jsbc wrote:..... Doesn't sound like the 150/150 idea had too many takers. I certainly don't like the electric flaps. ....

I have one & think it'd work just fine for you. Taildragger conversions are usually a bit more than $30K but you should be able to find a nosedragger to fit your budget. The 1965 & earlier have manual flaps. The pre-64's don't get the gross weight bumped up with the 150-horse STC so they run outa useful load real fast -- AD 86-15-07 addresses this issue. Even the later ones with the increased gross aren't any too great in that regard-- mine has a useful of 520#. Fair amount of baggage room but difficult to access over the seats.
You should also look at Stinson 108's, C170/172/172TD's, and Pacer/TriPacers. Just remember that anything low-powered (aka affordable) will need to have a pretty flat prop & you'll wanna make it as light as possible too.

Taylorcraft-big engine-short mount

jsbc wrote:...
I love the Citabria but am not sure about the ECA (low power & no flaps) and the KCAB (no flaps). The GCBC certainly sounds like an option though (what's the real life stall speed like with full flaps?). And just about within my price range. If I get one up here in Canada it would save the trouble and the cost of importing but probably cost a bit more. Doesn't sound like the 150/150 idea had too many takers. I certainly don't like the electric flaps....

According to the POH, the stall with flaps is 46mph. Every airplane is a bit different, but in mine, with the VG's it is closer to 40mph. I haven't had a lot of time to experiment with it in the summer yet, but I plan on doing a lot more come spring. I live just across the mountains from you, Northern AB. I fly out of 2150 ASL, and never need anymore then 600' of my 2000' grass strip. I had 8.00s on it, and landed on pretty much any stubble field or pasture that I wanted to, but moved up to the 31s for some gravel bar and mountain landings. As you mentioned, buying in Canada will save you the import costs, but I found that with the import costs, I still payed less then buying as similarly equipped plane in Canada. There is a nice one I know of in Saskatchewan for $39000:
http://classifieds.producer.com/agricul ... vWmYF406CF

And a champ converted to flaps and 135 HP for $28000:
http://classifieds.producer.com/agricul ... rWTGF430AE

This is my vote: a Cessna 170B with Sportsman STOL.

It has an 800 lb. useful load, just keep it light on the hot days. Take out the back seat to haul bulky cargo. It has about a 600 mile range. Excellent leg room and head room, decent elbow room. All metal skin is lasting and durable. Manual flaps. Phenomenal visibility over the low panel. Excellent parts availability. Can burn mo-gas. No difficult or expensive AD's to comply with. Docile flying characteristics. Big tire STCs available. Big engine STCs available. Pretty round tail!


Here's an example with low time for $27K:
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_619075_1952+C170B+NO+CORROSION.html

Add a few grand for the Sportsman STOL kit, which Stene Aviation says will takeoff in 420 ft. and climb to 50 ft. in 720 ft.
http://www.steneaviation.com/performance_170B.asp

If anyone wants to buy a very high-time 172, I think I'll get this myself!

JSBC, something else to consider since you are in Canada:

You can get Wing-X wing extensions on Cessna 170, 172, and 175 models, but the STC is Canadian only, not approved in USA. Wing-X plus Sportsmans STOL should make for an incredible short field performer. Older 172s occasionally sell for around $20K. That could end up being the best plane value available.

kevbert wrote:This is my vote: a Cessna 170B with Sportsman STOL.

It has an 800 lb. useful load, just keep it light on the hot days. Take out the back seat to haul bulky cargo. It has about a 600 mile range. Excellent leg room and head room, decent elbow room. All metal skin is lasting and durable. Manual flaps. Phenomenal visibility over the low panel. Excellent parts availability. Can burn mo-gas. No difficult or expensive AD's to comply with. Docile flying characteristics. Big tire STCs available. Big engine STCs available. Pretty round tail!

Light ones have 900+ useful load. Mine has 881 with the rear seat out. Don't forget to add an 80'' seaplane prop .

kevbert wrote:This is my vote: a Cessna 170B with Sportsman STOL.

It has an 800 lb. useful load, just keep it light on the hot days. Take out the back seat to haul bulky cargo. It has about a 600 mile range. Excellent leg room and head room, decent elbow room. All metal skin is lasting and durable. Manual flaps. Phenomenal visibility over the low panel. Excellent parts availability. Can burn mo-gas. No difficult or expensive AD's to comply with. Docile flying characteristics. Big tire STCs available. Big engine STCs available. Pretty round tail!

