I have to agree with Denny's post I think he is spot on. I feel like I was in your situation a few years back. I am not sure where you are yet experience wise. Do you have your ppl? I started early on by buying a 65 hp cub but it did not have electric so I needed a new instructor and plane for the ppl requirements. So I ended up renting a 150/172 quite a bit to be able to solo their plane. In the long run buying a tri-pacer or c172 would have been money well spent. I didn't like the high speed and fire walled yolk needed in the pacer for wheel landing and the heavy tail compared to the cub. The pacers small wing means its less bumpy when the wind picks up and the sink rate/ lack of float makes 3 pt landings pretty easy. The idea about the taylorcraft is a good idea too but it it had a wood prop it may limit your flying to dry days. I am a low time pilot but the tail wheel and fabric covered planes are the most fun to me. They sound, smell and feel better until the wind picks up then I want a 172.

I am a low time pilot for sure. I soloed last month is all. I expect (if I actually buy something) it'll have a metal prob and electric start.

As someone asked earlier. I to would like to know what makes a pacer or the like more expensive to maintain than a c172? I understand insurance will be a tad higher, but I won't desire to sell the pacer/etc as quick as the 172. In fact it might even fit my bill when I move to AK. I don't want to push thing, but if I can learn in a pacer just as well as a c172, then I'm tempted.

I'm early enough in my learning that if I am to buy, earlier the better. Less giving my money away to someone else.

I think that any of the planes your are talking about will do the job, provided I understand your mission correctly. If you are looking for an economical, fun, taildragger to finish your training and take some early cross-country adventures, then you are looking at some strong contenders. These planes are the grocery-getters in Alaska, so if you keep the plane through that move you'll fit right in. Just don't expect to load it to the gunwales and rocket over Rollins on a hot August afternoon. But you don't expect to do that, which is why you're asking questions about their limitations!

In my experience the lessons gained in learning to fly an underpowered airplane in the mountains are invaluable. You learn to read the winds and where to look for lift. You learn to be comfortable close to the terrain where the lift is. You learn to evaluate whether you'll clear an obstacle. You really learn about (and experience) density altitude. Most importantly, you learn good judgement and when to keep it parked. I believe that I fly my 180 more conservatively (even with its added margins of safety in power, speed and range) than I would had I not logged a few hundred hours hunting and pecking for thermals, scraping along ridges and through mountain passes, and battling headwinds in the J-3.

Also, to repeat the cautions expressed by others, I would avoid the temptation to buy a basic taildragger/trainer and then throw money at mods to try and turn it into something it isn't. I was tempted by that path when I was shopping for a plane and am glad I heeded the wise advice from folks on this forum. Buy the cleanest airplane you can find/afford, fly it and keep it clean, then sell it and upgrade when your mission expands.

Anyway, good luck and enjoy the search! Dreaming and browsing airplane ads is half the fun.

TradeCraft wrote:

WWhunter wrote:X2!!! Too many people try to jump into their dream with both feet and a empty wallet. I think most of us have probably done the same and have learned from it. Nothing wrong with getting a 172 or Tripacer to build time in. They are much cheaper to insure, maintain, and learn the basics until you can fly them like they are a part of you.

How is a 172 or Tripacer any cheaper to maintain than a 170 or a Pacer?

Probably not cheaper to maintain (unless perhaps you are more likely to do damage needing repair on the taildragger configurations), but definitely cheaper to buy and insure.

Spdcrazy wrote:I am a low time pilot for sure. I soloed last month is all. I expect (if I actually buy something) it'll have a metal prob and electric start.

As someone asked earlier. I to would like to know what makes a pacer or the like more expensive to maintain than a c172? I understand insurance will be a tad higher, but I won't desire to sell the pacer/etc as quick as the 172. In fact it might even fit my bill when I move to AK. I don't want to push thing, but if I can learn in a pacer just as well as a c172, then I'm tempted.

I'm early enough in my learning that if I am to buy, earlier the better. Less giving my money away to someone else.

Fabric Piper airplanes usually have cheaper parts than metal Cessna airplanes. Example, Cessna spinner for 172 is over $1,000, spinner for O-320 on a Pacer is $500.

However, if the airplane is parked outside, the concern is that the fabric might age out and need replaced, at which point the cheaper parts on the Piper pale in comparison to the cost of a recover.

So...it depends...

Troy Hamon wrote:
Fabric Piper airplanes usually have cheaper parts than metal Cessna airplanes. Example, Cessna spinner for 172 is over $1,000, spinner for O-320 on a Pacer is $500.

However, if the airplane is parked outside, the concern is that the fabric might age out and need replaced, at which point the cheaper parts on the Piper pale in comparison to the cost of a recover.

So...it depends...

I can understand that and if I get a fabric plane, it'll be in a hanger for sure.

on the note of building a plane to fit what I want, I think my idea was misunderstood a bit. while a 125hp pacer (tailwheel) will fit my agenda now, when it becomes time to overhaul the engine, why not, famous last words, put in a 180hp or whatnot. so not that i'd be interested in buying a plane that doesn't do what I want, but upgrading when its more cost effective.

now I have heard and I expect the conversion from nose to tail wheel isn't worthwhile. so id shy away from the tripacers sadly.

if I went this route, i'd do research into what "upgrades" I would want and make sure they aren't cost prohibited when the time comes. this would allow me to make sure the work was done correctly, and im not buying a polished turd that might be difficult to see on a buyers inspection.

