I'd get a Beaver! I like Beavers. I low time Beaver would be high on my list, but it seems the older I get, the harder it is to find a low time Beaver. I may have to settle for a well used Beaver someday. That's ok, I'll take what I can get. Besides, the older they get and the more they are worn out, usually the cheaper they are.

^^^X2. Not sure why we all didnt think of that earlier Pat.

58Skylane wrote:I'd get a Beaver! I like Beavers. I low time Beaver would be high on my list, but it seems the older I get, the harder it is to find a low time Beaver. I may have to settle for a well used Beaver someday. That's ok, I'll take what I can get. Besides, the older they get and the more they are worn out, usually the cheaper they are.

Not sure off your plan Pat?
You better think this through a bit more, last Beaver I got rid of cost me way more to get rid of than when I got it!!
Had it for 15 years so it was that much older than when I got it???
Come to find out it was pretty well used when I got it but in pretty good shape!
No matter the shape or age a beaver is, it does cost you a lot of time and money!!

M6RV6 wrote:

58Skylane wrote:I'd get a Beaver! I like Beavers. I low time Beaver would be high on my list, but it seems the older I get, the harder it is to find a low time Beaver. I may have to settle for a well used Beaver someday. That's ok, I'll take what I can get. Besides, the older they get and the more they are worn out, usually the cheaper they are.

Not sure off your plan Pat?
You better think this through a bit more, last Beaver I got rid of cost me way more to get rid of than when I got it!!
Had it for 15 years so it was that much older than when I got it???
Come to find out it was pretty well used when I got it but in pretty good shape!
No matter the shape or age a beaver is, it does cost you a lot of time and money!!

LOL....... Well, I'll be working in NV soon, I heard some locations have Beavers for rent?

Anyhow, I didn't mean to infect this thread too much. I was just in a weird mode last night and it wasn't even the whiskey talking

58Skylane wrote:

M6RV6 wrote:

58Skylane wrote:I'd get a Beaver! I like Beavers. I low time Beaver would be high on my list, but it seems the older I get, the harder it is to find a low time Beaver. I may have to settle for a well used Beaver someday. That's ok, I'll take what I can get. Besides, the older they get and the more they are worn out, usually the cheaper they are.

Not sure off your plan Pat?
You better think this through a bit more, last Beaver I got rid of cost me way more to get rid of than when I got it!!
Had it for 15 years so it was that much older than when I got it???
Come to find out it was pretty well used when I got it but in pretty good shape!
No matter the shape or age a beaver is, it does cost you a lot of time and money!!

LOL....... Well, I'll be working in NV soon, I heard some locations have Beavers for rent?

Anyhow, I didn't mean to infect this thread too much. I was just in a weird mode last night and it wasn't even the whiskey talking

Did you know Oregon is the Beaver State? At OSU the mascot is the Beaver. I don't think I have ever seen a Beaver in the wild here now that I think of it. How can this be the Beaver state if I don't see them.

My guess is there was a lot of Beaver's eaten and that's why we don't see them.

Those Beavers for rent in those locations are well behond TBO.....ok Pat?

Superdave wrote:Those Beavers for rent in those locations are well behond TBO.....ok Pat?

I guess since those are part 135 you probly shouldn't be running those beavers on oil analysis either.. They need to be replaced!

For the price of one Beaver you can have a really nice Skywagon and a Maule, which I've always wanted! Beavers are just like their they're animal counterparts, some cute n cuddly, some covered in Mange. If u open up the cockpit and it smells like sewage, run for your life

..........................................

Thanks M6RV6 and O.M.

The numbers stated were for my home field elevation of 4600' in dry desert air. I see roughly a 5mph decrease in speed down at sea level.

