Lots of great aircraft mentioned, and I saw you noted that you considered a Kitfox or similar type. Along that same line, I'm very happy with my Zenith 750 STOL, it might fit what you're looking for, considering you mentioned side by side also. It's not a Maule or 170 or similar, but with the STOL, the great visibility, and just being fun to goof off low and slow, it might work. The interior room is hard to beat, it's wider than a 172, and I find it very comfortable. Mine is almost spooky quiet because how I finished it off, but with the room and visibility, 4-5 gph, 95-100 mph cruise, it does quite well at XCs, very comfortable. If you're looking to haul out a moose and roll over 10 in rocks, there's better suited aircraft, but for a "hybrid" that does STOL and cross country cruises, and is just plain fun, it works out quite well.


You can see how the visibility is, really is a kick to fly low and slow



Can fit my Montegue mountain folding E-bike in the back quite easily.

Just buy a Maule. I do have a dog in the fight. Make sure to be a real pilot and get the little wheel on the correct end.
Cheers...Rob

OregonMaule wrote:Just buy a Maule. I do have a dog in the fight. Make sure to be a real pilot and get the little wheel on the correct end.
Cheers...Rob

I saw the fear in her eyes when she went for a ride in your Maule…….

I operate a Rans S7S w 100hp 912 out of a 1300' strip I cut out of a maple 40 and is not oriented into prevailing wind. Cleared width is 200' and graded width 75'. Graded length is 1300' and cleared length is 2000' (neighbor let me drop additional trees for clearance).

I have had no problems with this strip configuration. Yes, you will manage cross wind up until you dip below tree line and then usually becomes negligible. No big deal. Only caution I would make is on takeoff and higher cross winds. Make sure you are prepared to get hammered when get above tree tops. I usually accelerate as far as possible in ground effect and then emerge above tree tops on upwind side and end of strip. As a rule, my direct cross wind limit for takeoff is 20 kt. Over the last 5 years, I've become calibrated to tree top displacement and wind velocity magnitude to inform decision on making attempt.

FYI, one added bonus of having a strip cut in the woods not aligned with prevailing wind direction is ski flying operations. I have been pleased to find I receive no drifting of snow along entire runway length due to this fact. No drift hazards or grooming required.

Rob

OregonMaule wrote:Just buy a Maule. I do have a dog in the fight. Make sure to be a real pilot and get the little wheel on the correct end.
Cheers...Rob

Now now.... some of us have wives and insurance to contend with....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Over the years, as many more pilots were transitioning from nose wheel to tailwheel rather than the other way around, I have found post "Murphy's Law" questions concerning tailwheel instruction to have greater impact than pre ML questions.

Was the touchdown speed slow enough that the airplane wasn't bent? Slow power pitch approach can be learned in nose gear airplanes.

Was the tail wagging throughout approach, touchdown, roll out, and taxi? This can be learned in nose wheel airplanes.

Did you own the airplane? This can only be learned through expensive experience.

Was the airplane ugly or a show plane? This can only be learned through expensive experience.

"A" for the day for the pilot who can recite Murphy's Law concerning tailwheel airplanes.

contactflying wrote:"A" for the day for the pilot who can recite Murphy's Law concerning tailwheel airplanes.

The issue of ground-looping is not whether it will happen, but when it will happen. Or something similar.

Cary

You get the A, Cary. We have both trained guys who build a beautiful tailwheel airplane and then insist on learning in that airplane.

The 90 HP Super Cub I got my first solo in at Jeffco had been ground looped seven times. If it's still out there somewhere, it has appropriate experience for a trainer.

I had the tremendous advantage of almost no nose gear time. Nothing wrong with nose gear time if we train the same as tailwheel for those desiring to fly tailwheel.

With the shortage of tailwheel trainers with appropriate experience, it becomes more important that we train those who desire to fly tailwheel as if they were always in a tailwheel airplane. All we have to do is teach them to wag the tail dynamic and proactive a bit always, always. It doesn't hurt the nose geared airplane's feelings a bit.

It was hot and the plane heavy with some gear, off the ground at 300', stay low in ground effect until Vx, climb out by 600' on an 1100' airstrip. Plenty of room.

https://vimeo.com/225667167

Very good energy management.

Cary wrote:

contactflying wrote:"A" for the day for the pilot who can recite Murphy's Law concerning tailwheel airplanes.

The issue of ground-looping is not whether it will happen, but when it will happen. Or something similar. Cary

I call bullshit on that line of thought....
just like I call BS on "them that's landed gear-up, and them that will".
Neither is inevitable.

