Aren't bushcaddy's the ones the wings keep falling off?

Not that I've heard. The Zenith 601 has had some problems but it sounds like the kit supplier has done a good job responding to it.
-Nate

If I were in your thought process (and have been) and truly wanted a bush/back country plane that the whole family could fit in, the Bearhawk has to be the best value going right now. Not sure what the Tundra's go for but I think the Bearhawk quick build kit is $40K-ish. You can also scratch build a Bearhawk and trade time for $$$. Or do a little of both. The builder support for Bearhawk is really good and the airplane is well proven. In the end I chose Super Cub because I have come to the realization that 99% of the time I fly by myself and it would be the same if I had a Bearhawk. My family is just not into flying. The "Bushmasters" are neat planes too. Check out this nice one by Rick Davis, he has one of the nices one's I have seen: http://www.mykitlog.com/Rick%20Davis

Good luck on your search!

I know a guy whose first airplane was a C150/150, which he really enjoyed. Married with 3 kids, he traded up to a 172 & then a 182 so he'd have the room (& the steam) to haul 3 pax along. He discovered that none of the kids or the wife was really into flying other than very occasionally, so he was flying alone most of the time --just like in the 150, only to the tune of a lot more gas.
I know some of you guys take your wife & even your kids along regularly, and more power to you, but in my experience that's the exception, not the rule. I owned a 4-seat airplane for over 10 years but rarely used the back seat for more than throwing my jacket onto, so a couple years ago I traded down to a 2 seater. Occasionally it'd be nice to have more seats, but overall I'm very happy with my decision -- a 2 seater just makes more sense for some folks (like me), esp if money is an issue (like me).

If not mentioned previously, the single most important thing is to sit down and make an accurate, even painful assessment of what you actually need and what you will use, versus what you want or what your ego wants. It will be the toughest most complex and frustrating decision you ever make. We all want to own a camouflaged Helio Stallion and fly around dropping bags of artificial sweetener pretending to topple little banana republics. Our reality might be camping at a 2500 foot maintained grass strip three times a year, and putting around locally from a paved municipal field all other times.

Renting the 3rd and 4th seats on occasion is mucho cheaper than owning them full time. I only say that because if you own a 4 seat airplane you are going to find the occasional time when you wished you had just one more. etc. etc.

porterjet wrote:Renting the 3rd and 4th seats on occasion is mucho cheaper than owning them full time. I only say that because if you own a 4 seat airplane you are going to find the occasional time when you wished you had just one more. etc. etc.

This is sound advice, I think that if you plan on always taking kids with you then four seats are great but if not then you have a whole lot of plane you aren't using. Also look at how much other stuff you need to bring along. I can fill a 172 with 2 or three adults and enough stuff for only a weekend.

When you are talking about touring or backcountry access for the purpose of staying a while, most 4 seat aircraft aren't really (most can't fly with 4 full seats and full fuel anyway) - rather they are 2 seat aircraft with ample cargo area. And 2 seat tandems aren't generally funtional 2 seaters either - they are single seat with room for cargo. Look at most who flew into JC for the fly in last summer - the 4 seaters had 2 people with camping gear and the 2 seaters had one with gear. Case in point - my 4 seat Stinson works perfectly for 2 with enough gear to be comfortable out there.

One notable exception was the Husky from NH but those guys were hard corps - toothbrushes and bedrolls, I didn't see what they brought to eat but it couldn't have been much.

Contact the company reps far enough ahead of time to be sure you get to fly the planes you are most serious about and let them know you have narrowed your choices down and theirs is in the running. Arlington and Oshkosh have so many people attending that time doesn't allow for everyone who has an interest to walk up and get a demo flight. I told each of them I was seriously looking but would not consider buying a car without driving it, and a plane would be no different.
Another tip. When we were looking over the Avipro Bearhawk plane, Budd Davisson told us he knows when a couple is serious about buying. The tell was not how much interest they show but how tightly the wife's arms are wrapped around protecting her purse.
He knew we were serious.

Buy Mr Scout's Pawnee.

You get to fly up top, single seat with the great view and peace and quiet. Wife, kids, dogs and camping junk get stuffed down in the hopper where you don't have to listen to them. Win-Win situation all the way around.

