Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 58 of 58

Thread: Help Me Decide

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    412
    Post Thanks / Like
    Without knowing the size and abilities (or the intended airports) of the OP, I'd have to go with the suggestions of 172. I love my -12 but a 350 mile trip is a major event: I infrequently see 90mph (granted, climb prop, big tires, fat pilot, etc) on the ASI and I'd anticipate a 4 hour trip for 350 miles, even without addressing weather / wind issues. Similarly, I'm a decent sized guy, relatively limber for 60+, but I have to follow a process to get into my -12...less of a process to get out, but still it ain't easy. Lots of room in the -12 but one runs out of legal GW at some point.

    If a bush plane is not needed and the 172 doesn't fit the bill for some reason, I'd suggest the tri-pacer...gets a little closer to fitting the mission. My wife loved to fly in the -12 earlier, but nowadays, if she doesn't want to do anything that precludes her from spending time with the GK's....and that includes flying in the -12. And...even in a nice, wide -12, have to agree with Stewart, the only knitting would likely be a barf bag. Right, wrong, or otherwise, a barf bag was always in the pouch for the rear seat passenger to use. Hard to make any sort of comparison, but my -12 seems to get hit pretty hard in thermals or other sorts of turbulence.

    FWIW, I'm still trying to see my way clear to get a 180/185/possibly Maule in addition to the -12 because of: 1) the -12 is darn slow for any trips over 100 miles or so; 2) real seats for more than 1 passenger would be good; and 3) a little more legal GW / Useful Load would be beneficial. If one's mission is primarily to go on 350 mile trips to see the GK's, as great as a -12 (or the Supercub) is, I'd suggest something else.
    Likes Brandsman liked this post

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    Posts
    94
    Post Thanks / Like
    My suggestion would be one of the more powerful Cherokee versions - I have Cubs (J-3 and highly modified J-5) but I was persuaded to buy a 67 Cherokee 235 a few years ago and what a revelation that has been. Mine is quite well equipped with autopilot and a Garmin 430 so a bit heavy but still has a legal payload of 1350lbs and a 6 - 7 hour range at 125 knots. The single entry exit door is not the best but when I had a knee injury I discovered that you can just swing that door all the way forward, sit down onto the front of the wing and get in that way. Not a SC of course but with the 250hp mod it operates easily out of 450 yards. All this for what - around $50k?


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
    'There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty".
    Margaret Thatcher

  3. #43
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    21,305
    Post Thanks / Like
    The back seat of a tandem plane is not so comfortable for the better half in turbulence. My wife is a pilot, won't fly my Cub from the front seat and gets sick in rough air in the back. When she is miserable so am I. Clippers and Pacers are great airplanes, try one on. They are a bit narrow for some. She has an early Tri-Pacer but is a bit tight for me when she is flying with the seat all the way forward. We wanted more room and speed and bought a 1958 182A.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  4. #44
    WWhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Laporte, Minnesota and the white sandy beaches of NW Florida
    Posts
    1,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sounds like you are open to experimental airplanes. Have you looked at the Murphy Rebel or Elite? They are SxS and quite roomy inside. Doors on both sides and while not the easiest to get in/out, not overly difficult.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Rebel at Home.jpg 
Views:	37 
Size:	102.6 KB 
ID:	57656
    Don't take life too seriously ... no one gets out alive!

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    23
    Post Thanks / Like
    I appears that 172s, like everything else, have really gone up in price. My price range? I really need need to keep things below $80k for my IRA to be comfortable. My fear is that I have missed my window for plane ownership.

