I didn't realize at the time I posted before how little experience you have. You may be the exception, but most people at your level of experience don't yet know what their actual missions will be. Several people have mentioned in various ways that this or that airplane will out perform the pilot. That's another way of saying that at your level of experience, it may be premature to be buying any airplane until you build your skills some more, develop a better idea of your actual missions, and especially if what you want to do involves operating in very short and rough areas. There is a reason why the insurance costs are so high, for a very low time pilot wanting to own/fly a backcountry airplane into the backcountry.

All of us who own airplanes regularly delude ourselves into believing that they don't really cost as much as they do. My personal method of maintaining that delusion is that I quit keeping track of the expenses. I pay them as they come up, and I have a rough idea of what I've spent over the last 11 1/2 years, but I just ignore the total as best I can.

As for missions, I have a converted P172D with a 180hp and C/S prop, which happens to suit me just fine. It's the 4th airplane I've owned, the first 3 in partnership; this is the only one I've owned by myself. It's roomy enough to take me and dog camping, or friends sight seeing (if I have only partial tanks). It's powerful enough to take into the Rockies as long as I fly the passes. It's well equipped enough that I can go IFR in relatively moderate IMC. It's economical enough that fuel costs are doable. It's fast enough for most of what I want to do except when I take really long cross countries, which can get tedious. It's capable enough to take into reasonably smooth but short backcountry strips. I have no need for a bigger, more powerful, or faster airplane for 99% of my missions.

At the risk of saying what I don't think you want to hear, I'd strongly recommend that you get more flying under your belt, before you buy something that may not ultimately fit your real missions. There is so much to learn about flying, and you've barely dipped your toe into it yet.

Cary

Here's another biased vote for a 170B. Set it up with a 8042 prop, sportsman STOL, and some big tires. Learn to fly it and it will surprise you what you can do with it. Although if you set up a Pacer or Stinson the same way you can't go wrong. But honestly a straight tail 182 would make a great airplane and probably the best performer for the money. A big engined M4 would be nice also. Just try to find a good well cared for airplane no matter what it is and I think you'll be happy. Any of them can be modified to be even better performers for what you want to do. Carry makes a good point on having experience. But in my opinion the only way to really build that experience is to buy your own plane and learn to fly it to its limits gradually over time. I've put almost 700hrs on my 170 and have taken it to places I wouldn't have dared going when I first bought it.

TxAgfisher wrote:

fiftynineSC wrote:I might have missed it, but what's your budget?

I see concerns about $$ for insurance, fuel consumption, etc.... For a sub 100 hour pilot, insurance on a Maule is going to be high regardless, same with a C180/C185.

If you can afford more money up front (finance), you can get a plane that does 80% of it. Some with less insurance cost and fuel cost than a 6 cylinder anything. Your 2 people but mostly solo requirement is a plus. I'd warn though that insurance and fuel is rarely a huge part of overall aircraft ownership.

Bill

I've been researching it and fuel burn + insurance are the unknowns. Fuel will depend on how much I'm at the controls obviously, but payment after 20+% down isn't that much/month. I'm thinking more long term - overhaul on 360 vs 540 etc. Insurance will likely be the biggest variable.

Hangar wI'll be free if I get to move back to Houston because I would build one at the ranch and keep the plane there.

Fuel, maintenance, oil, insurance, annual, payment, hangar - what else?

[url][/url]

TxAgfisher wrote:

My cost of ownership has unfortunately been dominated by repairs/maintenance from lots of off road stuff and expensive annuals. Unexpected repairs. It may be a combination of bad luck, poor judgment, "no expense spared" mentality, or the fact that 40 plus year old cessnas can be tricky on maintenance. May not be others experience but it's been mine for the 4 planes I've owned.

The field length will be a challenge early on until you get proficient, and with the heat in south Texas, but I think a 150 hp late model pacer would be a good fit. Plus, if you can learn to fly a pacer well, there won't be many TW airplanes you can't transition to easily. I know that first hand.

I would be interested in a 180hp Pacer, just can't afford to short side myself with hp and not be able to get out of our place.

The unknowns are not fuel burn and insurance. The unknowns are engine illnesses. Insurance doesn't pay for overhauls, pilots do. Fuel burn and insurance are easily sorted out.

The field length you list is completely within the capability of a stock pacer with 125 hp engine at gross weight below 2000 ft DA. A 150 hp engine, even more so. So while a 180 hp pacer is a great plane, the limitation you describe that makes you want 180 hp or more is not on the aircraft capability, it is really a pilot limitation. And that's fine...takes a couple hundred hours or more in a plane to really be able to use it to its abilities, and the advice you got about just pick up the other occupant at a nearby airport is good advice.

