If you had a choice..

Daytonabch04

Daytonabch04

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
84
Location
Fort Knox, KY
Display Name
Display name:
Daytonabch04
Of course I'm like everyone else and would like to buy an airplane within the next several months...however, I am torn as I am divided between two missions.

I love the IFR flying aspect..have 250 hours, IFR pilot, yet the tailwheel aspect of flying intrigues me as well. My family doesn't fly with me and if I do take someone, it's normally only one other person.

If I had to pick a IFR plane, it would be something like a DA40, Beech V35B, maybe older Cirrus..If I had to pick a TW, something like a Cub Crafters or Super Cub. I got my IFR in glass cockpit and would probably want glass something in whatever bird I got. I do not have my TW yet, but will once I return from deployment. That'll be my first goal.

So...if you had a choice between an IFR bird or a decently nice TW with no mission in mind, which would you choose?
 
Why not go for the best of both worlds? TW+IFR?

Check into a Maule M-7.
 
Daytonabch04 said:
Of course I'm like everyone else and would like to buy an airplane within the next several months...however, I am torn as I am divided between two missions.

I love the IFR flying aspect..have 250 hours, IFR pilot, yet the tailwheel aspect of flying intrigues me as well. My family doesn't fly with me and if I do take someone, it's normally only one other person.

If I had to pick a IFR plane, it would be something like a DA40, Beech V35B, maybe older Cirrus..If I had to pick a TW, something like a Cub Crafters or Super Cub. I got my IFR in glass cockpit and would probably want glass something in whatever bird I got. I do not have my TW yet, but will once I return from deployment. That'll be my first goal.

So...if you had a choice between an IFR bird or a decently nice TW with no mission in mind, which would you choose?
Click to expand...
I see Daytona Beach in your name, but your location is Leavenworth. Are you in the Pen up there? ;)

I have a V35 (not a B and not glass, but it has a 530W and a 696. fuel totalizer and EDM700), but I would also like to have a Husky. If you happened to be in the Daytona area and want to partner up, I might be able to talk my wife into half ownership of each.

If you are not in the Daytona area, then perhaps you could partner up with one or two others in your area.
 
Last edited:
Find a Sportsman 2+2 that can be converted from tail wheel to tricycle gear. I think most of them are IFR capable.
 
Walboy said:
IFR Bird.

A Van's RV might suit you. Best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

Not a big fan on experimental, as I do like the CubCrafters, but to me RV's are big and boxy. Never flown one, just seen the pics... Something of both worlds would be nice though.
 
JOhnH said:
I see Daytona Beach in your name, but your location is Leavenworth. Are you in the Pen up there? ;)

I have a V35 (not a B and not glass, but it has a 530W and a 696. fuel totalizer and EDM700), but I would also like to have a Husky. If you happened to be in the Daytona area and want to partner up, I might be able to talk my wife into half ownership of each.

If you are not in the Daytona area, then perhaps you could partner up with one or two others in your area.
Click to expand...

Went to college in Daytona several years ago...was in Leavenworth for Army school, and stationed now at Ft. Hood, Texas for a couple years once I return from the desert. Unfortunately, I move around every 2-3 years so partnerships aren't the best. I wish I could have 1/2 of each bird.
 
Daytonabch04 said:
Not a big fan on experimental, as I do like the CubCrafters, but to me RV's are big and boxy. Never flown one, just seen the pics... Something of both worlds would be nice though.
Click to expand...

I have never been a big fan of Vans aircraft either. If there is one thing they are not though, it's big. Experimental is really where you need to be though. Cutting edge electronics, unmatched efficiency, much cheaper to maintain and annual.

The Sportsman would be a good choice, or any number of cub replicas that are out there.
 
Daytonabch04 said:
I don't believe there are any Carbon Cubs that are glass and IFR..most are experimental. The certified ones they have don't believe offer glass...Good thinking though...
Click to expand...

Just about every carbon cub has a glass panel except for the oldest ones. To make it IFR wouldn't be a big deal. Of all the CC on Barnstormers, only 2 I saw weren't glass.
 
Walboy said:
I'm not sure about this part. If you buy someone else's airplane and aren't particularly handy, I'm not sure there is a big cost savings. This is especially true if you buy and airplane and hire someone to upgrade the avionics to what you want.
Click to expand...

The savings from being able to buy non-certified parts where applicable probably justifies going experimental on that basis alone. Glass panel is half what the certified units are, not to mention ignitions, spark plugs, etc.
 
Maybe a Citabria/Deke/Super Deke? You then get tailwheel, IFR, and aerobatic. Two seats, not exactly an XC bird that you'd want to be in for 3hrs straight, but it's faster than a Super Cub.
 
