You know what, I made a mistake. It is a PA-20 not a PA-12. That is the four seat version with conventional gear.

JC wrote:

Student Pilot wrote:So what would a typical Backcountry Airstrip over there be like? Of the 200 odd strips I use here the shortest would be just under 300 metres and longest near 800 metres, most being one way. The heights would vary between just above sea level to nearly 5,000 amsl, with the average around 3,500.

I'd be flying into the Adirondack Mountains. Highest peak is Mt. Marcy at 5,400 ft. Strips throughout the Adirondack Park seem to vary in size.

Most likely I'd be carrying in camping gear and 1 or both sons.

The idea of exentually putting floats and/or skis on it would increase the number of available landing/camping spots immensely.

(Not certain how much $ this will affect the insurance.)

Anyhow, I'm beginning to think the Maule M4 might fit this mission better but certainly open to other ideas. Would the Maule handle this best? Or possibly a C-170? PA-12? Those are the price ranges I would be shooting for. Hopefully $35-$40,000 for a decent TSMO plane.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/MAULE-M4 ... enameZWDVW

Hey JC

I strongly second a vote for the PA-12.
That is the plane I was searching for before I ran into the ugly green 170.
I used to fly a Piper J-5 for several years. Got it all the way to Alaska once. Problem was it only had 85 hp. and fuel in only the right wing. Made for a sore thumb from pushing the on stick to stay level on a long X-country.

Nice thing about the PA-12 format is that ya get a real door that you can more easily get into, and also ya can get out of it without falling on the back or your head as I have seen some old cubers do.

Lastly it is also legally a three holer, so ya can take both sons if they are not tooo big.

JC
I would probably vote for the PA12 over the Citabria also, because of the extra room factor. I had a Super Cub, but after getting my float rating in a PA12, the extra room was most appreciated, also the PA12 I flew in had a modified door that was even eaier to get in and out. Now my real suggestion is that if you want to float it, get something with 2 doors, it will making docking much simpler and in my opinion be safer in case of a flip-over landing, for egress purposes. We are moving from Illinois to a lake home in North-West Ontario in a couple of weeks and next spring I have decided to take the C185 up and put it on straight floats (still undecided on which ones). The fuel consumption stinks, but it is a great load carrier and will be good for hauling an outboard, fishing equipment and people (not my suggestion for your mission). For wheel flying purposes you can't beat the fun of one of the tandems. You are at an exciting point in your flying life and will enjoy aquiring a new toy. Good luck and keep us updated.

I owned a 7eca and lived in Caldwell ID at the time. I went to some back strips and had no problem, but I was solo when ever I did.

I loved that plane, great g ratings and a ball to fly. Ever after having that plane I have not liked yoke setups near as much.

Right now I am 30 hours into getting my PPL

I hereby take back everything I said about the M4 being inexpensive, at least for you. While it impedes on a host of other, contentious threads, I think the M4 would be a poor choice for someone in your circumstance for the following reasons:

The insurance will startle you. Unless you are getting your PPL in a taildragger, getting insured in a M4 will rip the very heart out of your financial estate and leave you the proud owner of a powerful plane that costs as much to maintain as a small child, and which you don't know how to fly.

With low hours, you'll need to be insured.

After your first insurance claim you'll have to sell a kidney to get coverage for the next six months.

By the time you build enough hours to actually be capable of flying into mountain strips, the operational costs of a M4 will have reduced you to eating wet catfood only on special holidays, and then roughing it the rest of the time.

While there are at least two schools of thought on this, I'm a firm believer that you'll fly more and learn more in a small plane with marginal power. Lots of power is always nice, and at times it's essential, but it won't teach you much about what the air is doing, and it always costs. The operating cost of a M4 (or any other powerful airplane) is going to be easily twice as much as a lesser plane, and all the while you're learning less, and flying less.

If it were me I'd pick the plane I could afford to fly a couple hundred hours a year in, then when you have some time under your belt, start looking for a good backcountry plane.

Ravi,

That sounds like good advice and helps me refocus in on the immediate mission instead of the one further down the road. That now would be to get as many hours as possible. What you wrote helped me clear up some things. I hadn't taken that stuff into account.

I know of a Champ flying club near me. It costs minimal to join and approx. $45/hr wet. That would probably be the best way for me to get my hours way up and not get socked with high insurance.

How many hours would I probably need before insurance costs would be low enough to make it feasible to buy my own plane? 100? 200?

Or instead of going the Champ Club route, what might be the best tail dragger for me to buy to put time on?

I definitely would prefer to fly with a stick. What are the least expensive planes like this?


I appreciate the help.

ravi wrote:If it were me I'd pick the plane I could afford to fly a couple hundred hours a year in, then when you have some time under your belt, start looking for a good backcountry plane.

