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

Highflier said:
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.
Click to expand...
I like this idea and will probably pursue it after I get a bit more flight time in my log book. Thanks.
 
Jim K said:
You might chat with Avemco. They are often more expensive, but will insure "harder" cases. They helped me a lot when I was buying my first plane with low time. They only sell direct to consumer, so the brokers can't quote them.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I will check them out.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Good info. I asked the broker I spoke with about the possibility of just getting liability insurance for one of the two seaters (like the NX Cub or Maule) and if I understood him correctly I think he said that I probably wouldn't be able to get that either unless I stuck with one of the options he suggested (172/Cherokee). I'll have to ask another broker about that.
 
traumamed said:
I'm throwing my hat in with WDD. You strike me as enamored with the idea of flying, but also as someone who doesn't yet have a firm handle on your "mission." You're at the stage where you simply appreciate the challenge, which is great. However, if the challenge is your thrill, then you should keep challenging yourself with new endorsements/ratings, exploring different flying regimes, different planes, various weather conditions, etc. You'll eventually have that moment of clarity where you'll know exactly what you want and the compass will stop spinning. In the meantime, enjoy the fact that you don't have to store/maintain/insure what you're flying. The only thing more expensive than renting an airplane is owning one.

My suspicion is you are going to end up in a light aerobatic platform, but who knows? The plane that fits your stated goals and probably your personality/thrill preferences is something like a Vans RV-6 or RV-7 (or 7A if you insist on trike). Sporty, versatile, relatively fast, often decked with the latest avionics... basically a plane that can take you +1 capably cross-country one day and then satisfy your adrenaline craving with some rolls and spins the next.

And on insurance - if you can live without hull coverage, liability only will be much more reasonably priced and achievable for many more years.
Click to expand...
Great info. Thanks. The main reason that I have been thinking about buying rather than renting is that the rental offerings at my home airport (and anywhere semi-close) are pretty limited. I'm flying out of KSTS (Sonoma County Airport in Santa Rosa CA) and the only rentals at the airport are three older 172s and a Piper Warrior 160. Renting means that I am constrained by the availability of the planes (they are heavily booked) and by the limitations of the aircraft as a result of their age and lack of investment in upgrades (I imagine that running a flight school isn't a terribly profitable business, at least here in Santa Rosa.) I doubt I would save any money but at least I would have control of the equipment and the freedom to fly whenever I wanted to rather than having to schedule two weeks in advance (the weather always seems to turn bad on the day I have the plane reserved).

I looked at the Ran's offerings and they looked really interesting. The performance of their planes is pretty amazing. I don't know if I have the skills to put a plane together myself but I imagine it would be fun to try. I just joined the EAA to get more connected to the builder's side of things but haven't had a chance to get engaged with them yet. I was surprised (and a bit worried) to discover that Ran's just came out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy so I don't know how solid their future might be.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Welcome! You're not asking a silly question at all. There's nothing we love more than buying stuff with other people's money. ;)

You've also got a bit of a different mission than most, and mission is what is best used to guide you towards the right type of airplane. For many people, the mission is to go places, and you've gotten a lot of answers that aren't great for your particular situation because it seems some people are answering based on that habit rather than your particulars.

It looks to me like you've got the following desires/requirements:

1) Staying relatively local - This is never a "requirement" with any airplane, you can fly an ultralight across the country if you want to, but it does mean you don't need something that covers ground quickly.
2) Fun and easy to fly.
3) Two seats, though more is an option.
4) Modern avionics
5) Insurable at 74
6) Not something you need to build
7) Tricycle landing gear
8) You mentioned bush planes, but that you don't actually want to fly in the bush. I think this is because you're looking for a two-seat fun bird, and bush planes are possibly the most thriving segment.

These requirements can point to a few different possibilities:

1) Cessna 150/152, possibly an Aerobat. You mentioned increasing your skills, and being able to do some loops, rolls, spins, etc is one way of doing that. However, the C152 Aerobat wouldn't be twitchy or hard to fly like many aerobatic planes are (stability is the enemy of maneuverability, after all), and it should meet the requirements of your insurance company as mentioned later in the thread. Still has a yoke instead of a stick, though, and isn't particularly likely to have modern avionics so you might need to do an upgrade if that's a strong desire.