Gump

Zane, I think Rob hit the nail on the head. The homebuilts almost always will cost you more in the end. Kind of like building a home in today's market versus buying one ready to move into. Especially if there is a JR (or two) in the future, you're gonna need 4 seats. If everyone doesn't fit in the plane, then no one goes. Ask me how I know. I simply don't believe anyone can build a true 4 seat 1000 pound useful aircraft for under $80,000 that they would want to put their wife/kids in and go somewhere for the weekend. That's assuming their time is valued at $0 per hour. And you'll need at least a 1000 pounds useful once you see how much stuff kids need to bring along. Remember, ma and Jr. need to be comfy for the flight and not shoehorned into a baggage area. You'll have much more marital peace and time with wife and kids if you don't tackle a multi thousand hour build project. And that makes momma happy. And if momma ain't happy ain't nobody happy. I was at a stage in my life where you are now about 12 years ago. New wife, building my dream home, no kids, busy career. I almost built a Bearhawk thinking I would save a dime and have fun building it. I am 100% sure I would be divorced and have a half done plane right now had I gone that route. My 2 cents. Hope to see you and Mrs Z this summer. Russ

While total build cost is certainly a concern I haven't heard many people claim that they went experimental because they expected it to be cheaper in comparison to a similarly capable certificated aircraft. Build it yourself and get your name on the repairman's certificate - how do you put a value on that? Being free from the STC process if you want to tinker on it is icing on the cake.

Vick wrote:While total build cost is certainly a concern I haven't heard many people claim that they went experimental because they expected it to be cheaper in comparison to a similarly capable certificated aircraft. Build it yourself and get your name on the repairman's certificate - how do you put a value on that? Being free from the STC process if you want to tinker on it is icing on the cake.

Yeah, missing from my reasons for going Experimental in the original post is "saving money." I think we all have this assumption that that is a motivating factor, but I'm very realistic about the fact that even building an LSA is going to cost more than my 170 did outright.

Anyway, I'm not looking for justification or rationalization..what's that? Although I thank you guys for solid arguments (Russ, Rob.)

I think I've resolved to just build something light in the 100 hp class. The quest for the family/meat hauler is just much, and as someone pointed out, you can always rent a 172 or 182. But that Murphy Rebel 160 is looking pretty damned good too...

Paralysis by analysis.

Vick, Zane probably couldn't put a value on it, but I'll bet Mrs. Zane could. And the repairman cert is probably valued waaaay less than a couple thousand hours of time spent together versus Z in the garage tinkering while she tends to domestic duties. There's a reason something like 80% of kit planes are never completed. I think you need to be single, retired, or married to a very understanding wife with no kids to really make it work. Or else have a good divorce attorney on your side.

I have a little experience on both sides of the experimental issue, and I prefer the experimental.

Can you build a 4 seat experimental for what you can buy a bottom end 180 for? Not a chance. But you can build a 4 seat, lightweight, high performance experimental for less than a top end 180 or 185 will sell for. And you will have a new airplane, not a 50 year old one. On top of that, you don't have to pay $500 for a cowl flap cable, or $15,000 for a new cowl. You can equip an experimental with an all glass panel for less than the cost of a certified autopilot.

I enjoyed the building process, and I have a wife and two young children (6 and 8 now). It is foolish to pretend that every hour spent building a plane would automatically be spent with the wife and kids--that wouldn't be the case with me. I have other hobbies, and spent less time on those. My kids actually spent lots of time with me in the shop while I was building.

I cringe when I have to get a part from cessna, but buying parts for an experimental is usually a non issue.
The insurance is basically the same cost for our C-180 and my RV-8 based on hull value.

Another advantage of building is the fact that you can do it $1000, $5000, or $10,000 at a time, instead of $100,000 at a time

Rhyppa wrote:Vick, Zane probably couldn't put a value on it, but I'll bet Mrs. Zane could. And the repairman cert is probably valued waaaay less than a couple thousand hours of time spent together versus Z in the garage tinkering while she tends to domestic duties. There's a reason something like 80% of kit planes are never completed. I think you need to be single, retired, or married to a very understanding wife with no kids to really make it work. Or else have a good divorce attorney on your side.

No doubt it's a decision that has to be made based on your personal circumstances. I know of an individual who restored a Stearman from the ground up, to include rebuilding the engine himself, over the course of seven years - all while tending to a demanding career and a growing family. Certainly not the norm but proof that it can be done, just depends on how you prioritize your life and the length of the leash you've negotiated for yourself.

