What plane would you fly "just for fun" and to build experience?

My choice would be a Grumman Tiger. Fun to fly. But fast enough to go places if you end up wanting to do that.
 
I had a 1941 85 hp Piper J4A that I sold just pre COVID. Has the Piper J3 wing, conventional gear, stick, side-by-side, with lots of interior and head room, doors on both sides & pussycat ground handling. Am 86 here but still riding my 2 remaining BMWs.
 
nrpetersen said:
I had a 1941 85 hp Piper J4A that I sold just pre COVID. Has the Piper J3 wing, conventional gear, stick, side-by-side, with lots of interior and head room, doors on both sides & pussycat ground handling. Am 86 here but still riding my 2 remaining BMWs.
Click to expand...
Now you're making me want to get another BMW. : )

(I've actually thought about it, especially if this flying thing doesn't work out due to my age making it too hard to get insurance.)
 
Lunar Module said:
especially if this flying thing doesn't work out due to my age making it too hard to get insurance.)
Click to expand...
Have you thought about ultralights? Might be worth looking into if you're wanting low, slow, local fun.
 
Lunar Module said:
No. I'll have to do some research. Thx.
Click to expand...
Cool. I just hate the thought of you walking away from aviation because some dude with an actuary table doesn't want to offer you insurance. You won't be flying far or in clouds, but I hear it's basically equivalent to an airborne motorcycle, which seems up your alley!
 
Taildraggers = fun.

Don't be afraid of ground loops. It's not some dark art. Very much like riding a bike, all about balance. A good instructor will have you competent in 5 to 10 hours. After about 50 hours on your own, your risk will be no worse than a tri gear plane, and you'll be better at crosswinds. And if you want to explore grass strips and Backcountry, well that's what taildraggers are made for.

Citabrias are inexpensive, plentiful, easy to maintain, versatile, and loads of fun.
 
Nothing wrong with a taildragger for a low time pilot, after all, thousands of pilots learned to fly in Cubs and the like. My first plane, bought when I had around 100 hours, was a taildragger (Taylorcraft). Yes, insurance will be more, at least at first.

Consider what your mission, what kind of flying you want to do. Right now I'm a biplane guy, but I could see myself in a bush plane or seaplane. But I could never see myself owning a 172 or a Bonanza, just not my kind of flying.
 
AvNavCom said:
True, but no Cessna has every made me happy like the little Citabria made me happy when I could just jam the heel brake and swing the tail around in the run-up area or before I put her back in the hangar! Ah, the little silly things that make us smile.
Click to expand...
You can do that swing around with a tricycle Grumman, Cirrus, Diamond, and a number of LSAs too.
 
Jim K said:
Off-topic is our middle name. "Pedantic Off-topic Americans. POA.
Click to expand...
You're definitely trying to set the place on fire.
Lunar Module said:
So I was wondering if any of you might have any suggestions or recommendations for someone in my position?
Click to expand...
Consider a Cessna 150/152. Or a 150 Acrobat. Nice little things, cheap* to operate and maintain, easy to find people that can keep them flying.

*cheap by aviation standards
 
I can only think of one or two airplanes I *wouldn't* fly just for fun and to build experience. I've already been very fortunate/lucky, and I've learned something from every type I've flown. Sometimes it's been as simple as "Don't get in one of these again."

Nauga,
who is more particular about the "whom" than the "what"
 
Welcom to the forum,at your age the insurance companies will be a major factor on what you will fly.
 

What plane would you fly "just for fun" and to build experience?​

Click to expand...

C-206. Most of my (intentional) off airport landings were in a 206. Fun plane to fly, short field, long field, no field, doesn't matter. Just load it until the nose wheel starts to comes off the ground, good to go.
 
I think bush planes are awesome if you have a place to take them, I don't think it's misguided at all. In norcal I think there are some good places for that, it would be so fun! The NX cub is definitely a unique aircraft! I would love one especially if it was the version that you can convert to a taildragger with a few tools and a few a hours. Personally I fly a carbon cub just for fun, not really to build experience though. I can't think of anything I'd really rather have than my cub, if I'm footing the bill myself. It is simple, has great avionics & autopilot, Does 115 knots true on 8.50's, and I've finally reached a knowledge point where I can do most of the maintenance myself, including signing off the condition inspection on my own (even though I still hire an IA to come check my work). If you have the cash for an NXcub, I say go for it! There will be plenty of people that poo-poo the cost and the nosewheel, but you know what, a lot of that comes from a place of jealously for affording the airplane, and I say that as someone who couldn't afford a brand new NXcub. If you could do a builder assist experimental NXcub at the CC factory, that would be something I doubt you'd ever regret.

What I would choose would be entirely budget dependent, but honestly for your area and experience level, and if you're not looking to land ont he side of a mountain, but want something that can handle 1000ft grass/gravel all day, a cessna 182B could be a great airplane. A good one should be obtainable for under $100k. Maintenance will be the tricky point because there's no way around it on 60+ year old airplanes. Personally I would budget at least $5000/year for maintenance on one. Would I rather have a Carbon Cub or an NXcub, yes, as long as I didn't need to cruise at 130 knots or carry 4 people, which I don't. But you could save at least 1/4 million on the cost of acquisition of a 182.

Also, a 172 has such a huge range of what it can be. Check out 907 greenbean to see how far one could take one by keeping it light and adding power.
 