I don't have enough time to be an expert on the other aircraft discussed, but any of them should be able to do what you want. Questions are which level of cost you want to dive into and whether you, as the pilot, can do what you want.

BTW, fuel burn is pretty easy. Count on just under 10 gph for 180 hp, just under 8 for 150 hp, just under 14 for 225-235 hp. That's all at cruise; add about 25% during the take-off/climb out portion.

Insurance is also easy. There are few aircraft insurers (6, I think, but there may be more), although there are a plethora of agents. Avemco is the only direct insurer; all the others work through agents, some of whom can ferret out better deals than others, but by and large, the info you'll get from one agent will be the same as you'll get from other agents, except for Avemco. They'll all ding an ultra low time pilot with any tail dragger, big time.

Troy's right on about engine illnesses, which can be really pricey. I had my airplane all of 15 hours when it threw a rod right through the top of the case--that was a $23,000 illness!

Cary

I appreciate all the candid feedback and ideas! I agree that I may not know 100% of what my mission is, however, I feel that I know it better than all of you. No offense meant by that!

I'm just saying if I buy for example a 150hp Pacer because "that's what I heard on BCP" and can't do what intend to do, I won't be happy!

TxAgfisher wrote:I appreciate all the candid feedback and ideas! I agree that I may not know 100% of what my mission is, however, I feel that I know it better than all of you. No offense meant by that!

I'm just saying if I buy for example a 150hp Pacer because "that's what I heard on BCP" and can't do what intend to do, I won't be happy!

On the other hand, that 150hp Pacer may be able to do all that you want it to do, with someone else doing the piloting. As has been said repeatedly, often it's the pilot, not the airplane, that is the limiting factor.

Cary

I'd second Troy's recommendation of a 150 or 160 hp Pacer. I know two Tri Pacers that were recently bought by friends for $12,000 each, in flyable condition. Both these guys are mechanics, so they know what they bought. You're not going to get a peach for that price, and an engine overhaul may well be in the cards on either of those, at least a cam and followers. And, those are both tri gear.

But, there are a lot of tailwheel converted Tri Pacers out there as well, many with 150 or 160 hp. Those are great two place and gear airplanes. Get into one of those at a good price (and prices are good for most of them), fly it for a year or two, and if it doesn't fit your intended mission long term, sell it and buy an airplane that fits better. In the meantime, you're building experience, you're exploring your mission to see what it is you ACTUALLY want, and you're developing proficiency and knocking that insurance premium down such that it'll be a lot cheaper to operate the next airplane.

Pacers are easy to work on, straightforward planes to boot. Find a mechanic that'll work with you and there's a lot of stuff you can do yourself.

Or, go the same route with a good 170B. Same logic applies.

Early Maules are fine as well....but inspect carefully. I wouldn't touch a Franklin powered one, too many unknowns in future about those engines in my opinion. Others argue otherwise. Just get educated on the topic before you leap.....same with everything here.

MTV

TxAgfisher wrote:I appreciate all the candid feedback and ideas! I agree that I may not know 100% of what my mission is, however, I feel that I know it better than all of you. No offense meant by that!

I'm just saying if I buy for example a 150hp Pacer because "that's what I heard on BCP" and can't do what intend to do, I won't be happy!

Well...it is certainly true that a supercub will get in and out of there easier than a 170, 172, Tripacer, or a Pacer. It is also true that an M7 or a 180 or a 182 will also get in and out effectively, possibly better than those smaller, lower-horsepower brothers...

You can certainly choose how to spend your money.

But until you are the pilot looking back at a few hundred hours and a couple hundred in whichever plane you choose, you can't really assess whether any of those planes will do the job you want them to do FOR YOU. That's just how aviation works. The most important performance limiting item in most airplanes is the pilot. The best way to eliminate that limitation is to fly a lot, and challenge yourself with every flight. Improvements are incremental.

And you don't take any of the airplanes listed here into a short strip until you have repeatedly shown, on a long strip, that you need less than 2/3 of the short strip EVERY TIME.

If you are a low time pilot that wants to buy a plane and fly it home to that strip...that is a bad plan. But if you buy any of these planes and work toward the skill needed for that strip, it should work out for you with sufficient commitment to practice.

Happy shopping. Good luck.

Troy's giving some great advice. MTV, too.

Cary wrote:
At the risk of saying what I don't think you want to hear, I'd strongly recommend that you get more flying under your belt, before you buy something that may not ultimately fit your real missions. There is so much to learn about flying, and you've barely dipped your toe into it yet.

Cary

But the Maule is good at all missions... Just buy a Maule?

I like this game

Battson wrote:

Cary wrote:
At the risk of saying what I don't think you want to hear, I'd strongly recommend that you get more flying under your belt, before you buy something that may not ultimately fit your real missions. There is so much to learn about flying, and you've barely dipped your toe into it yet.