    Alan
    Likes CharlieN liked this post

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Down low in the hills of Vermont USA
    Posts
    1,817
    Post Thanks / Like
    Any flying clubs over your way?
    Regards, Charlie
    Super Coupe E-AB build in process

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    23
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandsman View Post
    My suggestion would be one of the more powerful Cherokee versions - I have Cubs (J-3 and highly modified J-5) but I was persuaded to buy a 67 Cherokee 235 a few years ago and what a revelation that has been. Mine is quite well equipped with autopilot and a Garmin 430 so a bit heavy but still has a legal payload of 1350lbs and a 6 - 7 hour range at 125 knots. The single entry exit door is not the best but when I had a knee injury I discovered that you can just swing that door all the way forward, sit down onto the front of the wing and get in that way. Not a SC of course but with the 250hp mod it operates easily out of 450 yards. All this for what - around $50k?


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
    I’ve been looking at Warriors; I’ll extend my search radius to include Cherokees.

    Alan
    Likes Brandsman liked this post

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    23
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlieN View Post
    Any flying clubs over your way?
    No clubs. Rentals, but they aren’t my preference in that the rental rates become prohibitive on any sort of a trip.

    Alan
    Likes jimboflying liked this post

  9. #49
    Richgj3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    LI,NY
    Posts
    1,232
    Post Thanks / Like
    I went through this exact dilemma about two years ago. Wife and I were both 73 at the time. I really wanted a PA12 but after instructing a new owner in his, I realized she was not going to be able to negotiate the rear seat. I had a Legend Cub and she could get in and out back then but it was a struggle. My next choice was a C170B. I found a nice one with low time and I upgraded all the avionics, Garmin audio panel, GNX 375 ADSB with traffic and weather, one Garmin Nav Comm and one Comm only. All antennas etc. I still have less than $80K in it. I don’t do any Bush flying but it goes 120 mph and flys like a 172. It just looks better. Also, it is a taildragger, which is why it looks better.

    Rich
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	280252D2-DA8E-4073-A676-D4BC65ECE6F4.jpeg 
Views:	45 
Size:	200.2 KB 
ID:	57662   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	C84BECC2-6B09-4CA5-9140-EC028B17AC97.jpeg 
Views:	44 
Size:	225.7 KB 
ID:	57663  
    Likes supercrow liked this post

  10. #50
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,746
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agree with Stewart and Steve Pierce in regard to the back seats of tandem aircraft being a VERY bad place for knitting....or anything other than looking out the windows. Unless your spouse has a cast iron stomach, that back seat can be a really evil place, and about the first time the technicolor yawn results, that'll be the end of that airplane as a mode of transport....even to grand kids.

    At your price point, I suspect you're looking at a very good Stinson, a pretty ratty 172, or a fair Cherokee. $80 K isn't going to get you much in the way of long wing Pipers. A short wing Piper (Pacer or Tri Pacer) MAY fit the bill, but those cabins are fairly narrow.....I'd try one on for size before I committed.

    Hard to beat a good Cherokee. Basically same airfoil as a Cub, easy to fly, easy to maintain, and one of the most bomb proof planes ever built.

    MTV

  11. #51
    Richgj3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    LI,NY
    Posts
    1,232
    Post Thanks / Like
    More pictures.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	C173D7DD-3501-41CA-B8B5-7E40EBEB6C67.jpeg 
Views:	40 
Size:	162.5 KB 
ID:	57664   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7B6F7C4E-C0D1-49B4-8F62-5B50CE121F01.jpeg 
Views:	41 
Size:	128.9 KB 
ID:	57665  

  12. #52
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    11,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post
    Hard to beat a good Cherokee. Basically same airfoil as a Cub, easy to fly, easy to maintain, and one of the most bomb proof planes ever built.

    MTV
    Different airfoil, the Cub uses a modified USA-35B and the Cherokee uses a NACA 65(2)-415. Here is a discussion:
    https://charles-oneill.com/blog/cherokee-tapered-wing-float/
    N1PA

  13. #53

    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    23
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Richgj3 View Post
    I went through this exact dilemma about two years ago. Wife and I were both 73 at the time. I really wanted a PA12 but after instructing a new owner in his, I realized she was not going to be able to negotiate the rear seat. I had a Legend Cub and she could get in and out back then but it was a struggle. My next choice was a C170B. I found a nice one with low time and I upgraded all the avionics, Garmin audio panel, GNX 375 ADSB with traffic and weather, one Garmin Nav Comm and one Comm only. All antennas etc. I still have less than $80K in it. I don’t do any Bush flying but it goes 120 mph and flys like a 172. It just looks better. Also, it is a taildragger, which is why it looks better.

