Can’t believe no one has mentioned a Maule, either TW or tricycle. That, or a Pacer.

Pacer is a little slower but I’ve owned both and both are fun airplanes. Can’t go wrong with a 108 or 182 - buy something with life left in it, you don’t want a project.

I feel the mission might need to be a bit more specific before being able to say what airplane might be best. The 182 seems to check all your boxes. As long as, you don’t later on desire a tailwheel (it’s kinda addicting). And you don’t desire to land on super rough terrain. Don’t get my wrong, the nose gear isn’t super weak but don’t expect to land on boulders either.

I am a huge fan of the Pacer and it fits most of your criteria. Downfall is learning TW in it could be tough (had a hell of a time finding an instructor) and it really performs when it’s light. Which contradicts the idea of and IFR Pacer. They are also slower than the 182. But a fixed pitch prop also makes it a bit more simple to fly.

Obviously just my opinion, Always a balance, just gotta find what fits best.

Welcome aboard, and as about half the folks have stated look at 182s and you'll be happy for a long time. I was just talking to a guy yesterday (standing 7' apart because I'm all about safety) who bought a 1957 182 last fall and is about 1/2 way to his private pilot license now. He's got a good instructor that also owns a 182 so he'll learn how to fly it right.

140mph cruise even on big tires and great short field performance. Just like my 180 but WAY cheaper on insurance.

I’ll add another vote for the 182. I bought my bone stock ‘56 in 2016 and it has been a good, reliable plane that can do a little bit of everything. Buy a good example and fly it like crazy, worry about all the stol upgrades later. While we don’t have any bush flying in South Tx, I take it into all the 1800 ft gravel strips I work off of without any issues.

Hey guys, thanks again for all the input!

Regarding my mission, I really am not placing a high level of priority on IFR. I just want to learn eventually. Cover your eyes TD fans, but I don't feel the need to own a taildragger, at least at my current level of experience. I think they represent less value in terms of entry price, and are obviously more expensive to insure. That's why I didn't list the 170 or 180 in my initial options.

I think what I'll end up doing is planning to delay my purchase by 6 months or so, so I can increase my budget to $70-80k and look for a nicer 182. I think that price range will get me into some better birds like you guys suggested. I'll just keep looking in case the market softens and some good deals pop up.

What do y'all think of the GlaStar instead of a 182? Seems like similar performance numbers with a more economical 4-banger out front. And in the $70-80k range, I can probably find a GlaStar with a better panel than a similarly priced 182...

Steve

Glastar's are good performers for the buck and have been in the 60K range. Heavy on the ailerons and flaps (compared to the upgrades employed by the Sportsman). Being EAB gives you a lot more options on customizing and upgrading at will as well as lower cost. They are easily convertible from trike to taildragger and back.

Glastar has been discontinued in favor of the much pricier sportsman. I would stick with tried and true.

DeltaRomeo wrote:Glastar's are good performers for the buck and have been in the 60K range. Heavy on the ailerons and flaps (compared to the upgrades employed by the Sportsman). Being EAB gives you a lot more options on customizing and upgrading at will as well as lower cost. They are easily convertible from trike to taildragger and back.

I've read that too. I can't stomach the price of a Sportsman though...

Is the flap weight something I can muscle, or does it require finesse? I'm asking because I keep myself in pretty good shape. How do the aileron forces compare to a 172 or 182? Might force me to use my rudder more! I don't need my first plane to be absolutely perfect, as long as it handles safely, cruises respectably and STOLs decently.

I really want to build a Rans S21. I don't mind putting in the hours. I just don't think I can do it for the price I can buy a 182 or Glastar for. I guess the plus is that I could end up with a solid glass panel for much less than it would cost to do on a 182...

Steve

Mark Y. wrote:Glastar has been discontinued in favor of the much pricier sportsman. I would stick with tried and true.

It seems to me like most of the changes that were made in moving to the sportsman were geared toward adapting the design for the TWTT program. (Not including the flap and aileron forces that were mentioned earlier.) You just couldn't do a GlaStar in 2 weeks without the changes they made for the later model. It just doesn't seem like the Sportsman is a totally different animal...

I don't know how it compares to a stock or modified 182 in terms of its STOL performance though.

Steve

For your price range I'd think there is a cherry straight tail 182 out there for you. With the modest weight you want to carry the short field performance will be great.

Check the price of insurance for an EAB. The higher premium will likely eat up any savings in operating cost. Based on my hours last year my Bearhawk cost $50/hr just for insurance.

