Best Small Bush Plane

[RileyBJones]

Hello all,

I am literally BRAND NEW to aviation. So please forgive any ignorance on the subject. I would like to gain information on what the best plane would be for me to purchase. I would like to learn to fly in it, but I would also like it to be suitable for use afterwards. Short runways, rural terrain, maximum of four seats (two would probably be sufficient), and some cargo space for gear, but I would also like it to be able to cover some country.

From what little I have been able to gather on my own, the Super Cub is an unrivalled favourite in this area. When I started to dig deeper, I found that tail draggers are much harder to learn on. I also read that a nose wheel plane is totally acceptable for those conditions. That eventually led me to the King Katmai 260se. Again, keep in mind I am green as grass with aviation.

Is there anyone out there that wouldn't mind taking the time to weigh in for me?

Many Thanks,

Riley

[RileyBJones]

Hello all,

I am literally BRAND NEW to aviation. So please forgive any ignorance on the subject. I would like to gain information on what the best plane would be for me to purchase. I would like to learn to fly in it, but I would also like it to be suitable for use afterwards. Short runways, rural terrain, maximum of four seats (two would probably be sufficient), and some cargo space for gear, but I would also like it to be able to cover some country.

From what little I have been able to gather on my own, the Super Cub is an unrivalled favourite in this area. When I started to dig deeper, I found that tail draggers are much harder to learn on. I also read that a nose wheel plane is totally acceptable for those conditions. That eventually led me to the King Katmai 260se. Again, keep in mind I am green as grass with aviation.

Is there anyone out there that wouldn't mind taking the time to weigh in for me?

Many Thanks,

Riley

[iflyforpie]

Super Cubs are way too expensive and you are paying the price because they are primarily a working airplane. If you want to take a bunch of angle iron to the middle of nowhere, that's your plane. If you are just going to take yourself and some camping gear, there are lots cheaper options.

I am building a Cub clone with no flaps and a 115 HP Lycoming. By keeping the weight down without adding all kinds of useless doodads and installing VGs.... I figure I will have 90% of the performance of a Super Cub at half the price.

Tail draggers of this variety aren't any harder to fly than nose draggers are.... they are just unforgiving of sloppiness. If you learn from day one on a tail dragger, it will be no harder than flying a nose wheel airplane as long as you have a competent instructor.

If you really want a nose wheel airplane... yes, there are all kinds of nosewheel planes that will do bush flying just as good or better in some cases (no risk of nose over is one advantage) ranging from the small, light, and (relatively) cheap Zenith CH750 all the way up to the Quest Kodiak if you have a couple million lying around. Aircraft like the 182 have to be modified with a heavy duty nose gear (like the King Katmai) in order to perform as a true bush plane...

[shimmydampner]

It's not that they are "much harder" to learn on, it's that they won't allow for some of the lazy, sloppy aircraft handling that some nose wheel aircraft may. Learning to fly a tail dagger would likely result in better stick and rudder skills, which would be a huge benefit if you plan to attempt challenging bush flying.

[fish4life]

What kind of "short field / bush flying" do you need for capability? Have you seen the show flying wild Alaska ? If so does the red tail dragged the owner has seem like the airplane for you? If so a Cessna 180 would be the perfect airplane.

[TheCheez]

Welcome to the forum, and flying, Riley.

[supercub7]

Piper PA-18 supercubs are expensive for a basic two place fabric airplane. Perhaps a piper PA-11 or like Maple said a Maule might be a more affordable option. Do you plan on using the aircraft on floats or skis?

Do not let taildragger aircraft intimidate you. Before the mainstream use of training with the cessna 172 thousands of pilots learned to fly in small piper cubs, aeronca champs, etc. With a taildragger respect the wind, if it is gusty or strong crosswinds wait for better conditions and you should have no problems.

[PilotDAR]

Kindly spoken, asking which is the best bush plane, is kinda like asking which is the best kind of rope. It's more task specific than just the general question. A person who is very good with rope, and knots can make a piece of rope do more jobs well, than a person who has trouble tying their shoelaces.

