I got my license in a club 172 share that I bought from my dad, he's still club secretary and I'm still club mechanic though my partner is now on the share getting her license. My family has been linked to this plane for nearly 25 years.
Both Dad and I stay involved in part because it feels like a way to give back to aviation a bit, help keep the club economical for others - especially student pilots.

Dad and I are partners in a Super Cub and 180 as well. Our bylaws are a handshake and our scheduling system is a phone call.

The 172 certainly requires a level of trust, but there's a comfort in the fact that it's the most ubiquitous trainer there is.

We're lucky in that we can run our airplanes ourselves so not looking to take more partners on, but I often wonder - what would that look like?

So - who is in/knows of a backcountry capable flying club, and how does it work for you? Or, if you have a more random partner on a plane same question?

I've thought of how I could mirror the 172 club with a champ or similar to get more people in to tailwheel and backcountry in a reasonable manner. I've also thought of going for my CFI to focus on tailwheel/backcountry instruction but I can't help but think I'd only do it in a customers own aircraft. It'd be nice to have a more reasonable option locally, and there just isn't one. Things like insurance and currency/proficiency come to the forefront.

Discussion welcome - I've thought long and hard about how we can chip away at the $100k hurdle of backcountry aviation.

Interesting prompt. My Maule is the 4th airplane I've owned, but it's the first plane I've owned outright. All the others were in partnerships, some small, some pretty large. I bought the Maule on my own because I couldn't find any taildragger/backcountry partnerships anywhere, let alone in my neck of the woods a decade + ago. No regrets having the plane to myself, and it is probably easier because I disappear for long stretches at a time with the plane, and that was harder with partnerships. Most partnerships I was in limited overnight use of the plane to 2 nights away without the express approval of longer trips by all members. That can be hard to pull off. I suppose it could be done with the right group, so I'm going to watch this thread closely.

I would think the challenging part of a backcountry partnership is the inherent higher risk of denting or bending the plane. Sure, there is insurance for significant incidents, but there are likely to be more frequent dents and scuffs. I've put a couple dents in my wings that are fine by me, but if I shared the plane with another owner, it would be a much bigger deal. Though...I suppose there might be differing definitions of backcountry, and that would certainly have to be addressed in such a partnership.

I'm always a bit envious of those who have a good partner in their aircraft. I feel a certain guilt when I'm away on travel for long stretches and my 170 is collecting dust (and probably corrosion) in its hangar. Plus, If I had twice the available income I'd have a 180!!

There seems to be a large demand for flying clubs in my neck of the woods, but a real shortage of tailwheel instructors/aircraft. I think a club with cubs/champs would be very popular for summer flying. It would have to have a significant amount of training tied into it as well. I can only imagine it would end up rather expensive.

Seems to me that lots of the people new to flying and especially backcountry have no interest in 70 year old airplanes or airplanes that aren't very high performance. Lots of high power to weight ratio little planes out there like Highlanders, or Kit Fox, an old Taylorcraft or Champ just isn't sexy enough for them. But those fancy brightly colored Rotax powered craft are more money than a decent 180, and probably double a perfectly good legacy airplane. Hell, an early 172 with a 180hp, sportsman cuff and slightly larger tires is a pretty good back country performer, but certainly not sexy. Just look at all the UTube channels, lost of little kit planes decked out with panels and auto pilots like a mini-airliner.
If you didn't have to have the latest wiz bang 160hp Rotax, glass panel, hyper extended gear, you could afford a good old airplane without needing partners.
I would have to say that a club (more than two owners) in a backcountry airplane seems like a hard sell. Unless its very close to the backcountry, every use is going to be an overnight or two or longer. Deciding who gets the plane, and where they are allowed to take it could be tough with a committee.

