Wow, so many great choices. Husky sounds like a very capable and versatile aircraft, which I could keep for a long time. The newer ones (B and C models) seem to bust my $100k budget though.

As first-time buyer, I should admit that I'm still quite confused about the expected total costs of ownership for the various types proposed here.

Purchase price and fuel costs are straightforward to estimate, but what about maintenance (engine/prop fund), model-specific depreciation, and insurance?

As I said, I anticipate 70-150 hours per year, of which 50% would be mountain ops, the rest cross-country.

I see three rough classes of airplanes (correct me if I'm wrong):

1. Modern "full" SuperCub-type bush plane with medium-sized (160-180hp) Lycoming engine: Husky, Maule

2. Modern LSA-class bush plane with (80-100hp) Rotax engines or similar: Savage Cub, Kitfox, Rans S-7

3. Older "full" planes with small (100-135hp) Lycoming engine which can be repurposed for bush flying: Jodel, ...?

Are there huge differences in hourly costs between these three classes?

Owners, would you mind sharing your approximately hourly all-in operating costs?

Knock your hoped for cruise speed down to 85-90 MPH, get a skinny passenger, and most of the LSA's mentioned will do want you want for half the hourly rate of the bigger planes. I don't have hard numbers, I don't care (!) but I usually show less then 4 GPH, often barely over 3, and on regular mo gas. The down side is the slower speed and less payload, no free lunch, but I still get to fly the high country on skis. 9,950' my highest ski landing, no sweat (15 degrees that day). Remember that slow speed means more hours in the log book

Courierguy: What are you roughly estimating for your annual costs? Are we talking $70-100 per hour for an LSA vs. $150-200
all-in for 100-150 hours per year?

Luckily, both pilot and passenger (but unfortunately also their wallet) are relatively skinny.

Figure 5 GPH mo gas (REGULAR mo gas) fuel burn, that will be enough extra to cover oil changes and other basic maintenance. That's it, for me anyway. About as cheap as it gets. I don't worry about engine rebuild costs, and factor that in, I'm a pilot not an accountant I keep it at home so no hanger costs or folding wing needs. I can go anywhere a Husky can, and also many places they won't, just can't go as fast or haul the weight, though I do have roughly the internal volume.

Snowbirdxx wrote: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.

Welcome to the forum!

I just cannot resist...what's a mountain rating??

Akt

Zorg, and all,

As Thomas pointed out in his post, European rules for experimental aircraft differ from US rules.

So, before you get too far down this street, you'll want to find out if airplane's such as the Rans, Kitfox, etc can be legally operated under JAA regulations, and under what circumstances.

MTV

In many EU countries there are specific add on ratings authorizing certain activities. CVFR, Night, Towing, Aerobatics, all require some sort of training and certification (actually licensing in terms of add ons) which enable the holder of such ratings to exercise more privileges. Flying in mountainous terrain such as the Alps does not require a specific license, per se, however operations on some registered altiports will require training and endorsements, possibly checkouts and endorsements. I seem to remember a certain field where you had no insurance coverage despite the endorsement and had to sign waivers releasing responsibility from the operator of the airfield. Can't remember where the heck this was... its a long time ago and I was flying and dropping in different countries of the EU.

EASA regulations on light sport aircraft are getting more manageable over the next few years and decades, however France does have a habit to unhinge EU Law and replace it with stricter national laws where and when they deem it prudent. Under shortly past EASA regs, its was literally impossible to obtain a IR in Germany, with most of our students shipping to England or other EU countries. Being involved with a LS engine manufacturer in Germany for a while had me flying Italian registered airplanes which could not be operated or tested under German law. Italy was most lenient on such things for a long time.

Many of our airplanes are registered abroad through LLC's which makes MX and AD compliance a bit lighter on the wallet and stomach. This is set to increase, despite the full promises of rewrites on MX & Airframe certification. Feel free to email or PM for information on registering - I can't decipher where you plan to register and base the aircraft, but there are always ways to make things possible, even under stringent EASA/ JAA/ JAR environments.

Rule # 1 when dealing with EASA and EU Aviation authorities is to realize that the bureaucrats have made their own system so bureaucratic that even the bureaucrats can't do their jobs anymore because of all the bureaucracy. It sounds silly until you experience the "monkey do circus" attached to many things regarding aviation and even personal life.

Zorg wrote:Wow, so many great choices. Husky sounds like a very capable and versatile aircraft, which I could keep for a long time. The newer ones (B and C models) seem to bust my $100k budget though.