Walboy said:
I'm not sure about this part. If you buy someone else's airplane and aren't particularly handy, I'm not sure there is a big cost savings. This is especially true if you buy and airplane and hire someone to upgrade the avionics to what you want.
Click to expand...

Parts are half or less in price, no IA is needed for condition inspection so money saved there. No STC's or 337s needed for modifications or new equipment. The only way it's not true is if you buy a really poorly built airplane and have to invest a lot in it. But then again you could buy a really poorly maintained certified airplane and really be in trouble.
 
Get what you want. Otherwise you'll get what you think your family will want, they still won't fly with you after the newness wears off and you'll be wishing you were in something else.
 
The new Rans airplane is supposed to fly as slow as an S7 but also cruise at 150 mph. One of the S7 guys here will be building one soon and will have it decked out for IFR. He will then sell his RV-8 and S7. He loves backcountry flying and he goes to Alaska and Idaho a couple times a year. The S7 is impractical at 100 mph cruise, and the RV-8 is not the best short, rough strip airplane. The new Rans promises to to do both well.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The savings from being able to buy non-certified parts where applicable probably justifies going experimental on that basis alone. Glass panel is half what the certified units are, not to mention ignitions, spark plugs, etc.
Click to expand...

I notice most the backcountry planes are in the light sport category..so can you have a light sport, experimental plane that is IFR? I was thinking light sport couldn't be IFR, but I could be wrong. No matter what I get I would want something that has glass. However, I couldn't imagine taking a backcountry plane on a flight more than 3+ hours that would be comfortable...
 
Just cuz a plane is IFR equipped doesn't make it a good IFR platform...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You sound like a perfect candidate for a Piper Comanche. They are great IFR platforms, you can find some that have been upgraded to modern avionics, good speed, economical on fuel, and something that isn't as common as a Cirrus or 172.
 
Daytonabch04 said:
Of course I'm like everyone else and would like to buy an airplane within the next several months...however, I am torn as I am divided between two missions.

I love the IFR flying aspect..have 250 hours, IFR pilot, yet the tailwheel aspect of flying intrigues me as well. My family doesn't fly with me and if I do take someone, it's normally only one other person.

If I had to pick a IFR plane, it would be something like a DA40, Beech V35B, maybe older Cirrus..If I had to pick a TW, something like a Cub Crafters or Super Cub. I got my IFR in glass cockpit and would probably want glass something in whatever bird I got. I do not have my TW yet, but will once I return from deployment. That'll be my first goal.

So...if you had a choice between an IFR bird or a decently nice TW with no mission in mind, which would you choose?
Click to expand...

IMO this is a simple IFR xc vs. VFR-for-fun mission question. TW seems to just target a subset of models presuming the underlying mission is clear.

I'm not IFR, but having done long xc in an LSA, cruising around in IMC at 90-110 kts sounds like not a lot of fun. Expect a lot of diversions. So I'd stay away from any low performance AC with IFR.

VFR for fun, there's another thread going on how cheap Wacos are getting...

So Q might be what is a fun flying IFR platform? RV7, DA40, Pitts S2B come to mind first. (Why not throw acro into the mix??)
 
PaulMKE said:
IMO this is a simple IFR xc vs. VFR-for-fun mission question. TW seems to just target a subset of models presuming the underlying mission is clear.

I'm not IFR, but having done long xc in an LSA, cruising around in IMC at 90-110 kts sounds like not a lot of fun. Expect a lot of diversions. So I'd stay away from any low performance AC with IFR.

VFR for fun, there's another thread going on how cheap Wacos are getting...

So Q might be what is a fun flying IFR platform? RV7, DA40, Pitts S2B come to mind first. (Why not throw acro into the mix??)
Click to expand...
A nice Pitts or an eagle would be a great platform. You could fly your IFR inverted!
 
PaulMKE said:
IMO this is a simple IFR xc vs. VFR-for-fun mission question. TW seems to just target a subset of models presuming the underlying mission is clear.

I'm not IFR, but having done long xc in an LSA, cruising around in IMC at 90-110 kts sounds like not a lot of fun. Expect a lot of diversions. So I'd stay away from any low performance AC with IFR.

VFR for fun, there's another thread going on how cheap Wacos are getting...

So Q might be what is a fun flying IFR platform? RV7, DA40, Pitts S2B come to mind first. (Why not throw acro into the mix??)
Click to expand...

That's why I suggested a Citabria/Decathlon above. Tailwheel, aerobatics, light back-country capable without wheel pants, IFR-capable (not that it'd be fun without an A/P). Relatively cheap considering SuperCubs and C170/C180 prices.
 
Daytonabch04 said:
if you had a choice between an IFR bird or a decently nice TW with no mission in mind, which would you choose?
Click to expand...