Lance and Vick make good points. A bank lets you buy the plane about $500 at a time (about the loan payment on $80,000) and you get to fly instead of build. That was the decision I was faced with. Spend my time exploring the Canadian lakes with the wife, kids, family, and friends in the Cessna floatplane, or spend the time building a plane? For me, the decision was the kids (and me) are only young once, my dad isn't getting any yourger, and all too soon the kids won't want to be hanging out with mom and dad. Hopefully being exposed to a lot of bush aviation from birth will sink in to them. Then when they're 16 and 12 I'll be in Canada fishing with them instead of watching them at a football or volleyball camp. Selfish of me I know. But maybe not - only time will tell. I've got all the building out of my system after building my house for the last 10 years. Someday I'll build a plane - once kids are off on their own and a two seater will be all I need. Two other economic considerations - how much money could you make doing what you're good at an extra 10 hours a week? You'll probably make twice as much in your profession than what you might "save" in building your own. You'll spend a lot on various tools, long distance phone, driving to look at projects, wasted time at work, etc. Secondly, I know the numbers on two people who built their own, then for unforseen reasons had to sell. Both of them ended up selling for less than 1/2 of their actual hard dollars they had into the exp. plane - not counting time. A good friend spent 3 years and over $60,000 building a rebel on floats in the late 90's. At the time you good buy a decent Super Cub on floats for $50,000. After his untimely death his widow struggled to sell the Rebel for $15,000. At the same time the cubs were going for $70,000 like wildfire. That's a $65,000 swing in value on building versus buying. His widow could really use that $65,000 right now. Whatever you do have fun. Based on your decision to sell your 170 to get a house for your family, I'm confident you already have your priorities straight. When Jr. comes along they'll get even straighter. Russ

I started out owning a 172 and always wanted to build my own airplane so I sold it to start building. I had my heart set on a Murphy Rebel but the wife said we needed more than a 2 place, which is true. Unlike many families my wife and kids love to go up and I'm pretty much not alowed to go without them. So I am scratch building a bearhawk. It can be as expensive or cheap as you want it to be. With Avipro you can buy the pieces you don't want to make so you can have a scratch/kit plane when you're done. If you're wife loves to go and there's a possibility for little ones you'll be kicking yourself everytime you go up and leave someone behind.

Plus with building your own airplane you can make your dream airplane curtailed to all of your wishes. If you are a good scrounger you can build a Bearhawk for a reasonable amount. You don't need a big shop with all the greatest tools either, many homebuilts are built in a 2 stall garage with normal shop tools. I better get off the computer and back to building so I can make this thing fly.

Just some of my random babblings to throw on the pile.

Sounds to me like your ideal airplane would be an experimental C-206 taildragger. Wish I could find the link but I saw the Sherpa 5 seat turbo STOL airplane listed for about 400K, marked down from 700K not long ago!

Realistically, a 4 place would take two people and gear... maybe 3 people and gear. That might be the determining factor of 160hp vs 180hp or more.
Aside from being certified, what was the biggest downsides of the 170? Too much airplane most of the time? Not enough airplane most of the time?
If you go bigger, will it really get filled?
One of our local pilots, who's name escapes me right now.... has a pacer, wife and a kid or two and flys with them regularly, might be a good one to talk about how practical it's been for him and for ideas on which way to go.

Maybe I didn't look hard enough but I found renting a 172 for more than a day trip wasn't really that practical. Renting also assumes they'll let you take it the places you want to go.

If you wanted to go the Certificated route, I do think a Maule would fit well with what it sounds like you're wanting.

Looking at listed performance numbers (yeah, I know), the Bearhawk is awfully impressive on its performance range from stall to cruise. It seems to be one of the most Maule like.

Not trying to hijack the thread, but doesn't taking a certificated airpane into the experimental category imposed a lot more restrictions on where and when it can be flown than one that was built as an experimental???

Zane,

We just finished building the Zenith CH701. The 701 was built as a daylight VFR aircraft. It took us three years, 650 hours, and a tad less than $40,000. We could have done it in one year but this was a social project. In fact, Zenith used to build this plane and fly it in one week at Sun 'N Fun a few years back!

We now have a plane that is cheap to run (3.5 to 4.0 gph), will take off in less than 100 feet, carry two side-by-side, with 40 lbs of luggage, go 90-95 mph, 350 mile range, has a glass cockpit, and is expected to have minimal maintenance over the next few years because everything is new and simple.

Despite this I would not recommend the 701. If we were to do it again I would choose the newer 750. It has considerably more room, even easier to build (I would guess about 500 hours), will take an O-200 engine, same short take & landing, more useable weight, 100 plus mph, 440 mile range, all for about the same cost.

Now I am not promoting the 701 or 750. I am just passing along some numbers you might be able to use. Personally, since I am primarily a flyer not a builder, I would not take on any project expected to take much more than 500 hours. Most of the projects that don't get done are planes more than a thousand hours. If you like a plane that is going to take that amount of time, then trade money for quick build options to reduce the time.