So, I'm hoping some of you who live out here in the Rockies (or other similarly elevated regions) might be able to help steer me in the right direction when thinking about a future aircraft acquisition.

Key points: 1) Capable of safely flying in the Rocky Mountains when considering proper precautions 2) Fairly affordable to acquire/fly/maintain.


I'm kind of wondering what the minimum aircraft performance 'entry requirements' would be for someone wishing to fly out here? I'm just getting back into the general aviation thing after a post-college budget-induced hiatus of several years. My GA flying experience has almost entirely taken place in the midwest, where the lower Appalachians were the tallest peaks I ever had to consider. Back there a Cessna 150/152 was considered a perfectly acceptable 2-person recreational airplane for guys who didn't have a ton of money to invest in flying. I'm not sure if that's really the case out here (unless you only point yourself east from Denver).

Living out here in Colorado obviously places some very serious vertical terrain just a few miles west of my home here in the Denver metro area, and our summers definitely get darn warm around here. I'm not actually sure if anyone is flying the C150/152 class of aircraft out in the mountains (I don't see many of them around), or what people consider the minimum aircraft requirements for mountain flying. And, don't worry, I'll get some real mountain experience with folks who know it before I go venturing over the Continental Divide by myself, but I'd like to get some ideas on what types of aircraft I should start considering.

I'm definitely thinking that I'll be looking for fairly affordable airplanes for an initial purchase, especially since my spouse isn't entirely sold on the general aviation idea just yet (she supports the concept because it's a hobby I'm interested in, but time will tell if she'll really go for this endeavor). An "introductory plane" might be a good starting point for us

I have a few hours in a 152 and during the hot summer days it eats a lot of runway and climbs very, very slowly. Lots of planes may fit your mission as long as you realize that filling all the seats is not a good idea when heading towards the high country. I've seen quite a few 170/172's and Citabrias do pretty well, just keep it light.

If you're looking for a two seat "introductory plane" most trainers probably won't have quite enough power for the high DA's, look at bigger engine two seaters or four seaters that you fly primarily as a two seater.

I fly an o-320 Pacer with the backseat out most of the time which makes a great two seater with a huge cargo area and good doors for getting to your gear. The backseat is easy to put in if I want to carry more people for short flights around the front range area. It can handle our mountains on most days, and the days where DA is too high, it probably won't be much fun to be flying anyway with all the turbulence. But up here, the performance degrades quickly as you load it close to gross, it does just fine at lower altitudes.

I should add (for those who aren't directly familiar with the Cessna 152 series that I mentioned as one possible interest), that the POH lists the service ceiling as 14,700' for this aircraft (which is above all terrain in the lower 48), but shows somewhat abysmal climb performance above 10,000'.

The chart in my POH shows 230fpm on a 20C day at 10,000 feet, dropping off to 135fpm at 12,000' during similar temperatures. Of course, I know mountain flying often involves using passes rather than bumping directly over the highest peaks around. Nevertheless, I thought I'd throw some numbers out there to include in this discussion.

Hey Kevin, good luck in your search. Kevbot is right on.
Don't forget that 14,700 is density altitude, in the summer you can hit that by the time you get to 10,000 ft. 135fpm..... throw in some bumps and the typical downdrafts you encounter will make that a negative number in a hurry. Learn to read where the updrafts and downdrafts are likely to be.
Look for a 150 or 152 with a bigger engine, they do exist. The 150/150 or a 152 with the sparrowhawk conversion which is 125Hp are around. Heck I saw a 150 with a 180 HP engine on barnstormersdotcom this week:shock:
EZFlap will be along shorty to explain why an older straight tail 172 with the rear seat removed makes a good mountain airplane. He's right by the way. A stock 172 2-300 lbs under gross weight is quite possible and will outperform a 150 40 lbs under gross all day long. Don't underestimate the benefits of leaving 2 seats empty.
Nothing in your, or my, price range is going to perform like a 260 HP Maule but keeping whatever you buy light will do wonders.

