Hi everyone.
I'm a 115h pilot, I got my license to eventually do back country flying.
I flew mostly 172's with some hours in a 152's, Piper PA28, Pipistrel alpha trainer and JMB VL3

Now I'm looking to get my first plane to build up hours, I was looking at Rans S6 or S7 in conventional gear configuration. mostly for economical reasons.
I talked to some folks in the airport which said it's probably a bad idea to start with a bush plane, that back country is for the hardened pilot, some other said I should be fine with proper training.
I don't plan to do back country right away, but mostly fly it for 50-100hours around airports to familiarize myself with the airplane then try easy off strips landings.
I'm looking to see the general consensus of the forum and see if it's a good idea before I buy the plane.
Thanks !

A Rans S6 or S7 are about the most docile light aircraft you will find. There's nothing challenging in flying them aside from maybe learning tailwheel flying, and even then, the S7 at least is about as friendly a taildragger as you can find.

At that point, how much trouble you get into is up to you. Most everything that applies to flying a 172 applies to a light taildragger. Don't bite off more than you can chew, and take slow steps until you know how much that is.

Explore grass and dirt strips before venturing off airport. You're going to need some instruction for tailwheel and insurance checkout, so try to bundle that with some intro to mountain flying dual.

Above all, don't be dumb. Crashes hurt, as does burning to death. There have been many low time pilots lost while apparently using their easy-to-fly simple airplanes like ATVs, having lost touch with the risks of flying.

But to answer your question, a "bush plane" is a fine start to ownership. Rans makes great designs.

Who says you have to fly a bush plane in the bush. Buy and practice the plane you want to fly. You can do all the training you need for bush flying at your airport. Learn your plane and you'll be ready for the bush. I prefer the Rans 7 but if you want a side by side The 6 will do the job.

So I'm curious what is it that make an airplane a "bush plane". I've safely operated my airplane on grass, water, snow, ice, beaches an even asphalt what "type" of airplane does that make it ?

Anorphirith,

First, my techniques are not the general consensus. Because of the law of primacy, I started crop duster students with Safe Maneuvering Flight Techniques first and soloed most in around six hours in tailwheel. The techniques are different but not difficult. The apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach, for instance, is much easier to teach or fly than the round out and hold off technique that makes short field landing difficult. Click on my signature box for Safe Maneuvering Flight Techniques and see what you think. If you think you might gain something from those techniques, find an instructor willing to teach tailwheel and mountain flying in a similar manner. Good luck.

Jim

I know several that do quite well in the backcountry with 172's. Even Mooneys and Cherokees.....
Get the airplane you want and learn to fly it well. The best airplane out there is the one you own.....
Forget all the fancy mods and add ons. Spend money on fuel and fly the heck out of it.
Tom

Mapleflt wrote:So I'm curious what is it that make an airplane a "bush plane". I've safely operated my airplane on grass, water, snow, ice, beaches an even asphalt what "type" of airplane does that make it ?

The internet definition is "Big tires".

To the OP, nothing wrong with buying an S6 or S7 even if you never fly it in remote locations. The best thing you can do (as others in this thread have indicated) is learn your airplane very well, no matter what it is. Only have access to a C152? Awesome. Pick one corner of one paint stripe on the runway and keep at it until you can plant your left main wheel on it. You won't be within 150' (possibly way more) of it at first but keep at it. Consider landing short as a "scratch".

Every takeoff is a maximum performance takeoff and every landing is a spot landing contest.

There's a maneuver required for the commercial ride called the power off 180. Abeam the numbers you reduce power to idle. Learn your plane well enough that you can do that spot landing without needing to add power at any point. It's the one maneuver which can save your life more than any other.

Don't guess at your landing and takeoff numbers. Slap a Gopro on the strut and then use Google Satellite images to measure the exact distances. Contrary to popular belief you'll probably find (with practice) you can beat the POH by quite a ways.

Fly when it's hot. Fly when it's cold. Load the plane up and do it some more. Learn to predict what your takeoff distance will be at various density altitude numbers.

Go find an easy grass airport without giant trees on both ends. Get used to what that is like, and the effect on landing and takeoff distances. Work your way up and have fun at it.

Perspective is a strange thing. Personally I would be far less concerned about simple backcountry ops than with the scenario of a forced landing anyplace close to San Francisco. In which case it doesn't really matter how your bird's gear is configured, but it sure might help if you'd banked some real-work experience away from 6,000' towered runways. +1 for buying the plane you want (within reason) now, and start getting proficient in it sooner rather than later. At one time, everyone cut their teeth on conventional-geared airplanes. The only potential downside I can think of may be insurance rates.

Fly safe and have fun,

-DP

The internet definition is "Big tires"

Wikipedia saves the day, but my much loved 170 has made the cut and doesn't appear in their "list" of bush plane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_plane

For me a bush plane is defined by operational flexibility, the more accommodating it is the for suitable it is.

The hourly expense of flying a Rotax powered bird will be AT LEAST half that of flying a 172, et al. So if finances are a concern, ( I hear they are for some people ) build time in a plane that will allow you twice the hours for the same amount of $.

