Hello all. As the UID implies I am new at all of this. I earned my PPL about a year ago. Currently I am in a 172M partnership, but I would really love to do some backcountry flying. I am not sure that the guys in the 172 will really go for that....SO I am thinking of getting a plane for myself. It appears that you can get the PA-20/22's for a decent price. I figure I can upgrade the engine avionics, etc... as I go. I am looking for something that will last a long time, with a decent useful load, range, and will be fun to fly. Also, I need 4 seats so I can take the family. How are these planes for backcountry flying? Any other suggestions for cost effective airplanes?

Thanks in advance for the advice

gmtgt what makes the PA-20 harder to fly than a 170 or Maule M4? What prices to those planes go for? I would really love it if I could keep the price in the 50-60K range. I would be willing to put more in the plane later, but initially that would be the most I would want to spend. The PA-20's just seemed to be fairly cheap for what you were getting....probably a reason for that though....

Not to mention that the Maule fleet probably has fewer airframe hours collectively.

I think Speedbump is chatting somebody up on the Pitts forum...

Pacer variant - Bushmaster, longer wings, 180 h.p., etc. But you're probably going to get towards the price of an M-4 or M-5.
If you are talking $60K ish. you could even get towards an M-6 with a higher time engine or even an older Cessna 180 for that. I've seen some fairly nice 180's for 55-65k lately. That Marty in Boise has his M-6 for sale right now for 65k on Barnstormers. It's got @1400 on it (that leaves you about 600 on the motor, it would still take 4-5 years to fly that out) and had a lot of attention last winter at Maule mods in Caldwell, bushwheels, vg's, some fair goodies. Not a bad deal I think.
If you've got 60 to spend leave that pacer alone, you'd outgrow it if you want to really start playing.

Hmm.. Where is Marty, I have not seen him post lately?

Bink

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/unprotected/specs/46150.html

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/unprotected/specs/45293.html Check out the paint! LOL!

Bonk

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/unprotected/specs/40605.html

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/unprotected/specs/46387.html 180hp!

Boink

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/unprotected/specs/42514.html

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/unprotected/specs/44033.html

I like my M-4 alot. A whole lotta bang for the buck, skip, skip, skip...

I wouldn't mind having Marty's plane myself either, it's a very capable performer, but couldn't find it on the Barnstormers site.

Try to get the most ponies you can for your $$.

I have heard that the insurance is really expensive for Maules. Is this true? If so why is it so expensive?

My thoughts with the PA-20 were that I could get it for around $30K fly it for a couple years and then throw some money into it and upgrade the engine, avionics, etc...

I suppose if I waited a another year and a half or so I could afford around 55-60K. I thought the PA-20 would allow me to get into one now and upgrade it as my capabilities grow.

This is a whole new topic in and of itself, but do you guys do your own maintenace? I am fairly mechanically savvy. I would think I could save some $$ by working on the thing myself...Probably would be really hard to get an A&P to sign off on my work though since I don't know one....

You would never live this down....



I've flown that exact '52 C170 (N152M) from the other ad ...nice plane.

Is there some law against doing this to a very nice airplane??

I do all my own maintenance under the supervision of an IA, but yes it helps to know one, and you'll have to prove your competence with a wrench, etc.

Maules *are* more expensive to insure than most taildraggers, C170's are about the cheapest to insure. All of them would be cheaper if we all could keep from bending them so much.

The Pacer will probably be under-powered for a family of four, but adequate for two and luggage. You'll probably find yourself wanting to trade up sooner than you might expect, and that could be a hassle unless you like selling things.

Get good taildragger training and you'll be able to fly all the mentioned planes safely and enjoy it.

TomD wrote:Is there some law against doing this to a very nice airplane??

Maybe he did it for his wife. Kinda grows on ya after awhile...

If I ever had a paint job lke that on my plane I would have to kick my own ass.....

I will definitely have to look around. I am thinking it might be better to save up some more and get a Maule or a Cessna like I really want. Do the prices and these planes generall remain the same or do they go up dramatically every year? Sorry for all of the questions.

I thought that 1955 Cessna 180 looked pretty good. I would have thought a 180 would go for a lot more than that...I don't understand why you would go with the C170 180HP when you can get the C180 for the same price...

greenhorn wrote:...I thought that 1955 Cessna 180 looked pretty good. I would have thought a 180 would go for a lot more than that...I don't understand why you would go with the C170 180HP when you can get the C180 for the same price...

Some folks just like the way a 170 flies, there's really nothing quite like it.

Seems like used aircraft valuations have flattened in the last couple of years for a number of reasons, although some are still going up at a measured pace. It's that old supply and demand thing, the market is dictating the prices, and fewer pilots are being produced with each passing year...sigh.

I've been lurking around for awhile now and finely found something I know a little about!

I've owned a 160hp Pacer for about a year now and it fits my needs perfectly. Flying in mountains and into back country strips is new to me, so I would never be able to take full advantage of something like a Maule. The Pacer allows me to build time developing my skills and not break the bank. It's a decent performer when it's lightly loaded, but once you start putting people or stuff in the back seat it... well, those short wings leave a little to be desired. The ground handling is definitely zippy! I think it's one of those things where awareness of the problem and currency will do a lot for keeping you out of trouble. I know I'll eventually want something more capable, but for now it works well for what I do with it.

Have you considered a Stinson 108? They seem to be on the lower end of the cost spectrum and, if you find one with the 220 hp engine, can be quite the performer.

Yes, the Stinson is a very affordable backcountry performer. I'm surpsised that higgy didn't pipe in about that one - haven't had the opportunity to fly one myself, but hear many good things about them. They have a very active owner group also.

