handle.

Ive been eyeing the Maule M7 and MT7 and Im having a difficult time deciding if a tail dragger is worth the extra training, insurance and risk with landing in gustier winds and worse weather in a state like Michigan. Believe me I think tail dragger looks way cooler but realistically is the risk/increased$$ worth it when most of my flying will be in a relatively flat state with minimal real bush flying (think gravel bars and mountain tops). Im thinking if I ever did move out west a kitfox or cubcrafters would be a good second fun bush plane to tool around in.

So, my questions are:

1) Taildragger vs Trike for a Michigander who will mostly fly in the midwest with his family and land 50/50 on grass strips and airports. Im leaning towards the MT7 as corny as it looks haha Something like this: https://www.controller.com/listings/air ... le-mt7-235
2) I want a plane that can handle long trips that is also a good and stable IFR platform
3) I like the large doors in the back of the maule as it would be easier to load with mountain bikes and larger gear. Ive looked at C172/82 and C180/85s but I just dont think it would be easy to fit bikes and larger gear in the back through the 2 front doors. Also the C206/210 are great but a descent one is out of my price range.
4) If maule is the best choice would 180hp be enough or would I wish I would have gone with the 235hp a few months after purchasing? If i were to get the taildragger version I would definitely fork out the cash to go learn how to fly it with a maule trainer out west or down south.
5) any other plane suggestions you think would fit my mission would be greatly appreciated too

All my flying thus far has been in a C172.

Sorry for the long post and thank you for your time and help!
10-4

Have you thought about a 182?

Evan got a great one at a good deal and I think he’s pretty happy with its capabilities.

If I was on the fence about where the little wheel went and wanted a 4-person plane, I’d look that direction.

CamTom12 wrote:Have you thought about a 182?

Evan got a great one at a good deal and I think he’s pretty happy with its capabilities.

If I was on the fence about where the little wheel went and wanted a 4-person plane, I’d look that direction.

Edit: I originally missed your bullet #3. Sorry!

Cessna 205/ P-206, hands down. Those kids and their “stuff are going to grow.

MTV

I love my 182 but I’m not sure I could squeeze bikes into it, the aforementioned 205 or a Cherokee 6 would be good options. That Maule you listed looks like it was on old Civil Air Patrol plane, it was probably beat to hell in a previous life.

Thanks for the responses!

I was also thinking the 206 would work great but the descent ones are usually well over 150k and as a new pilot im nervous about getting into a cheaper 206 project plane. Also how does the 206 perform on soft grass strips and the occasional rougher landing strip if equipped with larger tires? Too heavy??

The maules seemed like a much better deal for similar performance plus rear cargo space access. I agree the 182 would really meet all my needs except the cargo area access and space. I was hoping to fly my mountain bikes around the midwest and northeast for weekend trail rides and camping. So the loading ability is important to me. Any other plane suggestions?

Thanks again!!
10-4

Another 205 vote if you want to own your own plane. 100K will easily get you a nice airplane. If you take the rearmost seats out it will fit four people and real bags, or bicycles if you prefer. I looked hard at the 182's and they just don't fit all the stuff my wife and kids want to bring, so we bought the 205. It won't do the hardcore bushplane stuff, but will land at any strip I'm willing to bring my wife and kids to from a risk perspective.

Consider buying into a partnership for the transportation airplane (Cherokee six shouldn't be hard to find) and then buy your own bushplane. My wife and kids aren't interested in recreational flying, but love the travelling part. Two planes is better than one.

Maules and 206 are in different categories. Yes a 206 is expensive, but having 1400lb+ useful load means you can haul a lot. The one I'm currently building should have very close to or just over 1700lbs useful. If you're worried about them on a beach or rough terrain, theres lots of videos of how they are used up in Alaska. Hell for stout.
A Cherokee 6 is a great option as well. They have a big rear door and can haul a big load as well. Their landing gear is very strong so well.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Maule MT-7-235 and don't look back. You'll have a great airplane that does everything you want as long as you don't need a fifth seat. Good bang for the buck. I sometimes make fun of trikes but it's in good fun. I don't need a taildragger.

Little John here has taken his everywhere. Couple other guys here flying them.

As for the term "bush flying"...

Welcome. Nosewheel for what you want to do. Distractions aren't more dangerous in tailwheel airplanes, but they sure can bend them. Take care of the wife and kids and go fly with some of us from time to time. Come by 2H2 and fly with me sometime. We can do most of that fancy stuff with a rental 172 on my dime. Click below to get my free book.

