I'm looking for advice on buying a plane for two people. Primary mission is mountain flying in the French Alps, with landings on altiports (on bush wheels) and glaciers (on skis) at a density altitude range of 5000-11000 feet. Secondary mission is cross-country weekend trips over 500-1000nm distance from home base.

I prefer a taildragger (experienced in 180hp SuperCub with bush wheels), but the European peculiarities make the choice more restrictive:

- Low fuel consumption (<6gph), Mogas certified; as Avgas is expensive
- Range with two people > 800nm (fuel stops are expensive in time and money)
- Cruise speed > 110kts
- Low fixed and maintenance cost (annual budget $15000 for 100 flight hours including fuel)
- Foldable wings if possible
- Aircraft purchase price < $100'000

I have looked at a plethora of LSA aircraft, but I'm unsure whether the typical Rotax 912 ULS (100hp) has enough power for safe high-altitude flying (density altitude 5000-11000 feet) -- besides low usable weight.

Experimentals such as the Kitfox or Bearhawk seem better suited to mission, but I want to buy a ready-to-fly aircraft instead of kit building. I'm also not sure how experimentals are "accepted" by the authorities in Europe, and most models are simply not available on the used market over here.

Any thoughts or advice are appreciated.

Zorg

Stinson 108

Zorg wrote:........
- Low fuel consumption (<6gph), Mogas certified; as Avgas is expensive
- Range with two people > 800nm (fuel stops are expensive in time and money)
- Cruise speed > 110kts
- Low fixed and maintenance cost (annual budget $15000 for 100 flight hours including fuel)
- Foldable wings if possible
- Aircraft purchase price < $100'000
....

I doubt you're gonna find anything that meets your requirements.
6 gph, 110 knots, & 800NM range, AND suitable performance at up to 11,000' DA?
If you find something with the performance you require in your price range, you better at least figure on more fuel burn with less speed & a lot less range.

182 STOL driver wrote:Stinson 108

A Stinson will burn a hell of a lot more than 6gph and doesn't have a 800nm range.

robw56 wrote:

182 STOL driver wrote:Stinson 108

A Stinson wI'll burn a hell of a lot more than 6gph and doesn't have a 800nm range.

True but it does well on auto fuel

Seems like I should tweak requirements to a more realistic compromise.

What if I primarily want a "cheap-to-fly" bush aircraft and relax the cruising mission (range, speed)?

What's the experience with Rotax-powered bush planes (such as Kitfox) at high DA? Are 100hp enough for serious mountain flying with an LSA? The strips are similar to Mile Hi, albeit a bit higher (especially glaciers in winter).

I would think a Rans S-7 would do well. Courierguy on this site could tell you a lot more. He regularly lands his off airport at altitudes near 10k feet. Mile Hi is no problem for an S-7.

A friend of mine in Germany has a Pipistrl Virus with the 100hp Rotax and he plays in the Alps all the time.
I do not know what the specs. are and I do not know what models they have but it might be worth checking out.

Consider a Husky. There are several flying in Europe and the Alps.

Once you learn how to run the engine/prop, 6 GPH is doable. Not sure if there's an STC for mogas, but I know several O-360s run the stuff.

Plenty of performance for high landings....Thomas Dietrich lands at Mt Rosa ~ 14,000 with his.

Much more durable frame and good cruise speed.

A good used one is probably around 100,000 U.S.

Wings don't fold unless you hit a tree at cruise speed.

Send me a PM and I'll get you Thomas' email address.

MTV

Rans S-7

Isn't the favored bushplane of Europe the Jodel? (http://www.jodel.com/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodel)

Looks like a fun ski plane 2:00-2:30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7F-BsqfRK4

Zorg, besided the Cub and Husky there isn't really all that much stuff out there fitting your parameters. Both will fail on fuel burn or range or being STC'd for MOGAS. I have been to the French Alps in planes ranging from Cub to Husky, 160hp 172's, 180 horse 172's and Reims Hawk XP's (192 or 198 horse or so?), DR400's (Porsche & Standard Engine) and finally our Arrow IV.

Of course, for glacier ops none of the tricycles will really do and real Jodels are hard to find in good shape these days even here in the EU. Most of my time in Jodels was towing gliders and they are great airplanes with a lot of character. With the current market in Europe, you should be able to acquire a nice, low time plane for less than 100K, though. Spend the money saved on gas and things are good.

I'd also give a vote for a Citabria 7GCBC or a scout 8 GCBC. Scout will give you more range and a higher gross weight. Good performers.

Rans S-7 with a Big Bore Zipper kit on the 912. For folding wings perhaps a Kit Fox or a Just Highlander also with a Zipper.

jjbaker wrote:Zorg, besided the Cub and Husky there isn't really all that much stuff out there fitting your parameters. Both will fail on fuel burn or range or being STC'd for MOGAS. I have been to the French Alps in planes ranging from Cub to Husky, 160hp 172's, 180 horse 172's and Reims Hawk XP's (192 or 198 horse or so?), DR400's (Porsche & Standard Engine) and finally our Arrow IV.

