Rereading your original post, none of these planes would be considered STOL, including the Stinson, but they are capable backcountry planes.

crazyivan wrote:I've never flown a Stinson, but I'll bet my 22/20 will out-perform any 165hp 108. My Pacer is 1135# empty and I think most Stinsons are around 1400#. Stinsons are roomier inside, though.

My empty weight is about the same as yours. I'll have to check my weight when I get back out to the hangar, but I know it's not up around 1400.

I 2nd almost everything Crazyivan said above. My first airplane was a Pacer and I enjoyed the Idaho backcountry for 3.5 years before upgrading to accomodate the growing family. They are a great all around airplane and 30K can get you a decent one. Stinson's are a true gentlemens airplane but will not perform with a Pacer in almost all catagories when equally equipped. No matter what you buy make sure you have experienced help in checking it out before hand becuase 90% of these old airplanes on the market will cost you far more than your original budget in the long run.

I was in your place recently. I did lots of research and bumming rides in different types and settled on searching for a Pacer or Stinson. I ended up with a Stinson project. I'll probably end up getting it flying and then starting a Pacer project too...haha.

desertflyer wrote:I can only spend less than 30k because that's all the cash I will have

I need a good trainer tail wheel that I can fly into some short back country strips and some fields.

I want something too that I can go scouting for hunting.

I like to do a lot of research on stuff before I commit.

I have two options to share with you.

If you are not lumberjack sized, the 85HP Taylorcraft upgraded with VG's and 8.00 tires will fit your needs very well. But as with any and all airplanes, there are adjustments you have to make. The 85 HP Taylorcraft will operate safely a out of a 750 foot strip with a little practice and training. With a little more practice and training you can operate out of 500 feet with a small safety reserve. Experts can fly Taylorcrafts out of 400 feet.

You can buy an average one with your $30K and have $5000-7500 of it left over for fuel for a years' worth of flying. Think about that.

You will fly at 97 to107 miles an hour (depending on propeller), burning 5 or 5.5 gallons an hour. Car gas if absolutely necessary.

You WILL need to work with someone familiar with Taylorcrafts to get the most out of the airplane. The T-craft is a glider more than the Cub, Champ, Stinson, etc. Although not difficult to fly, the Taylorcraft makes a good trainer because it forces you to fly correctly. It will take you 10-20% longer to become competent in a Taylorcraft than it will in the Super Cub, Champ, J-3, Stinson, etc. As a reward, you get to fly cheaper and/or faster than other airplanes in its class.

The biggest limitation on STOL performance on the T-craft is the lack of flaps or spoilers. You will not routinely be able to get into the 250 or 300 foot strips that Super Cubs get into. In very gusty winds and turbulence, there is a limit as to how stable of a steep STOL approach you can make (because you are doing forward slips). There will definitely be some days when a Super Cub or Cessna 180 will be able to get into a short mountain strip and good judgment tells you to not do it in the T-craft. Perhaps the $50,000 to 100,000 you saved on the purchase price will be of some comfort during those dark times.

The biggest single shortcoming of the Taylorcraft is that it is not suitable for very large or very tall pilots. Large folks do fly them , but not as comfortably as in a Cessna, Stinson or Aeronca.

The second option if your budget is a big thing, I have an Aeronca rebuild project available at a low cost (see marketplace discussion area). With 85HP, the Aeronca Chief is a perfectly usable airplane for the majority of back country airstrips. Like the T-craft, 140, Champ, Luscombe and other similar... it will never ever be a Super Cub or a 180. But with 85HP it will certainly operate out of a 600 foot strip. It will not be quite as fast as the Taylorcraft but it will be more comfortable and roomy.

Hope one of these options suits you.

Bill

Don't rule out the Experimental world! A Kitfox Avid Just Highlander or a Rans with a 100 hp 912 will fly circles around every airplane mentioned in this thread on 4gph of auto fuel. They are far cheaper to own and operate than a certified airplane. You might not be able to bring your bike and generator with you on camping trips but they carry plenty for a couple people for a few days.

When I decided that backcountry flying was more for me than fast airplanes with glass cockpits, I looked around found my first shortwing Piper (PA 16 Clipper). I loved it but it was underpowered a little for me so I moved up to a Pacer (PA 22-20). These planes are the best bargain in aviation. If you learn to fly tailwheel on a shortwing piper, you will find all others to be a breeze. I attended a bush flying course in Alaska. The owner has two Pacers and we flew them into all kinds of short strips and gravel bars. While the planes are not Super cubs, they hold their weight in overall suitability for backcountry flying.

Trying to find a good one is always a challenge. The drooped wing tips add a lot to the performance of the plane and if possible, try to find one that has this STC.

AvidFlyer wrote:Don't rule out the Experimental world! A Kitfox Avid Just Highlander or a Rans with a 100 hp 912 will fly circles around every airplane mentioned in this thread on 4gph of auto fuel. They are far cheaper to own and operate than a certified airplane. You might not be able to bring your bike and generator with you on camping trips but they carry plenty for a couple people for a few days.

I concur.

Well it's looking like either a Stinson or a Pacer. I will need to go on cross country once in awhile; i.e. Ontario, Or to Eugene, Or. If adding a kit on a Pacer how much will it shorten the take off distance? That's my biggest concern with the Pacer is the long take off. I like the Pacer because of the Lyc.


And finding a Maule at the right price is hard. I do like their performance and stuff.

Good its settled then.............Go buy one and fly the hell out of it.

mr scout wrote:Good its settled then.............Go buy one and fly the hell out of it.

