http://www.trade-a-plane.com/specs/67478

Times are tough. he might be glad to get $50,000

You really ought to test fly a stait tail 182. Lots of bang for the buck.

Tim

qmdv wrote:You really ought to test fly a stait tail 182. Lots of bang for the buck.

Tim

A friend had an old strait tail 182 on 8.50 tires all around he could go anywhere. It was really light...

Ok you dont like the Scout idea

Why are you so quick to rule out your 172 keep it light that thing will go most places most of the guys on here go with there conventional gear.

Just learn how to wheelie and you wont bother that nose gear.

Terryd23 wrote:but find myself constantly looking at tail draggers. For whatever reason I just think they are beautiful, not to mention their capabilities over and above what a nose-wheel can offer.

I think therein lies the answer. Tailwheel aircraft have an aesthetic that to some, is unmatched in beauty and elegance. Personally, I only wear a backcountry pilot shirt, other than that I'm a poser who lands on the occasional turf. But one thing I know is that I think tailwheel aircraft are beautiful, and I had to have one. It's been a rewarding experience learning to fly it as well. I could do that same stuff and go the same places in a tiny-tired 172...but it wouldn't be the same...to me.

having a 182, i like the idea of a straight tail '58 or so. tall gear, and
maybe, just maybe, a ray-jay turbo, to make that 470 really roll!

There is what appears to be a '56 180 on ebay. Asking $63K. That's a good year. 200SMOH doesn't give TT, but looks pretty good in the photos.

I also agree with Tim on the early 182's if you aren't stuck on a taildragger. The flying beekeeper foung an early 182 with a pponk eng. for $50K a couple months ago. If that were still available that could be a great deal.

Good speed, haul most anything, get in and out of most anywhere, with the appropriate sized tires, don't have to be so concerned about crosswinds, affordable insurance, etc.

Terryd23,
I was in the same decision making frame of mind a couple of years ago. I have a 1960 172 and wanted a TW aircraft. Specifically a Super Cub due to the area I live and where I usually fly to. Had the 172 for over 20 years and I know the plane well. Kept wanting to sell it to get something more "fun".

Found out I really couldn't afford a $75-100K Cub and ended up buying a "Souped-Up" Champ. It is my little bushplane and takes care of that Walter Mitty adventure streak I need to tame. I have 70 hrs. float time in it and 40 hours TW time so far in the 2 years I have had it. It is a blast! Now, having said that, I still have the 172 and have come to realize that I can take it anyplace I have taken the Champ. 172's are a very versatile plane and economical to own/operate.

Why not just "MOD" out your 172 with STOL kit, bigger fork and tires? You might find you don't need that TW plane. Besides, I feel the ol 172 will handle those bad crosswinds and such much better than a TW plane. Lot less chance of ground looping the 172.

If you just HAVE to get a TW plane, as Scout has suggested....the Scout is a good plane as are the GCBC series. 1/2-1/3 the price of a Super Cub. Also, the Stinson has been sugessted. A freind has one with a Franklin 220HP for sale on floats, with wheel gear for sale less than the one listed earlier. He is a poster on here and may see this post and give you his views on the Stinson. I haven't flown one but everyone I know that has loves them.
WW

If you buy another plane and keep the 172 you will probably have more in the two, and certainly more in their combined insurances than a C-180. Assuming of course the second plane is a t/w.

You didn't say how long you've had "gracie", but I'm guessing you've had her long enough to know the cessna wing by now. Crossing over to a 180hp.170 should be a walk in the park. But if you have 50k on top of your bird to deal with buy the 180. You won't need gracie, as the 180 will do everything gracie would do, and (whispering) do it better.

Historically the Maules have been "the deal" in this class. But with the economic climate, the 180s seem to have dropped sooner / more making them IMHO a better "deal" a quick look at Barnstormes or TAP shows several 180s in the 50s and you can spend wayyyy more than that on a Maule. Also, your insurance will probably take less of a hit going to the bigger Cessna than getting into the Maule.


Take care, Rob

I would go for the Piper Pacer, 150/180 hp with VG's, big tires, flat prop, and have money left over. Plus the insurance is one quarter that of a Maule.
Go to www.shortwingpipers.org and look at some of them there.
Dave

Terryd23
Groundloops have been mentioned or alluded to at least three times already, I will make it four. Taildraggers and paved surfaces don't always get along as well as nosewheel planes (especially certain draggers). Some people won't land on pavement at all. The macho drivers will poo poo, that it is even a concern. I am highlighting this, as it may be something to consider in your thought process. Though the chance of personal injury from a groundloop would be low, the physical damage and cost to the plane for the repair can be extremely high. Taking out a wing, landing gear, horizontal stabilizer, are all possibilities and can cost up to half cost of the airplane you have budgeted. My personal opinion is, that if one is operating off of pavement, your % of risk of a loop is significantly greater. In a Cub or similar, maybe not such a big deal, in a Maule or similar, it might be a different story. I liken it to the saying about retractable drivers "it's not if, but when". Just something that seems to get glossed over and should be considered. Steve

I put the Sportsman STOL kit, the PowerFlow exhaust, the Landes Nose Fork, and 8.50x6's all around on my '74 172M and it can go into (and out of) a lot of places that I don't (yet!!) have the skills to equal. This year, I'm going to put the 180 on the front since I like the performance on the CAP 172's. We also have an AoA indicator to put in it this spring.