I would be careful on that upgrading engine and avionics thing with a pacer unless you want to keep it forever. Then you'd have a Pacer that you would be hard pressed to sell and recover all of your money.
It also depends on how hard you think you want to play. As the other Pacer owner stated it's fine unless you want to load it or really get tight on the backcountry stuff. So you would need to clearly state your mission profile. A pacer looks like this to me; Full fuel, two with bags, three without, minumum 2,000 foot runway at less than 4,000 foot elevation, and average trip distance of 250 miles or less.
So more than just looking at price think about what you will want it to do once you get past doing touch and goes for 25 hours. Think about where your friends and family live, how far and what type of facilities are there?Whip out a sectional and look at all of the places you dream of flying, how far and what type of facilities? Think about who you would want to go with you and how much gear you would want, both in weight and bulk size. On that sectional figure a couple of trips at normal cruise speed for a Pacer then figure them with 20 on the nose and see if you would be happy sitting for that long and if you would have enough fuel to make it with a given load. The most important thing though is to think 150 hours of experience into the future of your flying career and what your goals will be then. That way you won't be trying to hock an obscure sled.
That is the way I usually figure out what I need. I will admit though that my dream board of sectionals is on my hangar wall and it goes from southern Idaho all the way to Valdez, Alaska. It's floor to cieling, 16 feet with like 14 sectionals. I had to go to another wall with WAC charts to cover the intermountain west down to AZ and NM.
My advice would be save the money, go for the Maule or 180, get the proper instruction for a while after you get it, and don't worry about the extra bucks on insurance- it's America we blow that much on smokes, booze, and gambling.

Thanks for the thought Strata,

I did not chime in as I thought that his budget would allow a bigger plane, on the order of 180 or m4-5.

Having said that you can get a fully rebuilt ground up low hour 108-3 for 30-35. This would be with the franklin 165. Some people don't want a franklin but parts are still have not become a problem and the engine is very smooth.

In the 108's there are small tail and big tail versions and with in the big tail (108-3) there is the voyager and the flying stationwagon. I have the stationwagon. They have solid performance, mine has 1090 pounds useful and cruses at 115 on about 10-11/hour. There are owners out there that claim 8 to 9, but my experience is that they lie. The plane is a 4 seater if loaded properly. The stationwagon holds 50 gal.

Many of the stinsons have been converted to larger engines with c/s, makes them a heck of a machine. There is one engine conversion NOT to buy and that is the 435 I think, military engine, orphaned and with only one prop that has a rebuild ad at like 500-800 hrs and costs big $. If you loot at these I will be happy to get the specifics for you.

The stinson is a very nice flying plane, very solid and has a good envelop. They have a high published stall in the area 55-56, I have flown mine in the 45 range (read controllable) but the rate of decent is higher than I would like. I am going to put vg on this year.

This plane was designed after the WWII and built by the same company that built the corsair, Consolidated Vultee, they are built strong.

Take a look in my photos, it shows my plane during a ground up rebuild. They can be had with low time, my plane has approx 1200 tt.

Strata, if you want to fly one let me know when you are coming through and we can arrange some time.

Green, this board generally prefers taildraggers and you can find disccussions about nose v. tail on some other threads. The taildraggers can definitely handle the real rough strips that nose draggers shy away from. If you want to land on real rough surfaces, then stick with the taildragger. OTOH, there are plenty of great places that you can take a nosedragger in the backcountry. Check out Sparky Imeson's site www.mountainflying.com for pictures of him with a 172 at Cabin Creek.

If you don't plan on going into real rough strips, you might also consider early 182s. There are more them available and they don't cost as much to buy or insure as 180s. The early ones are light and have plenty of prop clearance. They haul as much as the 180s, too.

I happily flew a '62 Skylane for many years around the West, including some of the more remote strips in Idaho. With wheel pants off, it's an excellent adventure machine, quite roomy, climbs well and high and cruises at 135 knots. When our son was born, I had to start staging our stuff into the backcountry. With kid gear added to camping gear, we travel like the Beverly Hillbillys. Thus began the slide that ended with the sale of the 182 and purchase of a 206. Parents who have greater restraint when it comes to packing should be able to avoid this. I'm still having fun, though. You will too.

CAVU

I got my tailwheel checkout in a PA-20 and owned it for a while and it was great to fly . At approx. 7 gph you can afford to fly alot more than at 12 gph. Get some TW time behind you and when you do want to upgrade to a larger more powerfull beast you will have the tw hours to get you a better insurance rate. Also learning in a Pacer will make a 170 or Maule seem like a piece of cake to keep straight on the rumway. The shortwing piper club used to be one of the coolest type clubs around and put out a great newsletter. I'm sure they would be a good source of info for you.

Good luck

Greenhorn:

Here's my 2 cents. Be realistic about what MOST of your flying will be and buy a plane that suits that need. If you buy one that's too small because you want to save money, you'll be unhappy in short order. On the other hand, if most of your flying won't involve taking the whole family and you have a budget for flying, you'll probably become unhappy with the costs associated with flying a 200+ hp plane (especially at the price of fuel nowadays).

I have a 7 GCBC with a 150 hp that burns autogas at 7-8 gal/hr and does fine in the mountains. It's an economical plane to fly that fits the need for the majority of what I do, and I think that's the key to being satisfied with your plane. I am not saying there aren't times when I'd like to have the C185, but most of the time I don't need it.

Take your time making your decision. There are a lot of planes out there. Good luck.