Deputydog wrote:I currently have a 180 and its the perfect airplane for me and my mission of backcountry flying. Lots of room (I'm 6'5" and portly) so most of the tandem seating type aircraft are pretty cramped for me.

And it's a 1950's 180, nice! Love those old cessna draggers still plying the skies. Would not be oposed to an older plane, I would like to fly a classic, but it adds some challenges for a new pilot and first time buyer most likely.

Rob wrote:Judging by your mission 'goal' I'd say you'd do yourself a huge favor by forgetting the end game airplane and buying the cleanest best example of a Taylorcraft or J3 you can find. Fly the absolute snot out of it for a year, I mean at least a 400hr year, sell it for what you paid for it, and then buy what you want.

Do not buy a CC anything for your first airplane if you truly want to learn how to make a wing sing. They will mask a metric shit ton of bad habits with their exceptional power and wing loading, but they can't fix poor flight skills or directional control. They will mask energy management with brute horsepower, but that doesn't get you flying straight, or help worth a darn when you get a bad hand dealt. A Tcrate will make you work for it, and force you to fly right. That is transferable to anything with wings.

Take care, Rob

What about a first and maybe last plane being a 180?

As a couple of others have opined, I'd get a 182. If you only have one airplane, you'll want to use it for more than just backcountry flying. Maybe I'm just not competent, but x-winds in a TW are always a consideration and a 182 will mitigate that. $250K would get you a sick bird, for sure.

I have owned several of the airplanes you listed. I currently have an RV-7a (go fast and far and land on pavement) and a Husky (go slow and far and land anywhere). If I had to pair it down to just one airplane, I would sell them both and get a 182.

As far as the ones you listed, they're all great aircraft. The Maule's can be challenging on pavement, but are delightful off field. The others seem more docile.

I'm not that far from you and if you want to come over and have a look and maybe go up, I'd be game.

Jim

CubbyChubby wrote:

GB wrote:Same as getting good on a motorcycle if you can't afford to wreck it, you'll never get fast riding it.

I've spent some time on motorcycles, broke a leg even though I rode pretty conservatively. It happens. My plane will be insured so I can "afford" to wreck it but I prefer to avoid wrecks and will fly in a manner that will reduce the chances of that. I have even highly considered a trike for that simple reason, its what ive trained on, it's more forgiving, and honestly at my age and experience level it may be along long time before I land anywhere that would require the performance of a cub. I'm still working on depth perception lol. I can afford to buy a plane but I can't afford to spend $10's of thousands on renting and then still have the money to buy one. I am happy in an old plane with just steam gauges as long as it's a safe decent plane. I just want to fly low and slow.

Sounds like a 182 would be perfect.

Best handling tailwheel plane?
Carbon Cubs are amazing, side by side Cessna 170B with 180HP is very a nice airplane to fly and handles great.

For your mission? A lightweight older 180.

But since you are a new pilot , I agree with the advice, get a 182, learn to fly it well in the backcountry, then the transition to a tailwheel will be easy.

And you will be safe in the backcountry.

CubbyChubby wrote:New pilot, zero time in tailwheel, only real interest is learning to fly in and out of backcountry. High DA environment.
Would like some opinions on what I should be looking at and what I should pass on with the level of experience that I dont have lol.

Some of the planes I have looked into.

Cubcrafters
Maule
Aviat
Kitfox
Cessnas 180, 185

I am leaning toward a cubcrafters right now but I do like the roominess of a cessna. I would like to have a plane that can get on and off the ground super short but who knows how long it will be before I have the skills set to be able to even start getting into the backcountry. For that reason should I be learning in a cessna? I like the side by side seating of the Cessnas and Maules but I have read Maules can be a handful on the ground and in crosswind and for that reason insurance is higher than other draggers due to incident rates. The cessnas are expensive now and comparing what your $$ will get you against a cubcrafters it seems like the cub is the better deal, but no side by side seating option. What backcountry capable planes are best for an older (50's) but new pilot wishing to learn myself into the mountains and backcountry. Would be nice to fly with the wife and dogs now and then that why the appeal of a side by side. Am I crazy at my age and inexperience to even learn tailwheel or should I look for a backcountry capable trike?

