If you are on a budget consider the Zenair CH-750. You can scratch build one fairly easily, or buy the kit. Can use an O-200 or light O-320, this was mentioned by me in another thread recently.

To scratch build it's about $2500 worth of aluminum, a couple of thousand in specially fabricated parts, five or six grand in an engine, a couple or three thousand in propeller and wheels and brakes, whatever you think you need in radios and instruments, and a year of you and your wife's spare time. These numbers are far far less than some people have invested in this type airplane, but some people pay $7.50 for a cup of coffee too. The Zenairs are "scrounger friendly".

I would have mentioned the old 172 but Porterjet beat me to it The O-300 might be marginal on a warm day taking off at an 8,000 MSL strip. You'd need really...really...precise control of your flaps to live through it

If you can afford to buy and operate the old 182, it will not let you down.

I have almost no experience in the PA-22-150, but it by reputation it should work OK... but remember that most airplanes fly on the wing first and the engine second, and the short wing Pipers need some help in the wing department. So if the PA-22 series is otherwise affordable and of interest, put aside a little extra money for the upgraded or extended wingtips and VG's (to give you back a little bit of the wing lift that Piper sacrificed to use fewer materials after the war).

A 100HP Avid/Kitfox would work pretty well up there if you don't mind being really cozy in the cockpit and your luggage is small. The Highlander (more or less the "steroids" follow-up to the Avid/Kitfox design philosophy) would be a spectacular performer.

Several mentions already of the RANS airplanes, apparently they're fabulous flyers. But they are highly prized.

The Bearhawk would be a wonderful performer, but you're talking about care and feeding of an O-540. Same issue with the original factory production version of the Bearhawk (referred to on this forum as "buy a Maule!")

The right tools for solving this problem are a pencil, paper, calculator, and an internet connection.

This whole discussion reminds me of the situation I'm in whenever I think about a new crane for the business: that bigger one would do the job I had to pass up last week, but it wouldn't make it across the soft field I drove across yesterday with my current machine. The bigger one wouldn't do 90% of my jobs any better, but it would cost me more to drive to the job site, initial purchase price, and so on. Whenever I get overwhelmed with all the different decisions, I just say "screw it", and go flying! Having a minimum of 2 or 3 crane and planes would be the hot setup, anything else is a neccesary compromise. Duh...no news here!

Battson: I find it very easy to keep myself entertained while still flying a lot of hours. This is due to the off airport capabilites of my somewhat tricked out S-7S. If I was just hauling people around airport to airport, (or even backcountry airstrips) yeah, it'd get old quick. I just flew 1.5 hrs, landed 6 off airport/no airport sites, 3 of them new sites, and used maybe 4 gallons of mo gas. The Bushwheels and the area I live in keeps it REAL interesting, sometimes TOO interesting.You're right though, I need a Bearhawk AND my S-7

Ranch Pilot: Excellent summation! But....the 914 weighs 16.3 lbs more then the 912S, so while the 914 would get me out of tighter places, it wouldn't help at all, the opposite in fact, getting in. Some of that weight would of course be offset by a lighter wallet.

soyAnarchisto: Your bird sounds like a good deal to me, especially if a guy can pick one up "cheap". You didn't have to build it anyway, like I did mine. I'm with you, keep it light and around 100 horse does real well, just leave the old lady at home. I do like the experimental cat. though, hard to beat doing whatever you want on your own bird without having to kiss the FAA's ass.

• First rule of any airplane buying is to realistically figure out your mission.
• Second rule is to figure out your own skills, and how you'll use them to accomplish your mission.
• Third is to find an airplane which already fits your needs, rather than one that needs a lot of modification. It costs a lot to modify, whether it's avionics, equipment, or just rehabilitation.
• Fourth rule, for mountain flying, is to learn how to do it. I strongly recommend that you get some mountain and high country specific training--you'll be much safer, and your experience and your wife's will be much more enjoyable. Good skill can make up for a lot of marginally performing airplanes.

Having said all that, then it's time to look at airplanes.

