Thanks guy for all of the advice. I am thinking I need to save some more and buy what I really want. I live in Colorado and the density altitude can be out of sight sometimes so I definitely want something with more horsepower. I have a small child right now and we plan on having another one next year. I would really like to make aviation a part of the family so I would definitely like to have something I can haul 4 people in (2 little people )

In the mean time I have the 172 so I will hone my skills with that. I wasn't really sure about a nosedragger in backcountry flying. I will definitely check out mountainflying.com.

How can you really guage what backcountry strips are safe for a nosedragger? I figured that they were very picky about landing surfaces....

Thanks again guys....sorry for all of the newbie questions.

Green,

Since I brought it up, I'll respond to your question about suitable habitat for nose draggers.

You're right that the main determining factor between tail and nose wheel is the landing surface. However, tailwheel aircraft tend to be optimized for slow flight and rough field operations, so the "average" tailwheel aircraft likely has a lower stall speed (and better manuverability) than the average nose dragger if you look at the whole spectrum of nose draggers. That means that the average taildragger will get you into shorter strips in tighter areas than the average nosewheel aircraft That said, the Cessna 172 and 182 wings are plenty good for slow flight and you can put STOL kits and vortex generators on them just like any other aircraft if you want to improve slow performance and get them in and out of the tight and short spots.

As far as evaluating runway surfaces goes, I've survived so far by relying on local knowlege (especially instructors) and careful fly-overs. Sometimes you can drive or hike to strips. For example, I hiked up to Vines from Cabin Creek a few years ago and decided I wouldn't take my 182 in there. Similarly, I walked the runway at Panamint Springs in Death Valley, CA and reluctantly concluded that the rocks are just a little too big to risk. Those are places that the tailwheelers on this board can use without too much trouble.

There are two basic hazards to consider on runway surfaces: stone damage and flip-over potential.

Not all nose draggers are created equal when it comes to exposure to prop damage. The early 182s sit pretty far off the ground. It would be take a really nasty strip to get stone damage on their props. I saw a nice 182 out of Reno this summer that had the oversize nose fork and what looked like an 8.00 nosewheel, with 8.50s on the mains. That provides more prop clearance and allows it to roll over bigger rocks.

The potential for flipping over is another matter. Really irregular strips with severe and short frequency humps (ditches) are a no-go, and I stay away from boggy areas that could bury the nosewheel despite the best FAA soft field technique. FWIW, the strips I know that have boggy areas also tend to be on a slope, so landing before or past the bog is usually possible.

There are guys on this board who fly both kinds of aircraft for fun and, hopefully some profit. They can give you perspective based on actual experience in both.

Finally, I won't dispute the guys who prefer tailwheels because of the art and aethetic of flying them. In this respect, it's kind of like bamboo vs. graphite fly rods. Graphite works great, but there's just nothing like the feel of a fine balanced bamboo rod, especially if it's been through a lot of loving hands.

All FWIW.

CAVU

I fly a 182B. That was the lst 182 with a square tail. It has exactly the same stall speed of the 180 cus it is the same plane except for the gear. Most of my 182 buddies try everything they can do to go faster. the 182's middle name is drag so I figure if I wanted to go fast I would of gotten a Mooney.

I on the other hand have done everything I can do to slow it down. First off came the wheel pants. Then came the big nose fork with a 6.00x6 tire. The last thing was to put 7.00x6 on the mains. With this configuration, I have landed at cabin creek as well as all the strips around the middle fork of the salmon. The only one that I have not been to is Mile High. Also landed at Chicken Strip in Death Valley.

You can get a pretty nice strait tail 182 for around 55KA and yes they have dropped in price just a little and I do not see them or anything else going up to fast for the little while.

I have had mine for almost 6 years and have put on around about 750 hrs. Just love the plane and I have no regrets. After having bragged about the plane I want to tell you that I am now considering selling it and getting a 180. They are about 12 to 15 kts faster than mine cus I have the big nose gear that is just lots of drag. I am more interested in the better spead than I am in landing at places that rattle your fillings out.

Tim

I think the general consensus is get something that you can afford to fly and do it. Planning and experience will help you judge what your abilities of you and your aircraft might be in the future. There's a strong possibility that I will hang on to mine for quite awhile. I've got about 500 hours on it and still learn everyday. The one thing to keep in mind is that there is no perfect airplane, everyone is a compromise of some sort.
I learned the hard way that there are three things you don't criticize about a guy; His wife, his dog and his plane (or boat) because they are usually emotional decisions and not rational.

