It has been a while since my last “what plane to I need post” and since then I have acquired an RV4 for going fast and sling sportsman acro but still need to add the family plane to the fleet.

The new mission beyond $100 hamburgers is to be able to use the plane to go camping, hunting, fishing and skiing with. I won’t need bush plane capability but will need space for ski tubes, long guns, etc and still be able to comfortably seat 2 passengers.

Since I bought the RV, the budget is restricted to $70k absolute max but really prefer to be in the $50’s.

We are a smal family of 3 (350 lbs including all of us) and I don’t really need to go fast but would like to cruise at or above 125mph.

Thx

2400’ grass field will be the norm.

That is going to be tough find on that budget.

“I won’t need bush plane capability but will need space for ski tubes, long guns, etc and still be able to comfortably seat 2 passengers.”

Does this mean you’re airport to airport? I hope so. I also hope you’re planning to fly short distances and won’t need to haul a bunch of fuel. And it would be cool if you’re willing to make more than 1 trip.

Everyone is different, but your desired mission, as cool as it is, will be difficult to achieve with no budget. Not many airplanes can do what you ask in one trip to begin with, and the obvious ones are over your stated budget.

Maybe provide some more detail about your specific ideas so we can start looking for a C-182. Oh, and if your family is anything like mine, the body weights will soon increase.

A stock 170 or straight tail 172. There are planes available in the 50-70k range. They easily fit 2 people. The 170 with one or both rear seats (jump seats if available are amazing) removed plus extended baggage can easily fit skis and guns. Not as familiar with the straight tail 172s regarding baggage but the Omni vision 172 models don’t seem as friendly.

Your requirements say 172 to me, you want some room, some seats, some payload, from a long strip and don’t want to spend a fortune. It sounds like you’re after a grass strip family tourer. While it’s not a proper bush plane, a grass strip family hauler the 172 definitely is.

I think skis is going require an extended baggage in whatever you choose.

Long guns are a little shorter. A lot can be done with the rear seat out for 2-person missions.

Don't underestimate the cumulative weight of either loads. A few rifles and ammo starts to add up. Skis/boots/gear for 3 people gets heavy too.

If you can find a 172 with 180hp, they are a great bird. We have a couple at the local flight school with a O-360 fixed pitch conversion that I've rented a lot over the years and they perform, but they're heavy. I don't think it's necessarily the O-360 that makes them heavy but their IFR trainers so they're pretty loaded with panel. High 1400s, low 1500s.

The worst thing about flying a 172 is that you have nothing to feel special about. No one will ever give you a nod that your bird is cool or interesting any more than they'd fist pump for seeing you in your Toyota Corolla. No offense to any Skyhawk owners. If anything, people should be giving them a thumbs up for their good sense and wisdom in purchasing the airplane that works.

Zzz wrote:
The worst thing about flying a 172 is that you have nothing to feel special about. No one will ever give you a nod that your bird is cool or interesting any more than they'd fist pump for seeing you in your Toyota Corolla. No offense to any Skyhawk owners. If anything, people should be giving them a thumbs up for their good sense and wisdom in purchasing the airplane that works.

The truth is that they are great planes. Straight tail O-300 172s are a good deal right now.

Honestly we could knock all of these what plane should I buy threads with:

Little money buy a tripacer.

Buy a 172.

If you’ve got more money buy a 182.

If you’ve got lots of money buy a 185 on amphibs.

If you’ve got more money buy a carbon cub as well.

Then their are the weirdos, Maule, Wilga, etc.

Or you if you just want to play and be experimental buy a Kitfox or a Rans. But not cheap per pound of load carrying capacity.

Probably a bit hard on Maules there. They are great planes.

And likewise for the Wilga.

Don’t forget the Scout. 2 kids can fit in the back seat . With my extended baggage I can get one piece fishing rods in. Also 135lbs combined baggage. Won’t go 125 but will go 100+

Sounds like you’re training for a biathlon. Cool!

