Hello All,

Been a while since I have been on BCP.

I am looking to buy an airplane! I have about $75K to spend. I am flexible as to what I end up with, maybe too flexible since I keep looking at completely different aircraft. I've gone from Maules, to Mooney's, 182's, fixed up pacers, Super Cubs. I always come back to wanting a Maule, which is the only of the 5 previously mentioned aircraft I have not flown, but I am pretty sure I would get along with.

I am not even sure what fits my wife and I's mission profile anymore. We love spending time in the back country, and we want to be able to bring a 100 pounds of dogs with us, as well as camping and fishing stuff. We also want to be able to escape winter. My sister lives in St. George, a 6 to 7 hour flight in most of what I am looking at (except the Mooney). We have also had an interest in flying Baja, and maybe down through mainland Mexico and possibly out into the Caribbean (so again the Mooney, maybe 182, but Maule wold still work for that). I am not picking a plane on a maybe someday trip though, and the most frequent thing I will do is sight see and play near Lake Chelan and fly with friends up to the bakery in Stehikan.

I have more time, space and money than I have ad previously in my life, 2 aircraft isn't out of the question for us (Also am an A&P and own a 50x120 hangar in Chelan WA. I want to buy a decent aircraft that doesn't come to the hangar on a trailer needing major repairs, I need to fly, but I am sure I'll fill the project plane void sooner than later.


TLDR? I do go on.

So I am asking for a little help in sorting out what to look for. Feel free to share ads that would interest you if you were shopping in the $75K range. Maybe there is something I had not considered. I am trying to focus on buying something that won't be a PITA to go inspect in the age of COVID-19 restrictions too. I was talking to a guy with an M4 in Fairbanks, I can't do a 2 week quarantine to shop for aircraft, although they may be loosening that restriction up soon.

David

David

You don’t need to quarantine to go to ak. Just get a home test w/in 72 hours of travel. Easy. I did it to go perform a wedding up here in July.

I hate aircraft shopping. Leaving the desired airplane too open makes it ever worse.

C182 is a great middle of the road choice. It wouldn’t be likely but a Bearhawk would be a ok option performance wise. It would be tough to find one for that price though one in WA recently sold for about that price.

Sounds like you want a Maule. The old M4-210C has always intrigued me. Can’t talk my ol’ pard into a “certified home built” though[emoji16]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

David, I would find the sweetest straight tail 182 and buy it. Incredibly versatile, good load hauler, cheap to insure, good performer, comfortable and so on. 75k should get you a nice one. Maule’s are great airplanes but cabin is smaller, insurance is more, not as comfy. I. Think 182’s are hard to beat, especially with a landes nose wheel fork and bigger tires for the backcountry.

Now, that being said, that 180hp Aeronca Sedan on Barnstormers is appealing.


Kurt

There’s a BH on barnstormers for $80K. There’s no info posted so it may or may not be worth looking at.

G44 wrote:David, I would find the sweetest straight tail 182 and buy it. Incredibly versatile, good load hauler, cheap to insure, good performer, comfortable and so on. 75k should get you a nice one. Maule’s are great airplanes but cabin is smaller, insurance is more, not as comfy. I. Think 182’s are hard to beat, especially with a landes nose wheel fork and bigger tires for the backcountry. ....

This.

Thanks for the help and advice. I will look at 182's for a while this morning and see if any of them for sale appeal to me. The last couple straight tail 182's I have seen had issues, and I think I would be willing to accept less airplane in exchange for a newer airframe, I'll see what I find though.

Maybe I need to add another 25K to my airplane fund (wife is for that) to get us into the 100K range.

My biggest problem with many aircraft is the total crap logs people keep. I don't have much confidence in a mechanic that can't write legibly and log what was done to the aircraft, and what materials were used, what references were used, and parts were installed.
My time as an A&P has been mostly part 135, mostly Medevac EC135's, 145's, A119's and PC12's. I understand I shouldn't hold part 91 logs to the same standard, but at least be complete and legible.

