Hey all,

I know this has been hashed out before, but I just can't find the answers or ideas I'm looking for, do you mind running through some thoughts with me? I'm starting to think about a new plane, and wanted to see if I can gather some new ideas from you - everything I can think up doesn't really fit my mission. I'm planning a move back to the mountains and when that happens, look forward to getting back into flying.

Here is my wishlist:

- Low enough cost that I don't have to finance the purchase, which probably limits me to $50k
- Low fuel burn, max of 10gph
- Mogas, not avgas. Cost and future availability of avgas worries me.
- Enough performance to reasonably get into "easy" backcountry strips (off-airport not required, just basic stuff is fine).
- Enough useful load to fly 200 mile roundtrips with the wife, dog, and gear. More than 2 seats not required as long as there's a way to shoehorn the dog in there somewhere, too (she's a small black lab).
- Ideally metal, not fabric. Will probably have to park the plane outside.

With the exception of purchase price and fuel burn, the perfect plane is probably a 180/182, but the thing is, I've already owned one. Finally decided that the cost of avgas coupled with fuel burns of 12-14gph as well as maintenance (it was turbocharged) made it just too much plane for me. I would definitely be into buying an older, more stripped down model than the one I owned (which was loaded and cherry) except that it just burns too much fuel for my comfort. I also owned an AA5B Tiger which was awesome in every way except that its not suitable, at all, for unimproved, hot and high strips.

I don't need to be the sexiest plane in the backcountry, and would even relish flying an old beater (as long as it was safe). I'm not building a plane and a little wary of buying experimental unless it was just the right fit. What are my options?

Thanks in advance,

Mike

The Cessna 170 seems like a good choice for your mission. They are indeed underpowered, but with two and a dog on board and a very conservative approach to high density altitude ops they do OK. With a 180 Lyc, they are much better performers.

Here is a very nice looking example, though just a bit out of your stated price range: http://barnstormers.com/classified_8048 ... 170B+.html

I say your best bet in that price range is a 170, Pacer, or a Stinson. The Stinson will be right at 10gph though, expect 7-8pgh with the 170 and maybe 8-9gph with the Pacer. With an 8042 prop on my 170 I've had it in and out of almost every backcountry strip in Idaho, Utah, and many others. Most of the time flying with the load you just described, my wife and I, 80lb dog and a couple weeks worth of camping gear. Flying out of 7,000ft MSL backcountry strips at that weight can be ass puckering, but not bad after you get used to the performance and what to expect. Fly it light and by yourself and you can take it just about anywhere.

No worries, it's everyone's favorite topic. You'll be in a Maule or a 182 by the end of the thread.

Maule M4. Big doors. Even the 180/185 guys will be jealous.

If you are set on a metal plane, it is pretty much a 172, 175, or 170. The pacer/stinson options would require you to get comfortable with fabric. As would an older maule.

Thanks everyone for the ideas. I was starting to think 170 myself, but for some reason I was thinking they were fabric covered wings...? I think I was just having a brain fart on that one.

My preference would probably be a Maule or 180, but fabric (maule) and fuel burn (both) and price (both) keep me away. A couple trips around the ownership circuit is keeping me quite conservative, I'm finding. Stinson and Pacer are great ideas, but the fabric makes it hard to store. Most of the 170s are 145hp or 160hp, right? I'm guessing certain engines will burn mogas on these planes - which ones?

1948 was the only year 170 to have fabric covered wings, it was basically a 4 seat C140, commonly refered to as a "ragwing" 170. 1949-1951 are A models, they are all metal and have small plain flaps. The B model 1952-1956 are also all metal and were the first to have the large fowler type "paralift" flaps that Cessnas are famous for. All 170s rolled out of the factory with either a C-145 or O-300 rated at 145hp. The Pacers came with O-290s or O-320s rated at 125,135,150, or 160hp. The Stinsons had 150 and 165hp Franklins. All 3 of these planes with any of the engines mentioned have auto gas STCs available.

skiermanmike wrote:Thanks everyone for the ideas. I was starting to think 170 myself, but for some reason I was thinking they were fabric covered wings...? I think I was just having a brain fart on that one.

My preference would probably be a Maule or 180, but fabric (maule) and fuel burn (both) and price (both) keep me away. A couple trips around the ownership circuit is keeping me quite conservative, I'm finding. Stinson and Pacer are great ideas, but the fabric makes it hard to store. Most of the 170s are 145hp or 160hp, right? I'm guessing certain engines will burn mogas on these planes - which ones?

The first year 170s had fabric wings. The A models are metal wings with hinged flaps, and the B models have the ubiquitous Cessna "Para Lift" flaps. I would set my sites on a B-model, because the flaps are much more effective for producing lift and drag.

The O-300 145hp engine that came stock loves mogas. I believe that the Lycoming O-360 can also run on Mogas, but there might not be an STC for this airframe/engine combo. Might not require an STC, as I seem to recall Lycoming approving these engines for operation on Mogas, but not with fuel of more than 1% ethanol content.

Taylorcraft F-19, F-21, F-22. $50K is likely more than enough.

