The best 4 seat STOL bush planes.

Capt.Crash'n'Burn

Capt.Crash'n'Burn

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
1,097
Location
Lompton,CA
Display Name
Display name:
Capt.Crash'n'Burn
If you were to pick the ultimate bush plane for 4 people, what would it be? Something by Cessna? Maule? Found Aircraft? PZL Wilga? perhaps a homebuilt?

And I mean a REAL 4 seater, not something like a Tri-Pacer that only has enough room for a Hobbit pilot and co-pilot, and 2 Smurfs in the back seat. ;)

Second question, what's a realistic number for the shortest take-off and landings possible for such a plane with 4 average adults??
 
Many keystrokes and hangar sessions have attempted to suss this out. There is none. Easier to say what isn't.

My choice is an early 182 unless you need skis. Boring I know.

Edit: Or you can get a Wren, or the later Peterson 260SE, both modified later 182's. Heavier than a pre-1963 C182 but horsepower modifications, canards and wing modificiations made them great STOL performers.
 
Last edited:
Greg Bockelman said:
Does it not hold 4 people? It fits the mission. He did NOT specifically say "4 Place".
Click to expand...


Well sure it does. So does a Boeing 727 which arguably opened up the Alaskan bush as much as any airplane and has decent short field performance :ihih:

I guess if you go back to the first variant it is a four-seater (the Helio not the 727 ;) ). But then most of the attributes that make it a great low speed performer weren't added yet.
 
Last edited:
You won't find many Helio Couriers sitting on the ramp at Bethel or King Salmon...more likely to see 206's, 180's, 185's etc. Some Cherokee Sixes.

Bob Gardner
 
Try this. It might give you an idea.

More often than not a 182 wins the heavy touring class, and there are 172s in the light touring class that give the Maules and early C180's a run for their money.

It is often software not hardware that makes the difference :wink2:

As a friend of mine often asks in these type of online discussions, what is your definition of bush? Popular USFS strips in Idaho? Farmer fields in Kansas? Riverbars in Alaska? Gastons?

So, aside from gently prodding Pilawt and Greg about the Courier...for four actual adults, and short rough strips at possible high CA density altitudes, you might actually need an aircraft that came with six seats, or at the very least the same HP as one. To play devil's advocate with myself the 182 becomes less fabulous with 900 lbs of human on board. C185, C206 come to mind. Maybe the Found Bushhawk.

C180, Maule are great airplanes and we use the heck out of them up here, but we are operating closer to standard conditions (cool temps and/or near sea level.)
 
Last edited:
bobmrg said:
You won't find many Helio Couriers sitting on the ramp at Bethel or King Salmon...more likely to see 206's, 180's, 185's etc. Some Cherokee Sixes.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

There is one that regularly works on wheels out of Fairbanks. The one that was often seen in King Salmon on floats had a wing fail in flight killing four people including a popular Arizona glider school owner working for the summer as a bush pilot, resulting in an AD requiring a significant inspection of all wing spar carry through structures for intergranular corrosion and cracking.
 
bobmrg said:
You won't find many Helio Couriers sitting on the ramp at Bethel or King Salmon...more likely to see 206's, 180's, 185's etc. Some Cherokee Sixes.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

that's because it has a GO-720- 400 horse in it, Smart folks don't want to feed it let alone maintain it.

My vote goes to the C-182 with the peeponk/bushwheel mod.
 
Last edited:
Pilatus Turbo Porter. Game over. Thanks for playing.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Many keystrokes and hangar sessions have attempted to suss this out. There is none. Easier to say what isn't.

My choice is an early 182 unless you need skis. Boring I know.

Edit: Or you can get a Wren, or the later Peterson 260SE, both modified later 182's. Heavier than a pre-1963 C182 but horsepower modifications, canards and wing modificiations made them great STOL performers.
Click to expand...

Why would you choose the 182 over the 180 or 185??
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
Why would you choose the 182 over the 180 or 185??
Click to expand...

Why would you choose the 185 or 180 over the 182?

The 182 is cheaper to buy and insure apples to apples, easier to land. Later models have a wider cabin than either of their taildragger cousins. The LZ will have to be mighty rough to justify the taildragger. And as the link to YouTube above shows often they will get off the ground faster and shorter than either a 180 or a Maule.

