Long time lurker, first time poster.
I’ve been soaking up the info here for the past 10 months or so and finally decided to pull the trigger and get registered. Hi guys.

This is me:
I grew up in Boise and my grandfather was Bill Woods. He flew the mail route (and everything else) into the Salmon from the late 40s into the late 60s. He operated Floating Feather airport just north of town. My earliest memories were sitting in his house up on the hill watching him come home every evening, usually in his big Ford tri-motor or a Travelaire. Then a half hour or so later his big ol’ Caddy would come blazing down the runway and up towards the house. He’d grab a scotch, I’d plop down on his lap and he’d tell great stories. Good times..

He died before I had a chance to learn much of anything from him but as they say the apple never fell far from the tree. The relatives picked his estate clean so we never had much money. I went into debt up to my eyeballs just getting through college and then a biology degree didn’t really help matters (shoulda listened to my dad “get a business degree!”). A bad marriage and an expensive divorce just ate up more time and money.

Now in my late 40s with both time and money on my hands and with the big five-o fast approaching I decided I better get ‘er done. Had my check ride July 17. It’s official now…I’m legally dangerous.

I’ve managed to somehow develop a practical approach to things over the years, so my real justification for getting my certificate is getting from point A (home) to point B (my ranch) in somewhat under the 5 hours it takes to drive. Fact is, I don’t think I can take much more of the 5 year old and 9 year old griping in the back seat. Figure in a plane at least I won’t hear ‘em. Wife agrees.

I’m all about doing everything I can to be the best pilot I can be. In fact, I’m just a little obsessed. I lay awake at night dissecting my landings….why are they so damned difficult!!!?? I know the best plane for my mission is a 206. I have to haul the whole crew including the dog……but it’s just not what I want. I know I’d look really cool in a 185. Wouldn’t I?

Seems to me that if you guys can’t help me justify a taildragger then I really am out of my mind.

Regards,
Scott

Welcome, good to have new blood.

As for 180/185 there should be be no question, the 180/185 is just sexier then all the rest.

Marty

The 185 is a great aircraft. I just got mine and have tons to learn but a lot of fun to fly. There is no doubt that you have to be on top of it until it's tied down but it is not the big scary monster that many people make it out to be either.

Kevin

Welcome here!
I don't fly a big taildragger, just a Citabria for now. But I absolutely love the tailwheel! And when I have a family I plan on moving into a 185 or M7. Will see what I can manage finacially. Should be an easy sell to your wife, don't you know that chicks dig taildraggers?

Thanks fellas!

Music to my ears.

Scott,

For the mission you describe, I would say you would be better off with a 206. Sorry.

I cannot deny that the 185 is a way sexier plane than the 206...but sexy only goes so far and when the rubber meets the road and it's 15 gusting 23 right across your landing zone, you will be happier in the 206.

206:
Wider
Large baggage door
Better flaps
Better ailerons
Actual 6 seater if needed
End of a long flight is a non issue in bad winds

185:
Narrow
Small baggage door
Same wing/flaps/ailerons as a 172 but your plane can be flown at 3350 lbs. Not the same performance.
Better ski plane
Not a great 4 seater and an even worse 6 seater
End of a long flight can be a huge deal in bad winds


I would say that unless you absolutely need the prop clearance because you are flying into really bad strips, or your strip is really bumpy, or you need to operate on skis..........the 206 is the better plane.

I fly a 185

No no no, Scott! Don't lesson to these guys

You should just get a Maule! (Inside joke you might know about here on the forum for a while )

Good to meet you. Are you still in Boise?

Squash, you've squashed my dreams!

Seriously, I know the 206 is the better choice but I've yet to find one for less than $150k that isn't hammered to bat$h!t. And there a bunch of sweet 185s for that price....several that have been totally re-done.

I went into this thinking a 206 was the ultimate answer, even went to Van Bortel a few months ago and slobbered all over the new ones. That is until I called a few insurance brokers and got a dose of reality......$250K hull insurance with 100 hrs total time will cost me.......get this.....$11,500!!!! I'm working on my instrument rating but even with that they only said I'd get a 10% deduction. All boils down to airplane cost.

So, since I need an airplane that costs less than $150k and can haul 1200 lbs plus then the choice is clear....right..? And with the recent thread on Why Everyone Needs a Taildragger (or something to the effect) it seems like the most practical choice. Who'da thunk, eh?
Although, if you showed me a nice 206 with decent avionics for a buck fifty I'd grab it in a heartbeat.

Feedback is appreciated.

Scott

58Skylane,

A Maule is the first airplane that I really WANTED!!

But alas the useful is only <1000 lbs and that just won't work for my needs.

Still really think they're cool though and check barnstormers daily for the magical M7-260 that has a 1000+ useful. Haven't seem to see one yet.

Joke isn't lost on me

Oh, and no, I moved to Texas about 15 years ago. Go to Boise often, though. Have a place in McCall.

I can't imagine that 185's at $150K are in significantly better shape than 206's at the same price.