You got us, Hotrod 180. But the feet of those who have not have had it ever on the mind. Thus the tail wagging.

Love this thread. A year ago I was contemplating building a 1000' grass runway on my property so I asked about which plane to put-put around the pattern and maybe fly max about 200 miles away for 2 adults and I wanted metal not rag & pipes. If I wanted to fly year round with the high Texas heat I was told a C-150 with 150hp would do the job but it would be close at 1000'. So I took down some trees and made it 1800' long.

Then I took a ride in a 150/150 and found it a little tight to get into and tried on a 172 for size. During my research I was also pleasantly surprised to find out that insurance for the 150/150 was twice what it was for the 172 so I started looking for 172s. Found a nice 172H with 180hp. That is the combo to have for shorter strips.

Ended up clearing even more property and re-positioning the runway and now have 2500' ( TA37 - Vaca Moo Airport ) so it turns out I didn't need so much engine now but having the 180hp brings an extra level of safety since I can get higher quicker and if anything goes silent I'll have a little more time to figure out what to do next.

So when you consider which plane to buy remember to also take into account insurance costs and training costs to get comfortable in it if you've never flown that make and model.

Doctor Ivan,

I take pride in what I own, and enjoy an airplane that appropriately and comfortably fits the mission (style can be subjective). Although my dreams and life do involve a Spam can or two.
I also keep a few airplanes on a grass strip that has 1400' clear, and about 1200 useable. Landing short is not an option as the mesquites are pretty thick. If you truly have clear approaches, you probably have a friendlier 1200 than I.

Landing or take off, 4 up in my 180 is a non event. At gross + is a non event. In either of these cases it's on or off in half the strip.

The few friends that have been by typically use half the strip. This list includes Stinsons, T-carts, C170'(2)s, C180'(2)s. RV6's, an RV 4, Maules, Husky's, a Citabria, an L2, probably a few others I'm forgetting. Cubs I did include because concern there would be ludicrous. In fact concern (pilot ability aside) with any of the preceding is really overkill.

The only plane I can think of off the top of my head that uses my strip and uses all or most of it is a friend in a Christian Eagle, and then only when he has both seats full. I would probably not go along with someone else trying that....

What I'm getting at here, is that with a conservatively published 525' T/O and 350' Landing roll, even an RV9 would / should be a non event. I wouldn't overthink the crosswind either, plant trees where you want them, not where you are concerned with crosswind. After all, what's going to be more to your liking if things get away from you, rolling out through the grass, or taking out trees with your new pride and joy.

My advice to you would be to buy / build the airplane of your dreams. And then take all the money you would have lost doing a bunch of horse (airplane) trading you would have done working your way up, add that to all the money you saved not buying trees, and spend it on exceptional quality (not the local cool-kid) dual.

In the end you will be happier for it. Nothing beats the airplane of your dreams, sitting on your own strip...

Take care, Rob

PS, as I have a perpetual airplane habit, feel free to send any funds remaining after you get it sorted out to my airplane fund
.

Great post, Rob. I agree with almost everything you wrote.

The one thing I disagree with is your PS... Since you admit that you have a "perpetual airplane habit" it would be irresponsible of Rob to send any excess funds your way.

I, on the other hand, do NOT have a perpetual airplane habit - just an EXPENSIVE one, so it would be perfectly responsible for any / all readers to send their surplus aviation dollars to help fund my Bearhawk Patrol build. At this point, all I need is an engine, a prop, and a panel full of instruments... Just think – you'd be investing in the retraining of a 61-year-old IT professional, and we all know how USELESS those guys are!

PS – I just learned that the land next door to me (which has plenty of room for a 1200-1500 foot grass runway) may be up for sale... Would it be completely ridiculous to sell my current house / property, and build a new one right next door, so I can have a runway at home? Anyone have some convincing arguments for my non-flying wife? Anyone?

Respecting my earlier post, which I think was about #11 in this thread, I got a PM from MTV essentially calling me out on my comments about the Robertson STOL--and he's right. I have no personal experience with it, only what I've read. He on the other hand has all kinds of experience with it and likes it. Different strokes for different folks.

However, I stand by what else I said in that post. Learn to really fly your old 172, well. At 120 hours, it's a good bet that you're not really as proficient as you will be with specific practice regarding short fields. Few new pilots are. When you can touch down where you want to, 10 out of 10 times in a row, and consistently make your approaches at the same relatively slow airspeed, then you'll see how well that old airplane can perform, landing. You will find that you can consistently get down and stopped from your touchdown point in around 600', if your approach speed is correct, with a light load (2 normal size people, half tanks). It takes a bit longer to take off with the same load, about 800', but again it takes consistent practice--same flap settings, same airspeed, same load. All that's in your airplane's flight manual. Without any obstacles, your proposed 1200' airstrip will work--and then if you want to take a full load, fly over to a nearby airport with longer runways to load up.

