Another over looked plane is the Piper Clipper, similar to the Pacer but flap less, and has Sticks. Lighter and has STC's for the o-320 and O-360. There is a nice one for 18k.

I haven't looked real close in the past two years but when I was looking for a 170 the early 170 and 170A models seemed to be very reasonably priced and in the same range as a nice 140. I had at the time seen several in the $18,000-$22,000 range and the one I was tempted by was bought by a friend of a friend that is an A&P/IA and found it to be in great shape. The market seems to fluctuate though so any deal may be harder to find right now.

Great post Hammer.


To add to Hammer's post, I started in an 0290 pacer (PA22/20 univair conversion). Best aviation decision I've ever made. Jumping into a 180 a couple of years later was anti-climactic.

if doing it again, I'd recommend a Pacer or a straight 170. They are still only two person airplanes realistically but have the physical space to take trips and carry bulky (but light) camping equipment. They will do everything you need for now. The most important mod you need right now for a future of backcountry flying is avgas. That stick time early in your career is something that can never be taken away.

TheMachinist1 wrote:I've been looking more into the pacers, and I think they fit my mission well. There are a couple of o320 160hp models on the market that have a 2000lb gross, which gives you around 850lbs useful. Fuel burn around 9.5gph, which is fine with me, and the aircraft themselves are cheap at the lower end of my budget.

I flight plan at 8 gph for cross country flying and when putzing around locally at low power settings I've seen as low as roughly 6 gph.

A friend of mine has a fuel flow meter on his and flying at low power settings we saw 5.6 gph or something like that. Good fuel burns for low and slow flightseeing.

The O-320 isn't all that thirsty, and makes good power. A Pacer is a wonderfully affordable compromise aircraft - does lots of things pretty dang good. We typically fly mine as a large 2 seater, though I've taken 4 of us to the beach (2.5 hrs) with small bags and about an hour's fuel reserve. Took off right at max gross weight, but the cabin was a little tight with that many people and stuff in it.

Don't forget the Maule M4-145hp. over 700lb useful, 7.2gph, 125mph, 40 or 63 gallons fuel, 4 seats plus baggage and later model has vast baggage door.

TheMachinist1 wrote: Does anyone here have any Luscombe 8 experience, preferably with a 160hp o-320 stuffed in it? There are a couple on the market right now and they are in my price range ($25-40K usd) so I am interested in them. The useful load is pretty bad on these things, and I am wondering how much of a problem that is? ...

The March 2007 issue of Vintage Airplane magazine haa a good article entitled "Horsepower- Is More Really Better?" It's reprinted from the Luscombe Assn newsletter and is all about different engine options for the Luscombe 8 series, from the A-65 to the O-320. It doesn't really come to any conclusion about which is better, just talks about the differences in flying and/or operating them.

The Cessna 140 Club newsletter also had an article years ago, "A Mountain 140", about a 290-powered 140. Both articles are good reading for anyone considering purchase of something similar

maules.com wrote:145hp. 7.2gph,

Don't you think he should take the hose clamp and 3 inch piece of rubber tube off of the throttle control shaft?

EZFlap wrote:

maules.com wrote:145hp. 7.2gph,

Don't you think he should take the hose clamp and 3 inch piece of rubber tube off of the throttle control shaft?

I just assumed he was breathing supplemental O2...

M4-145 O300 Cont similar to C170. What percent power at what altitudes do you fly and what fuel burn do you get.?

Wow I didn't know the M4 Maules were that affordable. I am adding those to the hunt list. Thanks for the recommendation!

I was never in the market for a new plane, but back when a new 172 was $75,000 a new Maule was $45,000.

And when I started selling and using Maules in 1975 a New M5-235C Lyc 235hp was a tad over $25,000. With very low T'craft time and a little C150 time, I got into that 235hp taildragger in Moultrie, was given 3 intro landings and I headed for Alaska where I went to work using and selling them.
Having flown the 40 plus different varients from 145hp to 420shp turbines all over the world on all kinds of missions, I still haven't found a comparable craft so still use them 42 years later.

maules.com wrote:M4-145 O300 Cont similar to C170. What percent power at what altitudes do you fly and what fuel burn do you get.?

The big problem with these questions for me is that I have old, stock instruments, no whiz-bang JPI fuel flow meter, and I do not keep truly accurate records. So I do not have any truly defensible numbers.

That said, I figure I get about 8GPH as a minimum for low altitude cruising ($100 burger run to a neat little airport 30 miles away). This is with more or less a mid-cruise stock prop, indicating 2400-2450 RPM in cruise, steadfastly pushing sonic shock waves across the Earth at 107 MPH indicated. It is a 1956 172, which I had been converting to a tailwheel but had to postpone the project. So to my embarrassment, it flies with the nosewheel.

I lean it out a little bit even at low altitude (1500-3500 MSL), maybe 50 RPM rich of max. My tach, EGT and CHT are low resolution analog, old, tired, and not tested accurate. So I do it the same way we did it on the old U-control Ringmaster with the Fox .35... by sound and feel. The manifold pressure (also not verified) is about 20 inches on these flights. To my knowledge and based on RPM/temperatures, I do not ever run it lean of peak. Basically I baby the engine in every way possible, the airplane doesn't have to work for a living.