As far as a Bearhawk, I love experimentals, but maybe one three I see I would be willing to fly. Most that I look at (IMO) need a lot of disassembly and re-doing of stuff. Again, maybe I am too picky. I would (and at some point in the future will) buy someone else's homebuilt, but I'd rather buy one as a project and make it mine. I just want to fly right now.


David

David, I agree with you on logs, amazing how crappy some “impeccable” logs are. Current W&B and updated equipment list is another thing many airplanes are lacking.

Kurt

G44 wrote:David, I agree with you on logs, amazing how crappy some “impeccable” logs are. Current W&B and updated equipment list is another thing many airplanes are lacking.

Kurt

Exactly. I am sure we have all seen 30 year old W&B on aircraft that have had significant equipment changes. Calculating only goes so far.

I'm in the Maule camp and do all you are looking to do and more. I've owned a M-5-235 for 3 years now. Also an A&P/IA but not professionally. They are simple to work on parts are cheap and supported well by the Maule family factory. They aren't the fastest but pushed up will keep up with most 182s. I fill it often for camping, pilotsnpaws flights, or doors off for air to air video. Jack of all trades master of none. Tailwheel insurance is pricey at 3.3% of hull value. All kinds of options for STCs. Any questions I'd be glad to try and answer. Just flew in a buddies 182 for the first time in a while and it was noticeably quieter and smoother more refined though.

David: My last plane was a 182 that had the Texas Skyways O-550 conversion providing 285 Hp. It was a capable plane and had some interesting history. JFK Junior owned it before he bought the Saratoga he died in. The 182 was a competent plane that was reliable and met all my needs, but I wasn't in love with it. I sold that and bought a 2002 Maule MX7-180C taildragger. I'm as happy as I could be. It isn't always about what is most practical. Sometimes our hearts get set on something that doesn't make any sense at all. This Maule makes good sense for me because it only has the O-360 Lyc on its nose. 4 cylinders are cheaper to maintain and operate than 6 and my fuel burn is way down. It costs more to insure, I have to think about density altitude more than I did in the 182, and it isn't as fast. That said, the Maule makes me smile more than the 182 ever did. I'm willing to pay a premium to fly a tailwheel aircraft and I feel some connection with the Maule company. Before buying my plane, I got 2 hours of dual with Ray Maule. That was just two years before he passed away. He told me stories about the planes and his dad. All of that adds to my enthusiasm for the brand. One area where the Maule is cheaper than the Cessna is replacement parts. Cessna will ding you like crazy for any new hardware you buy. Maule is much more reasonable on that front. I realize that none of us buy airplanes based on how much replacement parts cost, but that little bit of info makes me feel less crazy for having bought my Maule. No plane is worth the money if you don't like it enough to fly it regularly. I fly my Maule much more than I ever flew the 182, just because I like playing with wheel landings, and exploring the local area while only burning 7.2 gph of 100 LL at 21" of manifold pressure and 2250 RPM. Buy what you will be compelled to use and what puts a smile on your face - even if it costs more.

me with Ray Maule and the M4 I got my dual in

If this is an okay use of this forum, I'd like to post some of the ads I am looking at and get the opinions of the group.

Here's one. My take on it is that it's old metal prone to fatigue and corrosion, has a mid time engine that was overhauled 37 years ago, which is about 30 hours of use per year. Much of that time may have been with the aircraft sitting on a ramp with a flat nose wheel (as pictured in ad)

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?ca ... e=aircraft

But, it has potential.....

I get why the straight tail is the most desirable for backcountry flying, but I have also seen more later models out in the wild that early models. There are volumes of info on what the differences are in 182 models, I guess I need to figure out what ones not to look at.

D.

Keep in mind, engines and props have a recommended (part 91) calendar TBO as well as a tach TBO. Sitting engines and infrequent (calendar time) oil changes are not good. Most engines rust out before they wear out. First thing that 182 needs is shoulder harness kit.