I wouldn't consider it a high Mountain Airplane but I fly a 150 from a 4500's airport. My daughter lives in Moab and I can head straight from the valley floor over 8000' mountains using the canyon for initial climb. PVU - CNY if you want to google it and see terrain. I usually climb to 9-10,000 just to be safe. I've had it to 11,400 once without much trouble. There have been times when I need to circle to get out of valleys with two in it. If you're not in a hurry, a 150 will get you most places. I just make sure I've got plenty of time and fuel to go the long way around if needed.

Forget about a stock 150 you will kill yourself n Colorado. I have about 50 hours in a 150 at sea level and the performance is anemic at best. Keep in mind I am light at 150 pounds and no baggage. Consider an older straight tail 182 or 172 with a 180 conversion.

In fifty years of flying many different SEL airplanes in the mountains, I found the PA-22-150 to be the best mountain airplane for the money. I owned three at different times, $2,500, $5,600, and $6,500. It is nearer to the C-182 in performance than to the C-172. There are a lot of conversions to tail wheel around now, but they are more expensive. We got 3,000 hours between overhauls on the pipeline with 0-320 Cessnas. Cub, Champ, Luscombe, Taylorcraft, C-150, and Colt are OK, if kept light and you learn to use ground effect, gravity, thermals, ridge lift, and even mountain wave. Get some dual with some of these guys. There are a lot of good mountain pilots on this site. Mountain experience is mandatory, instructional experience is optional. You have a license.

By the way, whatever you get a climb prop will help a lot. It is surprisingly cheap to get an existing prop re-pitched by your local prop shop.
(cheap relative to airplane costs that is.)

Colorado Airplane = old straight tail 182 , Really good airplane for the mountains of Colorado -or Idaho-Wyo-Mont. etc.Cost is not that much more than the lower powered cousins. If you want a tail dragger (at reasonable low cost) try a Stinson 108-2 or 3 .Remember lighter weight -more power and more wing area .
Send me a direct email at [email protected] and I'll send you (and anyone else ) "the straight tail Cessna resources" booklet.

The question I have is, what do you define as affordable? The reason I ask is there are guys on here that a $100K+ plane is affordable and for others it is $20K. I would guess a lot of the guys on here have planes valued at $25-50K so I am guessing this may be your expected range also. Anything from a higher HP'ed Champ up to an older 182 will fit into this price range.
I have an older (1960) 172 and it has taken me all over this country. It really is the most economical and versatile plane I own. As has been suggested, keep it light and most smaller 4-seaters will work. I am biased towards high wingers though.

I'm at 6700 feet, and I had the same questions when looking for a plane. My conclusions, for what they're worth:

A 150/150 would be ok up here, but I wouldn't do anything less (a local instructor used to teach with a stock 150 up here, and I'm told most lessons employed full throttle all the time ).

I consider a stock 172 to be a 2-place plane up here. On a hot day, full of fuel, it may even be a 1-place. A 172/180 is a legitimate 3-place plane, even during summer, but you will pay more for one.

I agree with 182 STOL, and I looked long and hard at the idea of an older 182 (still probably one of the best values on the market right now, relatively speaking). However, the additional operating costs (6 cyls instead of 4, av gas instead of mo gas, etc.) led me to the conclusion that it was more plane than I needed for my mission. Great choice if you're going to fill most of the seats most of the time, but a little too spendy for me since I spend most of my time burning holes in the sky all by myself.

I learned in a 90 hp PA-11, which made for a great trainer even at this altitude. It was, however, pretty limited on hot days and when it came to flying over the horizon (when trying to fly west across Wyoming, you were stopping in Rawlins for fuel no matter how dirty the wind was on the ground).

I bought a 150-hp PA-12, and absolutely love it. 7/8 of what you get from a Super Cub, for 1/2 the price. Plus, I get to sit in the middle, which is a big plus for the kind of flying I like to do.

A PA-22 is also an option, but I wouldn't do any less than 150 hp up here (ideally, do the 0-320 conversion to 160 hp). I much prefer the longer wing (PA-11, PA-12, PA-18) to the short wing, but to each his own.

I don't know much about Stinsons, but I've heard that they are a great plane for an A&P to own, but a little less economic if you don't know how to turn the wrenches yourself. (You Stinson drivers can feel free to correct me).