Some here are really good at taildraggers, but for many of us who know how but don't do it much, a taildragger can be a real handful, especially in a crosswind. The more benign ones, like Citabrias and their kin, are as easy as any to land and take off, but they don't carry much. While tandem is great for some folk, others who would like to take their wives along find that wives don't like sitting behind hubby--side by side is more palatable. And if my own experience means anything, successfully flying a taildragger means flying it pretty often, to keep the skills up. For awhile many years ago, I had no problems with the taildraggers I was flying, but then I didn't fly a taildragger for years and years, and when I did again, it was like learning to fly all over again--not quite, but close.

Generally speaking, from what you said about your anticipated missions and skill level, I think you should carefully consider sticking with something you already know, like a 172 in good condition. They're easy to fly, comfortable, and in your price range, often very well equipped. Look for one that's already been converted to 180hp--and there are plenty of those around, some with CS props and some with fixed pitch. CS props take more maintenance, but they have an edge on climbing and cruising, but not a lot.

Caveat: I'm really biased. My 63 P172D with 180hp and a CS prop is a honey of a high-country airplane. Sorry, not for sale.

Believe me, a 180hp 172 carrying only 2 people, can carry plenty of camping gear, and it doesn't take a whole lot of skill to use them in the mountains. DA is still an issue, of course, but even on a warm day, with a little threading through the passes, I can go anywhere I want to, safely and comfortably.

Cary

A 172 or a PA-20 or -22 -150 or -160 make fine back country planes down low. The Pipers are lot more fun to fly. The Cessna is far roomier.

A 180 horse 172 or 175 with a CS is a nice machine.

As for high DA, all of the above suffer, but seriously...you might have to pass up a few strips in the middle of a hot day here and there, and wait a lot longer to clear the ridges on any given day. If you are flying over the rocks a lot, a 172 can cost almost as much as a 182 to get from point A to point B (9gph vs 13gph in a climb doesn't save you much when it takes an extra 30 minutes to get somewhere relatively close by).

There are a lot of ok 182's out there for what a nicer 172 goes for these days. But up high, the 182 performance makes the cost of ownership difference seem worth it.

Don't know about affordable... But, for short and high this is where I'd want to be sitting.



Gump

porterjet wrote:
That brings up a good point actually. Nobody except Whee talks about the older 2 seat airplanes much. t-cart, Champ, J3-4-5, 120/140, his Luscombe etc. Howz about some insight about those aircraft regarding not just runway length and density altitude but the ability to hit the BCP gathering with some gear on board (presumably solo).

I'll share my experience with my 85hp Luscombe. My C85 is stroked (O200 crank) and I absolutely love this engine. Prop is a 7151 which is considered a cruise prop.

My first camping trip in the to Copper Basin (7920msl). Arrived with my wife and camping gear for one night. Fishing sucked, and for whatever reason we decided to go home without staying the night. Departed around 6pm with zero problems getting over the 10k ridges and headed home. OAT was probly was 80F.

Next camping trip was to Upper Loon (5500msl). Arrived with my wife and had a great time. Departed in the morning a couple days late with zero problems. These kind of camping trips with my wife continue.

Departing Hidden Splendor:


Idaho Backcountry with my daughter:


Went to the BCP JC fly-in with my dad back in 2011. Yes we were heavy but had no problems. Hit most of the longer strips and had a great time. Bernard made me sweat a little but that is just because of my lack of pilot skills.

Last summer my wife and I were headed to Washington for a job interview. We were loaded HEAVY. Almost 2 hours into the flight we had to stop for a bathroom break and there was no holding it. Closest airport was Cold Meadows (7030msl) so there we landed, right in the middle of the day ~3pm, in August. Interview was the next day and I figured we could make it if we left early in the morning but I decided to make a go at leaving right after the pee break. Departure was downhill and I knew where to turn for follow the lowering terrain. Had zero problems. Climbed back up to 10.5 and continued on our way.