Of course, for glacier ops none of the tricycles will really do and real Jodels are hard to find in good shape these days even here in the EU. Most of my time in Jodels was towing gliders and they are great airplanes with a lot of character. With the current market in Europe, you should be able to acquire a nice, low time plane for less than 100K, though. Spend the money saved on gas and things are good.

JJ nailed it, my RANS S-7S will perform great at those altitudes, solo, but not at 110 cruise, (knots!) and with a passenger. Leaving the fuel burn and the dollar amount out of the equation, the Husky probably comes the closest to meeting those parameters. It at least for sure has the power, range, and speed. Folding wings? Sure, once, as MTV so eloquently pointed out Knock that cruise speed down about 20 (or 30) knots and the range down to 5 or 6 hrs, and you have a lot more choices, more economical ones. Even then, 100k would probably not get it done, as in fly it away ,all pre built, get it done.

Thanks all for pointing me in the right direction.

Courierguy: Would you say 100hp is only enough for serious mountain flying if flying solo and with light luggage / fuel? Is the airframe stable enough for rugged strips? (I met a Kitfox owner who had a fatigue crack in his airframe from the many hard load cycles in glacier flying , at least he suspected so.)

Jodels look indeed like a great compromise for my mission, especially the Mascaret (D150). The 100hp O-200 engine can take Mogas, and it seems like a great strip aircraft, hauls its own weight and has a 10h range. They also seem very cheap (below $35'000).

Can this model used in mountain / glacier flying, or only the Mousqetaire (D-140)?

How would it compare to more modern STOL aircraft such as the Rans S7?

Would you be concerned to have wooden wings on rugged terrain? Especially given their general age.

Like every wooden wing aircraft, the Jodel would require a good pre-buy and evaluation by a knowledgeable person. Unless there is damage, the wooden wing will do just as well as any other material, the airplane just simply requires a bit different care and protection from the elements and mother nature. Once the "wood-eating hamster" moves in the fun stops.

Here's a cool website on Jodels, you've probably been to it already: http://jodel.com/

100 horse airplanes will perform, for example you could put a 150TW (Texas Conversion) to work with skis, but most of them get some extra power during the upgrade. However, you'll find that 150's will whistle from their last hole when above 12000 with two people on board, at least with the standard 200 engines. The bigger engines often mean reduced useful load with higher fuel burns, so its a tradeoff anyways. I almost got dinged in Innsbruck Austria after finding the 150 unable to get to 10K. I guess somewhere around 56,3 feet per hour was best climb, leaned out to the max. Passenger not happy, ATC not happy. Airplane not happy.

Kitfox's are well capable and are frequently seen in mountainous terrain, cheap to buy and easy to operate and insure. I'd wait for akavidflyer to chime in or visit his http://www.avidfoxflyers.com/ forum. Quite a few EU insurance underwriters go out of their way to exclude glacier and snow operations, so worth checking into if you are building time. Many strips will require training and checkouts prior to landing there. Speaking to the locals flying there is often the best choice.

I have no clue about Rans S7's at all, obviously a STOL machine with quite some capacity?

Good luck!

If I were in your position, I would look for a tailwheel Glastar with an O-360 in it. I think you could buy one and have it shipped to you within your budgeted amount. You won't get 6 gal. per hr. but it will do everything else that you want.
Charles

Hi all, I am new to this forum and like to introduce myself first. I am an engineer, have a Husky on RF8001 Skis, a Turbine Bird Dog and love backcountry Aviation. I hold an Glider and Flight instructor rating, Mountain Rating and I am a Flight Examiner. Have flown many different types, from a Mong Racer to the B 707.
I have taken the Husky all across the US from Idaho to Mexico than to the Bahamas, then across the pond to Europe. Took it down to Egypt, Sudan and Kenya. My favorite is the Alps, the Pyrenees and the small strips in Italy, which definitely have the best food all over.

I started Husky flying in 1988 and did most of the European Type certificates for the Husky as well as numerous STCs. When joining the Ski flying gang in the Alps, I build and certified the RF8001 retract skis, since only heavy retract skis were available and these skis were not ideal for glacier flying. The Rf8001 are also FAA approved for the Husky.

Before the Husky I had Maules, which offered more cabin space, but the Husky has since been the almost ideal plane for me. It runs on cargas with only a few changes to the fuelsystem. The range is 7 hrs plus at 107 KTS, Thats Lissabon to Carcassone ( about 620 NM ) with no wind and you land with 1,5 hrs fuel on board. Thats almost the range of my bladder. A Super Cub can only dream about such a performance, well it will land a tad shorter. The Glasstar Import, as mentioned above, is not easy since the US Experimentals are not covered by ICAO rules and need special permissions to fly outside of the US. Otherwise the Glasstar is a good performing aircraft. Not sure how this landing gear will ho with skis in deep snow.

You may want to check out the Savage Outback. The parent company is Zlin and the factory is in Italy.
It pretty much does everything you ask except the folding wings and unlike some of the other aircraft mentioned here, it is a true STOL aircraft. Designed from the ground up to be a backcountry aircraft.
Born and bred in the Alps. You may get a better exchange rate and you won't have to pay shipping.