2) Light Sport aircraft (LSA). These are often discounted by the industry because not many people have flown them. There's also, to be honest, some really badly built ones. But there are some that are really fun. I rather enjoyed the Evektor SportStar (I think the US LSA version has been renamed the Harmony more recently). It climbed 1000fpm on its little Rotax engine even with two heavy dudes aboard, it had a great view with the bubble canopy, and it was light on the controls and really fun to fly. I've also heard good things about the Czech Sport Aircraft. Finally, Pipistrel has quite a selection of aircraft and is now owned by Textron so parts shouldn't be too big of an issue (though Textron is not known for cheap parts, Cessna is also a Textron company and it sounds like insurance is OK with that). The SportStar has a stick, and many other LSAs do too - Just look at the pictures of the birds for sale.

3) Diamond DA20. Two seats, fun to fly, great view, stick. FWIW, I have not flown the DA20, but I have flown its 4-seat big brother the DA40 and that is a fantastic airplane. The DA20 isn't great if you're really tall (significantly over 6 feet), but neither is the 150/152. I'm 6'4", that's why I haven't flown the DA20.

What you should NOT do is go out and buy a bigger Cessna (sorry, @Zeldman). They're great at what they do - Being big, lumbering beasts that haul a lot of crap - But that's not your mission, and they are DEFINITELY not "fun" to fly other than for the capability that they have.

I hope this helps, and I hope that if you call up the insurance guy that these are still mainstream enough for them if you want to have insurance.
Click to expand...
Great stuff. Thanks! You have summarized my "mission" pretty much exactly. I'll do some research. Thanks for the suggestions. I'm 6'1" so I might be a bit too tall for the DA20. I originally trained in a 150 way back in the day and liked it but it might not work for me because my instructor (who, BTW, isn't hugely younger than I am but who really knows his stuff and is very supportive of my efforts) told me that with him and me in the plane (I weigh 180 lbs) we would be over the weight limit of the 150. I need to be able to take an instructor up with me if I am going to continue my training beyond just getting my biannual flight review (I would like to get an instrument rating once I get more basic skills honed) so it would seem that the 150 might not be ideal.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
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.
Click to expand...
LOL. Loved the video. Thanks. I might have made it through one or two passes (???) before converting me and the plane into a giant fireball! Fun to watch tho. Loved the music too.

Amazingly, I just saw a beautiful looking Katmai for sale on Trade-a-Plane. $499K. What a hot rod. I imagine it would be a total hoot to fly. And I imagine that the insurance companies would tell me to have my head examined. : )
 
Super decathlon.

Tail wheel so you can tell folks how big a pair you got for cross winds.

Pull some crazy acrobatics to punch your man or woman card more.

Put on floats and go where roads don’t go.

Lol.
 
Lunar Module said:
LOL. Loved the video. Thanks. I might have made it through one or two passes (???) before converting me and the plane into a giant fireball! Fun to watch tho. Loved the music too.

Amazingly, I just saw a beautiful looking Katmai for sale on Trade-a-Plane. $499K. What a hot rod. I imagine it would be a total hoot to fly. And I imagine that the insurance companies would tell me to have my head examined. : )
Click to expand...

No, it’s a fixed gear 182 (very insurance friendly), with some STCs that my insurance company doesn’t seem to care about (IO-470 and elevator canards).

@islandboy is the only other person on POA that I know of who has one. He can chime in more.

Mine is an earlier conversion circa 1989 called a 260SE, after the Wren 460 ended, and then more recently called a Kenai (wheel pants instead of bush tires). The Katmai had the big bush wheels for back country fun. Then the King Katmai added the wing extensions - 32 knot Vso, but Vne drops to around 155 knots or so. They were built with the stock O-470 (230hp), IO-470 (260hp), IO-520, then IO-550 (300 hp but higher fuel burn). About 7 years ago Todd Peterson said there were between 500-600 of these things in the wild. I believe there are some non-Peterson versions copied by some people outside of the US.

182s are like mini-vans or pickups in terms of “fun” handling. The fun with the Peterson canard conversions comes during landings and takeoffs - quick airborne and land slow and short. As noted in an earlier post by @Jim K I bought mine for safety - slow impacts are more survivable statistically. But if you have some off-airport or back-country places to visit, they indeed would be a hoot!

IMG_9603.jpeg


IMG_4883.png
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
No, it’s a fixed gear 182 (very insurance friendly), with some STCs that my insurance company doesn’t seem to care about (IO-470 and elevator canards).

@islandboy is the only other person on POA that I know of who has one. He can chime in more.