Look very carefully at the Maule’s useful load. In my experience it’s either gas or cabin load, but not both.

A light 182 will probably have a better useful load than most Maules.

You wouldn’t believe where you can safely take a 205/206. I’ve run them in some pretty rough stuff. In fact, there’s a lot of places I’d rather take a 206 than a 185.

And Cessnas are tough.

MTV

Zzz wrote:Maule MT-7-235 and don't look back. You'll have a great airplane that does everything you want as long as you don't need a fifth seat. Good bang for the buck.

Little John here has taken his everywhere. Couple other guys here flying them.

As for the term "bush flying"...

Are you kidding??? Nobody flies Mauls anymore. Four people, mountain bikes and gear...he needs a Pilatus PC-6. Less than $60K in 1966, and well below two-million new.

What about a bare bones M7-180 fixed pitch? Decked out version has 955 useful. Bare bones is over 1,100# useful.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Don't know what's out there, but a M 7 180 tricycle gear would probably do everything you would want for years. The taildragger versions buy you another ~ 50 lbs of useful to over 1000 lbs. vs < 800 in a 172. The 180hp is far more fuel efficient than my 235 O-540 but still gets up pretty quickly.

Insurance for a conventional gear plane is going to be higher and as much as people kid about "training wheels" planes, I have seen 180 hp Maules get in and out of some mountain strips just fine....just have to know your and your plane's limits in high density altitudes.

One thing that has not been mentioned is the cost of parts. I think 2x less than Cessna parts costs is being conservative.

As you point out the cargo area access is a major plus especially if you are hauling gear. I routinely carry two full sized bikes in the back ( take front wheels off ). I have wrestled gear into a C-180 before and it was never fun.

Use the money you save on the Maule to buy something bigger when the kids grow up.

Have fun.

TD

My inclination would go to a PA-32-300 or it’s more expensive cousin the fixed gear Saratoga. Many airtaxi’s all over Alaska used and still use them. I started out as a 206/207 driver and after +2K hours in the Piper PA-32 series, I prefered them in every aspect, especially 135 ops. Just get what your budget allows and get super proficient.

TVATIVAK71 wrote:My inclination would go to a PA-32-300 or it’s more expensive cousin the fixed gear Saratoga. Many airtaxi’s all over Alaska used and still use them. I started out as a 206/207 driver and after +2K hours in the Piper PA-32 series, I prefered them in every aspect, especially 135 ops. Just get what your budget allows and get super proficient.

I agree, it’s hard to beat a PA 32, no doubt. I’ve always favored the 206, but as noted, the 6 will do just about everything a 206 will do, and some of it better.

MTV

What sort of cruise speeds do y’all see with the 6?
Aren’t they quite a bit slower than a 205/206?

Sierra Victor wrote:What sort of cruise speeds do y’all see with the 6?
Aren’t they quite a bit slower than a 205/206?

In my somewhat limited experience, they’re about the same or a bit faster than the 206. Great load haulers, and buckets of gas.

MTV

Sierra Victor wrote:What sort of cruise speeds do y’all see with the 6?
Aren’t they quite a bit slower than a 205/206?

IIRC at max gross or “heavy” the PA-32-300 was 135ish at 80% power and the Saratoga was about 10kts faster. I always have found that book numbers or owners numbers tend to be inflated a bit, kinda like word of mouth gross wt and real gross weight. I can’t seem to remember what the 206 cruised at (most my hours on floats). We had quite a few of those Pipers at PENAIR and they were great flying machines. You could fit an entire casket complete with shipping box through the rear cargo door without turning it sideways. Tough to do in a 206/207.

TVATIVAK71 wrote:

Sierra Victor wrote:What sort of cruise speeds do y’all see with the 6?
Aren’t they quite a bit slower than a 205/206?

IIRC at max gross or “heavy” the PA-32-300 was 135ish at 80% power and the Saratoga was about 10kts faster. I always have found that book numbers or owners numbers tend to be inflated a bit, kinda like word of mouth gross wt and real gross weight. I can’t seem to remember what the 206 cruised at (most my hours on floats). We had quite a few of those Pipers at PENAIR and they were great flying machines. You could fit an entire casket complete with shipping box through the rear cargo door without turning it sideways. Tough to do in a 206/207.

I remember when Orin Siebert, owner of Penair started replacing all his 206s with Cherokee sixes. I asked him why, and his response was something to the effect that the 6 is a better freighter and tougher.

That should tell you most of what you need to know about the six in backcountry.

MTV