No reason you can't have both - get a Cessna 180, or if you can afford it, a 185.
 
gsengle said:
Just cuz a plane is IFR equipped doesn't make it a good IFR platform...
Click to expand...

Yes, an example would be a plane that's well suited for acrobatics, but has an IFR panel.

In IMC, you want a plane that is very stable. Stable in straight-and-level flight and in a standard-rate turn, because that's what you do, mostly, when flying IFR. For example, a C182 would be better in IMC than most RVs even if the panels are similar.
 
Plenty of choices from the vans line.
 
Grum.Man said:
Parts are half or less in price, no IA is needed for condition inspection so money saved there. No STC's or 337s needed for modifications or new equipment. The only way it's not true is if you buy a really poorly built airplane and have to invest a lot in it. But then again you could buy a really poorly maintained certified airplane and really be in trouble.
Click to expand...

Yes, a good pre-buy is a must. A well-built example is not going to be that much more than one with shoddy workmanship. I'm about 2/3rds through my annual, and the chiropractor bills might offset the savings of doing it myself. :) But I love the peace of mind that comes from personally putting a torque wrench on the critical fasteners and laying my own eyeballs on every potential problem area.

Glass panels are incredibly inexpensive, in the grand scheme of airplane stuff. GRT just announced its Sport EX system that starts at $1500, but $3000 is more realistic if you want full engine monitoring, synthetic terrain, etc. Supports autopilot too. That price of entry would buy just an STC'd engine monitoring system for a certified plane. For the few stubborn POA'ers who think that synthetic vision wouldn't help to avoid a CFIT accident in IMC, here's a screen shot from that system. Just climb and maneuver away from the red!!

cfit.png

Let's hope that more of this stuff is allowed in certified planes. It's affordable, reliable and proven.
 
The only problem I see with experimentals is that initial cost is a pretty significant barrier to entry for those of us on the lower end of the budget spectrum, even though maintenance and upgrade costs are SUBSTANTIALLY lower. Upgrading an experimental is pennies compared to a certified. 3k for a glass panel that has synvis and full engine monitoring is a pipe dream in the certified world.

BUT certifieds tend to be bigger and more comfortable. RVs are sexy looking planes and they perform great. But uhhh... interior comfort is not their strong suit.
 
ircphoenix said:
The only problem I see with experimentals is that initial cost is a pretty significant barrier to entry for those of us on the lower end of the budget spectrum, even though maintenance and upgrade costs are SUBSTANTIALLY lower. Upgrading an experimental is pennies compared to a certified. 3k for a glass panel that has synvis and full engine monitoring is a pipe dream in the certified world.

BUT certifieds tend to be bigger and more comfortable. RVs are sexy looking planes and they perform great. But uhhh... interior comfort is not their strong suit.
Click to expand...

Only if you're comparing new experimental builds to 40-yr old certified birds. A new C172 is north of $300K. An RV-10 will whip a 172 in every category and will come in $100K less. Plenty of used RV/Rans/etc that are selling for comparable prices to 2-seat certified birds.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Only if you're comparing new experimental builds to 40-yr old certified birds. A new C172 is north of $300K. An RV-10 will whip a 172 in every category and will come in $100K less. Plenty of used RV/Rans/etc that are selling for comparable prices to 2-seat certified birds.
Click to expand...

I'm absolutely comparing them. If you're in the market for a brand new certified, you're probably not looking at 200k experimentals. I mean, maybe... but if you're looking anywhere 80k or below, you're probably better served with a certified... or maybe not better served but you're not going to find a comparable experimental for what you can get out of an older certified.
 
You want a newish tailwheel airplane that's good for IFR flying, but not an EAB. Sorry, can't think of any.

If you want to fly IFR and have a tailwheel, I'm thinking Cessna 180. There are a number of them available with IFR panels, but they'll be steam gauges. If you want glass, buy one with minimal avionics and retrofit.
 
Out of all the planes I have owned I had the most fun in my 1940 J-3 Cub. The V35B I fly is awesome if you have somewhere to go but just for flying around it is no fun. I own a Cessna 140, 172 and Pitts Model 12 now. I just sold my Cub and the new buyers crashed it the first day! I am kicking myself hard for selling it.
I will replace the Cub one day.... I have looked at the Carbon Cub. You CAN'T take off with the door open! That is a deal breaker for me! I never had the door closed in my Cub, it was always open. The Legend Cub opens on both sides, that's cool.
I bought the 140 and thought it would be slow and low like my J-3 was. It is more comparable to my 172 though. If you just want fun and cheap to fly the Cub is hard to beat. You don't have to go anywhere to have a blast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top