Hangars for Fabric Planes:

There are hundreds of fabric planes that live out their lives outside all year up here. That is the last thing that would be a consideration for me. Take the minimum of $7k per year for a hangar and you can recover your plane every two or three years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TradeCraft wrote:

WWhunter wrote:X2!!! Too many people try to jump into their dream with both feet and a empty wallet. I think most of us have probably done the same and have learned from it. Nothing wrong with getting a 172 or Tripacer to build time in. They are much cheaper to insure, maintain, and learn the basics until you can fly them like they are a part of you.

How is a 172 or Tripacer any cheaper to maintain than a 170 or a Pacer?

They're not! Probably should have re-edited that better. I had that response in a paragraph comparing that costs to what a lot of guys use in AK (Beaver,180, 185, 206, etc). In my attempt to shorten my post I deleted that part and now see the errors of my ways. I was attempting to post advice in purchasing something that is easy to insure, maintain, etc and learn the basics before jumping into his dream plane. Can't get anything passed you guys. I'll crawl back into my cave and be quite.

WWhunter wrote:

TradeCraft wrote:

WWhunter wrote:X2!!! Too many people try to jump into their dream with both feet and a empty wallet. I think most of us have probably done the same and have learned from it. Nothing wrong with getting a 172 or Tripacer to build time in. They are much cheaper to insure, maintain, and learn the basics until you can fly them like they are a part of you.

How is a 172 or Tripacer any cheaper to maintain than a 170 or a Pacer?

They're not! Probably should have re-edited that better. I had that response in a paragraph comparing that costs to what a lot of guys use in AK (Beaver,180, 185, 206, etc). In my attempt to shorten my post I deleted that part and now see the errors of my ways. I was attempting to post advice in purchasing something that is easy to insure, maintain, etc and learn the basics before jumping into his dream plane. Can't get anything passed you guys. I'll crawl back into my cave and be quite.

Ohh no, stay out and play! I appreciate you posting!

Prosaria wrote:Hangars for Fabric Planes:

There are hundreds of fabric planes that live out their lives outside all year up here. That is the last thing that would be a consideration for me. Take the minimum of $7k per year for a hangar and you can recover your plane every two or three years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Man, you guys can get a plane covered for 14000? In Canada you'd get a terrible cover job for that. It's pushing closer to 40k for a good cover job here...
But I still wouldn't worry much about keeping it outside. Put covers on it and it'll do just fine outside.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

A1Skinner wrote:

Prosaria wrote:Hangars for Fabric Planes:

There are hundreds of fabric planes that live out their lives outside all year up here. That is the last thing that would be a consideration for me. Take the minimum of $7k per year for a hangar and you can recover your plane every two or three years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Man, you guys can get a plane covered for 14000? In Canada you'd get a terrible cover job for that. It's pushing closer to 40k for a good cover job here...

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

$25-30K with good paint.

As quickly as they fall apart when exposed to sun or rain, you will get really good at recovering. Save some money on labor and a $14k recover is possible.

By the third or fourth time you forget to pull it into the hangar for the night, you will have learned your lesson.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Prosaria wrote:As quickly as they fall apart when exposed to sun or rain, you will get really good at recovering. Save some money on labor and a $14k recover is possible.

By the third or fourth time you forget to pull it into the hangar for the night, you will have learned your lesson.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FYI, toilet paper is not a recommended covering material...

I've had some experience with fabric airplanes in Alaska (9 over 44 years). Every one has been kept outdoors and flown year round in relatively dry Interior Alaska. Every one's covering including a freshly restored PA-11 deteriorated before my eyes. It's apparently inevitable due to the effects of the sun, heat, and cold. I'm on my last with the Taylorcraft.

And yes $25-30K plus is now a minimum given the $110+ per hour labor most charge. If you do it yourself and have the location, time, and skills that can be adjusted...but then restoring isn't flying time.

The metal covered planes I've flown appear to suffer less from the elements. So unless a prospective owner has a special interest in learning fabric covering and then covering maintenance I suggest metal may be less of a problem.

Engines are the same, and if the fabric plane's interior tubing is properly preserved it should last as long as the fabric covering it I've been told by those that know a lot more than I do.