Zane’s right; stock baggage won’t be long enough, regardless of the airplane. Other than that, this mission could be accomplished by almost anything — 170, 172, (Tri-)Pacer, Cherokee, Musketeer....

A Glasair Sportsman would be perfect, but you could get a 185 for the asking price of a Sportsman these days.

Squash wrote:A stock 170 or straight tail 172. There are planes available in the 50-70k range. They easily fit 2 people. The 170 with one or both rear seats (jump seats if available are amazing) removed plus extended baggage can easily fit skis and guns. Not as familiar with the straight tail 172s regarding baggage but the Omni vision 172 models don’t seem as friendly.

This ^^^^

I carried all sorts of long stuff in my 170B with Selkirk extended baggage. I don't know if that is available for an early 172, but should be field approvable. Pull that heavy back seat out and install one Atlee Dodge folding seat, and you've got a three place plane with a good load factor, and lots of space. And, probably at your price point.

MTV

Thx folks. This has addressed many of my questions.

It seems like none of the likely planes will handle the ski tubes with stock cargo configurations but most of the narrow body Cessnas will have aftermarket options.

I would love to have an experimental for this mission but in a 3-4 seater prices are likely way over the budget.

I’ll dig deeper into an early 172, 175?? And 170.

Thx

If you fold down the rear seat in a Grumman Tiger, the resulting compartment is 6 feet long.

StuBob wrote:If you fold down the rear seat in a Grumman Tiger, the resulting compartment is 6 feet long.

Can you fold just one seat individually?

DJ Balla wrote:Thx folks. This has addressed many of my questions.

It seems like none of the likely planes will handle the ski tubes with stock cargo configurations but most of the narrow body Cessnas will have aftermarket options.

I would love to have an experimental for this mission but in a 3-4 seater prices are likely way over the budget.

I’ll dig deeper into an early 172, 175?? And 170.

Thx

I once had an airplane with a home made "Ski tube" attached into the bulkhead above the baggage compartment. That was field approved, but it was a very simple setup: Just an aluminum tube, attached to the baggage bulkhead forward, and to a brace at the aft end, riveted into the ribs. It easily held a couple of pairs of skis, and cost almost nothing. The only glitch I can think of is if you're in a district that really hates field approvals.

Before everyone in the free world installed extended baggage compartments in Super Cubs, there were a gazzilion of these in those airplanes. Like this:
http://www.fadodge.com/extended-baggage-kit/ Price is exhorbitant on that cause it's STC'd and nobody buys them for Cubs any more. Point is, you could make your own (owner produced part) and get it field approved......placard it for max weight of ?? 5 pounds, 8 pounds, whatever, so light structures aren't going to be an issue.

But, for that money, buy a Selkirk baggage: https://selkirk-aviation.com/extended-baggage-kits/ lots of room.

MTV

DJ Balla wrote:

StuBob wrote:If you fold down the rear seat in a Grumman Tiger, the resulting compartment is 6 feet long.

Can you fold just one seat individually?

I don’t think so but I don’t really remember.

Goodyear wrote:Don’t forget the Scout. 2 kids can fit in the back seat . With my extended baggage I can get one piece fishing rods in. Also 135lbs combined baggage. Won’t go 125 but will go 100+

Just understand that the Type Certificate on those aircraft specify that plane as a two place. Occupancy of back seat is NOT dictated primarily by weight of occupants.

For one thing, that rear seat belt is designed for One occupant.

It’d have to be a REALLY serious, life or death situation for me to carry two humans of any size in the back seat of a Scout.

MTV

Another option may be a 180hp or higher Stinson 108. With 200hp and constant speed prop I cruise at 120 mph indicated. Almost 1000lb useful load, 50 gallons of fuel in a 108-3. Back seats are sling type with a crossbar, removable in about 10 minutes with no tools.

Won't fit skis stock but there's evidence of a fabricated ski tube installed aft of the baggage compartment on this website.