PA-22/20-150 or nice Clipper with 0-320 is the best bang for the buck. Just saw a Tripacer 150hp for ten grand flying!

Yup, the Cessna 150, flew one all over Alaska as a Kid, gravel strips and all. Baggage full of camping gear, fishing poles, etc. And the lines of a Cessna 150 still look good.

Ditto what everyone else is saying. Keep in mind that your first airplane is just that, your first airplane. Save some money for gas (aka experience) and enjoy the process. Also, remember that a slow cruise speed equals more time in your logbook. I love my tri-pacer, it can haul the kiddos and when light can really perform, all while burning 8-9 gph, pretty tough to argue with.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

jaudette wrote:

TomD wrote:From my observations, the limiting factor is usually not the aircraft.

Ditto!

More ditto! Although the big tire crowd will go places I wouldn't consider, my P172D will handle most smallish, bumpyish airstrips. The biggest limiting factor is always the pilot's skill, tempered by the pilot's judgment. Get good with whatever you're flying, and that airplane (whatever it is) will likely do the job.

Cary

In 1990, shortly after getting married I (we) bought a Cessna 150G. It was $6000.00. It was the least expensive airplane I could find and would you believe it, right on the airport at which I worked. It had big tires (sixes on the mains and a five on the nose). It was a sweet airplane! I filled in some ditches in a field just a few hundred feet from our 10x50 trailer and started home schooling in it. I learned a lot in short order, as there was no go around. I then started patiently exploring the Selway. My first backcountry landing was at Running Creek! It was a pretty neat experience. I flew that airplane back and forth from work for four years until we had kids bouncing off the walls and needed to build a home. I delivered it to Oberlin, Kansas. Lots of Corn and pheasants, but seemed like it would be easy to get lost.

It was hard to not be able to fly when I wanted, but hey, what's more precious than family?
Many, Many years later, I had the opportunity to fly a friends Cessna 150D. An airplane taxiied into it one time on the ramp and we put a STOL kit on it while repairing the wing tip. What an awesome airplane. While it doesn't have the big tires (equipped with five's all around), it does have manual flaps. There are some people that don't like flaps. It makes me sad, as I love them! It does a fair job in the backcountry, It's been nice to feel the history that Bound For The Backcountry so adequately brings out.

Fly it Light, Fly it Right, Fly it Tight! While a Cessna 150 is Capable in the Backcountry, it's not Comfortable! The Cessna 150 is a very different machine at strips over 5000'. You can get in trouble very quickly. It hates density altitude, and it doesn't like being near gross weight. However, if you are patient and choose the right window of opportunity, it's truly surprising what it can do.

The 1960 Cessna 182C is nearing completion, it's been a long project. I look forward to being more "Comfortable" in the Backcountry. It will be nice to share my experiences with my children, and who knows, perhaps I can teach one of them something. A Cessna 182 is Capable and Comfortable in the backcountry. A friend of mine has one. We've been a lot of places. I like that he likes flaps also. A Cessna 182 isn't the least expensive, but it will go almost anywhere a Cessna 150 will!

I hope the smoke goes soon. I'd like to visit a few more strips this year in the 150. Never been in Johnson Creek, Sulphur Creek, Big Creek, and I'm not sure what the other one is that makes up the Big 4.
Richard

Stinson 108, 1000 lb useful load, under $25K.

.

Your Buddy's. At least my hunting friends think that my planes can land anywhere, and don't' cost anything to run!

North River wrote:Your Buddy's. At least my hunting friends think that my planes can land anywhere, and don't' cost anything to run!

Amen!

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

Don't be shy of an experimental. There are lots of good performers that won't break the bank. I know of a nice Kitfox 4 in MN right now that can be had for less than $20k.

That's with a very low time 80 hp 912, 4 gph, 115 mph cruise and infinitely better performance than a 150 in the back country. All with a very similar sized cabin. Not to mention, you can skip the huge maintenance costs of a certified plane.

This is slightly self-serving if you happen to be willing to rebuild a project airplane, however it is also just as accurate for buying someone else's flying airplane.

The Aeronca Chief can make a very inexpensive off-road machine for basic light duty flying. An 85HP or 100HP engine on a Chief, with the VG's on the wing, and decent size tires, will take you 80% of the places the equally powered Cubs can go. It is easy to fly, safe, and very inexpensive compared to the cubs. The Chief is even less expensive than the equivalent Taylorcrafts.They're about the same speed as a Cub give or take a little, slower than the Luscombe and T-craft.

It is not a huge load hauler because the baggage compartment is small, but when you are talking about wanting an inexpensive sport plane then you have to accept you are not going to get a Maule for chump change. But when budget is the high priority, the Chief and the T-craft really start to shine. The Chief will be a little easier to fly than the T-craft because it's not as efficient, but for back country sport flying the cruise speed is not that important.

Full Disclosure: I do have a Chief project listed in the For sale section, but I stand by the recommendation even if he buys a different airplane.

I got my Storch for $24K Aussie dollars, thats equivalent to about 20k USD in a country where aircraft are about twice as expensive as in the states. Its hard to argue that its not atleast a fairly capable back country aircraft.

Moral of the story is just cause something is cheap doesnt mean its no good. If you shop around the bargins to come up. Just make sure you go over them in good detail first, some gift horses do have good teeth.