Which gets us back to the original question on the post.

A little Citabria will make an excellent first airplane. Easy to fly but requiring finesse and technique to make it fly well. Relatively inexpensive to own and operate, and resale value holding steady. I'm assuming you've never owned an airplane before, but, for every dollar you PLAN on spending... Figure minimum of ten out of your wallet by the time you're done.

Become well versed and proficient in the Citabria and the move up to any bigger, more powerful conventional geared aircraft will be fairly simple and a non-event. Lot to be said for actually learning to fly an airplane, and understand why things work and happen the way they do, than just be good at jamming the throttle forward and letting the engine do all the deciding for you. Better you are at making an airplane do what you want it to do, the more fun you'll have.

Gump

JC wrote:Ravi,

How many hours would I probably need before insurance costs would be low enough to make it feasible to buy my own plane? 100? 200?

Or instead of going the Champ Club route, what might be the best tail dragger for me to buy to put time on?

I appreciate the help.

For me I think it was about 25 hours before there was any kind of discount. I don't think it was a very big one though. Also any other ratings you can get will make it go down further.

I will advocate Taylorcrafts, great airplanes, and they sip the gas. I hear Champs, and Cheifs are good too. If you are wanting something a little bigger, I believe that Pacers are some of the biggest bang for your buck. I know a number of good pilots in Alaska that will take their Pacers most places an average Cub pilot will go.

$45/hr wet is actually a pretty damn good deal on any rental plane, let alone a taildragger. I say go join that Champ club and fly the hell out of it. I sure would if there was one nearby.

Edit to say: Ravi's post is the most rational yet entertaining I've read in a while.

JC: I must agree with our trusty janitor, go with the club!!! If it is really 45$ with gas, man you'll never beat that. get some renters insurance.
Ravi, i don't no what to say your last post was just to much, i almost could read the whole thing, if i was in JC's position and read your post i would think you know just what you're talking about and where not opinionated.

Skystrider,

I was just reading AOPA's Flight Training Magazine and saw an editorial or readers forum where someone was describing the great things about grass strips.

It was a very colorful desciption that really got my mouth watering to get my tailwheel endorsement.

When I got to the end of the piece I saw the person was from PA. Then the name seemed to ring a bell.

The author was Rod Hatcher.

I said, "I know that name!"

Sure enough when I checked here I found it was you.

Just wanted to say nice work!

JC wrote:Skystrider,

I was just reading AOPA's Flight Training Magazine and saw an editorial or readers forum where someone was describing the great things about grass strips. ...........
The author was Rod Hatcher. ........................!

Is there an internet link to that article so I can read it too?

Eric

JC: I not sure if anyone mentioned it yet but i think it would be great if you could find yourself an airplane that you could fly with both of your children. i'm not sure how old they are but you're gonna have that airplane for many years and if you can only go "aircamping" with one and not the other someone is going to feel left out. Just a thought. Peter

Ravi, i don't no what to say your last post was just to much, i almost could read the whole thing, if i was in JC's position and read your post i would think you know just what you're talking about and where not opinionated.

Glad to hear I came off as something other than a complete charlatan. Shouldn’t take long to set the record straight…

Anywhoo,

JC, I am in complete agreement regarding the Champ club. If I could fly a tailwheel for $45 an hour I wouldn’t even consider buying an airplane until I had 100 hours of tailwheel time on top of my PPL. By that time you’ll have made a lot of hard landings in someone else’s plane (always a good thing), and have enough time to get something other than a prison style gang-raping from your insurance company.

During the first 100 hours in my Cessna 140 I spent two dollars an hour just on tire rubber. Add to that $26 per hour for fuel, $2 for oil, $9 for the engine, $7.50 for insurance, $13 for the hangar and I’m already spending $59.50 per hour, based on flying 200 hours a year. That still doesn’t cover maintenance on the avionics, airframe depreciation, or the loss of capital I could be earning on the money I bought the airplane with in the first place.

Airplanes are an endless compromise. For everything you choose, you have to give up something else (usually money). If you must have a stick, you’re probably going to be stuck (ha!) with a two seater.

If you want to carry yourself and your two sons, you’re probably going to have to fly a yoke and give up that ultra-cool sitting on the centerline fighter pilot feeling that comes with a tandem.

If you want a plane specifically designed for flying in the bush, you’re going to have to pay an exorbitant insurance premium. A Maule will always cost about twice as much to insure as an equivalent value Cessna, and a Husky will cost even more. Unless you’re actually landing on gravel bars and alpine meadows, it’s a lot of money for nothing.