Here's a little story that illustrates what I'm saying. My first airplane, back in 1975, was a Skylane in a 3 person partnership. Over time, it became a 2 person partnership. My remaining pard was a doc, and he liked making "house calls" to patients that lived in the hinterlands with their own ranch strips. Then he also got the speed bug, and although I couldn't afford it, we traded the Skylane in on a new TR182 right after Cessna started making them. Within a few weeks, he wanted to have a Robertson STOL kit installed, which he told me would have been $26,000 in 1979 money--that's about the equivalent of $87,000 in today's money. I was having hard enough time meeting my part of the financial obligations on the airplane, so I balked--why should we spend that kind of money? It was because he wanted to take the airplane into those ranch strips, and the TR182 was "too fast"--he couldn't make the first turn off of 21 at Laramie, which is about 1500' down the runway. http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1707/00225AD.PDF

I should interject here that he had a hard time accepting any piloting advice I would offer. Although by then I was a CFII with several students, and he was an instrument rated private pilot, it seemed a bit like trying to teach my brother something--there's a reason why teaching family isn't often successful. I suspect part of it was that when we bought the old Skylane, we were both fairly new private pilots, and I just progressed faster than he did, because I had more time to devote to training. But our friendship was as equals, and that may have been what made it hard for him to accept any of my suggestions. Who knows?

I had flown with him many times in the old Skylane, and he had no problem making that turn off. But in the new one, even with heavy braking, he couldn't--because he was flying final way too fast. He had somehow convinced himself that because the new airplane cruised much faster than the old one, he needed to land it faster, too, and he thought that adding the RSTOL kit would solve that problem. So I suggested that he just slow down--it's just a Skylane with folding feet. I offered to show him what I meant, so we scheduled a time the next day.

In the meanwhile, I cheated a little. I took the airplane out and practiced at different approach speeds. I discovered that with a light load, just me and 3/4 tanks, I could easily and safely approach at 55 knots. Much slower, and the nose would drop on touchdown, even with a very soft touchdown. So the next day, we went up, and I asked him to do a landing so I could watch what he was doing. His final was at 80 knots--way too fast--and there was no way he was going to get stopped as short as he wanted to. We went back up, left the pattern, climbed up to about 10,500' or so (something more than 3000' AGL) and I asked him to do some slow flight. His idea of slow flight was a whole lot faster than mine, so I asked him to slow it so that the stall warning buzzer stayed on all the time and the IAS barely moving. He did, but he was obviously uncomfortable. Then I asked him to do some turns, and he did them with little bitty banks. I asked him to do them with 30 degree banks, and he said, "NO! It'll fall out of the sky!" When I insisted, he told me to do it--so I did, and although I could feel the burbling of an imminent stall, it didn't stall--it didn't fall out of the sky.

Then we went back to the airport, and I suggested that now that he knew it wouldn't fall out of the sky at very slow airspeeds, he should slow the airplane down on final. He made the approach at 75 knots, and again, couldn't get stopped by the turn off. I said that he should slow it to 60 knots, and he refused: "It'll fall out of the sky!" "No it won't!" "OK, you do it!" But when I came around and slowed to 60 knots, he said, "You're going to kill us!" But we landed, we didn't die, and we easily made the turn off with only a little braking. "Now you try it."

On the next one, he did slow to just under 70 knots, and with moderately heavy braking, we turned off at the taxiway. We didn't buy the Robertson STOL kit--or any STOL kit. He still approached at a higher speed than I did, but it was slow enough to do the job, and he was very consistent about where he touched down. The point is that if airplanes are flown the way that they are designed to be flown, at the airspeeds in the flight manual and consistently, they'll often perform at a much higher level than if the pilot is inconsistent about what he/she does. That's my recommendation to you.

Cary

I totally agree with Cary. It will make you more comfortable than a big engine will at much lower cost.

JP256 if the land is truly "right next door" as in adjacent, buy the land and keep the house you are living in. You can never have to much land, remember they aren't making any more.

Tim

bat443 wrote:JP256 if the land is truly "right next door" as in adjacent, buy the land and keep the house you are living in. You can never have to much land, remember they aren't making any more.

Tim

Will Rogers was right!

Cary