Group Poll: Best 2+kids or 4 place taildragger?

[Jim]

What's your opinion about the best taildragger that has room for at least 2
adults plus kids? Reasons and experiences please.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

[Robert Little]

The Stinson 108 series is the best buy in cost, maintenance, room, capacity
and fun to fly. The -3 has the bigger rudder designed for float operations
that can give some problems in cross winds, but the the earlier models are
just fine. The Franklins are 1/2 price on parts and overhauls and the
Razorback Fabric gives the plane the durability to leave on the ramp with
the spam-cans. So, built like a tank, can have a good one for mid-twenties
and smooth running Franklin, gives this plane thumbs up. More new parts are
available for a Stinson through TC holder,Univair than for a new Cessna or
Piper. Robert Little




than a new Cessna or Piper --


----------------------------------------------------
This mailbox protected from junk email by Matador
from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> What's your opinion about the best taildragger that has room for at least
2
> adults plus kids? Reasons and experiences please.
> --
> Jim Burns III
>
> Remove "nospam" to reply
>
>

[markjen]

> What's your opinion about the best taildragger that has room for at least
2
> adults plus kids? Reasons and experiences please.

Well, choosing a "best" plane for any missions needs a little more info than
a general class and how big inside it needs to be.

But ... to me, you buy a taildragger so you can enjoy the backcountry, haul
gear, and enjoy some real utility out of an airplane. And it's hard to beat
a C185 for overall utility.

- Mark

[Jim]

ok, ok, "best" was a poor choice of words.... how about "favorite"? :))
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply


"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> What's your opinion about the best taildragger that has room for at least
2
> adults plus kids? Reasons and experiences please.
> --
> Jim Burns III
>
> Remove "nospam" to reply
>
>
>

[Maule Driver]

How about the Maule - I have a '95 MX7180a. Simple, newer, cheaper

We use it to haul 2 and anything we want. Can take 4 adults plus bags and
2/3rd fuel. 1,000 lb useful, 180 horses is a cost/ performance sweet spot.
Fixed prop is cheap and easy. 114knot cruise with our normal load and full
power. I plan and get 110 with it backed off 100rpms. 10gph first hour
9gph afterwards. Can easily get 8gph but why.

Why a tail dragger? There is no good reason other than 'something to do' in
this pilot's opinion. I love it but have no illusions. Maule is 'more
different' than most ramp visitors. Nice to standout from the Cessna/Piper
crowd.

I'd love more and bigger but can't justify the price. CS prop, bigger
engine, bigger body Maule would all be good but...

Minuses might include fabric and paint quality. You need a hangar. Butt
dragging will cost you in insurance - much at first, less later if you are
new to it.

Cessna 180s and 185s seem great but older stuff is well, older, and clean
newer stuff is expensive - especially the 185s. Will cost more to operate
in any case. Will maintain value until they belly up.


"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> What's your opinion about the best taildragger that has room for at least
2
> adults plus kids? Reasons and experiences please.
> --
> Jim Burns III
>
> Remove "nospam" to reply
>
>

[mikem]

Jim wrote:

> What's your opinion about the best taildragger that has room for at least 2
> adults plus kids? Reasons and experiences please.

My wife and I own a 150hp Piper Pacer we bought to get tailwheel
experience. Its a fun little airplane. We have gone airplane camping in
the Ut/Id/Mt mountains. I recommend the Pacer highly as a two-place plus
some gear airplane, but wouldn't put my kids (and gear) in the back, at
least not to the places we go...

For serious backcountry hauling, I use my stol-equipped Skylane. I have
recently been thinking about a 180/185, but cant justify spending double
what the 182 is worth to buy a 180/185 project which is going to take a
year or more to get it up to the same standards that my 182 is already at...

I'm looking for a large nosefork for the 182, and plan to put a 6.00
nose wheel and 8.00 mains on it, and call it good... I can already
operate out of 97% of the places where 185s go...

MikeM
Skylane '1MM see: http://home.utah.edu/~mgm17160/TwoMM.JPG
Pacer '00Z see: http://home.utah.edu/~mgm17160/miken007.jpg

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jim wrote:
>
> What's your opinion about the best taildragger that has room for at least 2
> adults plus kids? Reasons and experiences please.

