Hello All... I am new to the forum .....as this is my first post . Let me start out b saying that i have read all the "which plane is right for me" threads but thought I might put down my personal situation as all are a little different.

I am a 1000 hour pilot with 500 hours in 172 and 182's , 400 hours in a Mooney, and 100 hours on amphibs. I live in northern BC and my interests include fishing , hunting, camping, and aviation ...........not necessarily in that order. I would like an aircraft that I can use to get out in the back country to do what i love. A typical mission will often be 100 to 200 nm. I am not concerned about floats at this time, just tundra tires and skis. I have no conventional gear experience , but have flown an super cub on floats. I am not concerned about fancy glass panels or bells and whistles , just pure performance as my flying will be VFR . 4 seats are nice but when i look back on my log books i wold say approx. 90% of my flights are with one or no passengers! I have 150K to spend all in (taxes etc. )

With my research i have narrowed it down to the Super Cub, Husky and Maule. I am currently leaning towards the Husky because of it endurance/range /speed advantage over the Super Cub and its lower fuel burn over the 235 hp Maule (which i heard some where its the one you need if you want to carry anything). Fuel burn is a concern to me as I just came out of a 300 hp machine and the fuel was killing me!

Any thoughts, comments, points of wisdom would be greatly appreciated.!!

Thank you.

Welcome to the forum.
I'll just say don't discount 4 seats. With only one or two people you have a good margin between that days actual weight and max. gross which helps your actual power to weight ratio. Not to mention plenty of room for goodies.

If you don't require 4 seats, and you're looking for something more economical than a 235 hp but faster than a Super Cub, I would strongly consider a 150 hp PA-12 in your search as well. It is very similar to a PA-18, but the wing is attached at an angle of incidence that goes faster on the top end (110 mph), but doesn't do quite as well on the bottom (48 mph stall). Technically 3 seats (although really more like 2.5), you can reasonably do 110 mph at 8 gph fuel burn. Auto fuel STC for the O-320 saves a few extra bucks as well, although E-free mogas is getting harder and harder to find.

You can add a bunch of mods to the PA-12 to make it more like a -18 (big tires, extended gear, Borer prop, flaps, etc.), but you are sacrificing speed for STOL. If you don't need fire-breathing STOL, and you favor cruise speed instead, you can stay with the 56 pitch prop, 8.00 tires, and go 110 mph all day--and yet still have a backcountry capable airplane.

I have extended baggage in mine, and can load plenty of crap in the back for camping trips. I think it's a lot more comfortable than a Super Cub, and the sticker price will leave a lot more money in your bank account to buy gas and/or mods. If you are patient, $50,000 should put you in the ballpark for a pretty nice -12.

The old joke about the PA-12 is that it will do 90% of what you can do in a Super Cub, and you probably shouldn't be doing that other 10% anyway.

I only have 125 hours in mine so far, but I've been thrilled with it.

Great stuff, thank you guys!! Didn't think of the PA-12!

GET A MAULE!!!

I've found myself weighing the options many times as well. Very tough decision. You should just get one of each. But if that's not an option. In my humble opinion there is not a plane alive (common plane) that does it all as good as the early 180's. Theres planes that will do a particular thing better, but none that will do all of them as well. The fuel burn argument always perplexes me unless your going up solo in circles sightseeing. A 180 will burn 11-14.5 depending how hard or high you run. That will typically get you a conservative 140mph on good size tires. If a super cub burns 8 then in that same 140 miles you still burn 12. Same mpg nearly. When, not if but when you need to carry more people or supplies or whatever, you just can't on the sc. Most of what you sacrifice is really short tight spots w the cub. But then again, if you get good with a light 180, and are by yourself, you can go most places they go as well. And they aren't going those places loaded in a cub either. You can get a REALLY nice early 180 right now in the 70's. Descent one even cheaper. If you get one with a sportsman,29's,Attlee seats,flat extended baggage which requires firewall battery(you want that anyways), and not a lot of unnecessary stuff so you can stay light. Get with someone who really knows how to fly it. I'll think you'll be blown away and be really happy. Ask aktahoe what he thinks. Hopefully some of the guys that have a cub and 180 will chime in. Actually makes me wonder about a new thread. Wondering now if u had both and could only keep one; which would it be? Good luck. I've spent many many hours pondering some of the same thoughts.