Cary

But the Maule is good at all missions... Just buy a Maule?

I like this game

And even better than a Maule is a Bearhawk

Again, I'm not trying to tell anyone their business. I'll be the first to tell you that I may very well be the least experienced person on this entire site.

TxAgfisher wrote:Again, I'm not trying to tell anyone their business. I'll be the first to tell you that I may very well be the least experienced person on this entire site.

Hey no need for that kind of talk, I had very little experience once upon a time too - and I still do compared to others, but volume of experience is not the most important factor when it comes to being a pilot or owning an aircraft. Experience is just something you get after you needed it. i.e. 13,000hrs of the exact same experience over and over and over does not a wise man make.

Does your low TT mean you aren't the authority on what YOU want? Of course not.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

P.S. I agree with you Whee We are all biased!

Lots of good info and advice on here....

+1 or 2 or whatever on a 182. Great planes, good performers, cheap on insurance. I'm under $700 per year for insurance on $60,000 hull. Just keep the yoke in your lap taxing, landing, takeoff and you will be fine....unless you're operating out of a boulder field. I love mine.

If you ABSOLUTELY have to have a taildragger...I'd also agree on the Pacer being a good fit although I've never flown one myself...just rode in one. A friend and hangar buddy has a Pacer that was converted from a TriPacer before he bought it some 25 years ago. He flew it like crazy with his wife, daughter and camp gear for years with a stock engine and it worked great. Now he's either by himself or with his golden retriever and camp gear with a 160hp, vg's, and 8.50's He also has a "climb prop" although I don't know the specifics on it. I'm constantly impressed with it's performance.

At Johnson Creek about a month ago.

i totally agree on the 182 for the value, and certified to boot...
and a little newer one u might find the motor like the maule runs...o-540...good luck!

jomac wrote:i totally agree on the 182 for the value, and certified to boot...
and a little newer one u might find the motor like the maule runs...o-540...good luck!

I've got some (but not much) time in 182's. My flights were all later models. Do the early models feel like early 180's? I agree that they're a great bang for the buck. I've already started laying the groundwork to talk my Dad into buying one once he finishes his PPL.

His mission looks more like a 4-place CC aircraft though.

I have owned a few straight tail 182's and currently have an early 180. Once they are 1 inch off the ground they fly almost exactly the same. If I had to do it all over, I would have kept my last 182 and had more cash in my pocket and more confidence on those high cross wind days. My insurance was much less per year on the 182 also.
I love my 180 but, the 182 will do just about everything the 180 will, with much easier ground handling characteristics. I only have a few hundred hours of tail wheel time and it is spread out over 30 years, I find myself on final in a heavy cross wind wishing I had my 182 back or more confidence in my tail wheel skills.

A Pacer is a short coupled airplane and can be a tricky tailwheel airplane to land, add that to a short strip, a cross wind, and a low time pilot and it can get ugly very quickly.

I recommend that what ever you buy, make sure you fly it and practice with a qualified pilot beside you until you feel comfortable in the plane before heading for your short strip.

Good luck, Be safe , Have FUN.

How big a fellar are you? Under 6'? if yes M4 and Pacer are fine. But its hard to beat a Cessna if you are a little taller than average. A 170B with the 8042 prop as mentioned before is pretty good machine. Take out the back seat, add sportsman leading edge and fly it like a two seater...... two big men, fuel and gear you be happy happy happy. . If you have alot of time on your hands find big renna's fantastic posts of what he did to lighten up his 170B and it turns into an even cooler machine. Upgrading to 180hp gets expensive, but if you go with fixed pitch and light weight starter and alternator and odysey battery, you should end up lighter than the stock 6 cylinder. Aviation is a disease. The cure? Just add cash.

I'm a low time pilot as well (140 hours) and bought a 172. Not the best at anything, but its a great plane for building hours. They also made a ton of them, and any mechanic can work on them. I'm going to get IFR trained in mine while I have it, and am flying the hell out of it while I figure out the direction I want to go for the next plane. 172M with a 150hp engine and powerflo exhaust gets off the ground pretty well. Grass fields are no problem with it. I won't be hitting gravel bars anytime soon, but I'm fine with that. And resale is pretty good on 172s since there will always be a demand for them.

TxAgfisher wrote:For the price of a good 182 I could get an M4 or 170B - I just don't know enough about the M4 honestly to feel educated. There is one on Barnstormers with the 220 Franklin (which I personally like) for $40k but they have the round tail with less rudder capability and limited elevator movement.

Yes but your going the wrong direction in performance. Early 182 will out-perform those by a good margin.