As first-time buyer, I should admit that I'm still quite confused about the expected total costs of ownership for the various types proposed here.

Purchase price and fuel costs are straightforward to estimate, but what about maintenance (engine/prop fund), model-specific depreciation, and insurance?

As I said, I anticipate 70-150 hours per year, of which 50% would be mountain ops, the rest cross-country.

I see three rough classes of airplanes (correct me if I'm wrong):

1. Modern "full" SuperCub-type bush plane with medium-sized (160-180hp) Lycoming engine: Husky, Maule

2. Modern LSA-class bush plane with (80-100hp) Rotax engines or similar: Savage Cub, Kitfox, Rans S-7


3. Older "full" planes with small (100-135hp) Lycoming engine which can be repurposed for bush flying: Jodel, ...?

Are there huge differences in hourly costs between these three classes?

Owners, would you mind sharing your approximately hourly all-in operating costs?

I would add an additional sub-class.
Modern LSA bush planes with greater than 100 horse engines.
Carbon Cubs, Savage Outbacks, Just Stol with 914 or bigger, Some Kitfox 5 and 7 with O235, Bushhawks et al.
Basically Higher gross aircraft certified with lower gross weights to fit in the LSA category.

It is hard to beat the Rotax engines for ease of use and low maintenance costs. Realistic 4gph fuel burn average, up to 100 hour oil changes, inexpensive filters and plugs, and a wide range of available props. 2000 TBO is very attainable. Add to that the easily added, reasonably priced big bore kits and you have a pretty decent power plant. There's a reason the own about 80% of the experimental LSA market.
At european fuel prices, that translates to a LOT of savings over the year.

As has been beaten to death in numerous threads, There is no perfect Bush plane. It depends on what you plan to do with it on the majority of your flights. If you plan on loading it to the gills with gear and 2 people to head high into the mountains, I would look more at the Carbon Cub, Husky big engine end. But it will cost you considerably more each flight.
If that is just an occasional flight profile, then the S-7, Highlander, Savage, Kitfox route might fit the bill better.

Zorg, there is someone doing exactly what you want to do, on a lower budget, and with a high level of success over a long period.

A French builder of the Zenair CH-701 has equipped his aircraft with a Continental C-90 engine and tailwheel landing gear. He flies DAILY in the French and Swiss Alps, from snow, ice, glaciers and other difficult terrain. There are numerous photos of this aircraft on the Zenith Aircraft website. http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo19-alps.html

The slightly larger and more untilitarian version of this aircraft, the CH-750, would be an ideal candidate for this mission. Two large people, a large baggage capacity, and exceptionally good STOL capabilities.The 750 can be built for under $30,000 US, or built from a VERY quick-built kit for under $50,000. The aircraft can use the 100HP O-200 engine, or a lightened 150HP O-320 for better high altitude performance. Both of these engines are the world benchmark for reliability in their respecive horsepower classes.

The 701, 750 and larger 801 are all aluminum, extremely simple to build and are better suited to be stored outdoors than a fabric or composite aircraft. Although they are not nearly as "pretty" as many other aircraft, their utility and functionality give them the same "beauty" as a Jeep off-road vehicle (for the same reason)

IMHO you will not find a better balance of cost, performance, utility, and functionality in the environment you are looking to operate in.

Too slow to meet his perceived needs. It'd be a good candidate, along with a slew of other LSA's, if he could back off on the need for speed a bit. The range would be a problem also, especially with the 0-200 or the 0-320.

Herman Geiger used a 135 hp Super Cub for the first successful European 7,800 ft glacier landings on May 10th, 1952. So that's probably still the configuration of flying machine to start with - Cub, Husky, Maule...

The French schools mostly use D140 Mousquetaire which has a sea level load capacity equal to its empty weight.

Incidentally, does anyone know if anyone in the new world was doing this before Geiger? Anyway, his book Alpine Pilot is a great read, full of priceless quotes like "although it is possible to protect china, even so, one cannot wrap up a builder so well that he can be dropped without risk" and "total uncertainty and violent criticisms... had to be brushed aside, for fear compromises the safety of an action".

N-Jacko wrote:Herman Geiger used a 135 hp Super Cub for the first successful European 7,800 ft glacier landings on May 10th, 1952. So that's probably still the configuration of flying machine to start with - Cub, Husky, Maule...
.