As is always the case with these discussions,(i) define your mission first, then figure out what bird best fits that mission; and (ii) there is no substitute for horsepower, especially at these altitudes.

Unfortunately, when you live up where we do, you give up a lot of the bargain end of the airplane market.

Kevin:

I grew up on the west slope and learned to fly in a 75hp Luscombe 8A with no problems. You just have to use judgement, fly the rock when conditions and density altitude permit and be very mindful of wind (got caught flying from Laramie to Steamboat in 70mph headwinds once, it was not fun).

So with the right judgement and mindset, very few planes that can't be used.

That said, maybe you can share a little more about what mission you are looking to do. For instance:

1. Are you wanting to fly cross country routinely or is that a rare occurence.
2. Are you a big guy or small framed. Small 65hps are pretty tight and small.
3. Are you wanting to go to short strips in backcountry or is that not part of the plan for now.
4. Taildragger vs. nosedragger. What is your preference.
5. Will you be camping with the airplane and where to you want to go.
6. Said you were married, are there kids or will there be in the near future.

Best of luck on your choice. The best decision you have made is to go forward with a purchase. As long as you use good due diligence and don't overpay for a plane (which is easy to do), any purchase will help you start building time, understanding what you ultimately want the plane to do and what you are capable of having it do.

I will also agree with some of the other comments made earlier. As I slowly progressed up the aircraft tree (i.e. Luscombe, to Aeronca to C-170 to C-180), I never complained about having too much power and too much load hauling capability. So I would buy as much airplane as I could afford and still be fiscally and financially responsible (family comes first).

Good Luck!! Larry

I've never flown in Colorado but I have spent a fair amount of time flying my 85hp Luscombe in high DA. Don't know what it is but they seem to do quite well; probly has something to do with the 35' wing. A guy that used to hang out on here lived in CO and said the same thing. Most of my local summer flying is in the 8k DA range but at some of the places I go the DA is routinely 10k. Talking on the ground at the airports.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned a Kitfox or Rans...? While I have never had a Rans, I think Courierguy and Greg Swingle have shown us that they are perfectly capable of taking you anywhere you want to go. They are a bit on the spendy side though from what I have seen ($50k - $70k).

I have owned 2 Kitfoxes, a model IV and a Series 7. While my Series 7 was not what I would consider affordable (Sold it for $70k) it was more than capable with the 914 up front and an empty weight of 800#. My model IV was 650# with the 80 hp Rotax and cost me $24k. I flew that thing into virtually every Idaho strip that exists and some that don't. Running mogas I was easily under $20/hour operation and had a blast with it.... wish I still had it.

I agree that a light 170 is a good bird (a little anemic unless 180hp conversion but that kicks it out of the "affordable" category IMO) and a straight tail 182 is hard to beat (I have a '57 180 now) for the west and the prices right now are great. However, your maintenance and cost to operate will be exponentially higher with either of these than with a Rans or Kitfox with a Rotax.

OP, I would strongly consider looking into the experimental market particularly at Rans, Kitfox or Highlander for an affordable, inexpensive to operate (its all relative) bird that will take you anywhere you dare to go in the Rockies.

I'm a huge fan of the Rans S-7, and have almost nothing but good things to say about it (Emflys is another guy on this board who has shown us how good a plane it can be, and I know several others who have practically used theirs as ATVs).

The only reason I didn't include it in my list is because it is slightly outside the price range of what I would consider to be entry-level. You occasionally see them under $50K, but not usually with 100 hp--which I would want up here. My only criticism is that the stock version is built a little light for off-airport use. By the time you've made the necessary additions to beef it up (Roberts gear, Scott tailwheel, etc.) the price is even further from the entry-level money you would be spending on a PA-12, PA-22, or 172. In fact, in the current market, you can get a decent old 182 for the same money, or even cheaper, than a decent S-7.

If the OP could find a well-built S-7 at a price he can live with, I'd tell him to jump on it in a heartbeat. I just wasn't able to find that bird at the price I needed, so I bought my PA-12 instead (and have been equally happy with it, if not more).