"A Cessna 182 isn't the least expensive, but it will go almost anywhere a Cessna 150 will!"



Lol - A 182 will go in way more area's than a 150 ever will.....

I would start narrowing down the search, besides money of course, to where will the plane be stored? No plans or budget for a hangar? Look at only metal skinned. I can ensure you the "cheap" fabric planes probably haven't had a proper recover in 30 years. not much of a deal if the covering is just squeaking past annuals. A professional recover and paint makes the purchase price look pretty small. Ratty paint on a metal skin is just cosmetic.

Mark Y. wrote:I would start narrowing down the search, besides money of course, to where will the plane be stored? No plans or budget for a hangar? Look at only metal skinned.

That's a good point - I'd much rather have a metal skinned airplane if I had to park outside. Though the folks in AK tie fabric planes outside all the time, I think the UV intensity is lower up there.

Mark Y. wrote:I can ensure you the "cheap" fabric planes probably haven't had a proper recover in 30 years.

Ensure probably? Holy opinions, Batman!

Don't throw a category out because of someone's opinion. It's too easy to request logbooks and see the last recover. It's also too easy for a decent mechanic to spot a ratty cover job, if you can't see it yourself.

Mark Y. wrote:not much of a deal if the covering is just squeaking past annuals. A professional recover and paint makes the purchase price look pretty small. Ratty paint on a metal skin is just cosmetic.

This is absolutely true. I wouldn't buy a plane with bad fabric unless you get it for scrap prices. Even then, it seems a lot of recover jobs turn into more than that. A bad cover can be pretty indicative of the care an airplane has been given, and poorly cared for tube and fabric planes can have corrosion in their tubes.

The critical factor, with fabric, is the climate it has lived the last 20 years in. That is because it is not the fabric, but the metal or wood under the fabric, that matters. Any fabric not flapping in the wind moves the air in a way that makes the airplane fly. I have comfortably flown planes you could put your finger through anywhere the paint was chipped off.

No, it won't sell. It will fly like hell, though.

The big advantage of a fabric backcountry plane is the ease of repair. Rip a hole in the belly, tail, or wing, and you can fix it in a few hours with a dollar patch, glue, paint, and paint brush. Put a big dent or hole in the tail of a metal plane and it will cost a few grand to fix. A good fabric job will last a long time outside if proper care is taken. Have ANY plane fully inspected by you IA before you start to fall in love with it.
DENNY

There's a very simple answer to this question: The one you can afford to purchase and become proficient in.

MTV

Okay, I was a little heavy on my opinions on the probably 30 year old cover job. Lol...... Prices up here in Canada are just astronomical as no mechanics up here ( The ones I know anyway) really wants to recover fabric or really has much experience with it. Which translates to lots of labor hrs at $95 per hr plus. Lots of ratty paint and old fabrics up here just due to the cost to refinish. The only recent professional recovers you will really find up here are on the high dollar fabrics like super cubs. The lower dollar taylorcrafts, vagabonds, pacers, champs, citabrias etc are either 30 plus years since last cover, or were covered by amateurs (Yes I know could be a great job and lots are). I have also seen quite a few 30 year old covers that have been repainted in the last 5 years, or as the for sale ad says (Fabric rejuvenated recently) - scares me.

Mark Y. wrote:Okay, I was a little heavy on my opinions on the probably 30 year old cover job. Lol...... Prices up here in Canada are just astronomical as no mechanics up here ( The ones I know anyway) really wants to recover fabric or really has much experience with it. Which translates to lots of labor hrs at $95 per hr plus. Lots of ratty paint and old fabrics up here just due to the cost to refinish. The only recent professional recovers you will really find up here are on the high dollar fabrics like super cubs. The lower dollar taylorcrafts, vagabonds, pacers, champs, citabrias etc are either 30 plus years since last cover, or were covered by amateurs (Yes I know could be a great job and lots are). I have also seen quite a few 30 year old covers that have been repainted in the last 5 years, or as the for sale ad says (Fabric rejuvenated recently) - scares me.

Haha, totally fair!

And pretty valid points. Fabric brings about some unique concerns that a metal skinned plane doesn't.

Mark Y. wrote:Okay, I was a little heavy on my opinions on the probably 30 year old cover job. Lol...... Prices up here in Canada are just astronomical as no mechanics up here ( The ones I know anyway) really wants to recover fabric or really has much experience with it. Which translates to lots of labor hrs at $95 per hr plus. Lots of ratty paint and old fabrics up here just due to the cost to refinish. The only recent professional recovers you will really find up here are on the high dollar fabrics like super cubs. The lower dollar taylorcrafts, vagabonds, pacers, champs, citabrias etc are either 30 plus years since last cover, or were covered by amateurs (Yes I know could be a great job and lots are). I have also seen quite a few 30 year old covers that have been repainted in the last 5 years, or as the for sale ad says (Fabric rejuvenated recently) - scares me.

If you ever need fabric done Mark, just bring it to me. I like the stuff for some reason.
That said, 30 year old fabric if done right can still be in great shape! It can also be in terrible shape and hiding some bad stuff. We live in fairly dry climate up here so we don't see as much corrosion, but you sure gotta watch if the planes come from a humid environment...

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk