Impressive stuff, but at $265K for a used one, it costs more than double what I paid for my Maule and would have less utility for me than my Maule offers. I really like the cavernous baggage area in the Maule that is so easy to access. It's so easy, I use it all the time for airplane bike rides and camping. I'm sure the Norden can fly slower and land shorter, but doubt it has anywhere near the 1,015 lb. useful load of my Maule, and probably won't beat me for top speed either (my flaps raise to minus 7 degrees for about a 5 knot speed boost). My Maule has taken me into every place I've wanted to land and has gotten me and my gear back out again. If you need the extreme capabilities of the Noeden, and have the discretionary funds, it could be a great choice. As always, being extremely good at some things comes at the cost of sacrifices elsewhere. An average, but well rounded plane is what I needed, not a specialty toy. I'd still like to see one of these at work in the back country. I'm sure it would be fun to watch! My plane won't generate any ooohhhhs and ahhhhs when I come in to land, or when I take off. It's just a comfortable all arounder.

Purpose built toy. Useful load makes it a backpacking light one person plane aka a toy. I've been wondering for years who is buying the $250k and up toys, but then I just saw the other day that a new Husky is $550,000 to $610,000.

Flyhound wrote:Impressive stuff, but at $265K for a used one, it costs more than double what I paid for my Maule and would have less utility for me than my Maule offers. I really like the cavernous baggage area in the Maule that is so easy to access. It's so easy, I use it all the time for airplane bike rides and camping. I'm sure the Norden can fly slower and land shorter, but doubt it has anywhere near the 1,015 lb. useful load of my Maule, and probably won't beat me for top speed either (my flaps raise to minus 7 degrees for about a 5 knot speed boost). My Maule has taken me into every place I've wanted to land and has gotten me and my gear back out again. If you need the extreme capabilities of the Noeden, and have the discretionary funds, it could be a great choice. As always, being extremely good at some things comes at the cost of sacrifices elsewhere. An average, but well rounded plane is what I needed, not a specialty toy. I'd still like to see one of these at work in the back country. I'm sure it would be fun to watch! My plane won't generate any ooohhhhs and ahhhhs when I come in to land, or when I take off. It's just a comfortable all arounder.

I use my 172 for fly-bike-fly trips too, you would get oohhs and ahhhs from me if I saw you land and pull a bike out

We should meet up this summer and ride! I'm based in central WA and a flight around the peninsula is on my bucket list, just haven't gotten out there yet but we go up to the San Juans once or twice a summer.

Yeah just a completely different mission. It’s a bargain compared to a used Carbon Cub UL at $410K.

At 10,000FT the Norden will do 145MPH burning 7.2GPH so it’s quite fast.

Empty weight is 942 pounds and with 37 gallons full of gas that still gives you 511 pounds of useful load for over 5 hours of flight time.

But I know what you mean, it’s still a lot of money for a Ferrari in the backcountry.

For the money they are wanting for the Norden, I would have a Badlands Traveler. Lands slow, respectible cruise, and a generous UL.

In my opinion, I think it is a more 'stout' airframe. Same reason I would go for a Legend Cub over a CC. After looking at both of them, I feel the Legend is a more robust airframe.

I looked at the ZIln and its options at Oshkosh. Nice airplane, but could use a littlerefinement. The Norden appears to be a copy of the RANS S7, of which I have. They must have done a lot of engineering modifications to increase the GW that much higher than the S7.

WWhunter wrote:For the money they are wanting for the Norden, I would have a Badlands Traveler. Lands slow, respectible cruise, and a generous UL.

In my opinion, I think it is a more 'stout' airframe. Same reason I would go for a Legend Cub over a CC. After looking at both of them, I feel the Legend is a more robust airframe.

I looked at the ZIln and its options at Oshkosh. Nice airplane, but could use a littlerefinement. The Norden appears to be a copy of the RANS S7, of which I have. They must have done a lot of engineering modifications to increase the GW that much higher than the S7.

The Badlands Traveler is another great option. Definitely a more stout airframe but it also weighs more and doesn’t feature electric retractable slats, double slotted flaps, or carbon drooped tips.

The Norden is quite a bit different than the S7. I’d say other than a similar wingspan that is where the comparison stops. The Norden is super strong. https://fb.watch/EHY57OSLRb/?

Superstrong like hauling max loads in and out of rough strips like Cubs and Maules do for a living ?

Or Super strong enough to play around empty.

Not even the carbon cub is build for that mission, as a matter of fact very few aircraft ever were.

It took 70 years of hard back country experience to get cubs tough enough with the right mods.

The Norden like the shock cub are both build light, good enough as long as you stay light.

Try to use them as a hauler and they will show the weaknesses very quick they are a Toy and thats fine but call it what it is.

Bush Buggy wrote:Superstrong like hauling max loads in and out of rough strips like Cubs and Maules do for a living ?

Or Super strong enough to play around empty.

Not even the carbon cub is build for that mission, as a matter of fact very few aircraft ever were.

It took 70 years of hard back country experience to get cubs tough enough with the right mods.

The Norden like the shock cub are both build light, good enough as long as you stay light.

Try to use them as a hauler and they will show the weaknesses very quick they are a Toy and thats fine but call it what it is.

It handles 1800 pounds just fine. There are specific tools for your intended mission and the Norden meets the “Ferrari in the backcountry” one very well.

Bush Buggy wrote:Superstrong like hauling max loads in and out of rough strips like Cubs and Maules do for a living ?

Or Super strong enough to play around empty.

Not even the carbon cub is build for that mission, as a matter of fact very few aircraft ever were.

It took 70 years of hard back country experience to get cubs tough enough with the right mods.

The Norden like the shock cub are both build light, good enough as long as you stay light.

Try to use them as a hauler and they will show the weaknesses very quick they are a Toy and thats fine but call it what it is.

Totally agree! I have looked at nearly every option out there over the last 4 decades and as you mention, the current mods added to Super Cubs (and their clones) have made them the preeminent load hauler for the individual owner, unless of course you have the means to own a Beaver. Yes, there are other options like 180/185's, 206, etc., but I'm trying tokeep this to 2-seat bushplanes.

Had a friend that worked for CC many years ago, and another friend that recently built a CC. After in depth conversations and looking at these planes, I wonder how they are going to hold up in the long run. I felt the same way when I looked at the Zlin options. I place most of these types into the light sport catagory. Blast to fly, but not for extreme backcountry load haul capabilities. Personally, I think the Legend series and the Badlands Traveler are more stoutly built. Both of these can be built for the same monetary expenditure as the Norden. Again, just my opinion.

While the Badlands Traveler doesn’t feature electric retractable slats, double slotted flaps, or carbon drooped tips, it's performance sans these items are exemplarary! Personally the less moving parts an airplane has means less maintainence. If I'm in the boonies far from civilization and electrical slats get buggered up, what would I do? For me,less is more.

WWhunter wrote:

Bush Buggy wrote:Superstrong like hauling max loads in and out of rough strips like Cubs and Maules do for a living ?

Or Super strong enough to play around empty.

Not even the carbon cub is build for that mission, as a matter of fact very few aircraft ever were.

It took 70 years of hard back country experience to get cubs tough enough with the right mods.

The Norden like the shock cub are both build light, good enough as long as you stay light.

Try to use them as a hauler and they will show the weaknesses very quick they are a Toy and thats fine but call it what it is.

Totally agree! I have looked at nearly every option out there over the last 4 decades and as you mention, the current mods added to Super Cubs (and their clones) have made them the preeminent load hauler for the individual owner, unless of course you have the means to own a Beaver. Yes, there are other options like 180/185's, 206, etc., but I'm trying tokeep this to 2-seat bushplanes.

Had a friend that worked for CC many years ago, and another friend that recently built a CC. After in depth conversations and looking at these planes, I wonder how they are going to hold up in the long run. I felt the same way when I looked at the Zlin options. I place most of these types into the light sport catagory. Blast to fly, but not for extreme backcountry load haul capabilities. Personally, I think the Legend series and the Badlands Traveler are more stoutly built. Both of these can be built for the same monetary expenditure as the Norden. Again, just my opinion.

While the Badlands Traveler doesn’t feature electric retractable slats, double slotted flaps, or carbon drooped tips, it's performance sans these items are exemplarary! Personally the less moving parts an airplane has means less maintainence. If I'm in the boonies far from civilization and electrical slats get buggered up, what would I do? For me,less is more.

The Norden is Light Sport so no surprise there. It’s not marketed as an extreme backcountry load hauler either.

The performance of the Traveler is very impressive no question! The slats are interconnected to one servo motor so if the motor fails the slats fail in the position they were in at the time of failure which is no big deal.

Totally agree! I have looked at nearly every option out there over the last 4 decades and as you mention, the current mods added to Super Cubs (and their clones) have made them the preeminent load hauler for the individual owner, unless of course you have the means to own a Beaver. Yes, there are other options like 180/185's, 206, etc., but I'm trying tokeep this to 2-seat bushplanes.

Had a friend that worked for CC many years ago, and another friend that recently built a CC. After in depth conversations and looking at these planes, I wonder how they are going to hold up in the long run. I felt the same way when I looked at the Zlin options. I place most of these types into the light sport catagory. Blast to fly, but not for extreme backcountry load haul capabilities. Personally, I think the Legend series and the Badlands Traveler are more stoutly built. Both of these can be built for the same monetary expenditure as the Norden. Again, just my opinion.

While the Badlands Traveler doesn’t feature electric retractable slats, double slotted flaps, or carbon drooped tips, it's performance sans these items are exemplarary! Personally the less moving parts an airplane has means less maintainence. If I'm in the boonies far from civilization and electrical slats get buggered up, what would I do? For me,less is more.

I am a hundred percent with you less is more when you are looking for reliable backcountry transportation.

A honest wing and and good flaps are my go to any day over slats.

The difference in real world performance is so little that the simplicity- reliability and extra cruise speed are way more beneficial for the

average bush guy than the 5 feel shorter landing roll.

Kyle Bushman won Valdez in a Carbon cub with Kehler cuff against several planes with slats.

He has good hands and feet. So spend the money on gas and fly more is a good plan.

Bush Buggy wrote:

Totally agree! I have looked at nearly every option out there over the last 4 decades and as you mention, the current mods added to Super Cubs (and their clones) have made them the preeminent load hauler for the individual owner, unless of course you have the means to own a Beaver. Yes, there are other options like 180/185's, 206, etc., but I'm trying tokeep this to 2-seat bushplanes.

Had a friend that worked for CC many years ago, and another friend that recently built a CC. After in depth conversations and looking at these planes, I wonder how they are going to hold up in the long run. I felt the same way when I looked at the Zlin options. I place most of these types into the light sport catagory. Blast to fly, but not for extreme backcountry load haul capabilities. Personally, I think the Legend series and the Badlands Traveler are more stoutly built. Both of these can be built for the same monetary expenditure as the Norden. Again, just my opinion.

While the Badlands Traveler doesn’t feature electric retractable slats, double slotted flaps, or carbon drooped tips, it's performance sans these items are exemplarary! Personally the less moving parts an airplane has means less maintainence. If I'm in the boonies far from civilization and electrical slats get buggered up, what would I do? For me,less is more.

I am a hundred percent with you less is more when you are looking for reliable backcountry transportation.

A honest wing and and good flaps are my go to any day over slats.

The difference in real world performance is so little that the simplicity- reliability and extra cruise speed are way more beneficial for the

average bush guy than the 5 feel shorter landing roll.

Kyle Bushman won Valdez in a Carbon cub with Kehler cuff against several planes with slats.

He has good hands and feet. So spend the money on gas and fly more is a good plan.

The beauty of choice! I’ll take the safety and low AOA these slats provide. The Rotax 915/916 are way more of a concern in the backcountry than electric slats are.

The beauty of choice! I’ll take the safety and low AOA these slats provide. The Rotax 915/916 are way more of a concern in the backcountry than electric slats are.

100% agree! I think the Norden would ba a blast to fly. Another toy in the toy box is always fun.
Your statement about the Rotax is on point. I have a RANS S7 with a 912 that I installed the Zipper kit on. The plane is a blast, literal little rocket ship. Owned it just under 15 years and I will say, I have had more minor issues with it than any other 'legacy' type airplane engine. Most of the issues have been electrical, igniton modules, stator, etc. I hate electrical issues as they are they hardest to diagnos for me anyways.

The other issue with the Rtox, like you mentioned, is the unavailabilty to get help in the boonies. Heck, up here in northern MN there are next to zero places that will even look at a Rotax. I end up doing everything myself, which is not a big deal other than the time to work on it. Of all the planes I have owned/currently own, the hours working on it are considerably morew than the hours it gets flown.

Half ass looking at the Badlands Traveler now and the engine choice is the roadblock currently. I think the plane would be a great performer in the western US, but how many times will I be returning out there before my flying days are over?