Let me start off by saying that this site is awesome.

A quick bio...I fly P-3 Orions for the Navy and have been dreaming about building my own airplane and flying the back country for about 14 years now. I'm about to take the plunge and am taking my wife to Arlington '06 to help make The Decision.

I need your experience to answer my lack-of-experience questions. Some of these have been hashed-out a million times in other forums but I believe you guys (and gals) understand the angle I'm coming from.

I'm looking at either a Zodiac CH601XL or a Rans S7S. The S7S is the "obvious" choice for back country flying but I'm not convinced.

-- High wing vs low wing. The only drawback to the low wing that I see is that the wingtips might be slapping some high brush on a narrow runway or dirt strip. Any other drawbacks?

--Tail-dragger vs Tri-gear. The conventional wisdom is to go with a taildragger in the outback, but if you have a plane with a stout nosegear fitted with tundra tires then what is the benefit of a tail wheel? I'm pretty sure, everything else being equal, a tri-gear will provide a shorter takeoff and landing roll. I can get a nosewheel C-150 into a steeper flare and takeoff rotation than the taildragger 150. Plus, it has better forward visibility, better stability on the ground, and it protects the prop during hard braking. Any takers?

--Aluminum vs tubing & fabric. Any benefits of either?

--Tandem seating vs side-by-side?

Hope to meet some of you guys in Arlington. Until then, I'm going to watch Jim Clark's DVD 57 more times and take more notes in the margins of Sparky Imeson's book.

Cheers
Dave

Hey Dave, welcome to the site.

I have some experience in the Rans but zero in the Zodiac.

In the backcountry I like high wing aircraft for the increased visibility in level flight. On the other hand if your trying to look at something while turning, your able to do that easier in low wing aircraft unless your able to look through the top.

There are places I land taildraggers that I would never consider landing with a nosewheel aircraft, even if they had the heavy fork.

The taildragger also keeps your prop a little higher keeping it from sucking up as much gravel as a tri-gear.

Landing a taildragger short just takes a little polish on technique.

For heavy backcountry use I think the tube and fabric is better. Aluminum bulkhead aircraft are ok but if your in a mishap the welded tube airframe is probably going to provide better impact absorption and protection.

Just my thoughts.

If you are looking at the Zodiac the 701 will fly circles around the 601 all day when it comes to STOL performance. If your looking to build don't rule out the Kitfox or Avid MKIV either they are both excellent short field performers. It all depends on how much money you want to spend really. If your set on building pick up an issue of KitPlanes and poke around. Dig around on the EAA website as well tons and tons of info.
Joey
AirForce Flight Engineer

Hi Crazy -

I am building a 601XL down here in central NH (outside Concord). There is also an NH builder that is nearly done - he has taken everything to the hangar for rigging. But, he is going to disassemble after that for painting before doing his flying. Interestingly, he also has a Kitfox, so can give you some insight on the different airplanes.

Personally, although I would love to do some backcountry flying with my 601, I am not planning on doing anything other than nice, smooth(ish) strips. I figure that performance will be plenty good for short field ops, but not "unimproved" strips.

Although I have no experience of my own to relate, I have heard that one drawback of the low wing on unimproved strips is that the prop is blowing crap (usually abrasive of some sort) into the wing/flaps/ailerons, which can cause serious damage. Of course, as noted above the vision in turns (be it looking for other planes or canyon walls) is much nicer in a low wing.

I am originally from NE Oregon (just over the hill from Reds Horse Ranch for you lucky guys who know of it) and wish I could head back out west for Arlington (or any other flying out west)! Have fun.

If you are interested in seeing any of the process, feel free to give me a call.

Cheers, Michael Valentine
603-746-2166
603-568-9331 (cell/day)

Thanks for the inputs so far.

Supercubber, what sort of conditions did you experience that precluded even a sturdy nose gear: rocks, pot holes, sticky mud? Just curious on how bad conditions get out there.

Joey, I'd be all over the Kitfoxes or Avids but unfortunately they both went bankrupt. "Just Aircraft" is selling a few Avid-like kits, but they are relatively new and I'd be wary of sending $20,000 to a young company. Rans is an established company with a lot of good reviews by builders. The 701 looks like a nice plane but it cruises at 80mph...ugh.

Cheers
Dave

MADMAN! MADMAN! MADMAN!...TORP AWAY!!

Welcome to the forum Dave, we'll be camping for the weekend at Arlington, so come look for us in the fly-in campground. I'll talk your ears off.

Doug

Was going to call you today, John, but got wrapped up at the hangar tryin' to finish the annual. Pulled the end off a spark plug wire tryin' to get it out of the plug while cleaning them. Guess I'll be callin' Unison tomorrow to figure out what to do to fix it.

Michael, I saw you name on Frappr. Thanks for the input. I'll get in touch and take you up on your offer. I assume the other guy is Richard Pritchard (also a Frappr post).

Doug, sounds like you have the soul of a Sensor 3. I'll try to stop on by in Arlington. Thanks.

Alot of sub-hunter talk gojng on here. In that context, I just picked up on the "crazy ivan" handle. Duh....nobody ever claimed I was a fast thinker,not even my mama......