As far as fuel burn, with the 0-470-U/TS usually cruise at 23"/2300 LOP n burn 10.5gph. At 24"/2400 ROP burn is 14.5gph

To the OP, I have gone from 10 years owning a 1993 Maule to now owning a 1974 Cessna 185. Some might say a step backwards, other not. To the original questions these are my initial thoughts.
The Cessna is MUCH nicer to travel in, it is airtight, quiet and stable in all but he roughest conditions. It seems much better in turbulence and the family definitely appreciates the ride difference. The seating position and view along the wing is much better.
I have found the 185 more docile to handle than anticipated (other than at MAUW). Landing is easier and it seems to want to settle on the ground better than the Maule which was always a bit twitchy. The Maule just wants to fly and if you don't get it set up right on landing it will soon let you know - it just wanted to be in the air all the time!
I'm happier to use more braking in the 185 as the Maule was a bit light in the tail - not that you needed a lot of braking in the Maule anyway.
However in situations where I'm flying in tight terrain and really need to be slow I miss the Maule, you really need to be thinking well ahead of the 185 to get speed management under control. But this will just come with time.
I miss the big rear doors of the Maule, and I am also now stuck with a maintenance hungry hog. There are years of things to fix and tidy that will cost big bucks compared to doing the same in the Maule.
Is the 185 worth twice the Maule?, probably not, but what pricing in aviation makes any sense?
If you ask my family they would rather ride in the Cessna any day - but then they are not paying the bills!!!

NZMaule wrote:To the OP, I have gone from 10 years owning a 1993 Maule to now owning a 1974 Cessna 185. Some might say a step backwards, other not. To the original questions these are my initial thoughts.
The Cessna is MUCH nicer to travel in, it is airtight, quiet and stable in all but he roughest conditions. It seems much better in turbulence and the family definitely appreciates the ride difference. The seating position and view along the wing is much better.
I have found the 185 more docile to handle than anticipated (other than at MAUW). Landing is easier and it seems to want to settle on the ground better than the Maule which was always a bit twitchy. The Maule just wants to fly and if you don't get it set up right on landing it will soon let you know - it just wanted to be in the air all the time!
I'm happier to use more braking in the 185 as the Maule was a bit light in the tail - not that you needed a lot of braking in the Maule anyway.
However in situations where I'm flying in tight terrain and really need to be slow I miss the Maule, you really need to be thinking well ahead of the 185 to get speed management under control. But this will just come with time.
I miss the big rear doors of the Maule, and I am also now stuck with a maintenance hungry hog. There are years of things to fix and tidy that will cost big bucks compared to doing the same in the Maule.
Is the 185 worth twice the Maule?, probably not, but what pricing in aviation makes any sense?
If you ask my family they would rather ride in the Cessna any day - but then they are not paying the bills!!!

Best comparison I've ever read from some who has been there!!

Thanks

In a general Cessna vs Maule comfort comparison, the seats in a Cessna are slightly higher off the floorboards, allowing you a more chair-like position. Maules I feel lower, legs more outstretched.

I own a Maule but have a lot of time in 180's and 185's. I'd say one is not better than the other - Totally different missions. The Cessna's are better x-country platforms; the Maule's are better short-field performers. The Cessna's will let you get away landing faster; Maule's tend to be less forgiving on the ground.

For me the decision came down to new v. old... Part's for my Maule crazy cheap...

Redbaron180 wrote:The market place has a way of identifying the most valuable aircraft by them being the most valuable..........

The marketplace runs on supply and demand, when supply dries up - even if demand doesn't change - prices must go up...

One aircraft is still produced, the other is not. You don't always get what you pay for!!

I stand by my theory. If there were something out there more valuable it would have more value.........

Redbaron180 wrote:I stand by my theory. If there were something out there more valuable it would have more value.........

In addition to the availability of the Maule being a counter example, there is probably nothing more valuable than potable water. Yet it remains very, very cheap (even in "expensive" bottled form) compared to its value due to a lack of pressure on the supply side.

My mistake, I thought we were talking about airplanes.

Value only exists in the mind of the buyer or seller.

From buyers perspective: if value exceeds price the buyer (if he/she has the means) will purchase the plane.

From sellers perspective: If price exceeds value the seller will sell the plane.

Redbaron180 wrote:My mistake, I thought we were talking about airplanes.

And I thought we were talking about economic theory.

Economic theory on airplanes! Who'd a thunk you'd find it here amongst so many seat of the pants type pilots! What diversity. I love this forum.

Redbaron180 wrote:I stand by my theory. If there were something out there more valuable it would have more value.........

Yeah I see where you're coming from, I was only adding that something can be more valuable just because it's harder to get - rather than actually being "better". Natural diamonds vs synthetic diamonds being a case and point - same carbon crystal, different price.