That was 63 years ago. It's possible that there have been a few newer aircraft built since then that better fit his original requirements.-

- Low fuel consumption (<6gph), Mogas certified; as Avgas is expensive (Super Cub---Nope)
- Range with two people > 800nm (fuel stops are expensive in time and money) (Super Cub---Nope)
- Cruise speed > 110kts (Super Cub--- possibly but not likely and not at <6GPH)
- Low fixed and maintenance cost (annual budget $15000 for 100 flight hours including fuel) (Super Cub-- Nope)
- Foldable wings if possible (No again)
- Aircraft purchase price < $100'000 (Possible )

Granted, the original list is a bit of a stretch. (OK, a big stretch) But the Super Cub, for all it's good points, doesn't fit the list at all.

Zorg,

The airplane that is going to hit most of the requirements on your list is a Husky.

I have owned 2 Husky's, a Super Cub, Citabria, Dad had a Scout, I fly my friends Maule a lot and have owned or flown most of the other certified airplanes that would be considered for such a mission.

I have no experience with the Rans, Kitfox or the other experimental's others suggest.

With my experience in these various certified airplanes I strongly feel in the certified group of choices the Husky is the best.

Tom Detrich has done incredible things in the Alps with his Husky. Thomas is the person to talk to. Listen to what he says, he really knows his stuff.

Kurt

N-Jacko wrote:Herman Geiger used a 135 hp Super Cub for the first successful European 7,800 ft glacier landings on May 10th, 1952.
Incidentally, does anyone know if anyone in the new world was doing this before Geiger?

Bob Reeve, known as the "Glacier Pilot", was landing aircraft on glaciers as high as 6000 feet msl as early as 1934. In 1937, he supported the Washburn Expedition with his Fairchild 51:

"Reeve received a letter from Bradford Washburn in January 1937 asking if he could fly a party of climbers to the glacier at the base of Mount Lucania in Canada. Reeve agreed to undertake the task. In April, the bulk of the supplies were flown in. When he flew Washburn and Robert Bates to the site, the weather had turned unseasonably warm and the plane sank up to its belly in slush. It was over a week before Reeve could take off, after the temperature had dropped sufficiently for a crust of ice to form over the slush. The trip was described by Reeve as the "most hazardous" of his career, but he had set a new world record of 8,750 feet (2,670 m) for the highest landing on skis, more than 1,800 feet (550 m) higher than any in either the Arctic or Antarctic".

Reeve extended his glacier landings into summer by landing his Fairchild on skis on the mud flats near Valdez, Alaska, loading it, then taking off on the mud to the glaciers, supporting miners.

Reeve went on to found Reeve Aleutian Airways, which operated passenger and freight service out the Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutian Chain for many decades. He was an interesting character.

Another connection to the glacier flying business was that Bob Reeve's daughter Roberta married Don Sheldon, who operated a flying service out of Talkeetna, Alaska for many years. See the book "Wager With the Wind" for his story. Their daughter (Bob Reeve's granddaughter) still operates an air service out of Talkeetna, landing on the glaciers of Mt. McKinley regularly.

MTV

Thanks MTV, that looks like a nice book for the days when we can't see across the runway here...

You can get a turbocharger upgrade for a Rotax 912....
That should solve your problems with DA, provided you can relax your range and possibly fuel consumption requirements a little.
And provided you are prepared to go homebuilt in the EU. I know lots of people who have done, but personally I've no idea how hard it is... I presume there aren't any certified 912 turbo birds which fit your bill.

You might want to look at the Aerotrek 220. My wife owns one and it meets all of your criteria although she hasn't landed it at the altitudes that you mentioned. It is made in Czechoslovakia and distributed world wide including the US for less than $100k. Datum makes a hydraulic ski that will fit it. It is a fun airplane to fly:

Yesterday, at 12,800', fully loaded with the fold up mountain bike, camping gear, and 30 gallons of fuel, I opened the throttle and held it until I was at 13,500'. The ROC was between 350 and 400 fpm.

NO turbo, (or it's weight, added complexities, and heat issues) just a 78" Prince Prop and a Zipper BigBore 912S engine mod. Keep it as simple and as light as possible.

Snowbirdxx wrote: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.

Thomas

Welcome to the Backcountrypilot site. I strongly encourage your future input to BCP as your advise to us on the Flyhusky site has been so evaluable. A lot of the guys on this site ultimately make it up to Alaska where I have a chance to meet with them. Zane is the web site sponsor and does an excellent job.

For those of you who don't know Thomas, he is a leader in Glacier flying in Europe. I own a set of his RF8001 retractable skis and other of his products and look forward to his active participation on this site.

His suggestion of the Husky as the best option for flying in the French Alps is seconded by me. If you can find one for under $100k it meets all of the requirements and is a great glacier airplane.

Nizina