I love taildraggers but if you are asking about purely utilitarian factors, most of the time they have no advantage.

On the other hand see my post above about the 185's extra horsepower. Later ones came with 300hp.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Why would you choose the 185 or 180 over the 182?

The 182 is cheaper to buy and insure apples to apples, easier to land. Later models have a wider cabin than either of their taildragger cousins. The LZ will have to be mighty rough to justify the taildragger. And as the link to YouTube above shows often they will get off the ground faster and shorter than either a 180 or a Maule.

I love taildraggers but if you are asking about purely utilitarian factors, most of the time they have no advantage.

On the other hand see my post above about the 185's extra horsepower. Later ones came with 300hp.
Click to expand...

taildragger can land in rougher terrain. other than that I agree with what you said
 
alaskaflyer said:
I love taildraggers but if you are asking about purely utilitarian factors, most of the time they have no advantage.
Click to expand...

Have you checked prop tip clearance above the ground on a C182/205/206?

There's not a lot of room between the ground and the tips.

Does that mean an automatic prop strike?

No -- but best case will be an early prop overhaul after it gets all dinged up from loose stuff on the ground.

I think the taildragger's principal advantage is in keeping the prop out of the gravel for most of the time the prop is likely to be in the gravel -- startup, taxi, runup, etc. Sure the advantage is lost once the tail comes up, but that's usually a short distance.

So while I agree a 182 or even (Gasp!) a Bonanza could be a good grass or dirt field bird, there will be costs that a similarly equipped TW will avoid.
 
elmetal said:
taildragger can land in rougher terrain. other than that I agree with what you said
Click to expand...


I disagree, you'll rip the gear off a tail dragger just as quick as a trike.

the trike will not nose over as quick as the Tail Dragger.

The only advantage of the tail dragger is the taxi turning ability, and the prop clearance.

Big wheels on a trike are slower but they will get in and out of the same places as the TD.
 
C-175 with a 210 nose fork, 180 horse up grade stall fences, leading edge cuff, and the bush wheel kit.

the Maule guys ask him to help carry their gear into and out of Johnson Creek Id.
 

Attachments

  • what is it-1.JPG
    what is it-1.JPG
    64.2 KB · Views: 102
  • what is it-6.JPG
    what is it-6.JPG
    50.7 KB · Views: 97
  • what is it -2.JPG
    what is it -2.JPG
    66.9 KB · Views: 113
  • what is it -3.JPG
    what is it -3.JPG
    75.4 KB · Views: 100
The prop clearance advantage is only useful on taxi and the first few seconds of takeoff. Larger nosewheels and generous strut inflation helps too.

I would have to check again but the 35 Bonanza has prop clearance that would give some taildraggers a run for their money. I know it is significantly higher than Cessna nosegears.
 
alaskaflyer said:
The prop clearance advantage is only useful on taxi and the first few seconds of takeoff. Larger nosewheels and generous strut inflation helps too.

I would have to check again but the 35 Bonanza has prop clearance that would give some taildraggers a run for their money. I know it is significantly higher than Cessna nosegears.
Click to expand...

I know -- the 1947 V had very good clearance and robust gear because most airfields were still turf back then.
 
dmccormack said:
Maybe, sitting on pavement with the nosegear extended -- what happens bumping down a rough taxiway or runway?
Click to expand...

There is no question that prop clearance on a TD is better than a ND, but even with the strut compressed, a 182 will have adequate clearance. The same pothole that would cause prop clearance problems on a 182 would have the potential to cause problems for a 180 or 185.
 
Taildraggers have prop strikes...on rollout particularly on inelegant wheel landings, on taxi, even on takeoff.

Drop a main gear wheel in a hole with your conventional gear and you might have as much or more problem than the guy with his nosewheel in one if you aren't ready for it.
 
I genuinely think its nuts to take a machine that costs tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars and is built of thin aluminum and drive it into pot holes and gravel for fun.
 
steingar said:
I genuinely think its nuts to take a machine that costs tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars and is built of thin aluminum and drive it into pot holes and gravel for fun.
Click to expand...
That's why I drive a rag and tube airplane. :wink2:

(Ok,I have never made an off airport landing with it, but I couldn't pass this one up)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top