Gary

When it comes to upgrades. It is very hard to get any of your money back from upgrades. Say you buy that Pacer for 30 grand with the plan to upgrade to a 180 hp. Now you have just stuck in another 30-40 grand!! The plane will be worth about 45 grand now. It is much cheaper to find and buy the plane already built the way you want it then to upgrade. Labor is 100 dollars an hour. To do a proper recover job you should also put the frame in a jig and fix any bad tubing. Did you want a skylight while you are doing your recover?? A new 180 horse and you should get a proper 4 cylinder EGT/CHT. The snowball effect happens fast!!!!!! Find a plane to fit the training mission. Fly it and change nothing for 300-400 hours just add fuel and fly. Sell the plane for a few grand less then what you paid. Find a plane already built for the next mission. Rinse, wash, and repeat. What you really need now is hours if your plan is to come and fly for a living in Alaska. The majors are pulling a lot of young pilots out of the fun bush jobs so if you have 500hours and a commercial lic you could most likely get a job.
If you plan to come up and start your own 135 company. You will still need to fly up here for a few years to get the lay of the land. Getting a job as a pilot means someone else is paying for fuel and training. The main advantage of a fabric aircraft is the ease of repairs. If you end up going to a lot of off airport stuff you will start doing damage to the plane. Putting a patch on a fabric plane is a 1-3 hour job (mostly waiting for paint to dry). Damage a metal plane and you are talking real money.
DENNY

DENNY wrote:When it comes to upgrades. It is very hard to get any of your money back from upgrades. Say you buy that Pacer for 30 grand with the plan to upgrade to a 180 hp. Now you have just stuck in another 30-40 grand!! The plane will be worth about 45 grand now. It is much cheaper to find and buy the plane already built the way you want it then to upgrade. Labor is 100 dollars an hour. To do a proper recover job you should also put the frame in a jig and fix any bad tubing. Did you want a skylight while you are doing your recover?? A new 180 horse and you should get a proper 4 cylinder EGT/CHT. The snowball effect happens fast!!!!!! Find a plane to fit the training mission. Fly it and change nothing for 300-400 hours just add fuel and fly. Sell the plane for a few grand less then what you paid. Find a plane already built for the next mission. Rinse, wash, and repeat. What you really need now is hours if your plan is to come and fly for a living in Alaska. The majors are pulling a lot of young pilots out of the fun bush jobs so if you have 500hours and a commercial lic you could most likely get a job.
If you plan to come up and start your own 135 company. You will still need to fly up here for a few years to get the lay of the land. Getting a job as a pilot means someone else is paying for fuel and training. The main advantage of a fabric aircraft is the ease of repairs. If you end up going to a lot of off airport stuff you will start doing damage to the plane. Putting a patch on a fabric plane is a 1-3 hour job (mostly waiting for paint to dry). Damage a metal plane and you are talking real money.
DENNY

More good points! I think I mentioned this before. But maybe not. I'm in school for my A&P now. I very much desire and expect I'll be doing as much work as I possibly can to my own planes. Snowball effect is a concern of mine as well. I've done it on a much smaller scale building cars over the years.

And I do very much desire to learn fabric, and just this last week I might have found someone to teach me!

One guaranteed way to get a bad taste in your mouth with regards to anything aviation is to get into an airplane that's more project than flyer, even if you want to be an A&P down the road.

We bought our 180hp 170B from a guy who built it for himself and never even put ten hours on it. He bought the airframe and the engine/propeller and STC, and then spent 1700 hours making it into a beautiful little bush-plane. When he was done he couldn't get away from it fast enough...couldn't get away from aviation fast enough.

For the past five years all his time and money went into flying, but he wasn't flying, he was in a hangar with skinned knuckles and paint fumes and bolts positioned in such a way that it takes four hours to get a nut threaded on them. He's driving a turd of a car around on bald tires because all his money is sitting in a hangar. He was multi-engine commercial, and a A&P, and I'm pretty sure once we bought his airplane he never went back to the airport again except to piss on something. It's not a super-uncommon story.

What matters the most for your first airplane isn't what kind it is, or what the HP is, or what the airfoil is. What matters is whether the airplane is fit to fly when you buy it, will be fit to fly for a few hundred more hours at least, and whether you bought it at a price you can afford, and which makes it easy to resell. There is so much to learn about flying when you start out that any airplane is going to be more capable than the pilot.

Look for a good deal on a solid airplane in your price range, in your neighborhood, and quit even thinking about airfoils and HP and upgrades. There's PLENTY of wrenching to be done on an airplane that already flies. You'll be infinitely better off with a Piper Tomahawk that you can afford and that flies, than a Cessna 180 that you can't, and which doesn't. If you limit your choices to A-B-C you'll miss out on airplane Q which is right under your nose, ready to go and priced to sell.

Our first airplane was a Cessna 140 we stumbled into...wasn't even for sale at the time. It was a premium rebuild, and we paid a premium price for it. 600 hours later we sold it for the exact same price. Was it the ideal airplane for two people who want to camp out of it? Hell no! Two adults and full fuel and we were already over gross. But we learned how to actually fly, not just pass a check ride. And we learned how to own a plane, how to maintain a plane, how to repair a plane, and we did it all while FLYING a plane, which is the only fun part in my opinion.

Airplanes are expensive to own whether they fly or not. LOTS of people make the mistake of buying an airplane that they spent too much for and which doesn't actually fly much, and it doesn't take long for the expense of that to burn them out.

Hammer, that was perfectly stated!

Spdcrazy and all the other new pilots out there, read and re read what Hammer wrote. Great advice!

Zane, you should make this a "sticky"!

Kurt

G44 wrote:Hammer, that was perfectly stated!

Agreed!!

Thanks Hammer! Exactly what I was trying to say! Just not a good wordsmith.
LMAO!!