Mine is an earlier conversion circa 1989 called a 260SE, after the Wren 460 ended, and then more recently called a Kenai (wheel pants instead of bush tires). The Katmai had the big bush wheels for back country fun. Then the King Katmai added the wing extensions - 32 knot Vso, but Vne drops to around 155 knots or so. They were built with the stock O-470 (230hp), IO-470 (260hp), IO-520, then IO-550 (300 hp but higher fuel burn). About 7 years ago Todd Peterson said there were between 500-600 of these things in the wild. I believe there are some non-Peterson versions copied by some people outside of the US.

182s are like mini-vans or pickups in terms of “fun” handling. The fun with the Peterson canard conversions comes during landings and takeoffs - quick airborne and land slow and short. As noted in an earlier post by @Jim K I bought mine for safety - slow impacts are more survivable statistically. But if you have some off-airport or back-country places to visit, they indeed would be a hoot!

View attachment 137031


View attachment 137032
Click to expand...
Interesting. Thanks. The one for sale on Trade-a-Plane is a King Katmai with the 300 hp engine. I was thinking 300 hp in a 182 would be like a rocket ship.
 
Lunar Module said:
New here. Thanks for letting me join your community. I'm in a kind of unique situation and thought I would ask for your advice. Hope I'm not asking a silly question.

I got my PPL when I was in college but stopped flying shortly thereafter. I retired a few years ago and thought it would be a stiff but rewarding challenge to see if I could start flying again after a 50+ year hiatus. I have been taking regular lessons with a CFI and am close to getting signed off but I will need much more time in the air before I will consider myself to be actually retrained. Once I get signed off myy plan is to stay local (KSTS, Sonoma County Airport), do lots of solo work accumulating hours and honing skills and to continue to take lessons with my CFI to build skills further. The rental fleet at my airport is pretty thin so I have been thinking about possibly buying a plane. One that is easy to fly, fun and good to hone skills on. It doesn't need to go fast or far. It doesn't need to hold more than two people. I'd like it to be reasonably well equipped so I can get practice using modern avionics, including instrument stuff, if only for practice and fun. I might want to go for an IFR rating eventually.

I have been training in a 172S, which has been fine. It is probably the smart choice but is also kind of "sedate". In looking around at other options I stumbled upon the "bush planes" and they strike me as being most of what I want. Small. Light. High power to weight ratio. Maneuverable. Good at "low and slow". Fun. But almost all of them are taildraggers and I'm thinking that getting a taildragger is probably not the smartest thing for me to do at this stage of my flying career. In looking for a tricycle gear "bush plane" I found the CubCrafter NXCub and it strikes me as being almost perfect for what I want except for the unfortunate reality that it costs an absurd amount of money ($550K for a fully equipped plane) and used ones are hard to find and almost equally expensive.

So I was wondering if any of you might have any suggestions or recommendations for someone in my position? Do you think my attraction to the "bush plane" idea is misguided? Are there other reasonable options? Should I just stick with the tried and true 172 and be happy?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Click to expand...
I think I mirror your situation?
Only I didn't get my PPL when I was young. I got mine in 2016 when I was 56 years old in a 172S. Took me 18 months to get it(slow old dude).
In spring of 2018 I started flying a friends 172N that sat around for 10 years. It was located at a drag strip.
He rented a hangar at a nearby airport so somebody would fly it since his dragstrip was a little tricky to get into. He lost his medical but thought he could get it back. He had 2 other 210s and a lancair and a big hangar.
He only asked me to pay for fuel, oil and insurance. I was so grateful that I paid him 50 bucks an hour dry. I flew almost everyday. It was so much fun and rewarding learning to fly it on my own. I flew solo 95% of the time. I learned landing on grass, short, soft etc in it. each flight I felt better.
in Sept 2018 I bought it from my late friend for 35K. Then I kind of felt I might of over paid a little?
It was in original condition with 1416 hours on the tach. It had damage history.
I pretty much right away sent it to the avionics shop and they put in 58K worth of garmin in it with a gfc500 AP.
After that I earned my instrument rating in it.
I have done quite a bit of commercial training in it.
I still fly it all these years later. It got a new engine 4.5 years ago and lots of freshing and updates in the early years.
I was ashamed at first to spend that much on the panel and kept it to myself. I can't believe I am not underwater with it all these years later. If my late friend knew how much and fast the values of 172s went up right after I bought it he would be rolling around in his grave.
6 years later and 1300 hrs flown in it, I am just starting to get the hang of it. lol
It is so nice to fly it on my schedule. Airport is 15-20 minutes from home. Wife likes me more when I am flying and not home. lol
I have friend's on both sides of my hangar with a 182 and a Arrow II that I have flown both quite a bit and earned my HP and complex endorsements in. They both are trying to get me into a 182, but so far I have resisted. Like my little 172, I think I'll fly it for a bit longer.

