Greetings. I'm new to backcountry flying and conventional gear flying. I have been a Navy pilot (helos and props) and now am a First Officer flying 737s. I wanted to get back into GA flying and started out looking at the RV-7. Then at Arlington I saw the Sportsman 2+2 and realized that THAT is the kind of flying I want to do. I love to fish, camp, kayak, and just live outside, especially in the mountains. I flew the Factory Demo Sportsman (345GS) and loved it. However, I don't have much experience with this kind of flying. It seems that for the money, the closest thing to the Sportsman are the Maules.

Has anyone compared the 235 HP Maules to the 200 HP Sportsman? I am interested in load carrying ability, cruise speed, range, and handling qualities. I've heard the Husky is not that well handling. I know the C180 series is solid, but expensive to own/operate. For $160K, I can get a 210 Hp Sportsman loaded out with constant speed, autopilot (hey, I'm an airline pilot!), and glass IFR. Any words or wisdom or opinions are greatly appreciated.

Awol Arn

One of the guys at our field has a Sportsman and flies a lot on both wheels and skis he takes that thing everywhere, very agile A/C! Another neighbor is building a Murphy Moose with the MP14 and already has a Rebel.
With the budget you mentioned, you have a number of options. Most likely, the question should be Experimental or Certificated?

I think the glass panel options are going to cut into the budget more than anything. To be it seems like the glass panels are just kinda out of sync with backcountry flying, unless you really plan on doing a lot of hard IFR, perhaps your money is better spent on engine upgrades or a 3-blade MT prop. You can get a whole lot of Maule for $160K.

On the other hand, having a G1000 with sectional-like terrain underlay would be pretty sweet.

Thanks for the responses, and keep 'em coming! The cost of the Sportsman is for the 'Two Weeks To Taxi' option. I like that idea a whole lot more than spending 4-5 years building. I like the idea of a glass panel since I figure on keeping the plane for years to come. I also want the option of using it to commute to work if the opportunity presents itself. I am going to move in the next year or so to Colorado. I know of a few pilots who commute to work in their plane.

I guess another question to pose is what was posed already in this thread:

Experimental or Certified???

I will definitely go fly more planes. I have my conventional training scheduled in a Cub. I'm also going to go fly a Maule. Again, thanks for the info so far. And if anyone else wants to chime in, please do so!
Arn

Since you are a commercial pilot, one thing to consider with Cert vs Experimental, is the fact that commercial ops are prohibited with Experimental aircraft. You're prob just interested in the small planes for fun, but what if the opportunity arises to haul someone somewhere for pay?

Also, I wonder how the resale value of experimentals holds up compared to certified aircraft.

Zane,

The notion of on a moment's notice hauling someone for hire isn't going to happen, at least not legally. To do so, you'd have to apply for and acquire an FAR 135 operating certificate. That's a lot of work, money and time.

I've heard that the Sportsman gear isn't all that skookum. I'd take a real close look at that issue, particularly if you want to start operating off airport and/or on big tires.

The Husky is a pussy cat, and a great airplane. Any suggestion that it's twitchy is just wrong, and I've spent over 2,000 hours in them, working them. They are a great airplane, but two seats.

Decide first whether you like certified or experimental.

Then decide how big-two seat or four?

Then work on the other parameters, like rough field capability, speed, durability, structural integrity, etc.

Glass panels on experimentals don't have to be any more expensive than steam gauges. Then again, these would be non certified glass, so keep that in mind as well.

MTV

mtv wrote:Zane,

The notion of on a moment's notice hauling someone for hire isn't going to happen, at least not legally. To do so, you'd have to apply for and acquire an FAR 135 operating certificate. That's a lot of work, money and time.

I thought there was a grey area where someone could operate commercially as a guide without actually having to operate under FAR 135. But, I suppose hauling humans is considered charter any way you slice it.

I would buy something like this...

http://www.barnstormers.com/listing.php?id=145749

Todd Giencke

I would give my left nut (probably literally) for a Sportsman. I am currently building a Zenith 601XL and, although I love building, I would give my right nut (if I hadn't already given the left one) to build it in 2-3 weeks. I am really impressed with that type of building program. Almost all the benefits of building/experimental, without the multi-year wait.

For $170K (which is what I know the plane featured in Kitplanes cost), you could buy a lot of planes. But, you are getting a heck of performer, customized as you like it, and brand new. That's tough to beat.

If you get one and find yourself in the Northeast - I'd love to see it!

Good luck,

Michael Valentine

There is a big difference between short field and off airport. Decide what type of flying you want to do and understand the limitations of each aircraft you're interested in. I would not take a Sportsman places I would a Maule. I would not have a glass cockpit in an off airport airplane. Since you are going to be a newbie TW pilot and will be training in a Cub plan on being spoiled rotten. There is a reason all "Bush" type airplanes are compared to Cubs. What ever you decide to buy find an experienced pilot in that is extremely familiar with that particular airplane to teach you how to fly it properly and safely.