Oh yeah, the Purple People Eater pictured earlier is sitting on Merrill Field and I get to see it every Thursday on my way into town. It's for sale too!

In your search you might want to look at a Citabari. They offer a good bang for the buck to purchase and are cheap to keep. I have been flying a 7gcbc for a couple of years and thoroughly enjoy it. It is not as fast as the 180, and won't carry as much, but for knocking around in the desert it is hard to beat it.
Just my $0.02, get what you can afford and fly it...
Jay

dflyer I thought about a Citabria, but I want something that will carry 4 persons as I have a family. They do seem to be a really good value. I am a big guy as well (6'1", 275lbs). I have seen a few of them and they look so narrow my gut would stick out the side of the plane!!

YELLOWMAULE where do you live in AK? My wife and I want to move up there in a couple years (probably Anchorage, Palmer, or Wasilla). I was offered a job this summer, but the timing was not quite right as they would not pay relocation and they wanted someone in a week!! We are positioning ourselves for a move up there most likely in 2 years. I LOVE AK....something about AK that just calls to me....not sure what it is. How many ggood VFR flying days do you have a year in the Anchorage area? I have dreamed of living and flying AK since I was a kid

Howdy all,
Still here, at least while the baby is sleeping. I'll make this short. Buy a Pa22/20 160 or 180. It's hard to fly well, but once you master it everything else is pretty easy, up to and including a Pitts:). I landed mine in all sorts of backcountry places and had a blast. Insurance is affordable,about half what I paid for my Maule, and they don't burn much gas. Just take your time learning, and you'll be fine.
Jeff

I thought I might put in my 2.5 cents worth. In my opinion, the Stinson is just about the best airplane you can buy for the money. I have let numerous pilots fly mine, and they can't believe what a great, all around airplane it is. As far as Nose vs. Tail draggers goes...just go with what you like to fly. We operate 206's out of every strip in the Idaho backcountry (most with full loads) and so does every other operator here. So I dont really see the need for a taildragger unless you are planning on doing some Big Rocks and Long Props stuff. Good luck!!

Don't discount that 172 either. I have a 1960 172A that I have had for 19 years. And once you really learn the airplane it is amazing what you will be able to do with it. It is no SuperCub but will handle short rough strips if you watch what you are doing. My advice is like many others on here...buy something cheaper to fly right now and build some time then later get what you need. The more you fly the more you will realize the type of plane you really need. Everyone has these grand illusions of being the Bush Pilot when all they need to fullfill their flying needs is a 172/182.
By the way I also have a 7AC with an 0-235 and it is fun to fly but I usually end up in the 172 when ever I really want to get out and go someplace.

The 172 is for sale. The kids are all gone and I don't need the 4 seats anymore. Plus I put in a short strip at my house and my flying lately has been regulated to just burning holes around the local area.

Keith

I love my stinson as i posted before.

If you want to try one and get to south Idaho we can get some time in my plane and see what you think.

One thing that I think is very important is to go and fly the type of plane that you are thinking of buying. Even a modest plane is a substantial investment. I found that most people that have the type of plane that you are looking at will be willing to take you up for a spin.

Dane

I have owned a PA22/20, a 170, a 140, a Champ, a Citabria and a Chief.
My Pacer had 135 HP and I operated it routinely off 1500 feet. My daughter flew all of her time for the Commercial in it.
I liked it better than all of the others.
My neighbor at the airpark now has one with a 160. We live at 4150 elevation and this airplane performs wonderfully.

But have a knowledgeable mechanic go through the logbooks carefully.

Bob

I got a PA-22 Colt when I was 16 for $4200. Flew it to a lot of the strips in Idaho when I was 17 (I had spent 4 summers back there prior). It performed fine fully loaded out of most of the longest ones (Cold Meadows being the exception- had to go light to get out of the hole). But Soldier Bar, Taylor, Cabin Creek, the B, Shearer, JC, Moose, Chamberlain, Big Creek, Sulphur, Running Creek, Bernard, Fish Lake, Cayuse, and a couple others were all easily handled by the Colt with a measly O-235. It made a perfectly good little roller skate to get in and out of fishing holes.

