I'll add to the general chorus here that a light, simple airplane is adequate for backcountry work and costs less on average than a more powerful, complex airplane. The key words here though are on average. My experience after a few ownership experiences is that the model of airplane at best predicts about 1/2 the ownership costs, the other 1/2 depend on the condition of the airplane, ADs, etc. I know there are Cessna 140 owners that talk about $4000 annuals, and 180 owners that talk of $500 annuals. Point is, buying a champ cub luscombe 140 etc will save you money only if you get a good one- the specific model of airplane can be a poor predictor of its operating costs. Perhaps the most important variable is to buy a sound airplane, regardless of the model.

Sector15 what does a trike cost? I think my dad would be really interested in something like that. He has really expressed an interest in ultralight flying.......

Todd -

Luscombes are great little planes for the buck. Fun to fly, pretty easy to maintain, and they look pretty. They do great on grass (most of them were built before runways were paved!). You can even doll them up with wheel pants and take 'em to a fly-in and show off a bit!

I've flown mine in the Idaho backcountry some, and with some forethought and planning, things went well.

Mine is for sale, and I'd be willing to give a good deal to a fellow BCP.org pilot.

Take care,

John

Sort of like picking a girlfriend. Lots of great choices out there. My little C-120 has taken me on a lot of fun adventures and our wish list of future flights keeps getting longer.

Sort of like picking a girlfriend. Lots of great choices out there. My little C-120 has taken me on a lot of fun adventures and our wish list of future flights keeps getting longer.

Now, that is a good analogy. Don't tell my girlfriend....

Andy Turner wrote:

Sort of like picking a girlfriend. Lots of great choices out there. My little C-120 has taken me on a lot of fun adventures and our wish list of future flights keeps getting longer.

Now, that is a good analogy. Don't tell my girlfriend....

I've never been able to pick a girlfriend, seems like they always picked me instead. I think that in many ways the right airplane picks us too, sometimes with the facilitation of a friend who is acting as a matchmaker...
______________________________

Sector15,

I've never had much desire to fly or own an ultralight or powered parachute, except maybe as an aerial photography platform. Amazing what kind of photos can be taken from one of those things.

Thanks guys for all of the replies.

But to get it back on track. I didn't want to talk about the most plane for the buck.

But what you think is the cheapest plane (dollars spent) to do backcountry flying.

The Luscombe seams to be the winner so far. The Champ also would be a good choice if you can hanger it.

-Todd Giencke

Aeronca Chief is usually cheaper than Champ. Very STOL-y, but slooow. T-Craft is usually pretty affordable, STOL'y also but pretty fast for the horsepower. But both are fabric so long-term outside storage is a bummer.

Eric

tgiencke wrote:Thanks guys for all of the replies.
But what you think is the cheapest plane (dollars spent) to do backcountry flying.
-Todd Giencke

I fly a kitbuilt Savannah. I was a fast build kit, so it only took 275 hours to do everything. It will carry, with full fuel (3plus hours) 470 pounds. It seats two side by side. It will take off and land in about 300 feet at 4000' density altitude. It is high wing aluminum construction. There are hundreds around the world being used in all kinds of back country operations and tied up outside. With a 100hp Rotax engine it will cruise at 55% power at 80 mph and 4.2 gallons per hour. At 95% cruise it is more like 95 mph and 6.5 gallons per hour. With tricycle gear and the moderate sized tundra tires it can land in any public airstrip and many off strip sites, but not the really rough stuff the planes with 30" plus tires can do. If you want to read more you can check out this url: http://www.skykits.com/ I built mine for about $33K a couple years ago. Being the builder, I also got my repairman certificate and therefore can do all my own maintenance, repair, and inspection. Since the aircraft is experimental, I can't do any comercial work with it. But I can add gizmos, improvements and things like that without needing STC'd stuff. I fly about 120-150 hours per year and including insurance, fuel, maintenance, and the occasional goody, but not the hanger, my costs run about $20 per hour. Building is not for everyone, but I like to tinker, so the project was fun for me. I didn't want to spend ten years building, though, so I chose a kit that was fast build. There are kits out there that will help with much of the assembly, and in some cases you can be flying in a month. In my case, the 275 hours of construction lasted about 4 months. I waited another month to get an FAA dude out to inspect it. I've now got 250 hours on the little bird and am very happy with it. There have been a few small issues, but nothing big. My only complaint is the slow cruise speed, but then only when I'm traversing a frequently flown area. My reason to fly is to explore, so going slow and low is my mission most of the time. Almost every homebuilt has a public forum of builders that share experiences, tips, and problem resolutions. I had a friend die in a homebuilt back in the eightys. His wing came apart. The design was faulty. I would not buy a kit that didn't have a significant number of completed kits actually flying. In the case of the Savannah, there were several hundred two years ago, and the time leader had about 1500 hours.
Sorry this is so long, but you asked

tom

For what you are looking for I surely wouldn't discount homebuilts. I am building a Murphy Rebel for nearly the exact reason for which you are looking. I wanted metal in case I leave it outside, short field, and economical to operate. I have two Rebels. One I bought to build and another I purchased wrecked and was going to rebuild for my son. It has a subaru engine and the original builder flew it 300 hrs without any problems. I may sell it if you are interested. I think it could be repaired with a couple months time. But back to your question...