Jason
N3673T

The Maule still gets it for me after over 30yrs of them for ;
Cost of operation,
Over 4:1 slow to high speed ratio,
Proven rollcage safety if you do mess up,
And how can you beat the fully open right side loading capability on floats, skis or Bushwheels.
Jeremy

IMHO there are two benchmark airplanes for STOL and/or backcountry op's, the Skywagon and the Supercub. One of those is what everyone compares their airplane to. Not to say that there aren't others that do just fine, most notably the Maule.
On my airport are 3 different GlasStars (2 place), one of which was built by the current owner. One of the guys who bought his in flying condition has done some backcountry op's with it, flown to Alaska twice, etc. He likes it so much he's in the process of building a 4-place GlasStar Sportsman.
I've rode in one of them, just once-- flew nice,plenty of power, fast,smooth, all that. But it didn't seem to get off the ground very short, or land very short either. My thought is that there just isn't enough wing. Both the 2 place and 4 place GlasStars have only about 135 sq feet of wing area-- by comparison a 170 or 180 has 175 or so. Even a Pacer (30 foot or so wingspan) has about 150 sq ft.
Airfoil and flap design does factor into things, also (especially) the pilot's skills, but IMHO wings are like engines: there ain't no substitute for cubic inches. If they added some chord and fleshed out the wing area to about 180 sq ft or so I think it'd really improve things.
As I recall, the GlasStar was not oriiginally marketed as a STOL airplane, it was viewed as a fast-ish airplane with docile flying characteristics. But everybody wanted to go off-road with it so the kit mfr just decided to go with the flow.
Don't know if there's any GlasStar owners on board here but my asbestos suit is on, so flame away.

Eric

Zane, Yes, some folks use aircraft to haul people "in the course of pursuing their business". You can, for example, give flight instruction in your airplane if you are a CFI, or if you are a guide, you may be able to carry people to your guiding area. But, the original statement was carrying passengers for hire, which requires a 135 ticket.

The Maules, particularly one that's been recovered and repainted like the one on Barnstormers are pretty good airplanes for a lot of things a private operator would do.

There may be homebuilt airplanes that'll do everything you need, but I think the decision to go homebuilt or production is a fundamental decision you need to make FIRST, up front, and THEN start looking at airplanes.

Another homebuilt you might want to take a look at is the Dream Aircraft Tundra. See http://www.dreamaircraft.com/

I've crawled all over a couple of them, and they look like they'd be a pretty good airplane, particularly now that Lycoming and Superior have now both come out with pumped up engines. I think the Superior 400 would be an interesting setup in the Dream aircraft.

I've got to find a way to fly one of those.

MTV

jregard,

Why wouldn't you want a glass cockpit in the backcountry? Just curious. Seems to me that they should, if anything be more durable than steam gauges.

MTV

I agree with tgiencke's suggestion of the maule on barnstormers. for that price you could add bushwheels, and/or floats and a garmin 496 for weather and terrain.
what more do you want

Before you get too crazy about the Sportsman, check out the Bearhawk:

http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com/

It's what I'm gonna build, though it'll probably take the proverbial ten years!

Hello Awol,
As a current 737 FO, and former Maule owner, let me steer you towards the Maule. There is no better bang for the buck. Find one with 235hp, the long wing and big flaps(ask Jeremy) get as basic a VFR panel as possible and have fun. I prefer oleo gear, and, of course no Maule is complete with out 31" Bushwheels.
There are lot's of people with bush experience to help you, and it's a time proven design. I really loved mine, I traded it in for a beautiful baby girl. I'm pretty sure it was the right call. Yeah, pretty sure:)
Jeff

I watched a Glass Star (Sportsman) try and do what Supercubs and my Experimental Maule does and it was not pretty. They land to fast, the gear is a failure waiting to happen and they are not an off airport airplane in any configuration. If you want to fly Idaho or go in and out of back country airstrips they are probably fine. I do not like the gear and would change it if I built one to something more robust. They are fast and easy on fuel though.

Greg

Hey y'all!
Wow, there are a lot of responses, and i appreciate it. It is exactly what I'm looking for. I had thought that the Maule was the closest thing I could find to the Sportsman, from my LIMITED knowlege. I'm glad I have some more info to go on. Having flown the Sportsman, I can say that it flew better than any of the Cessnas or Cherokees I flew ( no offense intended). It was just how I perceived the handling. I need to go find some Maules and fly them. I think the best advice was to find one that makes me grin just walking up to it and then grin like crazy when I'm flying it. So far, the Sportsman does that.

I am looking at the Bearhawk, the Cessna 170/180s, and others. One thing I am pretty set on is having an IFR panel. I know it will add weight, but I don't want to be caught without it. I grew up in Salida Colorado. Every stinking year, SOMEONE would plant a plane into the mountains around my home...usually up Monarch Pass. A lot of them were the proverbial "continued VFR into deteriorating conditions." I don't want to ever be caught without a panel. That's just one of my things. I instruct instrument flight in the King Air 200 too. The weight trade off is worth it. Besides, I only weigh 160# soaking wet! I'm a wirey guy.

One item that has come up that I hadn't thought of was insurability. I'm going to check out the insurance rates on certified vs experimental. Thanks again for the replies, and keep the dialog going.
Cheers!
arn

I had looked at Maules also....probably the best bang for your buck out there. But if you are also looking at 180's the price on them right now is fairly good. They seem to hold their value better also.