tgiencke wrote:...I would like to add an upbeat note to this dicussion with a question on what you think is the cheapest aircraft to own that is going to be used on backcountry strips. The only rule is it is going to be tied outside (with covers for winter ops).

-Todd Giencke

Todd asked this question on the 'Throwing in the Towel...' thread and didn't get any bites. So I thought I'd start up a topic about it to see what people thought about it.

In spite of the fact that I've decided to sell my plane for primarily financial reasons I've been pretty happy with the cost of ownership of my Maule M-4-220C from a single owner perspective. It's been a lot of bang for the buck from a performance vs cost standpoint.

What say ya'll?

Strata:

I fly a '76 Citabria 7GCBC and am very happy with the costs of flying. It has a 150 hp Lycoming that gives good power and burns about 6.5 gph. It also has the autogas STC which makes it a lot cheaper to fly. There is however an annual AD on the wood spars that could eventually lead to a costly repair, but for now, it's great.

Joe.

My Kitfox. I've got tundra tires on her now and she'll land on a frozen lake with 4" of snow in less than 250'. And it's cheap to operate. She won't haul a load like your Maule but I can take another adult with 50 lbs of baggage and still have 2 hours of fuel (with a reserve) at 115mph cruise.

Some people say that they'd never fly in a plane they maintain, but I'm just the opposite. I'm more comfortable flying something I worked on since I know exactly what's under the surface.

I am flying a champ with a stol kit, 90hp,and extended bunge gear,no electrics. no spar insection under 90hp,auto fuel@5gal per hr, paid 20k with new motor and wings,and parts are everywere. i may be a little biased. but a champ/citabria is bang for buck imho

Ivan, what model Kitfox and what powerplant? And what kind of tundra tires at $60 for the pair?

Eric

Hi all,

Thanks for moving this over to a new thread.

I like to try to keep the costs of flying to a minimum without effecting safety, reliability, "dispatchabilty" aka fly whenever I want to. Going with this thinking I can fly 150-200hr/yr.

This means to me an all aluminum certified aircraft older than 1970. I took a long very hard look at homebuilts but came to the conclusion that the end cost and time commitment was more than an old certified plane. I'm also going to tie down outside at a private 2,500' grass strip that is a mile from my house. I could hanger the plane but the $1,200/yr pays for a lot of fuel. So I'll use covers and be happy.

I wouldn't feel very comfortable leaving a fabric plane outside 24/7. And one with a wood spar wouldn't even be an option.

So I'm thinking the best plane for cheep backcountry flying is an all metal 2 seater with a Cont. O-200 or Lyc O-235. I'm not going to go with anything larger because of fuel burn rates.

I can only think of a few planes that fits the above.

C-140A, C-150 TW conversion, Luscombe 8E/F.

Any others? Ideas? Comments?

-Todd Giencke

People do swear by the Luscombes - more than they swear at them anyways

Well, here's my vote for the 170. It certainly isn't cheaper to either purchase nor operate than some of the other choices, but it is a good middle of the road flyer between the cheaper two seaters like the above and the more powerful flyers like the Maules, Cessna 180/185's etc. And depending on what kind of backcountry flying you are doing there are more considerations:

With my back seat removed I can carry a lot of camping gear - even bikes or folding/inflatable boats - and do it with two adults and usually full fuel too. And be legal. Try that in a C140 or a Luscombe.

But it would sure be nice to be getting that 5gph

Eric,

I have the Model IV Speesdter with a Rotax 912. She's a real performer with only 80hp, but I'm planning on upgrading to the 912S 100hp when I get to TBO.

I got the 21x12x8 tundra tires on sale from MiPPi ultralights http://mipowerparachute.com/Tires.html

My Luscombe is the only plane that I really have any time in so I can't speak for anything else. But I really love flying it. It's cheap, my last flight to Owyhee State and about a dozen touch n goes I burned 3.12 gph, I get good performance for the amount of HP, and dang it is just fun to fly. It is true that you can't fit a lot of baggage when hauling two people but I have loaded mine with fishing and camping gear and left with my wife for the weekend.

My only complaint is the baggage space, staying under gross isn't a problem for me but I have a hard time fitting the cooler, tent, fishing poles, and chairs in the space given. There are a few people who have gotten approvals for extended baggage than gives an extra 12" of depth, and they are willing to share their copies of 337'Ss, usually. If I did that then there wouldn't be any trouble at all.

Jon

I'm not really sure what the tailwheel conversion costs, but I think a Cessna 150 /152 (preferably the Sparowhawk 125hp) with a tailwheel would be about as cheap as you can get and still have a lot of usable airplane.

They don't have a lot of load capacity, but they have a reasonable amount of cargo room for sleeping bags and the like. There's a million of them out there; lots of parts, lots of planes to choose from.

The all metal frame is robust...I recently read there has never been an inflight structural failure of a 150/152. Considering virtually all of them are used for training, and many of them have over 10k hours, that's pretty impressive.