Similarly with planes. Yes, tricycle planes can be effective "bush" planes, with the Cessna 206, Caravan, and Twin Otter being famous examples. But, you still see each of those types with nosewheels torn off by terrain which a taildragger would have managed with less difficulty.

If you mind is open to a taildragger, by all means, go from the start in one, you will not forget it as long as the instructions has been competent, and that IS a challenge to overcome these days.

Nosewheel planes are not any better or worse at short runway operations, but there seems to remain a relationship between "short" and "unprepared" with "bush" runways. The taildragger gets the better reputation, not so much for STOL, but for tolerant of rougher runways. Taildraggers are superior on skis, when the snow gets deep. Another boost to their reputation for being good in the bush.

For certified type planes, consider the Cessna 170B. Also, "Cub" type planes, Maules, Bellanca Scout, and Cessna 180, if funds flow more freely.

For what it sounds that you want to do, definitely avoid all Piper PA-28 series (great planes, great wing, but unsuitable landing gear, and low wing gets more peripheral obstacle damage). Even less "bush" suitable are the other low wing, tricycles out there. There are some non certified types which would be very suitable, though you must take more a more direct role in their maintenance.

All that said, do keep asking your questions, and refining what you're looking for. There is lots of wisdom available to guide you....

[frozen solid]

I've never purchased an aeroplane so the economics are quite beyond me, but I think a guy could do OK with an older Cessna 180, and I've also always thought Maules were pretty good planes.

Don't worry about "taildraggers". You can learn more by learning to fly on one, and it's not much harder at all. Only guys ever bitched about taildraggers being hard were some of the guys who learned on tricycle gear. Something about tailwheel planes makes flying more fun. I think it's because they look better. They say helicopters are "hard" too, but look at all the goof-balls who know how to fly one of those things. Sheesh.

Anyway, welcome to aviation. It's fun.

[Bede]

Here are a couple cool ones:
http://www.bushplanedesign.com/
http://www.justaircraft.com/media/Kitpl ... erSTOL.pdf
Bushmaster (extended Piper Pacer)

Can't go wrong with a C180/185, Maule, or Super Cub either.

[PilotDAR]

Can't go wrong with a C180/185, Maule, or Super Cub either

Yes, if you've been properly trained, and are flying one of these types, it'll be good.

Buying your first one one the other hand must be undertaken with awareness, or you could certainly end up spending more than you planned. Buy no more plane than you need for the job. Do you need the more expensive and thirsty engine of the C 180/185? Do you need the more expensive constant speed propeller of the C180/185, and some Maules? That prop will bring considerably greater maintenance cost come overhaul time, and it will prevent you changing the aircraft to Owner Maintenance category later, should you choose to do that.

These aircraft, the Scout, and a few other certified types will perform "in the bush" as well as "Super Cub" types, and carry a greater load while doing it. The Cessna 170B is a lesser performer, but still suitable for consideration. Do you need to carry that greater load often enough to justify paying that greater operating cost every hour you fly the "big" plane?

The two planes I own are as simple as can be found for what I do with them, and the sum of their values and annual operating costs is still less than the next nearest single aircraft with those capabilities. The sum of their fuel flows is still not as much as a 185 burns (though neither will carry four people, or at the fast cruise speed either). I can rent or borrow for the few flights I need that capability.

On the other side, I am responsible for the modification and approval of a Cessna 182 amphibian, for which the total cost of the owner's selected configuration has exceeded $800,000, and it still cannot carry four people any more! A magnificent and capable two person bush aircraft, but the cost.....

Buy the least plane you can use, and use it. Occasionally rent or hire bigger if you need it. You would rather use the lesser cost aircraft you own a lot, enjoying and remaining well proficient, than fly less, because you're worried about the cost. If you've used the "smaller" plane a few seasons, and found it is not enough, then you are wise enough to buy bigger.