There is an extended baggage available for the Luscombe but I didn't see a need for it. It is easy to over gross the way it is. However, if I was going to be flying solo most the time then I would put in the x-baggage just to make it easier to fit everything. Full fuel, solo with enough gear to camp for several days is no problem. Heck, when I camp solo I toss in a 5gal fuel jug so I don't have to stop anywhere for fuel.

courierguy wrote:This whole discussion reminds me of the situation I'm in whenever I think about a new crane for the business: that bigger one would do the job I had to pass up last week, but it wouldn't make it across the soft field I drove across yesterday with my current machine. The bigger one wouldn't do 90% of my jobs any better, but it would cost me more to drive to the job site, initial purchase price, and so on. Whenever I get overwhelmed with all the different decisions, I just say "screw it", and go flying! Having a minimum of 2 or 3 crane and planes would be the hot setup, anything else is a neccesary compromise. Duh...no news here!

Battson: I find it very easy to keep myself entertained while still flying a lot of hours. This is due to the off airport capabilites of my somewhat tricked out S-7S. If I was just hauling people around airport to airport, (or even backcountry airstrips) yeah, it'd get old quick. I just flew 1.5 hrs, landed 6 off airport/no airport sites, 3 of them new sites, and used maybe 4 gallons of mo gas. The Bushwheels and the area I live in keeps it REAL interesting, sometimes TOO interesting.You're right though, I need a Bearhawk AND my S-7

Ranch Pilot: Excellent summation! But....the 914 weighs 16.3 lbs more then the 912S, so while the 914 would get me out of tighter places, it wouldn't help at all, the opposite in fact, getting in. Some of that weight would of course be offset by a lighter wallet.

soyAnarchisto: Your bird sounds like a good deal to me, especially if a guy can pick one up "cheap". You didn't have to build it anyway, like I did mine. I'm with you, keep it light and around 100 horse does real well, just leave the old lady at home. I do like the experimental cat. though, hard to beat doing whatever you want on your own bird without having to kiss the FAA's ass.

There's a reason the S-7 is so popular.
It's hard to beat a 110 mph plane with more room than a cub or a 2 seat Cessna and has a 600lb useful load. Less than 4 gph and no oil use between 100hour oil changes. A 2000 hour TBO with complete new engine costs not much more than most certified rebuild costs. With the numbers of available "strips" in the CO, UT, ID,and WY area, it is easy to put 200 plus hours on in a year. The cost savings of auto fuel, low gph, no oil use and low maint. costs pretty much pays for itself at rebuild time.

First and foremost: what is your mission?

Mauls, 180s, 172s, T-Crafts and everything in between are all great for a certain mission. What is yours?

The whole family? 2 passengers? Mostly solo? Camping gear? Bikes? Six burner barbecue grill?



I have never flown the mountains. I got nothing for you there. But I can say my 80 hp Kitfox IV was still showing 500 fpm climb at 10500' during my receint trip to Kittyhawk. That was solo but loaded with fuel and gear near gross (1200#). Cruising 100-110 mph at 3.5 gph of mo-gas.

Plus it is half the cost to own and operate than a certified plane.

With Greg's C180H Madness thread in the back of my mind, I'm wondering how much weight you could pull out of an early 172. Minimal VFR instruments and modern radios - maybe a Dynon D1 to replace the gyros. Utilitarian interior and lightweight seats. Just dreamin....[/quote]

I've got my '56 172 down to 1370lbs now (It left the factory 57 years ago at 1289 I believe).That was removing 30lb rear seat, 42lbs of narco ballast, and 15 lbs wheel pants. With rear seat and wheel pants, I'm at 1414lb(atual weight, not calculated). It's amazing with 1/2 tanks and just myself.

whee wrote:I'll share my experience with my 85hp Luscombe. My C85 is stroked (O200 crank) and I absolutely love this engine. Prop is a 7151 which is considered a cruise prop.

My first camping trip in the to Copper Basin (7920msl). Arrived with my wife and camping gear for one night. Fishing sucked, and for whatever reason we decided to go home without staying the night. Departed around 6pm with zero problems getting over the 10k ridges and headed home. OAT was probly was 80F.

Next camping trip was to Upper Loon (5500msl). Arrived with my wife and had a great time. Departed in the morning a couple days late with zero problems. These kind of camping trips with my wife continue.



Went to the BCP JC fly-in with my dad back in 2011. Yes we were heavy but had no problems. Hit most of the longer strips and had a great time. Bernard made me sweat a little but that is just because of my lack of pilot skills.