I really like the 170B with 180 horse. I used to have one with a sportsman stol, no back seats, and extended baggage. But I flew it out of a 1,000 foot strip that was even steeper than the 720' strip being considered. It generally did well, but felt uncomfortable -- no margin for error. Not sure you can find one for your price range. I do think that you could find a 172 decked out the same as I mentioned above for your price and it is essentially the same airplane except where that third wheel is located. We have a low time pilot that flies this 172 into our (now) 2,200 strip and he consistently uses only a portion of the lower strip. But practice is everything. And that pretty round tail is sure classic!!

kevbert wrote:This is my vote: a Cessna 170B with Sportsman STOL......
Here's an example with low time for $27K:
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_619075_1952+C170B+NO+CORROSION.html............

Sounds great, (almost) too good to be true. The asking prices I see for 170's are usually quite a bit more. i did notice this at the bottom of the ad:
"new slick mags in 96, hardly any time on them". Sixteen years, hmmmm......can you spell hangar queen?
I do like the 52 B models-- the only year with the big flaps & the old -style fully-opening cowl & piano-key panel.

Thanks guys.

Doing more research into the certified vs UALA categories (Canadian sort-of equivalent of LSA). The Citab GCBC certainly appeals. Thanks for the Producer link. The Highlander sounds absolutely ideal but prices are quite high. I think I'd be looking at 60k+. The Rans S6/S7 also looks good and may be more affordable. I don't have any experience on a Cessna taildragger.

If I go down the certified route, does anyone have an AME recommendations in the Kootenays or eastern BC? Maybe even the Okanagan.

This is where I am at right now:

1. Try and find a decent GCBC in Canada or import one from the US. Go down the certified route. Bite the bullet on the cost of annuals and avgas. I think it will get me in and out of my yard with some practice somewhere else first. I seem to remember stalling at about 50 mph on the ECA. Hopefully I could shave a couple of points off that. Positives: Great plane. Great fun. Reasonably cheap to buy. Acro ability. Negatives: Cost of annual, limited weight, would need to build a hangar (about 10k extra), cost of buying and getting in avgas.

2. Look for an advanced ultralight. Rans S6/7 looks nice. Or try and borrow from the bank and get a Highlander. High initial cost but then a lot less annually than a certified airplane. Positives: Sounds like a great, fun airplane. Amazing STOL (apparently). Cheap to run. Baggage carrying ability. Folding wing means I could use my existing garage and wouldn't have to build a hangar. Run on auto gas. Negatives: High upfront cost. Not rated for acro (although this is not a huge deal). Higher cost of airplane means higher insurance.


Couple of issues have come up during my research. Grateful for any comments.

1. I know there was an issue with autogas containing ethanol a couple of years back affecting both the Rotax 912 and possibly the fuel bladders in the Highlander. Does anyone know if this is still an issue?

2. I noticed that there is a Highlander for sale in the US with a 914. It's probably beyond my price league but is a 914 as reliable as a 912 ULS? Any disadvantages? Might be more power than I need. (Though power is always good).

3. Bringing a plane in from the US under the UALA category sounds ok, providing manufacturer will give it a sign-off. Anyone got any experience with that?


Next step I guess is to go and fly a Highlander and a Rans and see how they feel. (I already know and love the Citabria). Not much round here so might be time to plan a bit of a road trip.

Thanks again.

I have a 1960 Citabria GCB (which I think were made from 1959 the first year to 1964 last of the GCB models). It has flaps and 150 hp (which can be easily upped to 160 hp, I think). The GCB was the forerunner to the Scout, the GCBC, I think??? Mine will easly get out of your strip no problem even at full gross. Landing there is very doable but it is very close to short end of where I go into, I don't like less than 600'. That short of a strip leaves no margin for error, 5 mph over desired speed and you stand a good chance of going off the end, same with a unexpected tail wind. You will have to be on your game every time! Before you go into your own strip you should be able to make the plane land where you want within 50' to 75' every single time! Where is your last chance to abort the one way strip -- short final??? Base to final????