What makes a good bush plane in my mind is a good power to weight ratio, low stall and maneuvering speed, nimble handling, big tires, or at least the capability to use big tires, are a given. Big payload is on the list but way down it, but that all depends on your anticipated needs of course. I'd love a Maule, but for 99% of my flying I'd be hauling around a huge amount of extra weight and burning lot's more fuel, just for those few times when I needed to carry the proveriable kitchen sink.

Hummm That plan sounds familiar .

I chose a Pacer . I then flew it . I then added some bigger tires . And flew it some more

I feel good in it now . Haven’t done any camping but have done some dirt landings at our dry lakebed airport

It’s taking longer than I thought it would but I’m a bit older and probably a wee bit wiser

I’m ready though

It’s a solid plan

Even at a towered airport with a 5000x150 foot Paved runway , flying tail wheel is a blast

Of course you should.

Then fly the pants off it, on your own field, then further afield, then on grass strips, then...

Everyone starts somewhere, just be patient, and stretch your boundaries safely.

I think my signature box thing doesn't work and I think Zane told me so. Email me [email protected] for the free ebook, Safe Maneuvering Flight Techniques if you wish. Also free PDF of the paperback Contact Flying Revised if you want the war stories as well.

Yes. But do not kid yourself about what type of flying you are actually doing. If you are going to land on grass runways that is not bush flying and most airplanes are capable of doing grass runways without big tires. If you want to look cool there is nothing like a set of 31 inch bush wheels to do that with. Check out how much they cost though and you will realize that smaller tires may get the job done. Where you are located I think may severely limit any actual bush flying. If you plan on landing where there are no airports, you are going to need more experience which will be fun. I did a lot of off airport work in a 170 with 8.50 tires before I got the cub with 31's. The 31's now seem to me to be an invitation to wreck my plane. Hopefully it will only be money and not me in the wreck. My log book entries go like this - From KBIL to dirt or gravel. Lots of fun flying. Join the club.

All good advice above, especially about learning to fly the airplane you have. And, if finances dictate a slightly "less" capable airplane, so be it, learn to fly that one....well.

Go back and read AftCG's post, he pretty much nailed it. When and if you can fly your airplane, whatever its type, precisely, every day you fly it, then you may be ready for the "back country", whatever that is.

So, buy the airplane you can afford, and can afford to fly, then fly the heck out of it.

MTV

It wasn't my first plane, but certainly the most fun plane I've owned... I bought a late-model RANS S-6ES with the 100 HP Rotax engine and a 3-blade Warp Drive ground-adjustable prop. I absolutely love this plane! It takes off and lands in well under 300 ft (200' with a headwind), climbs right around 1000 fpm, and cruises at 105-110 mph burning 5.2 gph. Simple "sight gauges" in the wing roots show how much fuel you have left in the pair of 9-gallon wing tanks. We added a 2.75 gallon "aux" (header) tank to bump the usable capacity to 20.5 gallons.

Visibility with the low panel height and full "glass" doors is amazing. It's just a fun, simple plane for VFR flying. For instrumentation, mine (like most RANS airplanes) sports only Airspeed, Altimeter, VSI, and a magnetic compass. Instead of the more common analog gauges for the engine instruments, mine has a GRT EIS that does it all. Add a VHF Comm radio, 2-place intercom, and Transponder (with ADS-B because of where I "live") and that's pretty much it... Well, I also use an iPad with ForeFlight to provide situational awareness and some GPS nav capability (when needed). But it's very much a "stick and rudder" airplane, like most taildraggers. You don't fly this plane with your feet on the floor!

There's very little to fail or go wrong. It's pretty inexpensive to maintain and operate. The Rotax engine reliably starts every time I turn the key.

The only thing that would make it better for me would be if it had a tailwheel. When I was searching for a plane, I could not find an S-6 tailwheel plane that met my (admittedly high) standards. But the nosewheel version is more than capable of landing anywhere I have any business going, and it easily handles crosswinds that the tailwheel version would not handle. Ultimately, I decided that crosswind capability offset my "macho desire" to own a tailwheel airplane.

As others have said, find a good plane that you can afford to: A) purchase, B) insure, C) hangar, and D) fly the heck out of... Then go convert $$ into flight time to gain proficiency in your plane. You won't regret it!

Thanks for the feedback
could you elaborate on this please :

JP256 wrote: But the nosewheel version is more than capable of landing anywhere I have any business going, and it easily handles crosswinds that the tailwheel version would not handle. Ultimately, I decided that crosswind capability offset my "macho desire" to own a tailwheel airplane.

how is it more able to handle crosswinds than tailwheel ?
thanks !

My first real airplane was a1953 Cessna 180. I was about 150hrs total time.
I’m happy every time I fly, that I bought what I did.

anorphirith,

If we are holding full ruder against a strong crosswind but the nose is still crabbed into the wind we will touch down crooked. With the center of gravity in front of the mains, the nose will pitch down when the upwind main (or both mains if we haven't banked enough to counter drift) touch down. This puts the nose wheel down. If the nose wheel doesn't caster like the tailwheel does, it will allow steering away from the crosswind.

We can lose control of either airplane, but the nose gear is more stabilizing. If we touchdown slow enough on the downwind corner of the runway at an angle across to take some of the crosswind component out, we are much less likely to run out of rudder.

Others here can explain the aerodynamics better, but the nose gear arrangement has improved crosswind operations.

Actually groundodynamics. In the air they fly identically well.