My experience is very limited but I have friends with C182, C180 and a 180hp early C172 and have flown them all a little bit. Without question the C172 is the funnest to fly. It’s light on the controls, cruises fast enough (130mph) and has great STOL performance. If I were in your shoes that’s the plane I would be looking for.

Did your experience in the Army allow you the opportunity to get your A&P? If so then IMO there’s little reason for you to consider an EAB. Get your A&P, do most of your own wrenching and enjoy cheap insurance.

whee wrote:Check the price of insurance for an EAB. The higher premium will likely eat up any savings in operating cost. Based on my hours last year my Bearhawk cost $50/hr just for insurance.

My experience is very limited but I have friends with C182, C180 and a 180hp early C172 and have flown them all a little bit. Without question the C172 is the funnest to fly. It’s light on the controls, cruises fast enough (130mph) and has great STOL performance. If I were in your shoes that’s the plane I would be looking for.

Did your experience in the Army allow you the opportunity to get your A&P? If so then IMO there’s little reason for you to consider an EAB. Get your A&P, do most of your own wrenching and enjoy cheap insurance.

I would probably get liability insurance and self-insure the hull if I went E-AB. Good point though. I was Guard, not Active Duty, so I was not able to get my A&P out of it unfortunately.

I've also thought about the 180hp 172, but it seems like nobody else is recommending it for some reason! I'm also interested in the 175, which I guess has the same power but a bit more weight. It sounds like it can burn auto fuel though, which I don't think a 180hp 4-banger can.

I've contacted a guy that has a 175 with a GO300 (480 SMOH) and is asking $8000 for it. Seems like I could run that engine to TBO and then STC to another engine, or just buy a different plane. If the plane made TBO and had no value by the end of the 720 hours its got left, it would only have cost me $11 an hour in depreciation...

Steve

whee wrote:My experience is very limited but I have friends with C182, C180 and a 180hp early C172 and have flown them all a little bit. Without question the C172 is the funnest to fly. It’s light on the controls, cruises fast enough (130mph) and has great STOL performance. If I were in your shoes that’s the plane I would be looking for.
.

Different definition of fun. My plane doesn't weigh much more than a 172 with a lot more thump up front and is ridiculously sexy to look at. Come moose season that big motor is so welcome.

Obligatory beautiful photo

lawndart wrote:

whee wrote:Check the price of insurance for an EAB. The higher premium will likely eat up any savings in operating cost. Based on my hours last year my Bearhawk cost $50/hr just for insurance.

My experience is very limited but I have friends with C182, C180 and a 180hp early C172 and have flown them all a little bit. Without question the C172 is the funnest to fly. It’s light on the controls, cruises fast enough (130mph) and has great STOL performance. If I were in your shoes that’s the plane I would be looking for.

Did your experience in the Army allow you the opportunity to get your A&P? If so then IMO there’s little reason for you to consider an EAB. Get your A&P, do most of your own wrenching and enjoy cheap insurance.

I would probably get liability insurance and self-insure the hull if I went E-AB. Good point though. I was Guard, not Active Duty, so I was not able to get my A&P out of it unfortunately.

I've also thought about the 180hp 172, but it seems like nobody else is recommending it for some reason! I'm also interested in the 175, which I guess has the same power but a bit more weight. It sounds like it can burn auto fuel though, which I don't think a 180hp 4-banger can.

I've contacted a guy that has a 175 with a GO300 (480 SMOH) and is asking $8000 for it. Seems like I could run that engine to TBO and then STC to another engine, or just buy a different plane. If the plane made TBO and had no value by the end of the 720 hours its got left, it would only have cost me $11 an hour in depreciation...

Steve

The gear driven engines generally won't go as long as the straight up O-300 (which I'm a big fan of), but that sounds like a good deal if the rest of the plane is clean/corrosion free. If you run them "hard" keeping the RPMs up they're much happier, and you're not over stressing the motor, where throttling back is not so good on 'em. Super smooth motor.

A couple guys locally converted their 172 to a 180hp, over $60,000 to do it. I doubt if a 175 will every be worth that much, so it's all about if it's worth that much to you.

akaviator wrote:

whee wrote:My experience is very limited but I have friends with C182, C180 and a 180hp early C172 and have flown them all a little bit. Without question the C172 is the funnest to fly. It’s light on the controls, cruises fast enough (130mph) and has great STOL performance. If I were in your shoes that’s the plane I would be looking for.
.

Different definition of fun. My plane doesn't weigh much more than a 172 with a lot more thump up front and is ridiculously sexy to look at. Come moose season that big motor is so welcome.

Obligatory beautiful photo

Looks awesome, but what is it??