The electric flaps are a drag (punny ), but on the other hand they are a more efficient flap design than the 140. They're not as cute as a 140, but then again it's going to live outside, so who cares what it looks like.

Correct me if i am wrong but I've been under the impression that the PA-20 (pacer) is a pretty cheap plane to own and operate, apart from the fabric it's supposedly inexpensive. At one point, when i wasn't pathetically broke I thought about buying one, I cannot recall the numbers but it looked like a good deal at the time. anyway, just another idea.

my vote is for the venerable champ. 85-90hp and you have a really good short field machine that burns next to nothing and still cruises quite a bit faster than a similar cub.
next i would say a 7GCBC citabria. lots more "bang" here. and a little more "bucks" too. its fast, it can roll and loop (helpfull after a stressfull day) and it has very nice flaps. don't be afraid of wooden spars- just make sure your IA is a bellanca guy.
after that, you have to remember the stinson 108 series. they have been landing off airport since waaaaay before my time. they aren't fast, they don't have super impressive performance numbers, but they have a very big cabin and a great usefull load. and they are smoooooth as silk- just ask any stinson guy.
and my last vote is for the old pa-20-150 pacer. it is smaller than a stinson, hauls less, and is likely slower. but it is off airport capable, and they can be found for a good deal.
yes, all of the above are tube and rag. the only way to go. they are much more repairable, inspectable, and rebuildable...... but that's a whoooole 'nother thread.

Todd, good thinking with the all-metal airplane. Nothing wrong with a C-150TD. If you get a straight-tail or squaretail they have manual flaps, look better too (esp straight-tail). I'd look for a straight-tail (1959-63), they're lighter than later models and look better. 140A's a good choice too, but somewhat rare.
I've seen 140's with O-235 and O-290 conversions, and 150's with O-320's. But a stock-engined airplane will be cheaper to buy, and fuel range won't be as much of an issue. Heavier weight of converted airplanes might negate some of the benefit of more horsepower too. 100hp will serve OK, just remember to keep it light-- think "flying backpacker".
An all-metal Luscombe would be another choice. I like Luscombes but think they're more demanding to fly than a Cessna and maybe not built as tough. The gear is more prone to failure if you don't handle a crosswind right. But they're sportier handling so it's a trade-off like anything else.
I'd stay away from "metalized" 140's- sure they're all metal but I've heard they don't fly as well and are heavier to boot.

Eric

Not sure if you are stuck on tailwheel planes only but an older 172 with an 0-300 is easy on fuel, metal, anyone will work on it. And a fair performer. They can be picked up for a decent price and repair costs are rarely high.
I have a 172 and a Champ. The Champ is a blast for just playing around and the 172 is my "do it all" plane.
Keith

Luscombes are strong. I got my PPL in my Luscombe so you can imagine how hard those first few landing were. Never had any trouble with directional control, it just went right were my feet said.



Like zero.one.victor said, if you handle the cross winds right the gear will give you no trouble. There are two different gear styles on the luscombe, both are oleo, they changed in 47, I think. The Silflex, post '47, are stronge and wider. But if you damage them they will tear the gear box out of the belly. The standard gear will brake and not cause damage to the belly, but ofcoures the ground will.

Oh yes, loops, spinns, split-s, hammerhead, no problem, ust watch the negative g's. And do you really want to be do those things in a 60 year old plane. I have done then all but since have decided not to, she is old and I want her to last a long time.

just a thought to keep you and the wife airborne...

Since you live in the great State of Arizona, you might want to consider a trike... cheap on fuel and you can store it in your garage... if not a trike then some other type of light sport aircraft. There's a growing interest in aero treking (backcountry flying) with trikes in the southwest, so it's something to consider if your just looking to get in the air and want to fly low and slow... I've flown with friend a couple times in nw az and was impressed with it's handling abilities in the canyons around lake mead and lake mohave, because we were able to get into places I wouldn't go with my ac...

I've owned PA-12's and PA-16's and now fly a Maule MX-7. Seems to me that when you compare price and features, it's hard to beat the value of the Maule series.

Bang for the Buck?

90hp Champ hands down. Put VG's on the thing and go.

http://www.backcountrypilot.org/gallery ... m=6&pos=23

http://www.backcountrypilot.org/gallery ... m=6&pos=19

Brad

I'd like to add my vote for the 160hp Pacer. They perform well, are a cheap 4-place to own, have an unbeatable type club, and a decent size useful load. Despite a bunch of unexpected maintenance, I calculate that mine cost me about $75/hr to operate last year. That includes hangar and full coverage insurance for a low time pilot.

Before the hangar, it spent a few years outside all wrapped up in one of those "portable hangar" things which covered the entire plane except for the bottom surfaces of the wings and fuselage. I don’t have any long term experience with them, but it seemed to do a good job of protecting the fabric, although it WAS a pain to remove and install.