It should be remembered that all these strips were built and flown for guys flying Jennys, Tiger Moths, and Travelairs back in the day (as in 1930's on, and some even earlier), and a PA-22/20 is a superstar compared to any of them. Heck, a 140 is a superstar compared to any of them, for that matter. I have a few prints showing Jenny's and T-airs at both Taylor and Mile Hi from the late 30's or early 40's. It isn't about HP generally, and it isn't about nosedragger vs taildragger. There are only a handful of established strips in Idaho or Montana that absolutely require one, the other, or both to safely operate out out *on the right day*. Taildraggers will save the prop at places like Soldier bar or Bernard, and that is where the advantage basically ends (for me) aside from being more fun to drive around on the ground, and for being able to access *really* rough or off airport places.

The one issue with the short wingers is just that- the short wings. What makes for a walk in the park on a high density altitude day in a PA-12 becomes a spruce-dodging adventure in a short wing. It will fly 10-15mph faster at cruise, but it suffers a bit when flying slow.

This one made a great BC and XC plane for me:

http://www.skywagons.com/92767.html

Tri gear or tail wheel....like others said here. Bamboo or Graphite?

What are you going to do most? The 182 is and has been great to me. The 180 however is awesome! It comes down to personal pref. What are you going to be doing most? My 182 can do just about (I said just about) everything my 180 can. I am grateful I owned a 182 prior as it really helped me with ratings and gaining experience. Had I purchased a 180 prior, odds are I would of bent the thing. (I am still hoping I dont)

182 is roomy and probably a bit safer. You can land the thing in a cross wind with your hands in your lap. The 180 is a bronco kicking your ass until it comes to a stop. If your going to spend the money and you want something for a longtime, think real hard about what your going to be doing in your plane over the next 5-10 years gaining experience.

172's are great, but they have no room really as you are aware, and are underpowered unless your flying around 2 people and limited gear. Even more so at elevation. Spend the extra money for some comfort. The PA is also great but then again what are your needs. I think a Maule would kick your ass for awhile as your gaining experience, but what do I know about Maules.

I my opinion, you should get a nose dragger and fly it everyday. Gain time and experience, get rid of the pressures that a tail dragger puts on you and then when ready, sell the nose dragger and drop in to the all mighty tail wheel, be it a 170, PA or whatever. By that time you will have experience and also the knowledge of what you really want. Dont waste your time on avionics until you know what your needs are. If your considering a TW plane, I would think long and hard about a 170 as my first TW aircraft. Many folks have learned how to fly in a 170. Its a great bird!

Just my 2c

AKT

Stinsons are a great plane, easy to fly and one of the most over looked out there. I had my current Stinson for many years. One can add different mods to make a great plane even better. There are a lot of them out there on the market and the price range in what your looking for. Plenty of room and very for giving to fly. Great on fuel. My Stinson is a 108-2 with a 165hp Franklin. I am working on a 0470 continental for the horse power.
Give them a thought. Look in to them as well.


Ken in Alaska

greenhorn wrote:I have heard that the insurance is really expensive for Maules. Is this true? If so why is it so expensive?

Hey there...I looked at maules when I was shopping and they are a good ariplane, but yes insurance is definitely more on them. For me it was about 4-500 more per year and that was with decent tailwheel time. if you get the right one plenty of room and useful load along with horsepower.

I was going to suggest the Stinson as well, but it may be tight for 4 people-two no problem. I'm up in Denver (well the plane is out by Limon) and if you want to see what a super Stinson can do and the room it has come check it out...I have the 230hp Continental 0-470, and my buddy has the 220 franklin. the backseats are pretty cramped for a family of four (unless its small kids) and limited luggage room with 4 peeps. useful load is around 800pds. I saw a few on barnstormers in the $50k range.

IMO...the PA-20/22 you will find for yourself is ample and can get around fine but for four people you gotta remember that cumulus granite we have to the west and our high DA in the summer- and i would think you would have a hard time if not impossible to get through with it loaded down like you want in the summer months at those altitudes. If you go to UT you may have to go around the rockpile making that 3-4 hr flight a 7-8 hr one-same deal with ID, etc. Just some food for thought there.

If you don't have alot of tailwheel time your insurance will probably be VERY high your first year and slowly come down. If you want to stay tricycle out here a 182 is a great platform for what you may want.

in my search I found alot of airplanes that fit alot of different missions. I actually wrote down what I wanted to accomplish and where, then narrowed my criteria based upon that. One of the big things out here if you want to go west is horsepower vs. weight to get up over dem der rocks and deal with the high DA!

hope that helps- let me know if you want to see the Stinson!

Well since original post here was 5 yrs ago, I wonder if he ever got a plane??