I saw a few planes that might fill what you are looking for on the Aeroalaska site.

Also, if you are looking at Luscombs, I was reading a thread recently that was telling to look at the area around the tail for smoked rivets. Apparently a typical problem location.

I contacted a guy that is extremely knowledgeable when it comes to Luscombes about the tail sections. I remember reading the post about watching the tail sections for smoking rivets but that was the first time I have ever heard of it, and I have done a lot of studying on Luscombes.

This is his reply.

Paul is right that the Smoking rivets are a tell tale for wear and fatigue at the skin joints, and that is a common inspection item on metal airplanes.



As one with many years of structure experience with Luscombes I would caution you that a more frequent problem with these airplanes are ‘missing’ and damaged rivet heads due to corrosion within the structure and long term hardening of the rivet material. This is usually noted on the spar seams at the lower side of the horizontal tail surfaces, but is also sometimes noted along the spar lines of the wings.



While I agree with Paul that the Luscombe tail is not a “weak area” per se, I would add a caution that the Luscombe tails are simply not as robust as the rest of the airframe -which is significantly over-built. So in that regard the Luscombe tail is adequate to meet all of the certification loads and safety margins, however, it is not 300% or 400% stronger than required, unlike areas of the gearbox, wings, and fuselage areas.



FWIW the steel fittings that attach most of the empennage components are subject to dis-similar metal corrosion at the rivet joints where all of the fittings are bolted together and riveted to the spars. This causes serious corrosion that is not easily inspected without some disassembly. Also there are service letters and AD notes which apply to almost every fitting used in the tail attachments. This does not indicate that these are weak, or under designed. It only means that the long term maintenance and structural failure points have been identified in the airplanes and that one should use consistent, proper, and regular maintenance upon these 60+ year old airplanes to insure their integrity and safe flight operations.

greenhorn wrote:Sector15 what does a trike cost? I think my dad would be really interested in something like that. He has really expressed an interest in ultralight flying.......

Greenhorn, sorry for the delayed response, I had a few days off and decided to spend the time exploring a few new places... I don't own a trike and was flying with a friend who owns an Airborne XTS-912 you can find more info about Airborne trikes @ http://www.usairborne.com... prior to owning the Airborne he had a Top Dog, but in looking at the two I'd say the Airborne was a far better quality aircraft... He said if your interested in trikes and just starting you might also want to look at http://www.gibbogear.com and http://www.lightsporttrike.com...

For anyone looking to fly low and slow, a trike is a lot of fun, but for me personally a trike just doesn't fit because I need an aircraft for commuting between Az and Ca each week...

zero.one.victor wrote: 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

Metalized 140's are fine. if they were built properly. A good set of metalized wings were built in a jig with the correct washout to them. It's real easy to tell, just by looking at the wings for ripples between the ribs. Metalized 170A's often have the same problem. My airplane flies hands off very well. I have literally flown for over an hour without touching the yoke. Lean forward, nose goes down, lean back and it goes up. Yes...I was really bored. Unfortunately the wings are heavier, but that is the only downside that I see with them.

-Matt

Brain farted on that one. Thanks.

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:170A's all have metal wings, the 1949 C170 was the only one with rag wings.

Close, but no cigar.
C170: 1948 -- ragwing, small hinged flaps, V struts (looks like big 140)
C170A: 1949-51 -- tapered metal wing, hinged flaps,single strut
C170B: 1952-56-- tapered metal wing, fowler-type flaps, single strut
C172: 1956-up-- inferior training wheel version,best converted to t/w


Eric

OK. Now I was wrong twice. Double DOOOOHHH!!

And while we are shooting for accuracy: Cessna 140A's weren't "metalized" in the common usage of the term, but came with all metal construction, hinged flaps and single struts from the factory - very similar to the 170A.

I fly a 1959 182 into the backcountry of Idaho. I traded a 170B and $6000. for it. I then spent 3 years and $12000. to get it like it is now. I have a real good friend that helps me with my annuals. He is an A/P and A&I. My annuals run from $4oo. to $800. I am the airport manager at my home airport, so I get to keep my plane in the only hangar on the field. I can fly 4 and fuel and feel comfortable going into most places in the Idaho wilderness. The places I don't feel comfortable I don't try. I had been into Johnson Creek and Big Creek in the 170, but feel better with the extra 85 HP plus the constant speed prop of the 182. I'm not saying this is the cheapest but it gets my vote for a good backcountry aircraft. Bob

Yeah, them early straight-tail 182's look like pretty good airplanes. I've seen a couple with big nose fork and fat tires (one with a belly pod) that look real skookum. The early 182's 9stck anyway) seem real affordable when you consider what they can do.

Eric

Hmm, let me see. I'm not sure if Cheap and airplane go in the same sentence.