I gotta sell my cherokee first. thats going to be the hard part. hopefully not but ya

crazyivan wrote:....I've never flown a Stinson, but I'll bet my 22/20 will out-perform any 165hp 108. My Pacer is 1135# empty and I think most Stinsons are around 1400#. Stinsons are roomier inside, though....

Stinsons look as though they should be roomier inside than Pacers, but I'm not so sure they are. Look like about the same to me- nowhere near the cavernous 4-place Cessna's. Harder to get in and out of too.

Tadpole wrote:

crazyivan wrote:I've never flown a Stinson, but I'll bet my 22/20 will out-perform any 165hp 108. My Pacer is 1135# empty and I think most Stinsons are around 1400#. Stinsons are roomier inside, though.

My empty weight is about the same as yours. I'll have to check my weight when I get back out to the hangar, but I know it's not up around 1400.

Yours might be 1135 now, Tadpole, but it'll go up some when you put the wings back on.
Seriously, I don't know what your W&B paperwork sez, but if you re-weigh it when you get it all back together you might be surprised. And probably not pleasantly. I'm betting Ivan's not too far off with his guess.

If adding a kit on a Pacer how much will it shorten the take off distance? That's my biggest concern with the Pacer is the long take off. I like the Pacer because of the Lyc.

If you get a PA 22-20 with a 032 (150 hp), drooped tips and some Vortex generators ($600) the shortfield performance is good. Add a climb prop and it gets better. There are techniques that you can learn to really maximize your takeoff performance (using the flap handle). I was taught to make the Pacer do a few more tricks than one should try without professional instruction, but its not rocket science. Here is video of a Pacer in Alaska

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC_7tZj60F4[/youtube]

I agree about the Pacer being a good performer. I don't have a lot of experience with high & hot op's, but at sea level my Pacer buddy always did just as well or usually better than me in the old ragwing 170. Another guy I flew with a little bit had a PA-20/135 & it did real well also.
A lightweight 150-horse PA-20 or 22/20 with a 54 or even 56 pitch Sensenich prop will outperform most other affordable (key word!) 4 place airplanes, and still cruise at 120-ish. VG's, extended wingtips, etc do nothing but make it better- just remember to keep it as light as possible. If I hadn't been set on a C150/150TD (having always liked them), I woulda bought a Pacer when I sold my 170 a couple years ago.
Comparing 2 place STOL-ish airplanes to Pacers Stinsons & 170's is kinda apples to oranges. Sure these affordable 4 seaters won't takeoff or land as short as the 2 seaters, but they're a lot more practical for most us with regards to carrying pax and/or stuff. And they can do pretty damn good if kept light, as long as the pilot does his job right. The affordable (again, key word!) STOL-ish 2 seaters: 100-horse and under T Crafts, Aeroncas, Pipers, Kitfoxes, etc can perform real well but often come up short in useful load and/or cargo area.
My 150/150 does pretty well-- no Supercub, but it cruises at 125 plus is pretty sporty to fly (does real nice aileron rolls too!). Being an "omnivision" model, it has a lot of cargo space for a 2 seater, although it's kinda hard to access. It doesn't have as much useful load at 520# as I'd like either, but it's enough for me & a honey & a weekend's worth of gas & gear.

hotrod150 wrote:

crazyivan wrote:....I've never flown a Stinson, but I'll bet my 22/20 will out-perform any 165hp 108. My Pacer is 1135# empty and I think most Stinsons are around 1400#. Stinsons are roomier inside, though....

Stinsons look as though they should be roomier inside than Pacers, but I'm not so sure they are. Look like about the same to me- nowhere near the cavernous 4-place Cessna's. Harder to get in and out of too.

Stinson was roomier for me than a Pacer...and the Pacer had the left hand door even.

hotrod150 wrote:

Tadpole wrote:

crazyivan wrote:I've never flown a Stinson, but I'll bet my 22/20 will out-perform any 165hp 108. My Pacer is 1135# empty and I think most Stinsons are around 1400#. Stinsons are roomier inside, though.

My empty weight is about the same as yours. I'll have to check my weight when I get back out to the hangar, but I know it's not up around 1400.

Yours might be 1135 now, Tadpole, but it'll go up some when you put the wings back on.
Seriously, I don't know what your W&B paperwork sez, but if you re-weigh it when you get it all back together you might be surprised. And probably not pleasantly. I'm betting Ivan's not too far off with his guess.

I don't remeber what is says but I need to check. I'm sure it's off as its old and I do plan to reweight it after I get it back together.

I should also mention I only weigh about 125lbs so fitting into a plane is not a problem at all What kind of take off distance would I be looking at with that equipment?


If you get a PA 22-20 with a 032 (150 hp), drooped tips and some Vortex generators ($600) the shortfield performance is good. Add a climb prop and it gets better. There are techniques that you can learn to really maximize your takeoff performance (using the flap handle). I was taught to make the Pacer do a few more tricks than one should try without professional instruction, but its not rocket science. Here is video of a Pacer in Alaska

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC_7tZj60F4[/youtube][/quote]

I obviously don't know how to link a video, but if you cut and paste this address into your browser you can see a take-off and landing on a gravel bar on the Susitna River in AK. see for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC_7tZj60F4

AHHH!!! My good buddy Mr Don Lee sitting in the right seat!

We need that guy on this forum! Probably has more actual 1st hand experience than most of us will ever hope to get. He also has thousands of hours in a Helio as talked about in another thread.

Good to see him in there.