Simple aircraft that is cheap to insure, cheap to fix (now that we've done that first "killer" annual), and cheap to fly.

Most of my flying here in Oklahoma is to established, maintained grass runways of them there concrete things at the big city airports.

Don

Foul...

steve wrote:Terryd23
Groundloops have been mentioned or alluded to at least three times already, I will make it four. Taildraggers and paved surfaces don't always get along ... The macho drivers will poo poo, that it is even a concern. Steve

Poo Poo.... While I respect your opinion, mine is far different:

I would submit that if you can't keep the airplane straight you simply need some more dual. Plain and simple, nothing to be ashamed of.
Further more, if you are a groundloop waiting to happen in a t/w, you are no more competent in the nose wheel, it is just fooling you into an incomplete zone of safety. If your feet are dead on the ground, what wakes them up when you drop a wing in a gust?

I have seen hunters like this, new gun every year because they can't shoot worth a sh!t.

I wrote: when's the last time you hit the range?

slob hunter wrote: range?

Spend enough time at an airport and you will see plenty of nose draggers ground loop or have ground handling mishaps as a result of this complacency. I have seen a Bonanza a C182, and a few C152s groundloop. and several instances of nosewheels run into curbs, bending the firewall...

With proper training a t/w is no more difficult than the next plane...

Take care, Rob

1SeventyZ wrote:

Terryd23 wrote:but find myself constantly looking at tail draggers. For whatever reason I just think they are beautiful, not to mention their capabilities over and above what a nose-wheel can offer.

I think therein lies the answer. Tailwheel aircraft have an aesthetic that to some, is unmatched in beauty and elegance. Personally, I only wear a backcountry pilot shirt, other than that I'm a poser who lands on the occasional turf. But one thing I know is that I think tailwheel aircraft are beautiful, and I had to have one. It's been a rewarding experience learning to fly it as well. I could do that same stuff and go the same places in a tiny-tired 172...but it wouldn't be the same...to me.

amen

If I had 50K to spend I would buy the best 170 I could get into for that price if I wanted a taildragger, or an early 182. If you don't need/want four seats as I do, then I would look at a Scout - assuming you can find one for 50K

There is a 53 model 180 listed on TAP right now for a great price. It has a BCP connection too...

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:If I had 50K to spend I would buy the best 170 I could get into for that price if I wanted a taildragger, or an early 182. If you don't need/want four seats as I do, then I would look at a Scout - assuming you can find one for 50K

This is what I would suggest (the early 182 or a Scout!!).

About 1700 of my 2100 or so hours have been in tailwheel airplanes, mostly my 170 (which is for sale for $25K- hint, hint!). If I can only have one airplane, I want it to be a taildragger. But I will admit that nosedraggers are less risky in certain conditions. IMHO they certainly don't require the proficiency for everyday operations that taildraggers do. Look at how many occasional flyers you see in 172's & Cherokees-- if all those semi-or-less-proficient pilots were in taildraggers, imagine the carnage on the runways!

Eric

Rob wrote: Foul...

steve wrote:Terryd23
Groundloops have been mentioned or alluded to at least three times already, I will make it four. Taildraggers and paved surfaces don't always get along ... The macho drivers will poo poo, that it is even a concern. Steve

Poo Poo.... While I respect your opinion, mine is far different:

I would submit that if you can't keep the airplane straight you simply need some more dual. Plain and simple, nothing to be ashamed of.
Further more, if you are a groundloop waiting to happen in a t/w, you are no more competent in the nose wheel, it is just fooling you into an incomplete zone of safety. If your feet are dead on the ground, what wakes them up when you drop a wing in a gust?

I have seen hunters like this, new gun every year because they can't shoot worth a sh!t.

I wrote: when's the last time you hit the range?

slob hunter wrote: range?

Spend enough time at an airport and you will see plenty of nose draggers ground loop or have ground handling mishaps as a result of this complacency. I have seen a Bonanza a C182, and a few C152s groundloop. and several instances of nosewheels run into curbs, bending the firewall...

With proper training a t/w is no more difficult than the next plane...

Take care, Rob

Rob, I would agree with you with one exception. Proper training is critical, but it is just as important to stay extremely current. Professionals who spray, fly 135, government, instruction or whatever do get very comfortable and competent in a tailwheel. 20 or so landings a day for some of you guys is routine. Those of us who fly 2 or 3 hours a month and do 5 or 6 landings better have a really good handle on personal limitations.

Not so much with the trike, and most insurance companies would agree.


gb