As far as insurance is concerned; get ready to pay more for a cessna taildragger than a nosedragger at the same hull value. It would be a worthwhile exercise to call an insurance carrier and ask them to give you a quote for a 185 and a 206 at $150K for each.

If you are going to do any significant instrument work, then again, the 206 wins easily. Imagine flying the ILS in a quartering tailwind at 12 kts. In the 206, you break out at minimums and just make a normal landing. In the 185, landing on pavement with a quartering tailwind of even 12 kts and you risk losing your plane. Therefore, if the ceiling is so low that you need the ILS minimums, and since you can't circle to land at 200 feet, you will likely end up diverting to an alternate where you can make a suitable approach into more favorable winds.

I've owned a Maule MX-7-180 for 15 years and I fly a Cessna A185F for work as a fire patrol pilot for the last 2 years. I have around 1500 hours of taildragger time. The C185 is a great choice if your mission is to fly off short, grass, dirt or gravel strips with heavy loads or if you want to put it on skis. It's fast and rugged. It's not very roomy in the back seat and hard to get cargo in and out. Normal fuel burn for my missions is 9 - 15 gph. The Maule has a 180hp O-360-C1F engine with constant speed prop. It will land shorter than the C185 but won't take off as short, especially with a heavy load. Normal fuel burn for the Maule is 8 - 12 gph. Useful load on the the Maule is 1060 lbs while it's around 1600 lbs for the C185. Even at max gross weight the C185 will take off quicker and climb faster than the Maule but that's to be expected with the difference in engines. A heavier airplane lands longer than a lighter one, so the Maule lands shorter due to a lower stall speed and lighter weight, That's sort of a moot point since you have to be able to take off again on the same airstrip. I'll land either airplane on a 1,000 foot strip but I won't land the C185 on less than that unless it has an uphill grade. My minimum length strip for the Maule is 800 feet, although density altitude, obstacles and grade of the strip make a huge difference. With vortex generators the Maule stalls at 40 mph while the C185 without vortex generators stalls around 56 kts (64 mph) so the Maule performs better in that regard. It's more comfortable to fly the Maule low and slow than the C185. My canyon cruising speed with the Maule is 70 mph and 80 kts (92 mph) with the C185. If you're going to load up the airplane with passengers, baggage and fuel and operate out of unpaved airstrips, the C185 is your best best. I've seen people operate out of unpaved strips with a C206 but soft surfaces like soggy grass, soft dirt or sand can be a big problem with a nosewheel airplane. If you're going to be operating out of paved strips and maybe the occasional grass strip, the C206 might be a better option. Tailwheel airplanes are a handful to land in a stiff crosswind on a paved runway. Insurance is going to be a lot less expensive with a nosewheel unless you have at least 500 hours tailwheel make/model time. Have you considered a C182 for your missions? Purchase cost and insurance are lower. I fly a C182S at work sometimes and it's a good general purpose nosewheel airplane that's more docile than the C185 in crosswinds but still has good load handling and climb characteristics. It's not as fast and can't carry as much as the C185 and I wouldn't take it into rough or soft unpaved airstrips, but it might serve your needs better than a C206, especially when it comes to insurance and fuel costs.

This man needs a Maule... Just let it happen... All good!

I have said it before: if I could afford a 206 that would be my 1st choice. 29s on the mains and a 8:50 up front. I really don't know if that combo is STCed. I do love my Maule. The Maule is the best bang for the buck IMO. But if you want a TD and over 1200 usable load the choice is easy. Cessna.

G'Day

Sierra Victor wrote:Although, if you showed me a nice 206 with decent avionics for a buck fifty I'd grab it in a heartbeat.
Scott

Not vouching for the airplane (I don't know it), but this http://skywagons.com/_planes/8597Q/8597Q.html is pretty typical for a decent F or G model. I'd be surprised if you didn't have some choices for decent legacy 206s in your price range. The restart ones are nicely fitted out, but heavier and they have the more expensive Lycoming engine. They're beautiful, but spendy.

Besides, for any of these airplanes (185, Maule, 206 etc. etc.), it's not the acquisition cost that will most likely get you, but the maintenance. My $02.

CAVU

CAVU, I think I should toss in parts prices in support of Maule
C182 Aileron $5700 new
Maule Aileron $900 new

Sorry guys.

Sat in a Maule M7 this morning......no way I'll fit. They aren't made for a 6'4" body.

Cool plane though!

With the cost of insurance on a 206 being prohibitive for me, and the lack of interior room and cross wind limitations of the 185, I'm actually looking at...........

a 182.

Can haul what I need (barely), easy to insure, and the transition from a 172 (my trainer) should be a piece of cake.

Scott,

182 will be an excellent choice for your mission and your first plane (yep, they'll be others). Horsepower is king. Try and find one you like that's been PPonk'd.

And welcome.

Pretty tough to beat a 182 for an all around practical aircraft + utility.

Might be worth looking at.

http://www.skywagons.com/_planes/9763H/9763H.html

That looks like a very very nice 182.