But you have to sit in one before you buy it. If you are a Sumo wrestler, or basketball player, it may be less than comfortable. If you and the dog can fit in it, the T-craft is the best bang for the buck. The high aspect ratio wing and generous wing area makes it work better at altitude than many other similar airplanes.

You will be learning to do aggressive forward slip maneuvers. There will be a few places where a 180 or Super Cub can go that you cannot or should not go (without illegally modifying the T-craft for spoilers) . Console yourself over this tragedy by counting the thousands of dollars you saved, and not having to mortgage your house to get into the game.

If you can find an F-21 or F-22 Taylorcraft (Lycoming), you may be able to install an STC for a little more power on the O-235, or field-approve an O-320. The F-22 is rare, but has big flaps, solving the spoiler issue noted above.

The T-cart is not the only choice for your need, but certainly one to consider where dollar value is a prime factor.

If it has to be metal, 172's are a real bargain and make a nice 2-person plane perfect for your mission. The nose wheel makes the insurance bill cheap, the price for a decent VFR model is 25-30k, etc.

As for being under powered, I'd have to disagree if a person is doing most of their flying down low. 172's regularly and safely get in and out of all but a small handful of spots in Idaho or Montana, for example. Once you get used to the HP of a 182 or other similar plane, it is easy to think of other planes as "under powered", but it just means you have to pick your time of day/weather/loading/airstrip appropriately. Lots of folks get into the back country in J-3's, 150's, or a range of other "under powered" equipment. If I didn't live in a place where I have to haul a load up and over the tall rocks 30-40% of the flights I make, I wouldn't have any reservations about giving up the TCM 470 for a less thirsty steed.

If it doesn't have to be metal, the PA-22 is a real steal (PA-20's seem to command a lot of $$ for that little wheel in the back). Lots are available for 20-25k, with reasonable restorations, and many consider them more fun to fly than the Cessna. The difference in cash up front would also rent a hangar for a few years, depending on where you are. The 160 horse unit is really a climber, and the landing gear is famously rugged.

Check it out: A Cessna guy is going to recommend a Maule!

Seriously though, the Maule M4 looks pretty good to me for a backcountry 2-person plane. Metal wings, but fabric fuse and tail of course. Worth looking into if you can find a good one.

Any of the other recommendations would be great too.

The fuel burn on a 180hp Maule shouldn't have you worried, if you can run the engine back on power well lean of peak, you'll be as economical as anything in the air. Maybe 7-8Gal/hr I guess. Low compression approved for MOGAS I think.
The Maule maintenance costs - or lack of thereabouts, compared to a Cessna say, will also prove attractive. No need to tell you about the loading ability and performance.

If the full metal thing is big on your list, you could look at a more powerful 172, say 180hp or 210hp. Again if you're prepared to fly LOP then even in the big 210hp 172 XP fuel burn is below 10 Gal/hr very easily. Even ROP WOT you can get under 10.0 Gal/hr at altitude and still see 115-120kts. And that thing will perform on the backcountry strips.

180hp 175s seem to be in that price range quite often and have a baggage door and 50 gal fuel.

If you want to consider a fabric airplane it's hard to go wrong with the 4-place Bearhawk. It outperforms most others and at 1/2 the cost. They come up for sale from time to time but most build it themselves so they can do their own maintenance and annual inspections.
Eric Newton

If it has to be all metal I'd look at a 175. That's probably what I'd buy if I had to have metal. If your ok with metal wings and fabric fuse then any of the maules would fit your mission. If you'll consider a experimental the I don't think you could go wrong with a 4 place bearhawk.

There's a Cessna 170a with a 165 HP franklin for sale at bvu for under 25k that's flying . Paul at bfe is handling it.

We are talking a max budget of under 50k. I don't think a bearhawk would be considered "half the price" of the others I'm pretty sure there aren't flying Bearhawks selling for 25k or less.

robw56 wrote:We are talking a max budget of under 50k. I don't think a bearhawk would be considered "half the price" of the others I'm pretty sure there aren't flying Bearhawks selling for 25k or less.

I'm sorry - I didn't mean half of his budget, I meant half the price of other comparable aircraft (other than 40+ yr old ones).
Eric

Sorry to be a party-pooper, but the OP mentioned that an old beater, or an antique, or a new airplane, or whatever, would be OK. The comparison of a new or recent Bearhawk against other comparable (meaning new or recently built) airplanes is completely valid on one level, but immaterial to the OP's decision.

Seems to me that between low fuel burn and purchase price requirements, your choices are probably going to be the 2 seat (plus dog) F series T-craft as I mentioned, or a 2-people-limited PA-22-20, or a 2-people-limited Stinson, or an older 2-people-limited 172. I have no idea if an older 145HP Maule will be in the 50K range, but with a light load it will surely have fair performance.

The Taylorcraft with a stock O-200 will have a 6 GPH average burn. With an O-235 bump that to 7 maybe.
The other airplanes are probably going to be a gallon or two higher an hour.
The straight tail 172 with the rear seat removed is a very good choice, 8 gallons an hour cruise but 2-3X the usable baggage volume of the T-craft.

If you can fit comfortably in the T-craft with the wife and the Lab, the lower fuel burn may add up to something over 500 hours.