Thanks for any input you may offer.

1. You're not crazy to try learning to fly in the mountains/backcountry in a tailwheel airplane in your 50s. All doable with the proper training and proficiency. It is going to take some time to get comfortable flying conventional gear airplanes. Really several 100s of hours. The more difficult strips and weather conditions will come with time in training and your risk tolerance/skill ratio. All doable in your 50s. I am 56 and feel I fly better now than I did 30 years ago.

2. Airplanes for stated mission - You got a wide range on the list from 2 seat tandem airplanes to 4-6 seat monster haulers. I agree with the other posts about finding a trainer tailwheel to get started and then ultimately moving on to the forever airplane. As far as what plane is the best handling tailwheel airplane in the backcountry. I think it is really hard to beat a Skywagon. What is not to love about them. The performance speaks for itself - cruise speed, comfort, ability to get in and out of some rugged short field strips, and hauls a good load. Not that it matters (but it does) - but Skywagons area also beautiful airplanes. I don't have any time in Maules or Bearhawks - but those airplanes are similarly qualified performance wise. I don't think I have ever met an unhappy Skywagon owner. The 182 will get the job done but I think flying tailwheels is just a lot more fun and I prefer the greater prop clearance. That being said - a later model 182 is more comfortable, and costs a lot less to insure. Performance is similar although it is amazing how much drag the nose wheel produces. The Skywagon is always a little faster IMHO. Put some bigger tires on the 182 and you'll slow it down even more. Also look at a 206 if you are doing to go the the route of a Trike. More utility/load options and have big rear double doors would be awesome.

3. Budget - owning an airplane costs a lot - not just up front costs but yearly maintenance and insurance/hangar add up. I think you could find a nice 180/185 for 250K but you will it likely cost about 200-250/hour to fly the airplane. Maybe more if you have a lot deferred maintenance.

For me - I just had to fly a tailwheel airplane. The Skywagon checks all the boxes on my mission. That's why I have owned mine over 15 years now.


Josh

Get your tailwheel training out of the way before you buy….

A pretty clean upper-mid-time ‘54 C180 JUST came up for sale on Barnstormer for about half your budget. I’d be all over it if I was shopping.

CubbyChubby wrote:What about a first and maybe last plane being a 180?

I'm sure opinions will vary greatly, and that's great. More-so if it helps you come to an ultimate goal and course of action.

I have a reasonably decent example of a CE180. I also have a reasonably decent example of a PA-18. When it came time for our son to learn to fly, and later build time and skills, we let him run through the pvt in the standard 150 - 172 stuff, complex in the 210, and then we bought a very nice Taylorcraft for him to build time in. He was initially heartbroken that he wouldn't get to fly the cub until he had a few hundred in the Tcart. Now he's upset that we ultimately sold it off once it fulfilled it's purpose (me too). He learned to jump the rocks from the coast to our neighborhood in that fire breathing 65hp dragon. He learned how to slow an airplane down to be kind to those amazing shinn cable brakes. He learned how to spin and unspin it in a very honest platform. Although he was initially saddened to have to 'step down' to a 'training platform' I can guarantee you he's a better pilot for it, and am certain he would agree.
In '16 he took that bird to the Yuma Airshow with the local EAA chapter. By the end of the evening the wind had come up to probably 16-18 ish. He asked if he could prop it and go home, What's taking you so long, I barked (patience is not one of my virtues).... I never doubted him, and as I recall, he was the only one that got out that night. That's not bragging or cavalier bravado, that's the simple difference in a competent proficient pilot and not.