I have a friend who has a strip that I think is about 400' to 500' long at sea level slopes up maybe 12 - 15%. I have landed there with him in his 185 multiple times. It is absolutely max performance every time literally -- fly it on the hill with stall horn screaming, cob the power to it at the last second to break desent. It is a thrill!! A super cub had a problem in there, so it can happen to anyone when you fly that close to max performance. It doesn't take much going wrong to ruin your day and airplane!

John

Back to the Zenith 701/750.

The first "meaningful" uphill landing I made was in a 701 on a steep grade. I found the nose wheel wouldn't get out of the way until I was climbing very nose high. It can become a wheel barrow situation. Not my first choice of plane in that situation. Shallow rise would be ok.

jsbc wrote:Thanks guys.


This is where I am at right now:

1. Try and find a decent GCBC in Canada or import one from the US. Go down the certified route. Bite the bullet on the cost of annuals and avgas. I think it will get me in and out of my yard with some practice somewhere else first. I seem to remember stalling at about 50 mph on the ECA. Hopefully I could shave a couple of points off that. Positives: Great plane. Great fun. Reasonably cheap to buy. Acro ability. Negatives: Cost of annual, limited weight, would need to build a hangar (about 10k extra), cost of buying and getting in avgas.




Thanks again.

jsbc, if you get a 150HP GCBC you can get an auto gas STC for it. I have one on mine. I still prefer to run Avgas, but will run mogas half and half or 100% if my tank runs out of avgas. If you are running mogas, you have to find stuff with no ethanol in it. From what my AME tells me, ethanol is not good for any of the rubber components in the fuel system of a plane.
You can easily go up to 160 HP by putting a 8.5-1 compression top end on it, which is how they come stock new now, but you lose your ability to run mogas. My buddy has one with 160 HP, and in all honesty Im not sure if there is that much difference. Ive been trying to get powerflo to make an exhaust system for the Citabria. They have one for the Lyc 0-320 on the 172s, so hopefully they can design one for the Citabs as well. Would be cheaper and would give you 160 HP.

A1Skinner wrote: ......... If you are running mogas, you have to find stuff with no ethanol in it. From what my AME tells me, ethanol is not good for any of the rubber components in the fuel system of a plane. You can easily go up to 160 HP.....but you lose your ability to run mogas. ....

Besides any effects it can have on fuel system components, ethanol has an affinity for water (called hydroscorpic I believe). Water will bond with the ethanol (read about how to check gasoline for ethanol) & under certain conditions can un-bond all at once giving yu a big slug of water through the carb. Plus IMHO water bonded in the fuel increases the possibility for carb ice.
150 Lycomings can run on 87 octane mogas per the STC, there is also an STC for the 160 horse but it requires 91 octane mogas-- in both cases it must be ethanol-free.

Thanks for the info hotrod. Great to know!

FWIW I believe that EAA only sells low-compression STC's (87 octane) but Petersen sells 91 octane STC's for the higher compression engines like the 160 & 180 horse Lyc's.

I have a Peterson for both my 150 and Citabria to run 87 octane. But they are lower compression.

Promised an update. So I borrowed some cash and went for a used Highlander down in the US. 912S and will put it on decent-sized main wheels. Picking it up in a couple of weeks. Love the way it flies and should give me some pretty good STOL performance. Thanks for all the advice. I'll update when I've had it running a bit.

Emory Bored wrote:

hotrod150 wrote:

dirtstrip wrote:....1976 BELLANCA CITABRIA 7KCAB • $28,000 http://www.barnstormers.com/Bellanca,%2 ... ifieds.htm
AVAILABLE FOR SALE • 1900 Total time aircraft and engine. Fabric in great shape and tests fine. Paint 4, interior 6. Aircraft in Annual. Fuel Injection w/ 150 HP. New air filter............

Must not be anything to write home to Mom about if a new air filter is a high point.

Fresh air in tires, chrome plated dipstick.

Did you mention "Chrome"?? (maybe only a few will get it )

Anyway.......

jsbc wrote:Promised an update. So I borrowed some cash and went for a used Highlander down in the US. 912S and will put it on decent-sized main wheels. Picking it up in a couple of weeks. Love the way it flies and should give me some pretty good STOL performance. Thanks for all the advice. I'll update when I've had it running a bit.

I don't think you will be dissapointed with the performance of a Highlander.
Great shortfield capabilities & approx 105mph cruise at likely less than 4gph.