I was convinced by a few friends to get my CFI, so I could teach tailwheel and backcountry. I decided that might be a good retirement job, I studied, took my writtens, polished up, did a check ride and passed the oral, but the weather settled in and I could not complete the flight portion. After several months, listening to student pilots on the radio, watching and listening to people flying the backcountry, I decided not to do another check ride. So many people that are flying the backcountry scare me, many would make me nervous at a 5000' paved runway in the flatlands. I have heard many stories and have a few of my own of people with a capable tailwheel aircraft that are flying the backcountry but shouldn't or want to and don't know what they don't know. Those are the people that, being part of a club, would make it difficult.

I've not got much to add other than I would be checking on getting an insurance before proceeding further. TW insurance in general is much higher than the typical nose wheeled airplane, even valued at the same price. My/my sons 172A which had the Sportsman's cuff, bigger tires, Airglass fork, and the the monstrously powerful O-300 with a fine pitched prop. It had awesome performance for a 172 and the insurance was cheap. 1/3 the cost of my similarly valued TW planes. Owned that plane 38 years and recently sold it. I guess we underpriced it as it sold within a day or two. Nothing wrong with a nosewheeled airplane in the backcountry, as long as you know how to use it and it's limitations.

Some good discussion, and the points made mirror my concerns/thoughts as well.
Seems as though it would be something to write up a business plan and float it out there.
I'm kicking myself as I don't think I kept the number of the guys we sold our Pacer to - that was a great example as I believe it was a couple of them at Oshkosh at the twilight STOL demo who decided they ought to get a backcountry plane. Turned in to a group of 5 that partnered up and made it happen. I'm curious how that's gone for them but it looks like they're still flying it a fair bit so must be ok. I would most like to know how their by-laws/expectations have evolved over time.
Seems like an if you build it they will come scenario.

Fly Oz in Bentonville, AR is doing it.
Flew over there to eat and saw a flier for their group. Seems to be a multi membership level country club style group with access to a big tire C182, Super Cub, or SR-22.

https://club.flyoz.com/

I don't think tailwheel airplanes are good for flying clubs or rentals. For training purposes there is a high likelihood of ground loops and a damaged airplane. Unfortunately, it's just a true fact about flying tailwheels and the proof is in the pudding with high cost for Hull insurance. I think the idea of getting a C172/O360/and big tires makes more sense for backcountry flying. Depending on where the airplane was based you could make some limitations based on time and skill level where the airplane went.

I do a fair amount tailwheel training and as much as I enjoy it - it is the gnarliest of all the instruction I give. I have had 4 total ground loops so far over the years doing tailwheel endorsements. None of them resulted in a damaged airplane - just bruised egos and good learning experiences but one of them was real close to being very bad. They all happened super fast and when I least expected it. So maybe my perspective is tainted. I think this is why you don't see too many tailwheel airplanes for rent. My home airport had Cub Crafters Sport Cub for rent for a few years. It got flown quite a bit until it got ground looped and wrecked. The owners of the school elected it wasn't worth the risk having tailwheel airplanes due to these risks.


Josh

As I recall, a flight school at Thun Field KPLU had a C170 for rent a number of years ago,
which had formerly been owned by Bud Blancher of BAS shoulder harness fame.
Don't know if it was used just for t/w endorsements, or also rented out for solo use,
but after about the third ground loop it was taken off the roster.

Dog is my Copilot wrote:My home airport had Cub Crafters Sport Cub for rent for a few years. It got flown quite a bit until it got ground looped and wrecked. The owners of the school elected it wasn't worth the risk having tailwheel airplanes due to these risks.

That was a really disappointing deal. I put prob 150 hours on that airplane. I think Bob replaced the engine 4 or 5 times after tailwheel students would put it up on the nose. It was more damaged every time I saw it. Tailwheel training is just really hard on airplanes.

A local flight school had a similar experience with a Citabria that was used for tailwheel training. A couple of accidents later and the school no longer has the plane or offers tailwheel training. And that is all with an instructor in the back. I couldn’t imagine renting out the plane for solo use.