Last edited:
A mechanic and flight instructor I knew once told me don't go for an instrument rating until you have 200 hours of stick time first. I know that goes against the grain for some, but I think there is some wisdom in it. Stay low and slow for awhile and get some short field and grass airstrip work under your belt. The are a number of airplanes with landing rolls under 750 feet that work well on grass strips as short as 1500 feet, depending on altitude. Learning to get there, land, and takeoff again safely is a good challenge well within your capabilites. Planes like Ercoupe, Cherokee, Cessna, and others do well on these short strips and are plenty of fun to fly and learn with. Have FUN! Fly SAFE!
 
First, CONGRATS! on getting back into the air.

My advice? Don't buy anything - at the moment. Continue training, get your instrument, fly several different planes (172, 182, Cherokee, Arrow, Archer, Tiger) and then you'll know which plane fits your needs the best.

Have a ton of fun with getting checked out on different planes.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You can do that swing around with a tricycle Grumman, Cirrus, Diamond, and a number of LSAs too.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I didn't consider the castering nosewheel crowd. My verdict is technically correct (the best kind of correct) but not as cool.
midlifeflyer said:
Hey! Are you THE AvNavCom, as in the EFB that should have been the best thing out there for Android?
Click to expand...
Um...sure! Send me lots of money and you'll get the latest, greatest secret version delivered to you in 6 weeks by a man wearing a pink carnation, who will be sitting on the third bench to the left of the National Gallery's entrance. Don't make eye contact.
 
Lunar Module said:
I'm definitely not more capable than the 172. It's probably the most rational choice of all. But I'm thinking that I only have so many years left to fly (given my age) and that I would like to make the most of what time I have. I was thinking that a small two seater low/slow plane would be more of a hoot than a 172 and would be just as good (maybe even better) as a training platform.
Click to expand...
Google up some videos of the Valdez STOL. The overall winner for the past couple of years is a 172. He beats Cubs, Huskies, etc. A 172 is far more capable than 99.9% of guys who’ve flown them.
 
Last edited:
Lunar Module said:
Wow. That Katmai looks pretty amazing. Didn't see the pricetag. I imagine it is stratospheric. Very cool plane.
Click to expand...

You can see them for sale in the $250k-450k range. Maybe a bit much cash for what you say your mission is? 4 seats and capable cross-country machine.

I was seriously looking at building a Bushcat. They have stopped selling kits. You can get a tricycle gear model. $100k or so, maybe a bit less. Looks fun. Our @rhkennerly has one I think.


I followed Bushcat Tom on YouTube for a while. He makes some silly videos.
 
Last edited:
Tailwheel? Go for it.

The stick and rudder skills will make you a better pilot. You will also have many reasonably priced choices.
 
Thanks for all of the super help. I really appreciate your input.

I've got a bit of follow up for those who suggested that insurance might be the determining factor for me given my age and low flying time.

I called the insurance broker that AOPA recommends and had a chat with the agent. He basically said that for someone my age options were limited. Only four companies will insure pilots over the age of 70 and even then they place lots of limitations on what they will insure. He did have a bit of good news in that he said that if I stuck with a 172 (or the Piper equivalent) and kept the engine HP below 200 that they could definitely get me coverage. He said that to cover a taildragger they would require at least 50 hours of taildragger experience, including 20 hours in the exact type of plane that I was looking to insure. So that kind of rules out a taildragger for me, at least for now. He also said that even the nosewheel bush planes that we talked about above would probably not be green lighted because they are low volume airplanes and parts are more expensive than they are for the 172 or Piper. So it looks as though my hopes for a small two seater plane, even a nosewheeler, are not going to happen.

So I will now focus my attention on 172s and Archers (or the like) for the time being and see what I can come up with.

Thanks again for your help. Your comments were super helpful (and funny and interesting to boot). Onward and upward!
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Great movie!

If you raced bikes, Hitting The Apex (2015) is a nice documentary.

And welcome to POA!! Hope you stick around and that we see a picture of your new plane in the near future!
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'll check that out too. Hitting the apex is what it's all about. It feels SO great when you are able to do it by second nature. Takes quite a bit of practice and skill. Trail braking all the way to the apex and powering up as you leave. It's all such a delicate dance and you're hovering right on the edge of losing traction the entire time. Feeling the bike sliding around underneath you even though you're riding on pavement is quite the sensation. It's thrilling (and scary). The Moto GP guys (the Formula 1 of motorcycle racing) have fancy computers on their bikes that keep them from washing out on the entry and from high siding on the exit by computer based modulation of the throttle and brake inputs. It's kind of cheating. Like flying on autopilot or something. : )
 
I’m sure you probably know, but there’s no legal requirement for insurance on your airplane. Just sayin’. Liability is probably cheap and smart, but hull….
 
Fwiw, you should still get the tailwheel endosement.
8-10 hours dual in a taildragger will improve your skills and have fun at the same time.
The view over the cowling in the front seat of a tandom has to be experienced.
Plus you can check that box in your flying journey.
 
Lunar Module said:
I know. I was thinking that if I could keep the overall price of the plane down and pay cash that I might be willing to go with liability insurance only and go naked on hull insurance. Do you think that would make a difference?
Click to expand...
That may be your only choice. I am no expert, please consult an insurance person, but it is my understanding that many pilots reaching 80 are now going with liability only.

Some insurance companies are requiring those pilots to have annual flight reviews and medicals, and to only fly with another qualified pilot. I am 79 and have liability coverage from Avemco as a flight instructor. The policy renews (I hope) in September when I turn 80, so we'll see what happens. I'm told Avemco has a few hundred pilots insured who are older than 90. But again, my insurance is only for flying non-owned airplanes, and it's through a program of NAFI, the National Association of Flight Instructors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top