Last summer my wife and I were headed to Washington for a job interview. We were loaded HEAVY. Almost 2 hours into the flight we had to stop for a bathroom break and there was no holding it. Closest airport was Cold Meadows (7030msl) so there we landed, right in the middle of the day ~3pm, in August. Interview was the next day and I figured we could make it if we left early in the morning but I decided to make a go at leaving right after the pee break. Departure was downhill and I knew where to turn for follow the lowering terrain. Had zero problems. Climbed back up to 10.5 and continued on our way.

There is an extended baggage available for the Luscombe but I didn't see a need for it. It is easy to over gross the way it is. However, if I was going to be flying solo most the time then I would put in the x-baggage just to make it easier to fit everything. Full fuel, solo with enough gear to camp for several days is no problem. Heck, when I camp solo I toss in a 5gal fuel jug so I don't have to stop anywhere for fuel.

Whee,

Thanks for the videos, they're very inspiring for a hopeful future aircraft owner such as myself. The Hidden Splendor takeoff looks dicey enough... not sure if that's perception, reality, or a combination of both. Nevertheless, it doesn't look like a takeoff you'd want to screw up!

How forgiving are the Luscombes for new tailwheel pilots? As I mentioned previously I have no tailwheel experience, but a willingness to learn. Some of the posts in this thread make me wonder if I shouldn't avoid them entirely, but I'm intrigued by their reputation for being great rough country performers (at least when compared to their tricycle cousins).

I do like the side-by-side seating idea, if only because I suspect that it would be more popular with my household's "treasurer".

Tail wheels are not something to shy from, they are not horrible or require really big balls.

What they need is attention, and at time a little less pride when it goes wrong, and it does so in a hurry.

They will make you a better pilot as you can not get lazy, complacent or think you have it all figured out, it goes wrong in a hurry.

They are fun.

coloradokevin wrote:How forgiving are the Luscombes for new tailwheel pilots?

I wish I could provide some perspective but can't. I did all my training in my Luscombe and is pretty much the only plane I have ever flown. What I can tell you is that is does exactly what you tell it to and does it pretty quick, not much room for error. A TW is not something to fear, learn the proper technique and enjoy it.

Jeredp wrote:I've got my '56 172 down to 1370lbs now (It left the factory 57 years ago at 1289 I believe).That was removing 30lb rear seat, 42lbs of narco ballast, and 15 lbs wheel pants. With rear seat and wheel pants, I'm at 1414lb(atual weight, not calculated). It's amazing with 1/2 tanks and just myself

Thanks for the info Jered! What's the rated gross for the '56? In the SEUS, I rarely have to worry about high altitude - high DA and humidity is another story in the Summer months. My mission would be two-up with light camping gear. Filling four seats would be very rare. Definitely want to make a trip out west and to Alaska tho'...

There was a pretty good article about this very thing in the C120/140 Club newsletter some years ago. The author was looking for an airplane suitable for mountain flying and camping, but like a lot of us was on a fairly tight budget. After some soul-searching and airplane hunting, he ended up with a C140 with a 125hp O-290D engine upgrade. It already had some good mods (c150 seats, Cleveland w&b, Scott t/w), so all he had to do was strip some stuff out to lighten it up then repitch the prop flatter and add a VG kit, 850's, and a lightweight starter & alternator. He ended up with an airplane that met his needs pretty well for minimal cost.
My own C150/150TD is a similar compromise. It's no supercub when it comes to STOL ops but it does pretty good, and is fairly fast (120-ish) and pretty sporty to fly to boot. Freshly rebuilt after an off-airport wreck, with fresh engine & paint, I paid $36K for it five years ago. Some would say that's a lot for "just a 150", but you couldn't buy and modify one for that amount, esp if you had to hire much of the work done. And it was less than half what a comparable condition PA18-150 would cost.

Papa Foxtrot wrote:

Jeredp wrote:I've got my '56 172 down to 1370lbs now (It left the factory 57 years ago at 1289 I believe).That was removing 30lb rear seat, 42lbs of narco ballast, and 15 lbs wheel pants. With rear seat and wheel pants, I'm at 1414lb(atual weight, not calculated). It's amazing with 1/2 tanks and just myself

Thanks for the info Jered! What's the rated gross for the '56? In the SEUS, I rarely have to worry about high altitude - high DA and humidity is another story in the Summer months. My mission would be two-up with light camping gear. Filling four seats would be very rare. Definitely want to make a trip out west and to Alaska tho'...

