I am looking for real world options for tailwheel time building plane. I am open to experimental (I would not build) or certified. Side by side or tandem. All aircraft intrigue me - hence having troubles limiting it down to 2-3 to consider.

Base: KGUC - Gunnison

Mission: Density altitude, Mountain flying,dirt/backcountry capable, 2 people + some camping - (4place or 2 place with baggage), XC, IFR nice to have. Climb performance at altitude more important than cruise speed (time building).

Me: CFI/I Multi Commercial - just learning to really fly with my TW endorsement in a Super Cub. Cautious, understand density altitude. Will be looking for additional backcountry training in Idaho and AK.

I understand a 200hp+ Turbo would be the best option but that just wont be feasible at this time.

Less than $35k. Will sell/upgrade in 2-3 years.

Let the banter begin with options. I think the 180 vs Maule debate wont be an issue here as price point is below both of them. That said if I could get into a Maule I would

I will take first strike. Stinson, inexpensive, simply performance. As a 2 person plane you can cram a ton of gear. Even fit those big 29er cookies in the back with the sling seats removed.

Make sure you get one with the baggage compartment. It is great useable space. I suspect you might be able to snag one with an 0-360 in that price range if you shop it out. I think that would be the best engine great power to weight to fuel ratio of the options. I had mine a -3 with the Franklin and vg's in metal. It was a great plane with low entry cost, I could afford to fly it and good performance. Also had mine on skis which are easy enough to come by.

Never had mine ad 7k base but I suspect it could do ok being reasonable about weight. Has a huge useful load for a 4 seat taildragger.

Mike

There is a mid time 150hp PA 12 for sale at Morgan County in Utah. Looked at it the other day. Fabric if old but still passes. They want 35K.

Tim

electricsnail wrote:I will take first strike. Stinson, inexpensive, simply performance. As a 2 person plane you can cram a ton of gear. Even fit those big 29er cookies in the back with the sling seats removed.

Make sure you get one with the baggage compartment. It is great useable space. I suspect you might be able to snag one with an 0-360 in that price range if you shop it out. I think that would be the best engine great power to weight to fuel ratio of the options. I had mine a -3 with the Franklin and vg's in metal. It was a great plane with low entry cost, I could afford to fly it and good performance. Also had mine on skis which are easy enough to come by.

Never had mine ad 7k base but I suspect it could do ok being reasonable about weight. Has a huge useful load for a 4 seat taildragger.

Mike

Stinson has been on the list, looked at a couple at Oshkosh this year. Plenty that are around in the moutains -- mountainmatt's adventures come to mind. Just unclear on true performance these see.

What sort of climb would you see with a medium load around 5000'?

KGUC doe have some 'space' to climb up and out of on hot days. So not a box canyon

qmdv wrote:There is a mid time 150hp PA 12 for sale at Morgan County in Utah. Looked at it the other day. Fabric if old but still passes. They want 35K.

Tim

Thanks. Want to try to stay away from a recover quickly. As I don't have the skills to do the recover. A PA12 would be sweet though.

Don't forget Mountain Matt has the 220 Franklin. Standard 165 Stinsons run out of poop real fast up here. It has more to do with the wing actually, too short. Short wing Pipers have also scared the hell out of me up here. A good light 170 would be a blast. I have seen a couple of 100hp T-Carts that have done very well.

flynbeekeeper wrote:Don't forget Mountain Matt has the 220 Franklin. Standard 165 Stinsons run out of poop real fast up here. It has more to do with the wing actually, too short. Short wing Pipers have also scared the hell out of me up here. A good light 170 would be a blast. I have seen a couple of 100hp T-Carts that have done very well.

Yes, I have been looking at Stinsons with larger than 165 franklins.

What makes a good light 170?

PA12 considered a shortwing? Pacers sound like out of the picture - some nice 150-160hp pacers out there.

The PA-12 is a good machine. Very capable. A good 170 has a simple VFR panel with no extra BS installed. Light airplanes=FUN.