Kurt

Here's one. My take on it is that it's old metal prone to fatigue and corrosion, has a mid time engine that was overhauled 37 years ago, which is about 30 hours of use per year. Much of that time may have been with the aircraft sitting on a ramp with a flat nose wheel (as pictured in ad)

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?ca ... e=aircraft

Looks practical, and boring. One of the turnoffs for me is how bad the plastic interiors in older Cessnas look. Cessna's trim materials don't age well. That's fixable, but I never felt it worth the effort.

To Flyhound and GBflys, I couldn't agree more and I see myself in a Maule, not a 182. I love conventional gear.
I know this will sound pretty silly, but I just feel so bad ass when I am landing a taildragger. I have 100+ hours in various Cubs, mostly the ones built in Yakima. I'd be shopping for a Cub (and not out of the question) but my wife and I's plans for the next few years involves migrating south for part of the winter and a Cub is too slow, and doesn't have the space to take what we would want to take for 2 or three months away from home base, and are rarely IFR capable. (not that I would want a Cub burdened with that much stuff anyways)

I was looking at an M4 210 in CDA Idaho for around 50K. I stopped looking at it when he sent me some of the logs.
I am entertaining an M4 210 in Fairbanks. He wants too much for it, but it had new fabric in 2017, and has a near 0 time IO-360. The owner is stuck in Hawaii and can't get to the aircraft, which is stored outside at Chena Marina for now. It would be a pretty big endeavor for me to go get it and fly it home to WA, especially with winter fast approaching. Not sure I am ready to hop into a make and model I have not flown before and head off across Canada in the winter.

I'd love an MX7 180. As far as insurance, I was quoted more for a 180 HP Maule than a 235 HP Maule.

D.

G44 wrote:Keep in mind, engines and props have a recommended (part 91) calendar TBO as well as a tach TBO. Sitting engines and infrequent (calendar time) oil changes are not good. Most engines rust out before they wear out. First thing that 182 needs is shoulder harness kit.

Kurt

That is EXACTLY what I was getting at by mentioning it has a 37 year old overhaul. Rubber seals go bad, corrosion sets in, and AD's and SB's to be done at next overhaul pile up.

I am also not a huge fans of top overhauls after reading some of Mike Bushes books, and seeing first hand failures soon after work was done.

Another huge bonus with the Maule is the double aft/cargo door. Makes loading large awkward loads easy. Bikes, the biggest Yeti coolers, XL dog crates you name it. You can buy a lot newer lower time Maule for the same money than Cessna.

I bought mine in Alaska as well. Only 200 or so hours since overhaul in 2000. It sat rarely used the last 6 or 7 years before I bought it. Pulled cylinders during the prebuy to look for corrosion and all appeared clean. Got it home and 125 hours or so later started making metal. So the threat is real for a plane/engine that has sat unused. Buy it priced right to save for the replacement and you'll be ok.

Reviewing logbooks of potential planes is somewhat painful. The worst part is trying to communicate to the seller that their logs suck or are actually working against them.

I recently reviewed the logs of a plane we were looking at. Had a couple hundred hours since SMOH. Turns out that overhaul was 15 years ago, they reused the pistons, valves, didn’t overhaul some of the accessories, didn’t over the carb. The seller wanted premium price because of the low time engine. At least the logs were complete, legible, and the owners was willing to send us pictures of the entries.

Another plane haD only annuals entered in the books. I’m not sure how a plane goes 20 years without any actual work being done.

I would go take a look at this since it's in your neighborhood. https://www.barnstormers.com/classified-1527204-Aeronca-Sedan.html

These are pretty special airplanes. Especially with a Lycoming O-360 up front. An MT prop on that plane would be very interesting.

I've seen this one up close and it is very nice.

Here's a little reading on the model: https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/aero ... ghts-20669