The gross weight for the '56 is 2200 lbs. That leaves me at about 830lbs usefull load. Mine is equipped with a horton stol kit and b&m flap and aileron seals.I fly it out of an 1800' paved strip with obstacles where we see 85-100 degree temps through the summer. However, the elevation is only 850'.

hotrod150 wrote:There was a pretty good article about this very thing in the C120/140 Club newsletter some years ago. The author was looking for an airplane suitable for mountain flying and camping, but like a lot of us was on a fairly tight budget. After some soul-searching and airplane hunting, he ended up with a C140 with a 125hp O-290D engine upgrade. It already had some good mods (c150 seats, Cleveland w&b, Scott t/w), so all he had to do was strip some stuff out to lighten it up then repitch the prop flatter and add a VG kit, 850's, and a lightweight starter & alternator. He ended up with an airplane that met his needs pretty well for minimal cost.

I believe I know the plane you are talking about, my dad and I got to meet the owner about 9 years ago out in Idaho. It's got the 135hp O-290D2 and my dad's 120 has the 125hp O-290D. Both of them are surprisingly good performers. I would have ended up with the 120 if I didn't have the need to carry more stuff. I got about 20 minutes in the left seat of that 140 and the VG's do make a noticable difference in the slow speed ability, the flaps might of had a little effect too as I was just used to the 120 with a clean wing. Both planes will cruise at 125-130mph on less than 7gph and climb performance is pretty impressive for a small Cessna.

There is a consideration with the Luscombe. Fine mountain airplane. Handles well. Not as squirrelly as other around 1300 lbs gross trainers, but the nose will try to sneak off. The problem I had with it was that I had flown thousands of hours with the throttle in my left hand and the stick in my right hand. My mind was brainwashed. It had brakes on the left side only. I had to fly from the right seat and carry somebody to work the brakes in an emergency.

You're young. Turn that around. What if, after thousands of hours in the Luscombe, you get a Cub, Taylorcraft, Champ, Porterfield, or some of these newer stick airplanes? Control wheels didn't bother me. Either side was fine. Probably was just my thick skull.

whee wrote:

coloradokevin wrote:How forgiving are the Luscombes for new tailwheel pilots?

I wish I could provide some perspective but can't. I did all my training in my Luscombe and is pretty much the only plane I have ever flown. What I can tell you is that is does exactly what you tell it to and does it pretty quick, not much room for error. A TW is not something to fear, learn the proper technique and enjoy it.

Whee is exactly right, a Luscombe does exactly what you tell it, very responsive rudder. You may over control at first but later you really like it on landing, like precise handling in a sports car. I like my 180 but I remember when I first flew it I felt like I had to make exaggerated control inputs on the rudder. I suppose now if I flew a Luscombe again I would over control at first... You get used to what you fly.

Some have an irrational fear of tailwheels. It's not macho or really all that demanding. You can walk can't you? If you really thought about all the different muscles you are coordinating, and the balance required, you'd wonder how anyone could walk.

On the high altitude, I also agree the Luscombe and its long wing does well. Of course, I had an O-200 as well.

Good luck in the hunt.

robw56 wrote:...I believe I know the plane you are talking about, my dad and I got to meet the owner about 9 years ago out in Idaho. It's got the 135hp O-290D2 and my dad's 120 has the 125hp O-290D. Both of them are surprisingly good performers. ..................

Yup, N140JH, that's the one. A few years after I read that article, I met his son-in-law Kelly who at that time owned a lightened-up fat-tired C170B. He helped me get a field approval for a C185 jump seat in the back of my old 170.
Rob, I think you've posted that last photo of your dad's airplane before. Where is that-- on the Columbia somewhere? Looks like a cool spot.

Damn Whee, that C-85 sounds just like the C-208 Sarah Fraher was flying up in Alaska last year. Maybe it was the microphone they used though.....