I'd say a Cessna 180. Kids don't stay kids for long, and the 180 will carry
four adults. All metal, so it doesn't have to be hangared. Any A&P knows how
to work on one. They *are* getting old, though, and good ones don't come cheap.

The Maule MX-7-180B would be cheaper. They will also carry four, but they're
a bit more cramped inside. Fuselage is fabric, which may give periodic trouble
if kept outside. They're newer planes and parts are very easy to find. The 180B
has a 180hp Lycoming with a CS prop. Avoid the 160 and 235hp models. They won't
carry the load that the 180 carries. Check http://www.mauleairinc.com for
performance specs.

Stinsons are probably the best bang for the buck, but they're old and the
Franklin engines aren't made anymore. Parts are still available, since the
plant in Poland still has some engines they're parting out, but there could be
some real trouble ahead there. AOPA Pilot had a good article on them a few
months ago; should be on their web site somewhere.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

[Jim]

>Why a tail dragger? There is no good reason other than 'something to do'
in
> this pilot's opinion.

Exactly my idea. Just something to have fun in but still use to haul the
wife and kids around when needed. I have the opportunity to put a 1/2 mile
grass strip right infront of my house and am currently getting a good
tailwheel checkout. I'm torn between two goals. I can either pursue a
partnership in a faster complex plane for some serious cross country flying
(which I do enough of to justify it), or I could go it on my own and pick up
a fairly nice Cessna 170 and eventually build a hanger and a strip at my
house. I'd still be able to rent a faster larger plane for the longer cross
country trips.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

[ET]

"Jim" > wrote in
:

>>Why a tail dragger? There is no good reason other than 'something to
>>do'
> in
>> this pilot's opinion.
>
> Exactly my idea. Just something to have fun in but still use to haul
> the wife and kids around when needed. I have the opportunity to put a
> 1/2 mile grass strip right infront of my house and am currently
> getting a good tailwheel checkout. I'm torn between two goals. I can
> either pursue a partnership in a faster complex plane for some serious
> cross country flying (which I do enough of to justify it), or I could
> go it on my own and pick up a fairly nice Cessna 170 and eventually
> build a hanger and a strip at my house. I'd still be able to rent a
> faster larger plane for the longer cross country trips.

I have no experience here, and this IS an experimental, and therefore
probably not what your looking for (some assembly required ;-)) But
this seems to fit the bill: 4 place 1100-1300lbs+ usefull load, 40mph
landing speed, up to 160mph cruising speed depending on engine.

http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com/Bearhawk/BearhawkMain.html

Cost will be between 50K-100K depending on engine choice and avionics...
oh, plus a year or three of your life <grin>
(base "alleged quickbuild" firewall back kit is 28K)

I like the BIG cargo door.... better keep a scale in there, even with
the capacity, seems it'd be easy to be tempted to fill it up with
camping gear, moutain bike, cooler full of ice, 3 hunting dogs...... and
get over wieght/out of balance.

Take the above for what it cost you <heh> from an aviation newbie who's
never even MET a CFI... (well, yet anyway)

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Jim]

