I would consider a Citabria 7GCBC for your budget. Here is a nice one you could fly for a couple hundred hours and save up for a overhaul:
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_ ... 7GCBC.html

Flaps, aerobatics. Good flying airplane!

It is possible to scratch build a Super Cub for $30K with engine and basic instruments. Not sure if you are a builder or not.

Hmmm.. as an old guy in his early 40's that finally landed a great job after 3 career field changes. I'm going to go against the grain here.
Spend your cash on a good education. Don't buy anything till your 30, nothing! Save save save, work work work, stay out of debt stay out of debt- stay out of debt.


Then at 30 go pay cash for the baddest turbine powered whatever you can find. Hell start a small company in AK with it! Me, I'd like a turbine 206 or Beaver even better.

Since I did not follow my own advice however, I'm looking for a Pacer now. Wish I'd have waited and studied first.
Just something to think about.

670x wrote: Save save save, work work work, stay out of debt stay out of debt- stay out of debt.

That's good advice at any age. Easier said than done though.

(I made the same mistake in my early 20's, luckily I tripped on some wisdom before my 20's were over.)

mountainmatt wrote:

670x wrote: Save save save, work work work, stay out of debt stay out of debt- stay out of debt.

That's good advice at any age. Easier said than done though.

(I made the same mistake in my early 20's, luckily I tripped on some wisdom before my 20's were over.)

Ya it's pretty nice being under 40 and not having any debt and owning a plane with zero payments.

I'm actually a full time college student with no debt. I pay school using my GI Bill and I farm all summer and work for my dad.

The only turbine that has ever interested me is a T-38. love those birds and maybe one day I'll own one or something similar.

Since the subject is being mentioned, what is a good two seater with a good useful load? most of what I've seen don't have much of one.

and sorry for screwing up this thing. I'm not really a computer person. I don't know how all this html stuff works.

Tadpole wrote:

mountainmatt wrote:

670x wrote: Save save save, work work work, stay out of debt stay out of debt- stay out of debt.

That's good advice at any age. Easier said than done though.

(I made the same mistake in my early 20's, luckily I tripped on some wisdom before my 20's were over.)

Ya it's pretty nice being under 40 and not having any debt and owning a plane with zero payments.

super cubs and scouts are pretty good some were in the 900s.

Ya it's pretty nice being under 40 and not having any debt and owning a plane with zero payments.[/quote]

Well, I used to have all three, now I just have the last two.

hotrod150 wrote:


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.

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.

I found the following website very helpful in learning more about Stinsons. Here is a page covering "book" vs. "actual" weights for a sampling of planes. Looks like most of the Franklin 165's are in the 1300 - 1400 lb empty range.

http://www.hangar9aeroworks.com/108Weight.html

Flynengr

1400lbs is the big blocks, or heavily loaded with IFR equip.
My 165 is 1250lbs.

aktahoe1 wrote: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.

Mr.Don Lee is a classy guy with a wealth of knowledge. Glad to see his name pop up here from time to time.

WAHOOO!!....



Good times in Idaho last year!



Find something you like.....and go have some fun!!!!!

I checked. Mine says 1301.2, I've done "some" weight reduction while doing these repairs but it will probably be a wash when I reweigh it due to age. The last weight was done in 86 when it was recovered, new aluminum, windshield, interior, and so on.

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.

I asked him to join us here on the forum. I only hope he's too busy teaching floats and skis to check in. I'll send him another invitation. I have never had more fun flying with anyone. He really likes a good ptractical joke too.

Well you can buy a tripacer or pacer take out the back seat and it makes a great two place with loads of room for camping gear and the like.

cstolaircraft wrote:super cubs and scouts are pretty good some were in the 900s.

$$$$$$
We were talking about affordable airplanes- I believe $30K was the figure mentioned.

So would I be correct to be thinking the pacer is a better performer than a stinson as far as short take offs and landings? I never thought about taking out the back seats.

the Stinson back seat is a sling it comes out in less than 2 min, the Stinson don't have many ADs so your annual would be less. my 1400LBS Stinson F150 at 3880 ft 2 people full fuel will get off the ground in 900 FT. but on a hot day with my wife and kids aboard it takes a lot of runway. i love the Pacers also but for me it would have to have a pilot door. I looked at one once but did not want to get in the copilot side and slide over everyday

A lot of performance numbers are all based on gross weight too so how it performs with just you hitting strips may be completely different. Heck, I'm surprised at how well my stock old 172 does and I'm not exactly a stellar pilot.