Good luck with your aviation journey. Thanks for listening.
 
Last edited:
Gary Ward said:
I think I mirror your situation?
Only I didn't get my PPL when I was young. I got mine in 2016 when I was 55 years old. Took me 18 months to get it(slow old dude).
In spring of 2018 I started flying a friends 172 that sat around for 10 years. It was located at a drag strip.
He rented a hangar at a nearby airport so more people would fly it since his dragstrip was a little tricky to get into. He lost his medical but thought he could get it back. He had 2 other 210s and a lancair and a big hangar.
He only asked me to pay for fuel oil and insurance. I was so grateful that paid him 50 bucks an hour dry. I flew like almost everyday. It was so much fun and rewarding learning to fly it on my own. I flew solo 95% of the time. I learned landing on grass, short, soft etc in it. So rewarding, each flight I felt better.
Then in Sept 2018 I bought it from my late friend for 35K. Then I kinda felt I might over paid a little more than it was worth but I was happy with the deal.
It had all original every thing with 1416 hours on the tach.
I pretty much right away sent it to avionics shop and they put 58K worth of garmin in it with a GFC500 AP.
I earned my instrument rating in it.
I have done quite a bit of commercial training in it.
I still fly it all these years later. It got a new engine 4.5 years ago and lots off freshing and updates in the early years. I was ashamed at first to spend that much on the panel and kept it to myself. I can't believe I am not underwater with it all these years later. If my friend knew how much and fast the values of 172s went up right after I bought it he would rolling around in his grave.
6 years later and almost 1600 hrs on it since I got it, I am just starting to get the hang of it.
It is so nice to fly it on my schedule. Airport is 15-20 minutes from home. Wife likes me more when I am flying and not home. lol
I have friend's on both sides of my hangar with a 182 and a arrowII that I have flown both quite a bit and earned my HP and complex endorsements in. They both are trying to get me into a 182, but so far I have resisted. Like my little 172, I think I'll fly it for a bit longer.

Good luck with your aviation journey. Thanks for listening.
Click to expand...
What a cool story. Thanks for sharing it.
 
I don't think anyone else has mentioned an RV-12. It fits your mission profile and is easy and fun to fly. Depending on the year and configuration it offers phenomenal avionics. It burns auto fuel which given your location is probably a plus and makes it an economical aircraft to operate. Give it a look.

Blue Skies!
 
idahoflier said:
I don't think anyone else has mentioned an RV-12. It fits your mission profile and is easy and fun to fly. Depending on the year and configuration it offers phenomenal avionics. It burns auto fuel which given your location is probably a plus and makes it an economical aircraft to operate. Give it a look.

Blue Skies!
Click to expand...
What does the insurance look like on something like that? I'm curious whether the insurance companies are putting additional premiums on experimentals or not.
 
Somewhat related question: Do you have your Basic Med or 3rd class medical taken care of?
 
Lunar Module said:
Renting means that I am constrained by the availability of the planes (they are heavily booked) and by the limitations of the aircraft as a result of their age and lack of investment in upgrades (I imagine that running a flight school isn't a terribly profitable business, at least here in Santa Rosa.) I doubt I would save any money but at least I would have control of the equipment and the freedom to fly whenever I wanted to rather than having to schedule two weeks in advance (the weather always seems to turn bad on the day I have the plane reserved).
Click to expand...
As someone who rented while training, rented after getting my PPL and Instrument, now owns a plane (182), and still rents, here is my perspective for your consideration.

1) Owning a plane means you get to fly it when it's not in maintenance. When it is (and it will), it could be down for weeks / month. Just because you own doesn't mean you'll be able to fly it whenever you want. You'll want a rental for at least back up. Add on that the time spent dealing with storing it, working with your A&P to schedule work, and managing it.

2) Letting a school deal with its maintenance isn't a bad thing.

3) As a student, you'll be scheduling as much flight time with an instructor as possible, so 2 weeks out just means you keep reserving time in advance.

4) You'll need to find an independent instructor who will teach in your plane. That may also be a botte neck.

5) Condition of a rental plane - it may not look "nice", but if it has a GPS and Nav/Com, it's all you need for instrument.

6) Did I mention I own a plane, but still rent from my club for various reasons (currency flying with another club member where we trade being the SP, maintenance issues, etc.) ?