From the sounds of it, an old Cessna 172, the most vanilla aircraft ever built, would do 90% of what you need at a price a working man with a good sense of financial denial can afford. It scores a perfect 0 on every emotional scale you can think of, but it will carry three people and land anywhere a low time pilot has any business going. Cessna 170’s, while not as common, are retro-cool and don’t have that ridiculous wheel hanging off the nose.

There are a lot of other planes that are just as good, and many that are better, but my point is you don’t need a Maule or a Super Cub to land on established dirt airstrips. If you actually NEED a Maule or a Super Cub to land, you also need a few thousand hours of flight time under your belt.

Another big factor is what’s available in your immediate area. Traveling to a distant city to buy an airplane you know nothing about is a daunting and expensive proposition on top of an already daunting and expensive proposition. When I look at planes for sale I don’t even consider anything that’s further than an easy flight in my little 140…the time and hassle associated in the pre-purchase isn’t worth it to me.

I agree with Ravi! When I first started flying 20 years ago, I bought a 172 thinking I would get my license in it and then get myself a "Bush Plane". My thinking was like yours...get some time and then get something different. Well, guess what...everytime I looked at something else it just didn't make sense. I was able to do everything I ever wanted in the 172 and do it without breaking the bank. Sure, it doesn't have the "cool" factor of other planes but it is one of those planes that "does everything" while still being affordable.
I finally bought a O 235 powered 7AC Champ for my play toy and really don't need the 172 anymore. Years ago I had kids at home at the time and it was one of the most economically affordable planes to own. But now that it is just me flying I will be selling it. 20 years is a long time to own the same plane but if it hadn't been that versitile I wouldn't have kept it. The insurance is cheap (relatively speaking) on the 172 and any A&P can work on them unlike trying to find an A&P that does tube and fabric planes.

Good Luck,
Keith

I'll jump on this 172 bandwagon and say that I agree with WWhunter and Ravi. 172 is a great airplane. Their ubiquitous existence speaks mostly about their ease of flight, but also about their safety record.

If you can find a straight tail, that is a good bird that still retains some of its classic character, although it would be nice to have an O-320.

There are a lot of other planes that are just as good, and many that are better, but my point is you don’t need a Maule or a Super Cub to land on established dirt airstrips. If you actually NEED a Maule or a Super Cub to land, you also need a few thousand hours of flight time under your belt.

Better advice has seldom been spoken on here.

If I were to "upgrade" from a 170 to a Maule or a C180, it would be to land or takeoff from the same exact places, but fly faster between them

A 170 is a good dad-and-two kids airplane. I have mine set-up with a single jump seat in back (instead of the bench) that'd be perfect for a kid. Makes it easy to access the cargo bay,plus weighs less. A 170 has reasonable performance for moderate cost-- very much more performance usually comes with a substantial increase in purchase & operating costs. It'll do most everything you should be doing at this stage of your flying career. Mine might even be for sale, as I'm thinking about downsizing to a 2 seater.
A local guy I know does a lot of grass strip/off-field op's flying an old straight-tail 172 with fat tires. He has a lot of fun & does real well with it-- can get in and out shorter than me. Piloting skills are the limiting factor with most airplanes. (they sure are with mine!!)
All that said, If I was you I'd run (not walk) to get in the "Champ Club". Champs are cool and fun. Get plenty of time in it, lotsa low / slow / maneuvering flight-- that'll get your skills tuned up for whatever you end up with.
Personally, I think a guy is better off buying a somewhat modest airplane for his first one- even a low-powered 2 seater can produce sticker shock with regards to costs. I agree with Ravis' comments regarding tearing your financial heart out, etc.

Eric

Well I hate to let a good topic just die, so here's my two cents JC. If you truly think you're going to use the plane regularly in situations that require you to take both of your children at the same time, then the Citabria isn't the correct plane.

But if most of your flying will be on your own and occasionally taking one of the kids for a joy ride, then don't pass on the Citabria. I have the 7 GCBC and it's a great plane, on pavement or dirt. I have 3 teenagers and I still manage to get each of them plenty of flying time, it just has to be one at a time.

They are affordable planes to purchase and economical and easy to fly. Plus, the auto-gas STC saves me anywhere from $50 - $70 PER TANK OF FUEL. That equates to a lot of extra flying time over using 100ll.

The 7 GCBC averages about $10-15k more the the 7 ECA, but it has the 150hp and flaps. The biggest nock on the whole Citabria line is the useful load. With full fuel, you aren't going to get a normal to large sized adult in each of the seats and still be legal.

Someone else in an earlier post said "buy the plane you need, not the one you want" and I agree whole-heartedly. On most people's budget, a big, expensive 220hp gas hog burning 10-12 gal/per hour at 4.50 or more a gal, is going to spend a lot of time in the hangar while you save up enough money to fly it.