I don't have nor have I flown either a Pacer or a Stinson but was looking at both as a possibility. Best I could come up with was either would be a good airplane. The Pacer penciled out to be less expensive to own and operate but has it's quirks such as right pilot door (but a nice back door), drops like a rock when power is pulled (which can be good or bad), shorter coupled and definite examples of conversions not done well on the gear.

The Stinson, well it was just hard to find an owner who doesn't like the Stinson. They fly well, stalls are supposedly benign, good performers, easier to land than a pacer. Downsides seem mostly to be the Franklin engines low TBO and fuel consumption. I thought the doors might be a bit tight for loading gear into the back. I'm sure owners will contradict that statement.

I'm willing to bet you'd be very happy with either. If at all possible, try to fly one of each.

GroundLooper wrote:A lot of performance numbers are all based on gross weight too so how it performs with just you hitting strips may be completely different. Heck, I'm surprised at how well my stock old 172 does and I'm not exactly a stellar pilot.

I don't have nor have I flown either a Pacer or a Stinson but was looking at both as a possibility. Best I could come up with was either would be a good airplane. The Pacer penciled out to be less expensive to own and operate but has it's quirks such as right pilot door (but a nice back door), drops like a rock when power is pulled (which can be good or bad), shorter coupled and definite examples of conversions not done well on the gear.

The Stinson, well it was just hard to find an owner who doesn't like the Stinson. They fly well, stalls are supposedly benign, good performers, easier to land than a pacer. Downsides seem mostly to be the Franklin engines low TBO and fuel consumption. I thought the doors might be a bit tight for loading gear into the back. I'm sure owners will contradict that statement.

I'm willing to bet you'd be very happy with either. If at all possible, try to fly one of each.

That is one thing I really like with the pacer is the Lyc in it. And most likely I will never be at gross weight. I rarely take somebody with me and if I did take somebody with me it would be one person, full fuel, and some gear. I already plan on putting mods on it when I get a plane to make it take off in a shorter distance. I'm used to the one door thing with the cherokee, although two doors would be really nice at times. I've heard too the Stinsons have good cross wind performance.

I might as well throw in a little for you. When buying my plane I looked at a Stinson 108-3 with a 150 hp Franklin. I never flew in it and as it turned out the motor was bad. The Stinson was pretty comfortable to sit in. But after talking to the owner about getting parts for the franklin and the fuel consumption, I decided against it. I bought a '57 PA22/20-160 for $23,000 with a high time motor. I knew in advance that I would be overhauling the engine in about 100 hrs (turned out to be less than 50). While the engine was being overhauled I put VGs on and can tell you that they are the single best investment you can make for a pacer. The pacers don't have very good aeliron response at slow speed and the VGs pretty much take care of that. They lower the stall speed some as well. The only other mod I've done is get the STC for 8.50s from Svenn's Aviation. This STC is also good for 26in tires too. I've had 26in Goodyears on now for about 20 hrs and am very happy with the way they handle on the ground. They also make it easier to push the plane in and out of the hanger, not to mention easier for the plane to accelerate, and with the increased angle of incidence, take off shorter. Like someone mentioned earlier, I took the rear seat out and now I can put a pair of bicycles (tires and handlebars off) and all the camping gear my wife and I ever need. At gross weight @ sea level with a temp around 70 deg F, I use about 800' to get in the air and around 1500 to clear 50' obst. When I'm by myself, I can get in the air in about 400' on pavement and clear 50ft in about 1000'. Last week I landed with 12kts straight down the runway and stopped it before I passed the numbers. Be careful, they will absolutely land shorter than they can take off!! She will cruise at 118mph indicated while turning 2450rpms (yes that's with the 26's) burning just over 8gph. I like to fly along at around 1900-2000rpms at 95mph and burn around 6-7gph. Again, as mentioned before, bring someone with you that knows tube and fabric planes. Have them look at the frame behind the baggage area and under the seat and battery spaces . If it has an older O-320 motor with the smaller valves, make sure that the valve ad has been done. Oh, and last of all, no matter what you buy, have fun flying!!!