Made the trip to AK this summer with my Pacer, a 170, and a Husky. The 170 and I both have real flat/long fixed pitch props,wing mods etc. Husky and I on 31's, 170 on 29's. I was really impressed with the performance of the Husky,which was an older A1B, especially the speed. If we needed to contact canadian atc to extend our flight plan, he would buzz up a couple thousand feet to get radio contact and then join back up with us. It also worked very well off airport. And, the husky can pack a lot of fuel in the stock tanks if needed. As has been said many time before, most high drag bushplanes are going to burn similiar fuel at the same speeds. The husky was powered back with the prop back and burned the same fuel or even a little less than I did.

If you don't need to haul a bunch of stuff, with your budget, I would really consider the Husky. Stay away from the AOSS gear mod if you want to keep the cruise speed up as this takes some away. You can also put a belly pod on a husky if you need more storage.

55wagon wrote: Hopefully some of the guys that have a cub and 180 will chime in. Actually makes me wonder about a new thread. Wondering now if u had both and could only keep one; which would it be? Good luck. I've spent many many hours pondering some of the same thoughts.

Funny you say that. After posting about my -12, I got curious and clicked over to Barnstormers (something I try hard to keep myself from doing). Someone has a mid-50's 180 listed with lots of bells and whistles. Says he's looking to trade for a -12. Tempting.

I strongly considered buying a 180 when I was looking for my -12. I agree if you could only have one plane and you want to use it for all different missions, you can't beat a good 180 (I've been told that by lots of people who have owned lots of different planes). For me it boiled down to my typical mission. 75% of my flying is local, chasing coyotes, goofing around at 100 feet agl. For that mission, I'm really glad I chose the -12. If I spent more of my time flying longer cross country, or thought I was going to need more than 2 seats very often at all, I'd have a harder time passing on a good 180.

I'm just rehashing the same advice everyone always gives, but it's hard to overstate the importance of focusing on how you truly intend to use your plane 90% of the time. For me, I'm glad I spend that 90% in the plane I have. I would love to have a 180 too, but I don't think I'd be having as much fun as I'm having in my -12. Something about the 2-seat tandem set up that just makes me want to go fly--more so than the heavier stuff I have flown (180, 185, 206, Bush Hawk). That said, I'm sure there are plenty of 180 and Maule drivers on the site who could fly circles around me in their heavier side-by-sides.

Sierra Bravo had both a -12 and a 180, and I heard he just sold his -12. I think he concluded the 180 was the better all-around plane if you could only have one. However, it sounded like he is maximizing the utility of his planes in a lot of ways that I won't ever really need. I'm still very happy playing around in my -12 (but I never miss an opportunity to ogle a nice 180).

Sorry if this is thread creep--maybe 55wagon is right about needing a new thread.

I know of a 180 for sale.

Ken

I've got about 250 Maule hours and, as of now, about 8 hours in our Cessna 180. I loved the 210HP Maule for all it could do, was dissapointed in the 180HP Maule and am really digging the Skywagon. My only thoughts from my experience are, the IO360, 210 HP Maule was a great plane for load, speed and the side doors rock. The C180 is faster but has about the same useable and otherwise (with a Horton kit) lands and takes off about the same as the 210 Maule. I do like the seat arrangment much better in the C180. The seats are more upright or something and just feel better to me. I have found that I am struggling a little more with ground directional control in the Cessna than I have had with the Maules tho. I'm not sure yet if it's me or airplane but the 180 seems a little harder to keep in a smooth line on the ground. I think one of the biggest issues with airplane choice is the balance of cash out and cost per our. More power is always better but you gotta be able to enjoy flying and not be sweating the wallet drain. I just went from about $100 per hour for fueling oir 206 to $40 per hour for the MoGas STC'd 180. besides that the 180 is just fun, the more reasonable fuel cost definitely adds enjoyment.
FZ