Eric

You want,
1. a high wing, for reasons mentioned, although if you are planning on doing a lot of low altitude manuvering a low wing is best. How many high wing AG planes have you seen?
2. A tail wheel, they are harder to land, but much less likely to be damaged. I believe the weight is lower and cruise speed slightly higher on a tail wheel.
3. tube and fabric, or at least tube. nothing is stronger than a properly triangulated tube airframe. Tube and aluminum is heavy. tube and fabric is much easier to repair after any real oops.
4. I like side by side seating, but it's an opinion. My belief is that you usually have more cargo space in a side by side airplane.
On edit, I've never seen bushwheels on a trike, has someone done this?

a64pilot wrote

I've never seen bushwheels on a trike, has someone done this?

Look on the Alaska Bushwheels site---there is a 182 on Bushwheels with an 850 or so on the nose wheel.
Marty

180Marty,
I haven't looked on their site yet, but I will. I didn't clarify myself. Has anyone put a bushwheel on the nose? I wouldn't think it would work well even if you figured out how to mount it, wouldn't think it would steer very well without a stiff sidewall. For some reason it seems that you can drag a tail wheel through or over things that would collapse a nose wheel.
It would seem that the limiting factor would be the tire size of the nose wheel. I can see where you could carry the nose over any known obstacles, but you don't always know the hole that get's you is there.
Wonder how much real use you would get on the bushwheels as opposed to three 8.50's?

Tale a look through this list:

http://www.homebuilt.org/kits/kits-venddesc.html

Then find your local EAA chapter. The folks there will give you more real, usable info than any website.

Are you set on building? Stinsons are quite affordable and capable aircraft.

Food for thought.

BTW, welcome to the forum. My brother retires this year from the USN reserves. He was an EW in VP-93 I believe.

crazyivan wrote:Supercubber, what sort of conditions did you experience that precluded even a sturdy nose gear: rocks, pot holes, sticky mud? Just curious on how bad conditions get out there.

Hey Crazy,

Some of the rough spots we land in are salt sage flats which are really rough, sometimes rocky ridgetops where the snow has blown off, other times on mole infested flats and general rutted eroded places. In the summer after the grass has grown tall seems your always finding a hole, rock, rut or ant hill you couldn't see from the air.

If your loaded heavy and the nosewheel meets resistance you can fold it
pretty easily. I don't care how good you are on short or soft field technique, you can't beat a tailwheel for landing in the rough.

You can put a heavy fork and big tire on the nosewheel but that doesn't do anything for the weak spot. Which is the attach point for the nose wheel. Look inside the cowling sometime and look how the strut is attached to the airframe, pretty cheesy and weak. Doesn't take much to cause some seriously expensive damage there.

Supercubber wrote: Look inside the cowling sometime and look how the strut is attached to the airframe, pretty cheesy and weak. Doesn't take much to cause some seriously expensive damage there.

Particularly on a Cessna, although I believe Maule attaches to the engine mount, I know at least some Pipers do.

The nose gear on the Zodiac CH601XL is attached the same way as on the CH801 and CH701, both reputedly tough bush planes. The 601 uses 5.00x5 tires but a few people have hung 8.00x6 tires. That's what I meant before by "tundra tires"

That's where my "book smarts" stops with small airplanes. Intuitively the tail wheel is the better rough-stuff configuration, but is that opinion derived just from 100 years of accepted convention? (I have a bad habit of questioning the norm...too much Johnathan Livingston Seagull )

CAB--Yeah, I've been EAA for about 5 years now but not active in the local chapter. You're right, I need to attend. The Stinson sounds like a nice airplane but I want to build for a few reasons...new zero-time airplane, the pride & satisfaction, I want to work on it myself, efficient airframes & engines compared to the certified equivalents. And congrats to your brother. 20 years is a noble commitment!

Thanks for the great feedback!

Taildraggers are just more fun. Greater risk of ending up pointed the wrong direction, but more fun, and just more elegant looking IMO... Even a tailwheel low wing like an Extra 300.

I do have a soft spot for the CH701 and CH801 though. I think they look like neat little slow flying machines.

Hey Dave, what's your budget? That's always a good place to start. Whole lot of backcountry capable kit aircraft out there to choose from, finished cost is usually the deciding factor.

Doug

Best comparison I can think of for tail wheel vs nose wheel is to try to push a loaded wheel barrow through a hole, you can't, but you can pull it. I'm not smart enough to know why, probably some physics thing. For all I know it may be the same reason that they seem to always put the engine on the front of a train?
Or riding a dirt bike, it seems that if you can carry the front wheel over a hole the back always get's pulled through, but if you let the front wheel drop in?
Silly analogies maybe but for some reason you can pull a wheel through with less resistance / damage than you can push it through.

64 -- Your wheelbarrow analogy is a good one. I should have paid more attention in Physics clsss.

Jr. -- I've considered the time to build. I guess I'm lucky because I'm in a local flying club that will inexpensively satisfy my yen for flying small planes. And for the building, that's why I'm looking at the Zenith / Rans and not an RV. I love the RV-4 but bucking 10,000 rivets for 10 years with $3000 worth of tools sounds miserable.

Doug -- My budget is the max I can say and not have my wife throw a hammer at me. It's a tenuous amount.