Just my two cents. YMMV.

Yeah, I mentioned that the Rans carries a premium for some reason. A good Kitfox on the other hand can be found for mid $20k to $30k and they are built plenty stout for mountain operations. The newer 5 through 7 series can be spendy but a 3 or 4 with a 80hp Rotax is a very capable airplane.... not a speed demon by any means but great short, rough strip bird and very fun to fly.

I guess its all relative though because a 182 at $72/hr. in fuel costs plus oil, maintenance, etc. is much harder to stomach than $20/hour and the capability to do your own maintenance and modifications. If you only fly 30 hours per year than its not that big a deal but when you hit a couple hundred per year then your talking big $$$.

Wow guys, thanks to each of you for all of the great advice! Here's a couple of points for clarification, since some of you asked:


1) My "affordable" price range is probably going to put me in the $25-60K range for a first plane. I figure everyone needs to start somewhere, and I can always upgrade later if I decide that I need (or can afford) more airplane. I'd like to find something decent for a first plane that can at least get me fully back into the aviation game, and give my better half the chance to see if she likes flying around with me or not. I do think she'll enjoy aviation, but she has some somewhat natural reservations about the activity, due in large part to the fact that she lost a disproportionate number of friends/acquaintances/classmates to small plane crashes when she was growing up (including a CFIT accident in a small airplane that involved an airline pilot she knew -- NTSB report indicated the plane had insufficient climb capability to overcome the terrain that pilot flew into on a high DA day).

2) We have no children at the moment, but may in a few years. I'm not really using that as a determining factor for my purchase at the moment, since I believe the next few years will probably consist of just myself or myself and one passenger in the aircraft. Naturally, if I do find an aircraft with 4 seats, it might be nice to be able to take an extra friend or two along from time to time. But, I have no direct need to fly that extra seat around at the moment (unless that need is to get a higher performance aircraft for mountain ops, as some of you pointed out). The bigger concern for me with larger aircraft is the increased operational expenses that go hand-in-hand with those planes.

3) Some specifics about myself and my mission, per 88H's questions: I'm 5'10", 185lbs, and my lady is 5'3" 105lbs. While it is sometimes tough to predict these things in advance, I'd like to think that my typical "mission" would involve a combination of day trips to sight-see around here, as well as some regional cross-country trips through mountain country. I'd love to be able to jump in the plane and make a flight over to Moab (KCNY) for a weekend, or jump up to WY or down to NM. Longer cross country trips would be more rare, but I wouldn't be opposed to traveling back to Ohio with the right plane to see my family there (those long cross country trips would be the exception rather than the rule). I don't have a tailwheel endorsement yet, but wouldn't be opposed to picking one up. I love the idea of camping from the airplane since I spend most of my free time camping in the wilderness anyway, but don't know how practical that is out here (I don't hear of many backcountry strips in CO). Similarly, the idea of going in and out of short backcountry strips is appealing, but I'll admit that I believe I still have some learning to do before I try setting an airplane down on a do-or-die 500' strip in the mountains!

4) On specific airplanes that were mentioned:

a) I've definitely considered the Stinsons. They are nice looking airplanes at affordable prices, with a decent cabin size (camping gear!), and some inherent cool factor. My biggest concern with these is that some folks have told me to stay clear of them due to problems finding parts for the Franklin 165 engines. Others have told me this is a non-issue. I don't know enough about them to say for sure one way or another on that point. Another issue that probably pops up in this design (along with any other 60 year old plane) is the issue of avionics. I'm not expecting to find a Garmin 1000 in them, but I do need radios/transponder as a bare minimum, and would *like* to have at least a VOR receiver, or some type of navigational equipment. I live under the Mode C veil for KDEN, and all of the local airports I'd probably consider basing out of are also under that veil. As such, some basic radio equipment will be required.

b) I haven't looked much into the Piper aircraft line. I'll definitely have to do some more research on some of the aircraft you guys mentioned in your posts, as these may be worthy of serious consideration as well.