flyingzebra wrote: I have found that I am struggling a little more with ground directional control in the Cessna than I have had with the Maules tho. I'm not sure yet if it's me or airplane but the 180 seems a little harder to keep in a smooth line on the ground.

Could be just the difference in airplanes, but when I had my wheels properly shimmed and gear aligned the improvement in handling on takeoff and landing rollout was obvious. Didn't make a bit of differnence on taxi but 170's have always sucked at that and mine even has the tailwheel mod (180s seem much better.)

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:

flyingzebra wrote: ........Didn't make a bit of differnence on taxi but 170's have always sucked at that and mine even has the tailwheel mod (180s seem much better.)

What tailwheel mod is that?

hotrod150 wrote:

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:

flyingzebra wrote: ........Didn't make a bit of differnence on taxi but 170's have always sucked at that and mine even has the tailwheel mod (180s seem much better.)

What tailwheel mod is that?

Different steering arm.

Also as a '55 model (S/N26505+), it has a whole different steering setup - a pulley/cable system driven by the rudder control cables instead of tailwheel cables attached directly to the rudder bellcrank as in earlier models - maybe similar to what early C180's have?

55wagon wrote:I've found myself weighing the options many times as well. Very tough decision. You should just get one of each. But if that's not an option. In my humble opinion there is not a plane alive (common plane) that does it all as good as the early 180's. Theres planes that will do a particular thing better, but none that will do all of them as well. The fuel burn argument always perplexes me unless your going up solo in circles sightseeing. A 180 will burn 11-14.5 depending how hard or high you run. That will typically get you a conservative 140mph on good size tires. If a super cub burns 8 then in that same 140 miles you still burn 12. Same mpg nearly. When, not if but when you need to carry more people or supplies or whatever, you just can't on the sc. Most of what you sacrifice is really short tight spots w the cub. But then again, if you get good with a light 180, and are by yourself, you can go most places they go as well. And they aren't going those places loaded in a cub either. You can get a REALLY nice early 180 right now in the 70's. Descent one even cheaper. If you get one with a sportsman,29's,Attlee seats,flat extended baggage which requires firewall battery(you want that anyways), and not a lot of unnecessary stuff so you can stay light. Get with someone who really knows how to fly it. I'll think you'll be blown away and be really happy. Ask aktahoe what he thinks. Hopefully some of the guys that have a cub and 180 will chime in. Actually makes me wonder about a new thread. Wondering now if u had both and could only keep one; which would it be? Good luck. I've spent many many hours pondering some of the same thoughts.

Great information!!! And you are completely right about the fuel, just i had 300 hp 182 on amphibs running around with two people in it and it was way over kill..... cheers!

RanchPilot wrote:

55wagon wrote: Hopefully some of the guys that have a cub and 180 will chime in. Actually makes me wonder about a new thread. Wondering now if u had both and could only keep one; which would it be? Good luck. I've spent many many hours pondering some of the same thoughts.

Funny you say that. After posting about my -12, I got curious and clicked over to Barnstormers (something I try hard to keep myself from doing). Someone has a mid-50's 180 listed with lots of bells and whistles. Says he's looking to trade for a -12. Tempting.

I strongly considered buying a 180 when I was looking for my -12. I agree if you could only have one plane and you want to use it for all different missions, you can't beat a good 180 (I've been told that by lots of people who have owned lots of different planes). For me it boiled down to my typical mission. 75% of my flying is local, chasing coyotes, goofing around at 100 feet agl. For that mission, I'm really glad I chose the -12. If I spent more of my time flying longer cross country, or thought I was going to need more than 2 seats very often at all, I'd have a harder time passing on a good 180.