The CE182 is a fantastic bird. Many have called it the first 'real airplane' in the Cessna line up. I had A 182 for my first airplane, and while I didn't ground loop my first cub, I had two off the runway excursions on the ferry home, after hundreds of hours in the 182, Which most certainly would have terminated in full blown ground loops if I had just hung in a little longer. Instead being that both instances where tiny muni airports, I just let the thing run loose. Then I hit Grants NM just after sunset where the wind was some stupid number across the runway. The light clicked and I landed on the road that was on perpendicular to the strip. That airplane was a pig and had a sickly engine, so although it was an 18, it probably had half the performance of a J3 and I was better for that. So I guess what I'm saying re; the 182, is that just like the CC will mask the energy management deficiencies, nose wheel can mask the directional control deficiencies. A great instructor can mitigate all of these things, but again, the lite under powered over winged tail wheel airplanes were used as trainers for so many years for a reason. They just work

We see this a lot lately in the ag world. New kids coming up that want to hot seat a turbine. Some are super sharp, growing up in the computer age and all. But as the accident records reflect, that just doesn't replace the building blocks, that might be useful to gather in a more forgiving platform.


Take care, Rob

Cubby, if you happen to be in Denver area, KEIK is 27 NNW and I can take you up in STOL/backcountry 56 182- good prop clearance and light OR a Husky to show you differences.

CubbyChubby wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:What’s your budget?

That’s a factor


Pilatus porter is nice

So is a 7AC champ

Budget is a factor

But off the cuff if you have some jingle in your pocket, and your looking a wife and dogs plane, 185 is very hard to beat

As far as age, it’s more mental ability in my opinion as a instructor, age is a a slight factor but not really notable, teaching a surfer to fly tailwheel is much easier than a engineer

But for a low cost sweetheart plane, yeah the 108 rocks, just won’t get the performance all around and IFR/floats/ski abilities of a skywagon

My budget ($250k some of that on a note) doesn't include a Porter although if I won the lottery I would be looking at one in my hanger next to my Beaver next to my cub lol.

I'm glad to hear that a surfer may learn faster than an engineer, I would fall more into the surfer category, my instructor, he's an engineer, he is an amazing pilot and an amazing instructor and we both want to learn tailwheel. If/when I bought one I would let him learn in it.

It seems people who can make another object do what they want do better, surfer, motorcycle riders, skydivers are especially easy to train, etc


For that budget I’d just hit the easy button and get a C180/5 or maybe a bigger Maule


Like the others said it’s all about the training, get a accomplished tailwheel instructor with a good amount of time in type and don’t just train to the endorsement, maybe get a bunch of dual training in your plane for your instrument or something too

I initially learned to fly and did my first solo in a 7AC, built my commercial hours in a 4 place tailwheel I bought, later flew all sorts of stuff, if I ever sold my 185 I would probably get a PA18, however it would be a large downgrade as my cruise performance would take a dive, also tandem is fun, but not fun for all pax not fun for a long x/c, I’d also lack the IMC abilities of the wagon, and with where 185 prices are compared to when I bought mine, I doubtfully would ever buy back in

Point is if you want abilities of a 185 a PA18 is at best a second airplane, for your wife wife and two dogs, unless the wife is a tiny Asian woman and the dogs are teacup poodles, a 18 is going to be a wee bit tight

flyingjack wrote:Cubby, if you happen to be in Denver area, KEIK is 27 NNW and I can take you up in STOL/backcountry 56 182- good prop clearance and light OR a Husky to show you differences.

I would be all over that.

CubbyChubby wrote:I have before, and will again. Don't see them come up used and not sure how to navigatre the build. The only thing worse than me building a kit would be someone with my skill level building one for me. That I am sure is a whole other thread on how to locate the right builder for the kit in mind. They do look like a plane that offers what I would like to fly and I wouldn't be opposed to navigating the build build process I have quite a bit of experience navigating commercial tour boat builds. Do you have any experience with their handling on the ground compared to the Maule or the Husky?

Not sure what you are referring to here? The Bearhawk?

Rob wrote:Judging by your mission 'goal' I'd say you'd do yourself a huge favor by forgetting the end game airplane and buying the cleanest best example of a Taylorcraft or J3 you can find. Fly the absolute snot out of it for a year, I mean at least a 400hr year, sell it for what you paid for it, and then buy what you want.

Do not buy a CC anything for your first airplane if you truly want to learn how to make a wing sing. They will mask a metric shit ton of bad habits with their exceptional power and wing loading, but they can't fix poor flight skills or directional control. They will mask energy management with brute horsepower, but that doesn't get you flying straight, or help worth a darn when you get a bad hand dealt. A Tcrate will make you work for it, and force you to fly right. That is transferable to anything with wings.