The aircraft configuration I have now may well be far more draggy and less optimized than a good M-4:

I have stock size tires and no wheel pants, no strut fairings, no flap or aileron gap seals (I made some small ones for other gaps that seem to work a little), and I have the stock cowling with its swimming pool sized air inlets and outlet. I have stock low compression pistons, and have not advanced the timing above the "new" factory specification. I also have a stock air filter, which I am certain is robbing a little bit of manifold pressure.

I figure there's another 7-8 miles an hour I could squeak out of it with minor airflow stuff, good gap seals, etc. But flying 30 miles for a burger, or out to the dry lake to practice short landings, all that effort hasn't been worthwhile yet.

maules.com wrote:Don't forget the Maule M4-145hp. over 700lb useful, 7.2gph, 125mph, 40 or 63 gallons fuel, 4 seats plus baggage and later model has vast baggage door.

Hey Jeremy or other Maule aficianados,

I have seen the older Maule M4/M5s with the O-300s, 210hp Continentals, Franklins and newer Maules with the 160hp motors can be had for a song compared to the various 235 Maules.

Question is what is the interchangeability of the engines across these models? For instance, I buy a 145hp Maule for $30k, I learn and fly the hell out of it and when it comes time to rebuild the motor, can I swap it out with a nice new 180hp Lycoming without major modifications or STC?

I have heard that major parts like wings are interchangeable across the entire Maule line without STC. Is that true? Does this extend to engines? Are there limits to years and models?

This question is purely about possibilities not about the economics of the options (ie. the ad nauseum discussion on how for that money, you can buy a Cessna 180). However, I would be interested in what something like this would cost if it is possible.

Sorry if this is a bit of thread drift, but it seems relative to the overall discussion. Might have been better on the starter vs. ultimate airplane thread.

Thx,
JB

Maule has many approved engine changes in which an STC is not needed.
However it is important to take into consideration the other items to be changed, exhaust system, cowlings, engine mounts, fuel pumps, gauges, props, etc as this can add up the cost.
Usually its best economically to sell the Maule model one has and buy the model one wants.
Since 1963 there are over 42 variants of the Maule. 145, 160, 180, 200, 210, 210tc,220, 235, 260, 420 horsepowers, M4, M5, M6, M6 late, MX7 (2 wing types), M7 (3 wing types), M8, M9.

I wrote a whole thing about my T craft i lost it..... but T crafts are great planes! pm me and ill give you my number fill you in.

To me, the Pacers are arguably the best bang for the buck in aviation. Learn to fly one, and you'll love it. Performance per $$ spent getting into it is as good as it gets.

MTV

TM1, you didn't mention how far along you are in your training (or if you did, I missed it). Whenever I hear of a student starting to plan his first airplane purchase, I try to recommend waiting awhile. Missions change as experience is gained and as lives change. Early on, it's really hard to know what the likely mission will be.

For instance, when I was first licensed and had all of 70 hours, I thought that a 172 was an ideal family airplane. Wife 1 and I had 2 kids and a dog, and we had stuffed all of us in the Elmendorf AFB Aeroclub's 172 several times between when I passed the checkride in February 1973 and we left Alaska 3 months later. But when we got to Laramie, where I lived for the next 26 years, I learned first hand about density altitude. That turned 172s into decent 2 person trainers, but it sure meant that as a family airplane, it was pretty marginal. So the first airplane we bought was a 182 in partnership. We made many long trips with that airplane, as well as the subsequent TR182 and T210 that my pard insisted we buy.

Today my mission is world's different from then. I usually fly alone, as my SO isn't interested in flying, with my dog in the back seat. Occasionally I'll have a passenger, and if I start with only half tanks, I can take 3 passengers. I go camping with the airplane, and the farthest I go is a couple hours away, other than my occasional visits to my Sis (almost 4 hours away) and to Oshkosh (7 1/2 hours away). So my "hot rod" P172D serves my current mission admirably. It's well enough equipped that normal IFR is easy, and it's a comfortable, pleasant airplane to fly. Yet I can take it into reasonable backcountry strips when I want to.

One of the neatest things about a trike is that insurance is a lot less than a taildragger's, for good reason--too many taildraggers have swapped ends, that the insurance company's have had to fix. In reality (heresy I know), the average backcountry pilot doesn't need a big-tired taildragger to go where he wants to go, just like the average backroads driver doesn't need a 4WD Jeep with a 5" lift and 32" tires to go where he wants to go.

So my advice to you and other students is, get your certificate, then do some flying, and then start making decisions on what to buy. Decide also where your flying career should be going. Roughly half of all certificated pilots in the US have their instrument ratings, and that's a laudable and useful goal. The first time that you have to stay on the ground when having an IR would make it easy to depart may be the tipping point. Many private pilots want to go farther, and seek their commercial certificates, then their CFI, then their CFII, and even their ATP.

Learning to fly isn't just a one time event. It's a life-long event, with new lessons nearly every time the engine is started. We're all students, just at different levels of experience and training.

Cary