That's a beautiful example of a C180. I agree that a 180hp 172 would be great, but you have been considering a very large expanse of aircraft. Even a stock 0-300 powered 172 will perform quite well, especially if kept light. I really like the 0-300 as well. And it will teach you a lot about flying the wing instead of just relying on excess power. I think youd be surprised where an older 172 will take you, and how cheap they can be operated.

akaviator wrote:
The gear driven engines generally won't go as long as the straight up O-300 (which I'm a big fan of), but that sounds like a good deal if the rest of the plane is clean/corrosion free. If you run them "hard" keeping the RPMs up they're much happier, and you're not over stressing the motor, where throttling back is not so good on 'em. Super smooth motor.

A couple guys locally converted their 172 to a 180hp, over $60,000 to do it. I doubt if a 175 will every be worth that much, so it's all about if it's worth that much to you.

For the cost of that conversion I could buy a decent Hawk XP or 182!

The 175 is not currently flying and looks pretty dirty, but the owner is an IA/A&P. I'll ask him how much he'd want for it in airworthy condition.

Steve

A1Skinner wrote:That's a beautiful example of a C180. I agree that a 180hp 172 would be great, but you have been considering a very large expanse of aircraft. Even a stock 0-300 powered 172 will perform quite well, especially if kept light. I really like the 0-300 as well. And it will teach you a lot about flying the wing instead of just relying on excess power. I think youd be surprised where an older 172 will take you, and how cheap they can be operated.

Really a beautiful bird!

The number of aircraft I'm considering is the reason I came here and posted

Loving the feedback!

Man, I just remember the 172s I flew in flight school being S L O W in climb... I did a couple hours in a Cutlass and it felt like a rocket ship! I don't know if I'd be happy with a regular ole 172

Steve

lawndart wrote:

whee wrote:Check the price of insurance for an EAB. The higher premium will likely eat up any savings in operating cost. Based on my hours last year my Bearhawk cost $50/hr just for insurance.

My experience is very limited but I have friends with C182, C180 and a 180hp early C172 and have flown them all a little bit. Without question the C172 is the funnest to fly. It’s light on the controls, cruises fast enough (130mph) and has great STOL performance. If I were in your shoes that’s the plane I would be looking for.

Did your experience in the Army allow you the opportunity to get your A&P? If so then IMO there’s little reason for you to consider an EAB. Get your A&P, do most of your own wrenching and enjoy cheap insurance.

I would probably get liability insurance and self-insure the hull if I went E-AB. Good point though. I was Guard, not Active Duty, so I was not able to get my A&P out of it unfortunately.

I've also thought about the 180hp 172, but it seems like nobody else is recommending it for some reason! I'm also interested in the 175, which I guess has the same power but a bit more weight. It sounds like it can burn auto fuel though, which I don't think a 180hp 4-banger can.

I've contacted a guy that has a 175 with a GO300 (480 SMOH) and is asking $8000 for it. Seems like I could run that engine to TBO and then STC to another engine, or just buy a different plane. If the plane made TBO and had no value by the end of the 720 hours its got left, it would only have cost me $11 an hour in depreciation...

Steve

Steve, the reason no one is mentioning the 180hp 172 is because you cant get one for 50k. As for the 175 (good airplane by the way with a 180hp Lyc or 0-470 Continental) you mentioned, you dont have enough money for that airplane. The geared engine in the 175 is an orphan, good luck finding parts and the conversion to 180hp will cost a LOT of money. I seriously doubt you would make it to TBO on the GO300.

Tri Pacers are a great value bang for the buck airplanes too.

Kurt

I just saw a 180hp C175 for sale a couple days ago. $50ish K I think it was and it looks nice but pics only tell you how she looks in makeup.

akaviator, I agree with you I think. Just a difference of opinion and likely my opinion would change with more experience. The C180 I flew (only 3hrs for a BFR) was a very light ‘53 model with wingX and sportsman. The speed was awesome. All around performance was enjoyable. But the handling wasn’t what I expected. Every control was heavy and it required constant elevator trim adjustments. The C182, 1960 model, feels the same but it’s a little lighter on the aileron since it doesn’t have wingX. The C172 is light and pleasant.

Performance wise the C172 does surprisingly well. I can’t really quantify it very well but when I fly with my buddy I usually end up wondering why I spent 5 years building a BH.

lawdart, I’m not sure self insuring an EAB makes any more since than self insuring a certified plane. You wreck either one and your left with no money to fix it.

The Lycoming O360 can run mogas. STC are available for most applicable airframes. My buddies has his C172 setup for mogas.