Take care, Rob

I was going to post and say there are no shortcuts. But this probably is one. You would actually learn to fly first. Buy the best one you can, it will be the cheapest.

I learnt in a 172 at 50. Bought my 170 and learnt to fly that. At ten years and 1200 hrs I am probably as comfortable in it as I could have been after a 400 hr year in a tcart.

Whatever you do just buy something and fly it. Talking about it is not getting you any closer.

I can't speak on what others are saying but for us, I needed a 4-place to train my son and it would be a bonus if I could use the same plane for his IR. We found it in a Stinson 108-3. He gets TW training which makes great pilots, full IR panel, and nearly 1000 lb payload. We operate out of a crushed gravel, 1700', narrow runway. These Stinsons land like warm butter too !

But, flying a classic turns you into a mechanic wether you like it or not. Finding mechanics is HARD right now, don't kid yourself. You cant just drop off these airplanes somewhere local and pick it up the next day. It doesn't work like this. I use an old timer mechanic but has fickle hours and is one who supervises your work while he mostly stands around. I feel luck to have him. One cool benefit is now I don't mind tearing apart stuff including our recent 67' Mustang V8 engine.

Good luck,

Merry Christmas and Happy Shwarma to all. Thank you for all of the great advice. I think I have narrowed it down to a Cessna but which model I am still going to need a bit more time to get that right. For those still here, what are your thoughts on a 180 amphib? I like the idea of a 180 with a float kit and the ability to learn that flying as well in the future.

180 with a Float Kit is a great plane. Same with a 185 with a Float Kit. If you think that might be in your future make sure you buy one with the kit installed.

MW

If you're going to go down the Amphib pathway - go with a later model C185. Also would recommend finding one with an IO550 and wingtip extensions but you just upped the costs both in acquisition, maintenance, insurance, and training. The insurance is really expensive for Amphibs - straight floats is cheaper. The later model 185s have high gross weight limits. Certainly you won't be disappointed with a highly modded upgraded 185 but I think you'll be spending a lot more than 250K for a nice one.



Josh

Do you really want to be running in the uppity 185 crowd?

Roll in the dirt, bite your fingernails, fly a shitbox maule.

Easy to get distracted since there are so many great sides to aviation. If you end up with a 180 or 185, just make sure it has a float kit in case you go down that path in the future. But learning to fly and manage the tw should be the main focus for the first couple hundred hours. Poco a poco.

At my flying club the Champ rents for $75/ hour wet I think. It used to be cheaper. Rent the beater to get some tw time then jump into the deep end with a tail wheel Cessna . Doesn’t need to be all fancy, just clean airframe and safe.

I seem to be the only one here that thinks it is easier said then done to buy/sell planes “for what you paid for them”. Too many question marks and unforeseen maintenance especially the first year.

CubbyChubby wrote:New pilot, zero time in tailwheel, only real interest is learning to fly in and out of backcountry. High DA environment.
Would like some opinions on what I should be looking at .....I am leaning toward a cubcrafters right now..... Would be nice to fly with the wife and dogs now and then .

Regardless of mission, you're in Colorado Springs which is up around 6,000 MSL.
That dictates a fairly high performance airplane if you're gonna fly in the summer.
And if you wanna fly with "the wife and dogs", that pretty much dictates a 4 seater.
And back country dictates (IMHO) fairly sturdy fixed gear.
So you narrowed down the choices quite a bit.

I own a C180 and love it, some would say your search could start and end there.
But there's also the 182, or maybe an up-engined 170, 172, or 175.
There are several Maule models that fit the bill, they even make a nose-dragger.
Or an up-engined Stinson 108, I've seen some pretty reasonably priced ones with a 360 or even a 470 in them.

I don't think it matters if you start t/w training now or later, as far as the eventual skills acquired goes.
Sooner might be better than later, as far as not having to unlearn any bad habits.
And as others have pointed out, it might be better to save both time & money by skipping the "starter airplane".