Don't count yourself short.:) The Bearhawk was on the cover of NAFI's
magazine last month and believe me, I checked it out. ;) No way do I have
time to build one though.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim" > wrote in
> :
>
> >>Why a tail dragger? There is no good reason other than 'something to
> >>do'
> > in
> >> this pilot's opinion.
> >
> > Exactly my idea. Just something to have fun in but still use to haul
> > the wife and kids around when needed. I have the opportunity to put a
> > 1/2 mile grass strip right infront of my house and am currently
> > getting a good tailwheel checkout. I'm torn between two goals. I can
> > either pursue a partnership in a faster complex plane for some serious
> > cross country flying (which I do enough of to justify it), or I could
> > go it on my own and pick up a fairly nice Cessna 170 and eventually
> > build a hanger and a strip at my house. I'd still be able to rent a
> > faster larger plane for the longer cross country trips.
>
> I have no experience here, and this IS an experimental, and therefore
> probably not what your looking for (some assembly required ;-)) But
> this seems to fit the bill: 4 place 1100-1300lbs+ usefull load, 40mph
> landing speed, up to 160mph cruising speed depending on engine.
>
> http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com/Bearhawk/BearhawkMain.html
>
> Cost will be between 50K-100K depending on engine choice and avionics...
> oh, plus a year or three of your life <grin>
> (base "alleged quickbuild" firewall back kit is 28K)
>
> I like the BIG cargo door.... better keep a scale in there, even with
> the capacity, seems it'd be easy to be tempted to fill it up with
> camping gear, moutain bike, cooler full of ice, 3 hunting dogs...... and
> get over wieght/out of balance.
>
> Take the above for what it cost you <heh> from an aviation newbie who's
> never even MET a CFI... (well, yet anyway)
>
> --
> ET >:)
>
>
> "A common mistake people make when trying to design something
> completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
> fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Montblack]

("Robert Little" wrote)
> The Stinson 108 series is the best buy in cost, maintenance, room,
capacity and fun to fly. The -3 has the bigger rudder designed for
float operations that can give some problems in cross winds, but the the
earlier models are just fine. The Franklins are 1/2 price on parts and
overhauls and the Razorback Fabric gives the plane the durability to
leave on the ramp with the spam-cans. So, built like a tank, can have a
good one for mid-twenties and smooth running Franklin, gives this plane
thumbs up. More new parts are available for a Stinson through TC
holder,Univair than for a new Cessna or Piper.


Googled (Stinson 108) info. Found this interesting site.

http://www.stinsonflyer.com/sf-97.htm

I was looking through the pics and thought to myself - Hey, those kids
are sure looking older, as the project nears completion. Quote from the
restoration story below <g>.

"My son is shown in front of the airplane, now some 7 years older than
the earlier view of stipping the paint from the vertical stabilizer."

http://personalpages.tdstelme.net/~westin/ac-0.htm

--
Montblack

[Jim]

I found the same site. 7 years!
The AOPA article made the prices of 108-3's jump. Only one I could find
online for sale is asking $60,000 but it may be in Canadian $$.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply


"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Robert Little" wrote)
> > The Stinson 108 series is the best buy in cost, maintenance, room,
> capacity and fun to fly. The -3 has the bigger rudder designed for
> float operations that can give some problems in cross winds, but the the
> earlier models are just fine. The Franklins are 1/2 price on parts and
> overhauls and the Razorback Fabric gives the plane the durability to
> leave on the ramp with the spam-cans. So, built like a tank, can have a
> good one for mid-twenties and smooth running Franklin, gives this plane
> thumbs up. More new parts are available for a Stinson through TC
> holder,Univair than for a new Cessna or Piper.
>
>
> Googled (Stinson 108) info. Found this interesting site.
>
> http://www.stinsonflyer.com/sf-97.htm
>
> I was looking through the pics and thought to myself - Hey, those kids
> are sure looking older, as the project nears completion. Quote from the
> restoration story below <g>.
>
> "My son is shown in front of the airplane, now some 7 years older than
> the earlier view of stipping the paint from the vertical stabilizer."
>
> http://personalpages.tdstelme.net/~westin/ac-0.htm
>
> --
> Montblack
>
>
>

[Tom S.]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> What's your opinion about the best taildragger that has room for at least
2
> adults plus kids? Reasons and experiences please.
> --
How MANY kids? How about a Beech B-18?

[dutch]

If you want value for the money, go Piper Pacer PA20 or converted Tripacer
Pa22/20. The 150 horse version will keep you out of trouble. Has a
separate door for the back seat, performs as well as a Skyhawk. I flew my
wife and 3 kids around in one out west (airport altitude 6500 ft. years ago
and still miss that airplane.


"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> What's your opinion about the best taildragger that has room for at least
2
> adults plus kids? Reasons and experiences please.
> --
> Jim Burns III
>
> Remove "nospam" to reply
>
>

[Don Tuite]

I had a metal 1947 Stinson 108-2 with the 165 Franklin for several
years.