Zane,

Maybe we could just amalgamate all the "what airplane type should I consider" threads into one giant food fight? People are certainly sick of hearing the same talking over and over about specific airplanes, RANS, T-crafts, Highlanders, etc. etc. in five different threads.

God forbid the Maule guys get into this and then it'll make Iwo Jima look like a polite argument at a ladies' Bridge game.

EZFlap wrote:Zane,

Maybe we could just amalgamate all the "what airplane type should I consider" threads into one giant food fight?

I've tried. See the sticky at the top of this forum. Everyone wants their own 15 minutes of custom tailored airplane massage.

Zane wrote: Everyone wants their own 15 minutes of custom tailored airplane massage.

Well, I'm still in the learning phase so I'm not tired of them yet, nor am I tired of input from experienced Back Country Pilots who have "been there, done that". All you "tired old farts" could opt out I suppose, but PLEASE don't. We former flatlanders need to learn from your mistakes.

Hey, what about a 200 horsepower Ercoupe?

There is a 180hp 170A with a low time engine on barnstormers for 39K. Looks like a pretty good deal to me.

Hey, there was a Kitfox for $19,xxx on barnstormers this morning. You could do something like that, have the engine looked at really good and add turbo to it and still be under 35K. I've heard good things about that setup for high alt ops. --i don't know nuttin about kitfoxes. I'm just saying an arsenal of 80hp planes are out there ready to upgrade to 115.

Also, don't be afraid of recovering something. It's kinda fun--like art class in the third grade. Might look like shit in the end but will probably still fly.

Ahh good fun, I knew it would come to this... Here is the thing -- the most recent and airplane debate I have seen is not about a high altitude field --so I thought I would ask.

I was hoping for real world numbers/experience..Getting some of that. Now the thread has been hijaked about just another what plane to buy.

I read the sticky and thought this still pertained.. guess I am just a dense pilot.

kill the thread I say as the OP. Stinson, 170, T-craft, Rans, Kitfox all fit the bill. It's the converging graph of weight vs. hp vs $$ vs DA

My buddy is currently writing out a check for 12k - 1/2 interest in a sweet '76 Maule M5-210C. Great plane for backcountry work and they are out there for your price.

My 35k would go directly to a straight-tail 182. Best bang for the buck IMHO...haul 1,000 lbs. 40 degree manual flaps, trimmable stab, no fabric, strong motors that can use auto gas, handles high DA's well, cheap to insure, great STOL performance with a proficient pilot and, drumroll please, scoot back from your camping trip at 135 kts.!! No tailwheel but you won't pass on too many strips for that reason.

I would badger anyone listing their planes for 40-50k right now. Times are tight. My .02

Damn, i have no idea what a sticky is or how to read it. I thought we were supposed to help you find a taildragger that would fly above 8K and cost less than 35K. maybe we should stick only with topics about theories on how airplanes wrecks came to be.

Ditto on the older C182 advice. Horsepower is much more your friend than tailwheel for the use you described. You won't be sorry.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:Ditto on the older C182 advice. Horsepower is much more your friend than tailwheel for the use you described. You won't be sorry.

Gump

Ditto on the straight tail 182!!

wyomingiswindy wrote:Damn, i have no idea what a sticky is or how to read it. I thought we were supposed to help you find a taildragger that would fly above 8K and cost less than 35K. maybe we should stick only with topics about theories on how airplanes wrecks came to be.

A sticky is one of those threads that is set by an admin/moderator to always be at the top of a forum category.

And I'm just as guilty in starting such a thread, but only because I have specific requirements in mind, just as the OP did. I kind of learn to filter out the "you should buy my favorite airplane", except if the happen to fit my bill as well. Granted, some of the "what plane to buy" threads are just duplicates, but I can deal with that. If you don't want to answer them, you don't have to.

58Skylane wrote:

GumpAir wrote:Ditto on the older C182 advice. Horsepower is much more your friend than tailwheel for the use you described. You won't be sorry.

Gump

Ditto on the straight tail 182!!

Except a requirement is that I need/want to build tailwheel time. There are motives for TW time in the logbooks and as a CFI.