I guess I should define “fast.” Most of my time is cub time- so I cruise at 90mph. 140-160 is very “fast” to me[emoji846]- but not in the scheme of things.
I guess I want a balance of speed and short field capability (not to throw a wrench in this many month discussion)- but if you look at OP I wasnt originally talkikg about airplane choice in the first place- just if I should own 2 airplanes of any flavor.
Who knows. So many choices. This bearhawk 5 looks pretty cool though if i can find 2000 hrs to build a plane. Ha.
Thanks for all the insight.
Good forward thinking. The more we get exposed to traveling, the easier it is to lose sight of 'fast'. The produce market is hot right now, I imagine the farmers still trudging along in King Airs will bump it up to light jet partnerships, and the ones already there will up the ante to bigger or faster.
I once picked my daughter up for a family weekend. She lives in Flagstaff, AZ and we live close to Yuma. It's a 5hr +/- drive, a tank of gas and an all day affair in a cub, or an hour and change each way in the 180. I made great time on the way up (tailwind). Picking her up, I took off over the trees for Yuma, and 15 - 20 minutes later I was over the small mining town that once was, Jerome. Damn the wind or some such I mumbled .... to which my daughter jumped up and began scolding, DAD! we just left Flagstaff a few minutes ago and we are now zipping along over Jerome, It would have literally taken me all day to get here if we wanted to visit by truck. Sorry Pepe
A lot of years ago, I used to fly my cub from AZ to AK to play. typically 32 hrs.
over parts of 5 days to get there. Same route in the 180 lops DAYS not HOURS off the trip, or adds time to enjoy the stops along the way.
The world is a much smaller place at 140 MPH, and if you ever get the opportunity to find an unfortunate sudden stop at that speed, I think you will agree that you were going fast.
Wind? Groundloops? Handling? these comments are getting the cart ahead of the horse. I didn't see where anyone advised flying in 35 mph wind. The statement was;
If you fly a lot 35 mph isn’t a big deal.
I happen to agree with the mindset, which said another way means, with little experience, you will not be able to handle much wind. Keep the argument generating semantics in check please.
Flying is a wonderful responsibility, that deserves a responsible approach. This gentleman is asking for help in his research (and this is bare bones groundwork) to potentially move forward in a direction many here have traveled. Like wise many here have owned turbo props, and even a few with jets. Assuming he has the wherewithal to afford one of those, would it be fair to say he can't own or fly one of those because he is currently a lowly supercub owner? I'm not a very optimistic soul, and I don't give people the benefit of the doubt as often as I should, but I would like to believe that if this gentleman wants to put his own flesh and blood in an airplane, he'll probably do the right thing and get the appropriate training. Sure, there will be those that don't, that person also isn't going to seek advise or put much stock in the advise given.
Furthermore, with respect to the 180 itself, that thing (in the air) is for all intents and purposes the same airplane as the 182 that so many believe is far safer. That's it... zip, zilch, over and done. So we're assuming this gentleman can't land an airplane? or worse yet can't learn that skill? Pretty tough crowd here. Of the half dozen airplanes I am blessed to be the current caretaker of, and the many more I am blessed to have the privilege of flying, I'd have to say the 180 is probably one of the absolute most tolerant and easy to get along with. She's docile, yet powerful. She's slow on the bottom end, she's reasonably FAST on the top, she's nimble enough to be sporty, but stable enough to drink a cup of coffee in, in all but the worst weather. So much so, that I've never even considered adding an AP to mine, because outside of hard IFR (where you shouldn't be in one) this thing is a rock.
A couple decades ago a member here had a cub. That's it... when I met him in, he had a cub. And he was looking for a back seater to help him get to one of the gatherings in TX, Reklaw maybe?
Then he had two. Later that morphed into 2 cubs and 2 180's. His work started benefiting from airplane ownership and a 206 was added. He jumped in with some cash on the R&D of the Kodiak, which he eventually recieved, but IIRC he beat that one to the punch with a Caravan, which at some point morphed in to a King Air. We both have incredibly busy lives, so don't keep in touch, but I'd sure love to know what he's flying these days. And sure glad when he was diving in he didn't receive the same 'warm welcome'.
Nah man, don't let the negative nellies piss on your wheaties. Find the airplane that fits your mission best. And by the way, part of that mission should include aesthetics and what 'lights your soul on fire', or no one could own a Howard, a Stearman, or a P51..... And then.... DO your due diligence and learn to fly it right.
I hope your next thread is ' My 180 is out grown, should I buy a Kodiak 900? "
Take care, Rob
Oh and although it was not part of the OP, both the Maule and BH5 are by definition 'shorter coupled' airplanes than a 180. How did we get to a place of throwing reason to the wind?