Delightful, but I didn't take it as many places as I took my
Taylorcraft when I was single.

Don

[Jim]

I was thinking DC 3 ;)

--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply
"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What's your opinion about the best taildragger that has room for at
least
> 2
> > adults plus kids? Reasons and experiences please.
> > --
> How MANY kids? How about a Beech B-18?
>
>
>

[Steve Robertson]

You don't need a taildragger to operate off grass - Especially 5000 feet! You
need a Bonanza. Great on on grass, great on short fields (not that yours will be
short), and fast. You have pretty much described the mission profile for an
older Bone. But tri-gear Cessnas are fine on grass. As are Piper Tri-Pacers.

Best regards,

Steve Robertson
N4732J 1967 Beechcraft Muskeer

Jim wrote:

> >Why a tail dragger? There is no good reason other than 'something to do'
> in
> > this pilot's opinion.
>
> Exactly my idea. Just something to have fun in but still use to haul the
> wife and kids around when needed. I have the opportunity to put a 1/2 mile
> grass strip right infront of my house and am currently getting a good
> tailwheel checkout. I'm torn between two goals. I can either pursue a
> partnership in a faster complex plane for some serious cross country flying
> (which I do enough of to justify it), or I could go it on my own and pick up
> a fairly nice Cessna 170 and eventually build a hanger and a strip at my
> house. I'd still be able to rent a faster larger plane for the longer cross
> country trips.
> --
> Jim Burns III
>
> Remove "nospam" to reply

[G.R. Patterson III]

Steve Robertson wrote:
>
> You don't need a taildragger to operate off grass - Especially 5000 feet!

Since when is a half mile 5,000'?

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

[Dashi]

Maule is good!

Dashi

"Steve Robertson" > wrote in message
...
> You don't need a taildragger to operate off grass - Especially 5000 feet!
You
> need a Bonanza. Great on on grass, great on short fields (not that yours
will be
> short), and fast. You have pretty much described the mission profile for
an
> older Bone. But tri-gear Cessnas are fine on grass. As are Piper
Tri-Pacers.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Steve Robertson
> N4732J 1967 Beechcraft Muskeer
>

[Steve Robertson]

Whoops! Well, it never was. Fortunately, 2600 feet plus or minus is still plenty
enough for all of the aircraft mentioned so far in this thread.

Best,

Steve Robertson
N4732J 1967 Beechcraft Musketeer

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

> Steve Robertson wrote:
> >
> > You don't need a taildragger to operate off grass - Especially 5000 feet!
>
> Since when is a half mile 5,000'?
>
> George Patterson
> A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
> no other way.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dashi wrote:
>
> Maule is good!

Not necessarily. You'd better be good friends with the person in the other seat
in your row, 'cause there ain't much room. If you bought the 160hp model, the
useful load with full fuel is going to be around 550 lbs. If you bought the 235,
it may be less than that (of course, full fuel is more gallons on that model).
And you won't get anyone into the plane unless they're in real good shape and
pretty flexible (or you have a *big* shoehorn). That big fin makes it a real
bear to handle in any crosswind over about 12 knots (want an audience for your
landing, just announce you're coming in in a Maule when the wind is over 15 and
gusting).

As I said in an earlier post, a 180hp Maule is something to consider, but the
Cessna 180 is a better plane (if you can afford one).

BTW, I own a Maule MX-7-160.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

[Pat Thronson]

Great point about the cross wind, pushed me back to the 260SE 182 line of
thinking again.

I fly out of 49S Babb, MT, when I can find a airplane to fly.
Pat Thronson


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dashi wrote:
> >
> > Maule is good!
>
> Not necessarily. You'd better be good friends with the person in the other
seat
> in your row, 'cause there ain't much room. If you bought the 160hp model,
the
> useful load with full fuel is going to be around 550 lbs. If you bought
the 235,
> it may be less than that (of course, full fuel is more gallons on that
model).
> And you won't get anyone into the plane unless they're in real good shape
and
> pretty flexible (or you have a *big* shoehorn). That big fin makes it a
real
> bear to handle in any crosswind over about 12 knots (want an audience for
your
> landing, just announce you're coming in in a Maule when the wind is over
15 and
> gusting).
>
> As I said in an earlier post, a 180hp Maule is something to consider, but
the
> Cessna 180 is a better plane (if you can afford one).
>
> BTW, I own a Maule MX-7-160.
>
> George Patterson
> A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be
learned
> no other way.