[Colonel Sanders]

The most popular off-airport aircraft often
share this configuration:

high wing
tailwheel
light weight
two-seat (often tandem)
tube & fabric
lots of wing span
vortex generators
Lycoming 4-cyl engine
homebuilt (no paperwork hassles)
big tires

Not sure if you really need all of the above, but ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTuDeKxjPck


Contrast the above with this big-dollar guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfy5SRKxO_c#t=180s

[co-joe]

Correct me but I thought the main advantage of a tail dragger for off strip flying was the higher prop clearance over the ground because of the nose up attitude?

I flew in a Piper Super cruiser a few times. If memory serves it seats 3 if the back seat people aren't super sized. Might be an option.

[PilotDAR]

Taildraggers are well suited for rough and soft runways because the thrust is not trying to pull the nosewheel further into the muck when you're trying to taxi. Once you're getting to flying speed, it really is not so important, as you're only on the mains anyway. And, if you're going to break the third wheel, it is much cheaper, and less damaging to the aircraft to break a tailwheel ,than a nosewheel.

In the case of ski planes, the effect of pulling the nose down into soft snow can be very pronounced. Skis work better on taildraggers.

[Shiny Side Up]

If one is looking to learn on one, I would say start small, work your way up if you decide you need something bigger. Best bang for buck to start with I would say would be you C-170 or the older lower powered Maules. Both can be aquired for reasonable price, and if you decide you need more or can afford higher performance then trade up. These days both of those aircraft will hold their value somewhat and be relatively easier to move up from. Flying off of gravel bars won't be lesson #1, you'll have to work up to that and not a lot of sense burning a lot of fuel on the way to that lesson. If you can on the way though, then do some trying out of stuff you might want to move into and refine what your mission profile is going to be.

One neat thing about the tailwheel flying club, is if you get in, and work at it, its much easier to find like minded people to help you out. Doesn't matter what you ride as long as you ride.

[Bede]

PilotDAR,

What airplanes do you own?

[PilotDAR]

I have owned a 1975 C 150M for 27 years. It is straight out of the box, other than a Horton STOL kit. And, I have owned a 1977 Thurston Teal amphibian (which is a taildragger) for 6 years. It was modified before I bought it with a 180 HP Lycoming O-360, and a long range fuel system. I have moved it into the Owner Maintenance category. After the winter we've had, I'm seriously thinking skis for the Teal next year!

When I bought the 150 all those years ago, I had been flying all kinds of larger faster singles and twins, but I was so happy just to have a presentable plane, which was mine, and affordable. I could have blown my brains out on something I could not afford to fly, but I settled for a very nice 150. People joked me, and ATC treated me like a student pilot. But I do not regret for a moment owning that little plane. I've had it all over the continent, and a bit off too. It is adequate for a little off airport flying, if you are very cautious, and hold the nose light. But, it is hardly a "bush" plane.

During the time, friends bought and sold fancier planes, I just flew the 150, and still made the fly in lunches for desert - and it's faster than the Teal! Too many of my friends bought big, could not afford, and sold, sometimes for a loss. The 150 has multiplied it's value while I have put a few thousand hours on it.

Simple, buy simple.....

[Colonel Sanders]

you will get a lot more airplane for your money with a Maule

I think so, but I am highly biased - I have
been flying this particular M4-210C for 43
years now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US9je8STwjo

[Colonel Sanders]

if you're going to break the third wheel, it is much cheaper, and less damaging to the aircraft to break a tailwheel ,than a nosewheel

Yup. I go through tailwheels like candy. I keep
a built-up wheel/tube/tire on the shelf, complete
with packed bearings, so I can swap a busted one
out in 2 minutes. Cotter pin takes the most time.

I have worn out so many tailwheel tires ... had
tailwheel tubes go flat on me ... blown out tailwheel
tubes/tires ... hell, I've had the entire tailwheel come
off and taxiied in on the fork. Tailwheel springs broken
(both the little horn ones, and the big leaf springs).

Fast, easy and cheap to fix, though.

PS Learn to wheel land, and use full forward stick on
the rollout, so that when the tailwheel finally touches,
it's at taxi speed only. They last a lot longer that way.

Heck, even when I do a 3-point landing, I still raise the
tail and roll out on the mains to save the tailwheel. Which
is NOT a wheel landing, btw. Just taxiing on the mains.

[CFR]

Having owned my own airplane for a few years now I can authoritatively say that you want an aerobatic tail-dragging IFR capable amphibian with 1800 lbs useful load on retractable tundra tires; is flown with a stick, throttle on the left and steam gauges, that cruises at 200 knots at 7.5 gallons an hour and stalls at 35 knots with a glide ratio of 20:1. Yellow would be nice!

Seriously - learn to fly on a taildragger it is an excellent skill to have. The only downside from a renting point of view is that many outfits require that you fly it every 30 days vice 60 or 90 for nose gear aircraft - its an insurance thing. As you are learning make buds with as many pilots as you can and bum rides in plenty of airplanes. What you end up wanting to do with it will usually determine the type of plane. Your skill sets and experience level makes a difference with insurance as well. A fresh PPL has a higher insurance rate when going to something fancy.

Take your time when buying. Don't forget to do the math on things like maintenance (stuff seems to break in indirect proportion to the amount of savings in your bank account), hangar or tie down space, fuel (now that I pay for it myself, leaning and the power charts have become very important to me!) annuals, insurance, etc. I suggest you don't buy the first thing that strikes your fancy, another better one will be along shortly and while buying is relatively easy these days, selling can take a while if you want something different.

I have a tricycle aerobatic aircraft that is a good traveller for me by myself, not so much with two. Thankfully I still get my tail dragging fix during the summer towing gliders.

Best of Luck.

[co-joe]

Good call on the 150 PD. I instructed on one for a year and loved it. So forgiving, great on gas (even mogas), can handle an absolutely huge crosswind, spins like mad. Ony drawbacks are space and speed.

The C-170 is a great idea as well. Lower price than the 172 because the flight schools don't have them, tailwheel. Not sure what they're like on big tires. Is a 140 worth looking at? Basically a 150 with conventional gear right?

[fish4life]

150 with tail wheel conversion

[Colonel Sanders]

I am not a big fan of tailwheel conversions.

Even though someone might have pushed the
paper on the mechanical side for the STC, they
often end up with challenging (esp yaw) handling
characteristics which you would not find in an aircraft
which was designed to be a taildragger.

I'm not saying they're unflyable, but try before
you buy.

[RileyBJones]

Wow. Thank you everyone for the overwhelming response!

I did check in a few days ago and read the first four or five responses. So naturally I had 40 browser windows open on my phone and went reading and watching videos. I stumbled across so many planes. I don't know how you folks keep track of them all.

I did stumble upon Bushwhacker's BushCub, and Just's Highlander SuperSTOL. Admittedly, the innovations on the SuperSTOHL were really intriguing. Plus, that plane just looks awesome.

I am a little confused still as to what "useable or useful load" is. Is that the total weight you can add to the aircraft, or is that after people? Also, I would definitely like to work up to real bush flying, creek bed and clearing landings. As far as what we'd take in with us, maximum would be two people, two rifles, two packs, a small box tent, and some food supplies. However, if useful load is the TOTAL, I'm afraid we'd be too heavy for the highlander.

The only thing not really mentioned here so far is range. I could honestly care less about putting up speed, but getting in and out is important. Any thoughts?

Again, thank you all so much,

Riley

[Lotro]

I know this one! (I think)

Useful load is the total weight you can put in an airplane including people, baggage and fuel while still being within the weight limits for an aircraft.

For example:

A PA-18 Super Cub has a maximum takeoff weight of 1750lbs
The empty weight is 930 lbs (this number usually includes the oil in the aircraft)
Thus you have a useful load of 850lbs.
However, fuel is 6lbs/gal and the PA-18 has two 18gal wing tanks and burns about 9gal/hr
Full tanks would weigh: 216lbs leaving you with 634lbs for people and gear and a 4 hour range.

In my short 250 hours one of my hard rules is don't fly an aircraft overloaded. Some guys do it safely, some guys do it and die. Famous bush planes like the SuperCub, C185 and most famously the DHC-2 Beaver are more than capable of carrying over their gross weight and I know some guys who do it all the time...