I'm just rehashing the same advice everyone always gives, but it's hard to overstate the importance of focusing on how you truly intend to use your plane 90% of the time. For me, I'm glad I spend that 90% in the plane I have. I would love to have a 180 too, but I don't think I'd be having as much fun as I'm having in my -12. Something about the 2-seat tandem set up that just makes me want to go fly--more so than the heavier stuff I have flown (180, 185, 206, Bush Hawk). That said, I'm sure there are plenty of 180 and Maule drivers on the site who could fly circles around me in their heavier side-by-sides.

Sierra Bravo had both a -12 and a 180, and I heard he just sold his -12. I think he concluded the 180 was the better all-around plane if you could only have one. However, it sounded like he is maximizing the utility of his planes in a lot of ways that I won't ever really need. I'm still very happy playing around in my -12 (but I never miss an opportunity to ogle a nice 180).

Sorry if this is thread creep--maybe 55wagon is right about needing a new thread.

No! I don't think so at all..............this is exactly the kind of discussion/info I was hoping for from fellow pilots with tail wheel experience............

A few years ago I flew my M6 from Yakutat to Haines and back with 2 other aircraft, A 150 SC fixed borer, a 180 Scout CS.
There and back I used 1 gallon less than the Scout and about 10 gallons less than the SC. I don't think I ever got over 17 inches MFP the entire trip just to keep slowed down with the SC. All had 29 or 31 BW.
Just throwing that out there.
GT
Yes there were 3 of us in the Maule, 2 in the Scout and 1 in the SC

I just wanted to throw in a plug for the little Maule. I have been flying my M4-210 for about 200 hours now and I can allow that it is an excellent, economical 2 place plane and a fairly capable 4 place plane.

With one or two aboard it is a STOL plane (however, not a cub) that will get up or down in 500-700'...less with wind or in standard conditions. Mine has a respectable cruise speed of 125 kts, a 975 lb useful load and burns 11.5 gal/hr in cruise. Of course you can sacrifice some speed and get the burn down substantially. With it's short wings, tailwheel, and 210 hp, it is addictingly fun to fly and will go most of the places the Cub or Husky will. My most fun times of flying it are when I'm by myself. When light it's a kick in the ass!

On the four place aspect, just last weekend, I loaded up my wife and another couple, bags, and 30 gal of fuel (within legal gross weight), left off my dirt strip and flew 250nm to a college football game. Didn't get there as fast as a 180 would have, probably only about 10 min later, but we did get there...and back. So it can do it and it does a decent job at it. The majority of the time, the back seat is out and there is lots of room for hauling stuff.

It was really easy to transition into and with 1000 hrs already under your belt, it would probably be a walk in the park for you. It seems to be an honest airplane with good manners. No surprises, yet anyway. The best part about it is that you could buy one, get all the good mods, put it on bushwheels, and have tons of that $150K left over for gas money.

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:

hotrod150 wrote: What tailwheel mod is that?

Different steering arm. ....

It was promoted to me as the cure-all for tailwheel steering so I put a 3214T steering arm on my 48 rag C170. Needless to say, it was NOT like night and day-- more like 1pm and 2pm. A little better, but not much. It was a lot beefier though, so unlike the standard flat steering arm it never bent.
The later style C170 cable arrangement does look like it provides better tailwheel steering geometry. My C150TD has the same set-up as the early 170's & it steers just about as good (not very).

Ground handling on a Cessna has more to do with getting the caster and camber of the mains correct, Just like with converting a pa22-20 if the axles aren't right it's a bear to handle.
Bill Reid can probably tell you what you need to know and how to get them correct, or he will come do it for you!!
When you set it up it needs to be as you will mostly be flying. We always set it up with full fuel and the front seats full.
Just saying
GT

Hey GT, what engine did you have in the M6?