3454terryg wrote:Aviation is a disease. The cure? Just add cash.

Cash isn't the cure, it can only help the symptoms. There is no cure.

Good input so far. The main thing to realize is you don't know what you don't know. So before you load up you buddy or wife, gear, and gas spend a lot of time doing that weight on hot days at a big strip so you know just what your plane will do. Remember you are going to screw up and leave carb heat on, run on single mag, forget flaps, have your trim set wrong, not notice the tailwind,and wrong tire pressure just to name a few things that will get you going out of a short strip. So YOU have to be on your game and that comes with time. practice aborting the takeoff a lot. Ground effect will be your friend. I think someone mentioned flying to bigger runway to pick up passenger, gear, and fuel. That is a great ideal. Bush pilots use ferry strips all the time taking out hunting camps.
Things that make a plane fly are wing, power, and prop. Pacers are great planes but do not have a big wing, to make up for wing you need power or prop. A borer in the 8042 range will rip a 160 hp off the ground. You are going to loose about 15 mph on the top but flying slow is more fun. You can get a good pacer for 30 grand and spend some money on tires and prop. Nothing wrong with buying beater aircraft paint don't make a plane fly. The big problem is spending 50 grand on a plane only to find out it needs 30 grand of work.
MAKE SURE YOU FIND A GOOD IA FIRST!!! THAN GO LOOK FOR A PLANE!!
I know we sound like old mother hens but I have tried to kill myself in a plane more than once because I did not know what I did not know.
DENNY

Denny,

You forgot one key ingredient to performance: Weight.

Also, there are a couple mods out there to extend the Pacer wings....which helps a lot with performance on floats, but on wheels......stock wing works pretty well.

But, more wing is generally good.

MTV

mtv wrote:Denny,

You forgot one key ingredient to performance: Weight.

Also, there are a couple mods out there to extend the Pacer wings....which helps a lot with performance on floats, but on wheels......stock wing works pretty well.

But, more wing is generally good.

MTV

My friend Jack had a Pacer with extended wings and droopy tips. Its engine was tired, a basic 135hp with a lot of hours on it, but that airplane could get in the air in a very short distance even at Laramie's 7200' altitude, and land in only a couple hundred feet. Of course, and here's where the difference lies once again, Jack was an experienced back country pilot with stick & rudder skills that I've never developed, or that few ever develop.

Cary

SixTwoLeemer wrote:

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.

I don't understand this statement, a quick look at the specs and the best performing of those is the M4 by far... Especially in stock trim.

Late 50's (straight tail) Cessna 182. You just can't go wrong. Wether working the Alaskan Bush, or flying cross country in the Lower 48 they are as solid flying machines as they come!

I don't disagree it's a very capable airplane, but it's not an M4.

No its not an M4. It's easier to get in and out of, a lot more room, cheaper to insure, and burns moGas. I'm betting all in it will be cheaper to operate then an M4.
But it's not a tailwheel. Is your pride willing to take that in order to save money? Only you can decide that.

TxAgfisher wrote:I don't disagree it's a very capable airplane, but it's not an M4.

If you're basing that comment on Maule's M4 performance specs, be advised that (at least back in the day) Maule was VERY optimistic with their numbers.

I'm a confirmed, tied-in-the-wool tailwheel nut, but I will be the first to admit that an early C182 is a great performer (esp if kept light) and can often be purchased very cheaply. If you can live with a nosewheel, they are a lot of bang for the buck.

A 210 or 220hp M4 will kick ass too, but there aren't that many of them around, and the ones that are are often kinda raggedy. Lots of times people don't want to go through the time & expense of recovering a high-time rag-n-tube airplane (and all the repair work that often goes along with that), so they'll just put it up for sale instead. I was thinking of buying a Pacer a few years ago, and what I found was either recently recovered and very very nice (and expensive!), or pretty cheap but kinda raggedy & not up to my standards. What I wanted was midway between those two extremes but not too many airplanes measured up.

Tag fisher,

No offense intended, but at this point it sounds to me as if you really aren't looking for input on what aircraft would be best for you. It sounds as if you've already decided that a Maule M 4 is the right plane for you.

That may be the perfect plane indeed, but what Hotrod says is right on: You're going to have a hard time finding an M 4 in decent condition.

My suggestion to you is buy an airplane.....one that is in good condition, so will be resellable. Then FLY IT! A lot. As you gain experience in that airplane, you'll learn more about what you need and want. Once you figure that out, start looking for the airplane you really want.

But, carrying this conversation on the way it's going would suggest trolling. Again, I mean no offense to you. But there's lots of good advice here, so give it some thought and act on your best guess.

My first airplane was near perfect for me.....till it wasn't. But it was the perfect first airplane for me.....a 90 hp J 3. Sold it for more than I paid for it after 200 hours, and bought a 180. Sold that and bought a Super Cub.

Missions change. Buy an airplane and start your adventures. Get a good one and it'll always sell later.

MTV

TxAgfisher wrote:
Field elevation where I live is about 790', our ranch where the strip is is probably around 350'.
I can get 1400' or so, subtracting to 1000' for obstacles in/out.
I feel like an M5-235 fits the bill but the operating and insurance costs are through the roof. Any brokers on here? What would it cost for a 50hr pilot with 30hrs tailwheel? I bet it's north of $3500.

What were those 50 hours in?
Are the airplanes you trained in up to your STOL requirements?
Re an M4, I just checked Barnstormers- there is exactly one M4 (a 220) listed.
Plus three M5's, four M7's, three MX7's, for a grand total of eleven taildragger Maules.
Not a large pool to choose from.
In contrast, there are two pages of C180's and four pages of 182's.
But it sounds like you really want a Maule. Nothing wrong with that, they're good airplanes. If you have to spend a little more for insurance for a Maule vs a 180, 182, or whatever.....well, that's just the cost of getting what you really want. Suck it up and "just do it"!
Re insurance costs, why not call a broker and ask- get the info straight from the horse's mouth.
I insure through Bill White in CA, he was the best price when I went to insure my 180 with zero make/model time. Others have recommended their brokers too-- do a search here.

MTV - I think that is fair at this point. At this point both from what I have heard on here and some offline conversations the M4 is the direction I am leaning.

However, I do think the 182 is the only other thing that meets what I am looking for, except the tw. Good thing is, there is an STC for that if I go that route!

if the ranch is not on plowable dirt, the nose wheel for the 182 is not such a concern. Kinda heavy, but a sweet ride.

One thing that's been missing from this thread: Have you ever flown any of the airplanes you're considering? Specs alone are not a deciding factor. For instance, although I've flown a lot of different airplanes, there are some I wouldn't consider owning, just because they're not pleasant to fly. Yet others who own those airplanes either don't care how unpleasant they are, or they accept the airplane's deficiencies to get what other good aspects the airplane delivers.

Just a for instance: I was partnered in a new T210 some 35 years ago. Spec wise, it's a fabulous airplane, with great speed, good weight carrying capabilities, good short field performance compared to other fast 6 place airplanes, etc. But it's ponderous to taxi and to fly. All of the controls are heavy. It's just not fun, for me. Yet my former partner still has the airplane, and he obviously has accepted its deficiencies.

I've flown others which had such a difference in the control feel, perhaps light rudder and heavy ailerons, that they aren't pleasant to fly. Or perhaps the pitch change on extending flaps is so dramatic that it's uncomfortable. There are a lot of reasons why an airplane might not satisfy, although its specs look good on paper.

So I suggest that before you pick a particular make/model, you should fly it. See what you think. Even at your low experience level, you can tell whether it's an airplane you can like to fly.

Cary

Cary wrote:One thing that's been missing from this thread: Have you ever flown any of the airplanes you're considering?

This came up in my brother's thread about his wilga. Many people said that it was stupid to test-fly a plane that you were considering. I keep going back to the this because I can't see how you're supposed to try these different planes out. For myself, a cherokee 6 is perfect on paper. But, I've never flown one, nor have I ever seen one in person. I think this can be difficult for people that aren't as socially successful in the aviation screen scene (such as myself).

hpux735 wrote:

Cary wrote:One thing that's been missing from this thread: Have you ever flown any of the airplanes you're considering?

This came up in my brother's thread about his wilga. Many people said that it was stupid to test-fly a plane that you were considering. I keep going back to the this because I can't see how you're supposed to try these different planes out. For myself, a cherokee 6 is perfect on paper. But, I've never flown one, nor have I ever seen one in person. I think this can be difficult for people that aren't as socially successful in the aviation screen scene (such as myself).

I certainly never suggested in that thread that flying an airplane prior to purchase was "stupid". I stated pretty clearly that I didn't think it was necessary in most cases. Particularly if you've never flown one of that make/model, how is a "test flight" going to help your decision process? How are you going to know if it's flying like it "should"?

But, a pre purchase test flight stupid? Hardly. If it makes you feel better about the purchase, by all means go for it.

MTV

I hear that, my real point is (and always has been) how do I know if I like how this *type* flies?

Some people do get some time in the different aircraft and then have a chance to make a decision on what they like.

But for most people, a real, informed decision based on what you can get in terms of feel in a flight test is pretty unlikely. The OP, with 50 hours, is not going to have enough time in any aircraft to evaluate what it can do, what he can make it do, or even whether he will like it better in 50 hours than he does on his initial flight.

I fall into the camp that feels that an airplane should be based on whether it meets your budget and preferred mission profile. The operational skills to match and the feel for the plane that makes it mesh both come with hours and hours of time in the plane.

By which I don't mean that people should or shouldn't take test flights.

But unless you already know the type, how you will feel about it after a few hundred hours seems unlikely to me to be determined by how it felt on your initial flight.

All of which is to say...I agree that the OP could buy any of the planes we are discussing and make it work for him. If he is budget conscious, he might end up with the Pacer. If he is only somewhat budget conscious, the 182 is hard to argue against. But any of the planes we are buying for him with his money will do the job. He will have to decide which one he wants to invest the time and money in. It is fun to shop with other people's money though, so I think he should buy a PC-6.

hpux735 wrote:I hear that, my real point is (and always has been) how do I know if I like how this *type* flies?

That's an easy question - you have to try it, to see if YOU like it.

You might not be able to say if there's some incipient problem from test flying it, but you will certainly know a whole bunch of other stuff once you're done.

Everything from how easy to get in / out and how it "fits" ergonomically for you, to does it trim out nice, does it feel heavier in the controls to what you are used to, etc etc etc... maybe you just don't like how it feels to fly, or how your knees fit under the panel if you're a taller guy, no other way to find that out e.g. I don't fit in (some?) Maules, too tall.

I would say it's worth doing unless you already know a lot about that kind of aircraft - and in that case, it would still be worth doing for a different set of reasons. So it sounds like it's usually worth doing from my point of view.
Necessity? Probably not.

But people are versatile creatures. You can get used to pretty much anything provided it's not physically uncomfortable

That's a good point, Battson.

We as humans are amazing compensators. Even in a terribly flying aircraft, after enough time you won't even realize what poor handling qualities you're masking with different flying techniques.