c) In the Cessna line I'd love to have a C180, but those look to be priced above what I was hoping to pay for a first airplane (a quick online search gives me results mostly in the $90-120K range). The C172's are relatively affordable, and I enjoyed these planes well enough when I used them for my instrument rating. They're nothing fancy, but they get the job done, provided they can handle my altitudes. If I bought one of these I'd presume it to be a 2-seat plane for mountain flying, with the possibility of adding a passenger or two on low DA days for eastbound flights.

d) I've definitely considered the experimental line of airplanes. In many ways I feel like a Kitfox 7 SS with a Rotax 914 would be a kick-ass airplane for my purposes, as would a Just Aircraft Highlander with a similar power plant: cheap to operate, very STOL capable (not the most major consideration at this moment, but a darn nice feature), and equipped so that I wouldn't have to worry about DA at any airport in the country. But, they seem hard to come by with that engine setup (I see a lot of older KF planes with 2-strokes out there, but not many of the 4-strokes, and even less of the turbo charged 4-strokes), and I know that build quality can vary dramatically with kit-built airplanes. Maybe I'll just have to keep watching, or at least consider building one of these on my own someday? The only other consideration I have with these airplanes is that I've never actually seen one in person... hopefully I can remedy that in the not too distant future! By the way, was your 80hp Rotax a 2-stroke? If so, how did you feel about having that engine in the mountains? YOU'VE SURE GOT ME THINKING ABOUT THESE AGAIN!!!



Obviously I've got some more research to do still. An actual purchase is still probably a year out for me, but I figure it's good to start getting your ducks in a row ahead of time so that you're ready to buy when the right plane comes along at the right time!

I guess its all relative though because a 182 at $72/hr. in fuel costs plus oil, maintenance, etc. is much harder to stomach than $20/hour and the capability to do your own maintenance and modifications. If you only fly 30 hours per year than its not that big a deal but when you hit a couple hundred per year then your talking big $$$.

Concur. I love the idea of a 182, but the economic realities didn't pencil out for me. I just didn't need to pay for those extra seats all the time.

A good Kitfox on the other hand can be found for mid $20k to $30k and they are built plenty stout for mountain operations. The newer 5 through 7 series can be spendy but a 3 or 4 with a 80hp Rotax is a very capable airplane.... not a speed demon by any means but great short, rough strip bird and very fun to fly.

I have zero Kitfox time, but it sounds like an intriguing option. I would only be worried about it being slightly underpowered during the summer at 80 hp, but it sounds like that wasn't a problem for you? Is there a DA at which full fuel and two guys wasn't an option, or were you always able to use it as a true two-place for what you were doing? (obviously, there is a service ceiling to every plane, but I'm talking about your general usage for backcountry stuff)

Kevin,

Sounds like you have done quite a bit of research already. Check the 182s and 180s again... based on your "affordable" price point there are several in that range as they have come down significantly in the last few years. Be ready to sink some money into one though because I guarantee there will be a handful of things you want to change or update... Just ask Matt, Greg, Kevin or me about that.

A $120k 180 would get you a really sweet bird. Hell, mine has been completely restored with new interior, panel, Pponk super eagle conversion, extended baggage, etc., etc. and I don't see it being a $120k bird.

You should be able to find numerous airplanes out there that suit your mission for your budget. Good luck and let us know what you end up with. I love airplane shopping.... have fun!

RanchPilot wrote:

I have zero Kitfox time, but it sounds like an intriguing option. I would only be worried about it being slightly underpowered during the summer at 80 hp, but it sounds like that wasn't a problem for you? Is there a DA at which full fuel and two guys wasn't an option, or were you always able to use it as a true two-place for what you were doing? (obviously, there is a service ceiling to every plane, but I'm talking about your general usage for backcountry stuff)

Never had an issue with the 80hp an DA. Obviously I would have loved to have the 100 hp but it wasn't needed in that airplane. Flew it out of our cabin stip, fish lake, and many other high DA strips. There were plenty of days here in OGD where the DA at my home airport approached 10k' and ground roll was still under 500'.

My 7 had the 914 Rotax (turbo charged) so it went like a rocket pretty much all the time... very fun airplane.