[David Bridgham]

"G.R. Patterson III" > writes:

> That big fin makes it a real bear to handle in any crosswind over
> about 12 knots (want an audience for your landing, just announce
> you're coming in in a Maule when the wind is over 15 and gusting).

This summer I landed my M6-235 at The Pas, MB with the winds gusting
to 29 knots straight across the runway. Not only that, but the runway
was half width because they were paving it half at a time, divided the
long way.

Yup, everyone came out to watch. Fortunately, I didn't give the
onlookers too exciting a show but I had the advantage of being on
Wipline 3000A's so it wasn't a taildragger anymore.

-Dave

[EDR]

Which model of the Maule has the small ailerons?
This also has an effect on the aircraft's crosswind capability.

[Andrew Boyd]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

> That big [Maule] fin makes it a real bear to handle
> in any crosswind over about 12 knots

Indeed. I vastly prefer the smaller, rounded vertical
fin of my M4-210C (been flying it since 1971) to the
billboard-sized "whale tail" fins of the M5's and later.

When the wind is down the runway, the big vertical fin
of the M5's (and later) probably makes it easier to stay
straight, which I guess is nice for a beginner tailwheel
pilot. But does it ever weathervane in a strong crosswind!

fwiw in the M4-210C, I have done takeoffs (a cinch) and
landings (not a cinch) with a direct crosswind of
15G40 knots - runway 24 @ CYSH after a strong cold
frontal passage, wind out of the north at 330 magnetic.

I don't think that would be possible in an M5 or later.

P.S. Pop quiz - why did I chose the wind from the right
with a 90 degree crosswind? Think about what would
happen during an overshoot because of weathervaning, with
the application of power.

--
ATP http://www.pittspecials.com/images/oz_inv.jpg

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Jim wrote:
> What's your opinion about the best taildragger that has room for at least 2
> adults plus kids? Reasons and experiences please.

Depending on where you live, a Cessna 170 may turn out to be a good
economical 4-seat taildragger. I've carried 4 adults and full fuel in
one (admittedly only one of the adults was on the rotund side). The nice
thing about the C170 is that the forward visibility on the ground is
better than the forward visibility in a PA-28 due to its down-sloping
nose. The view over the nose in flight is awesome.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Steve Robertson wrote:
> You don't need a taildragger to operate off grass - Especially 5000 feet! You
> need a Bonanza. Great on on grass, great on short fields (not that yours

I second that - good strong gear, lots of power, effective flaps. A
Bonanza can be landed shorter and taken off shorter than a C172, and
copes with rough fields well (tough gear, plenty of prop clearance). But
a Bonanza is a lot more expensive to run than a C170 or Stinson 108!
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Paul Mennen]

> Depending on where you live, a Cessna 170 may turn out to be a good
> economical 4-seat taildragger. I've carried 4 adults and full fuel in
> one (admittedly only one of the adults was on the rotund side). The nice
> thing about the C170 is that the forward visibility on the ground is
> better than the forward visibility in a PA-28 due to its down-sloping
> nose. The view over the nose in flight is awesome.

I used to own a C170 and it was a fun airplane to fly.
I eventually traded up to my C185 and now that my family
is larger (wife + 2 kids) I appreciate the C185 more than ever.
I've done quite a few trips half way and even all the way
across the country with the whole family. I don't think they
would have had the patience to do that trip in the C170
not to mention that sometimes we were loaded to the gills.
The C170 is not exactly a load hauler and is underpowered
for any high altitude operations with four people.
So bottom line, if you can scrape enough money together,
buy a C180/C185. You will never regret it. If you can't
afford it, go with the C170 and you will have fun with
that too.

~Paul