    Rich
    I appreciate the suggestion and will keep it in mind. Nice looking plane!

    Alan

  14. #54
    Crash, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    747
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Richgj3 View Post
    I went through this exact dilemma about two years ago. Wife and I were both 73 at the time. I really wanted a PA12 but after instructing a new owner in his, I realized she was not going to be able to negotiate the rear seat. I had a Legend Cub and she could get in and out back then but it was a struggle. My next choice was a C170B. I found a nice one with low time and I upgraded all the avionics, Garmin audio panel, GNX 375 ADSB with traffic and weather, one Garmin Nav Comm and one Comm only. All antennas etc. I still have less than $80K in it. I don’t do any Bush flying but it goes 120 mph and flys like a 172. It just looks better. Also, it is a taildragger, which is why it looks better.

    Rich
    That's an excellent choice as well. Values are skyrocketing on good 170B's right now so if you can find a good one for under 70k it's a full on buy. Even with an O-300. The little O-300 gets a bad rap for being underpowered but if STOL isn't part of the mission for the plane then that 150 horse works just fine. They're based on a C-90/O-200 with another bank of cylinders added so they're relatively cheap to maintain and get parts for since they share cylinders and many other parts with the small 4 cyl continentals. Of course if money allows then the O-360 conversion turns the 170 into a real performer.

    As far as back seat knitting in a tandem; the back seat really is like riding in the bed of a pickup truck. The front seat is in the middle of the flight axis so the rear seat moves up/down/laterally quite a ways when the plane moves around which makes for some airsickness. The back seat in a PA-12 really is nice to sit in for longer periods though given the air isn't very rough.
    Likes Richgj3 liked this post

  15. #55
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,746
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Different airfoil, the Cub uses a modified USA-35B and the Cherokee uses a NACA 65(2)-415. Here is a discussion:
    https://charles-oneill.com/blog/cherokee-tapered-wing-float/
    Interesting, thanks, Pete. In any case, any of those planes have pretty good manners. And, they are all tough as nails.

    MTV
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  16. #56

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    412
    Post Thanks / Like
    "The back seat in a PA-12 really is nice to sit in for longer periods though given the air isn't very rough."

    Flew the -12 from Los Anchorage to McCarthy with the wife in the back some years ago...beautiful sunny day in late June, daylight forever, no wind, etc: Depart Anchorage, great trip to about Eureka area, then cutting across we hit consistent thermals....I'm too PO'd at the thermals to be at all queasy, as far as the wife, thank goodness for the barf bag in the back.

    Tolerable stay in McCarthy, time comes to head back: Me: "Weather's a bit cloudy and windy, might be rough through the pass" Wife: "It's OK, we have to get back" (which we did have to). Once again, uneventful trip to a bit S/W of Eureka, then we hit the pass area....no skit there's wind and bad bumps all the way to turning south over Palmer. I'm fairly PO'd as well as being a bit nervous so no time to feel ill, but for the wife? Once again, out comes the bag.

    After that, it takes fast talking to get her to go with my any further than say Talkeetna, Palmer, or Girdwood. The back seat in a 12 is much more comfortable than the rear seat in a Cub (or -14) but it's not a good place during any sort of bumps.

    A 170B would be a good choice as well as the Exp's, Pacers, and Cherokees mentioned.

  17. #57

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    487
    Post Thanks / Like
    A 175 would do it with some comfort. A old straight tail shouldn't be too spendy and zip right along.
    Likes TxAgfisher liked this post

  18. #58

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    73
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by StalledOut View Post
    A 175 would do it with some comfort. A old straight tail shouldn't be too spendy and zip right along.
    I know of two straight tail 182's coming up soon - both in the $70k range.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •