Best Small Bush Plane

[PilotDAR]

Lotro explains it correctly.

When considering these values, first consider the aircraft - is it certified, or non certified? The "useful load" of a certified aircraft will have been demonstrated during certification, though will be manufacturer's optimistic. I have never flown an aircraft which had a much useful load as the manufacturer said it might. It's configuration based. A historic example would be that some C-150s did not include the entire vacuum system and gyros in the useful load, because the aircraft was tested and certified without them. But, have you ever seen a 150 which did not have gyros? Subtract 10 pounds from the useful load, similarly for other bits we take for granted - wheel pants, adjusting seats, etc.

So, really, just ignore the manufacturer's useful load data, unless you're a detective. Instead, ask "what is THIS plane's useful load?". For certified, there will be a weight and balance document, which states it clearly. For a non certified, there should be a similar document, which explains how is was determined, which should be understandable.

The more people and stuff you carry, the less fuel you carry. Few light planes can carry full seats and baggage, AND full fuel. You choose.

Bear in mind that non certified aircraft fly by different legal rules, but the same physics ones!

Reading the following design requirement for certified aircraft should further your understanding:

Sec. 23.25

Weight limits.

[(a) Maximum weight. The maximum weight is the highest weight at which compliance with each applicable requirement of this part (other than those complied with at the design landing weight) is shown. The maximum weight must be established so that it is--
(1) Not more than the least of--
(i) The highest weight selected by the applicant; or]
(ii) The design maximum weight, which is the highest weight at which compliance with each applicable structural loading condition of this part (other than those complied with at the design landing weight) is shown; or
[(iii) The highest weight at which compliance with each applicable flight requirement is shown, and]
(2) Not less than the weight with--
(i) Each seat occupied, assuming a weight of 170 pounds for each occupant for normal and commuter category airplanes, and 190 pounds for utility and acrobatic category airplanes, except that seats other than pilot seats may be placarded for a lesser weight; and
(A) Oil at full tank capacity, and
(B) At least enough fuel for maximum continuous power operation of at least 30 minutes for day-VFR approved airplanes and at least 45 minutes for night-VFR and IFR approved airplanes; or
(ii) The required minimum crew, and fuel and oil to full tank capacity.
(b) Minimum weight. The minimum weight (the lowest weight at which compliance with each applicable requirement of this part is shown) must be established so that it is not more than the sum of--
(1) The empty weight determined under Sec. 23.29;
(2) The weight of the required minimum crew (assuming a weight of 170 pounds for each crewmember); and
(3) The weight of--
(i) For turbojet powered airplanes, 5 percent of the total fuel capacity of that particular fuel tank arrangement under investigation; and
(ii) For other airplanes, the fuel necessary for one-half hour of operation at maximum continuous power.

[LousyFisherman]

For a useful bush plane you need (IMHO) a minimum of 700-750 lbs useful load. 200/person, 150 for gear, 150 for gas. A 150 does not cut it unless your "friend" is less than 100 lbs.

YWMV (Your Weights May Vary)
LF

[BGH]

I had somewhere around 200 hours in 152's & 172's when I purchased a 1970 185.I had no taildragger,constant speed prop,or 185 time at all & spent a grand total of 7 hours getting checked out(for insurance coverage) on floats.As my license has upgraded - so has my 185.I've found it a very easy aircraft to handle;be it vfr,or ifr & it has long range tanks so it's got good legs.I've got an 1100lb useful load on wheels(with the tanks full) & 680lb useful load on floats.On wheels it handles every strip,or runway with ease & can keep up with the big stuff in the landing lineup when needed.On floats it still has a reasonable useful load,but fuel has to be left home - or a planned landing at higher elevation lakes(above 3800ft) with a light enough fuel load to get off the water.I asked myself what the hell I was going to do with the aircraft & then went looking for one that met my needs & that I could afford to insure & fly(get insurance quotes before you buy)(also talk to a couple of mechanics familiar with what you are looking at buying to get an idea on maintenance costs).Lastly call around to the local airports for hangarage,or tiedown costs.
Do your homework,never stop asking questions & try to think a bit about what you will want to do with the airplane & after the pre-purchase inspection you should have many years of happy ownership.For me it will be 31 years in October;owning & flying the same aircraft.

Daryl

[PilotDAR]

landing at higher elevation lakes(above 3800ft)

Fire Lake? A beautiful spot (which requires good performance!), I was mentored in there in the Found.

Yes, 185's are right up there as a great bush plane. If you can afford a good one, and are appropriately trained, you'll be very happy with one. They are more costly to operate than some of the other types mentioned, but will reward that cost with capability...

[1000 HP]

Holly cow the CS agreed with me, thanks man.

However we might disagree on my next suggestion. I would suggest that our newby taildragger pilot looks at a simpler Chief/Champ; nice soft oleos, wide stance and if you can manage one of these lightweights in high winds you get along just fine on your Maule upgrade.

Are you with me CS?

Mapleflt

Yup. I owned a real nice little 90HP Champ back in the 80s and used it for time building. It was a good bird. I even flew it from Winnipeg to LeFroy once

[Pop n Fresh]

As terrific as the Champ and even the 170 might be. They are absolutely not the best bush plane. Sure you saved some money on purchase but you might have to leave things behind. Of course it might be a bonus on occasion, "Sorry Dear, you have to stay behind, the plane is too small."

However, you risk having to do without import things. Fishing gear, guns, the dog, beer, stag chili in case we don't catch any food...

[Pop n Fresh]

Sorry. I'm being silly. If you're a small person without a dog who only fishes. Either of those could certainly be the "Best Small Bush Plane."

Airplanes are like spouses all have certain strengths, the best one might be different depending on your situation/preferences.

Just like the "best job." What do you want out of it?

[Shiny Side Up]

As terrific as the Champ and even the 170 might be. They are absolutely not the best bush plane.

Hey, this guy managed to get himself on a gravel bar.

[Keenflyer]

182, good load, easy handling, good cruise speed. Will do 95% of anything a tailwheel will do. Contrary to what some say WILL work out of short rough strips.

[PilotDAR]

I'm imagining that 170B hydroplaning across the water on tundra tires with the brakes locked, and running aground that way. The stop would be instant, and tundra tires could exert enough torque when braked to rip brakes right off.

The 182 is absolutely 95% plus of a 180/185 on short, firm runways, though it is 50% if that runway is really rough, and 25% if that runway is very soft. I have a bit too much experience sinking a 182 nosewheel in soft ground!

[photofly]

182, good load, easy handling, good cruise speed. Will do 95% of anything a tailwheel will do. Contrary to what some say WILL work out of short rough strips.

And if you want the other 5% as well, you're back with the 260se as per the original post. Quite extraordinary short field and slow flight performance.

[PilotDAR]

Slow flight and STOL capability are a very important aspect of what makes a plane a good "bush" plane, but where landings other than in the water are required, a nosewheel will often be a detriment, which cannot be overcome. Some aircraft are modified with oversized nosewheels, which helps, but no matter what, you have weight on the nosewheel trying to force it into the muck, and when you add power to try to taxi out of the muck, the initial result of that added power is to pull the nose further into the muck.

In the case of very rough surfaces, the nose strut just takes a pounding, which may exceed what it was designed for. Twin Otters are famous for very costly "station 60" damage, where the nosestrut is ripped off the bulkhead during rough runway work. I once had to ferry home a standard 172, which had been hangared for an extended time. The runway was fine, but the several hundred foot apron/taxiway had been lightly farm field plowed up in the mean time. Is was able to taxi the plane across this rough ground by having the owner sit in the back seat, and his daughter in the baggage compartment to balance the aircraft aft. With power, I could taxi with the nosewheel off, and all was well. But had it been necessary, a takeoff this way would not have been possible. A 180/185 would have taken off rough, but okay.

For rough runway work, if it goes wrong, and you have to break off the third wheel, you would very much rather break off a tailwheel, than a nose wheel. This will always be a characteristics which makes taildraggers better bush planes, where a hard surface will be the runway.

[CpnCrunch]

This one seems pretty good:



Lands in 40 feet at 25mph using the high-alpha landing technique (not sure if it's shown in that particular video).

[PilotDAR]

Certainly very cool, though if a C185 had landing gear stroke like that, it would have increasing similarity in performance. Every plane is a compromise, you're going to have to give something, to get something....

[vrefplus5]

http://player.vimeo.com/video/65863381

[photofly]

would that count as multi- time?

[iflyforpie]

Sure it would, but the break even point against a typical flight school twin is a long ways off.

You need the Cri-Cri or the Lazair for economical twin time building....

[mosky]

Building one of them as we speak. Yes it counts as multi time. You would need a multi endorsement to fly it although you can't get one the aircam itself (props don't feather). Wouldn't call it a bushplane but it can get into very tiny strips or lakes. Pusher props located directly behind the mains are an issue on mud or gravel strips however. Full enclosure (aka F16 style canopy) is on its way (saw the prototype at their factory this past february) which will make it much more friendly for flying in Canada although you can't beat the wide open flying canoe style of flying in warmer weather.