7) Ask yourself if you might have "I want a planeitis" . I know I did. I also knew postively I wanted "XYZ" airplane, until I flew it a few times, and then I didn't.
 
My 140 has served the fun part of my flying for 14 years now. It’s fun, challenging on the ground and with its custom panel and 420 even makes a great instrument trainer. Mine is unique, but with the right 140 to start with, you could put together one as versatile, fun and challenging as mine. It is easy to fly safely, but at the same time, challenging to fly at a high level of precision.
 
Lunar Module said:
I actually really like the idea of a stick. I looked at the Aviat and the Citabria/Scout and several other similar planes, but I heard enough horror stories about taildraggers being prone to ground looping that I kind of ruled them out. The options are much broader if taildraggers are included. Maybe I should reconsider. Is that crazy? I imagine that insurance might be a problem for me.

And no, I have no realistic plans to fly into the "backcountry". I'm (a young) 74 yo and even though the idea of it really appeals to me (I used to do a lot of backcountry/adventure motorcycling) I don't think that is realistically in the cards for me at this point in my life. I'm just looking for a plane that is a blast to fly. And I like the idea that the bush planes can be flown (and landed) at such low speeds that you can leisurely sights see and if, heaven forbid, your engine quits you have the possibility of putting the plane down in almost any patch of dirt and with such low kinetic energy that you have a pretty good chance of walking away from the event.
Click to expand...

Don’t be afraid of a taildragger! There are some people who try to make it sound as if only Chuck Yeager and Bob Hoover were the only pilots ever capable of handling a tailwheel plane. Although in the beginning, a taildragger will make you feel like a klutz, once you get it, you will have more versatility and develop good rudder control. I am no Bob Hoover, but I have somewhere around a couple of thousand tailwheel landings with no issues and LOTS of fun doing it.

As far as insurance, it will be FAR cheaper than a retract. When I turned 73, in spite of a lot of retract time and time in type, my retract insurance tripled. My tailwheel insurance has been stable for years and has not changed due to age.

Don’t miss the fun of tailwheel flying. Don’t cheat yourself.
 
Lunar Module said:
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.)
Click to expand...

I think that you will find that your age doesn’t have a large influence on insurance price UNLESS……. you are in a retract.
 
Lunar Module said:
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!
Click to expand...

I hate to see you rule out a taildragger. The insurance would be a hit in the beginning, but 50 hours will pass before you know it and in the long run the added insurance cost will not be a big piece of your flying expense. Ruling out tailwheel flying will cause you to miss a wonderful, enjoyable added dimension to your flying experience.

I went a long, long time being one of the five pilots on Earth that had never flown a 172. Then my son in law bought a very nice M model and learned to fly in it. He moved on to a Baron and almost entirely stopped flying the 172. He asked me to fly it, just because it needed to be flown, so I probably put about fifty hours on it before he finally sold it.

I hope I don’t stir up anything, and I’m not trying to cause any bad feelings, but I found the 172 to be very dull, mundane flying. It is a really easy plane to fly, but that’s sort of the problem. There is just no challenge or particular pleasure in flying one. First of all you sit on a bar stool with the rudder pedals below you and the panel is sort of in a tunnel way out in front of you. The seating position is just something that has a lot to do with what you get used to and I was never completely comfortable in it. The electric flaps are something I just really hated to a point that most of the time I wouldn’t even bother with them except on a short runway. The flaps are annother item that is a lot about what you get used to.

Since the 172 is so easy to fly, it seems to make a good plane for learning basic flight, but beyond that, it just brings nothing to the flight experience. No challenges. Just boring flying. As a fellow late in life flyer, I hate to see you lock yourself into such a limited flying experience.

I reiterate. I don’t intend to step on toes or insult anyone’s 172. I am just calling it as I see it.
 
AvNavCom said:
What does the insurance look like on something like that? I'm curious whether the insurance companies are putting additional premiums on experimentals or not.
Click to expand...

Based on my experience, maybe slightly. I can only offer anecdotal data. I have my Skyhawk insured at $1MM smooth for $1,443.00. My RV-12 (ELSA) is insured for $1MM liability and only $100K passenger for $1,186.00. The hull values are $130K and $80K respectively.
 
Jim K said:
You might chat with Avemco. They are often more expensive, but will insure "harder" cases. They helped me a lot when I was buying my first plane with low time. They only sell direct to consumer, so the brokers can't quote them.
Click to expand...
This. The other bonus to Avemco is that, because they are not a broker, they don't have to call around to a bunch of underwriters every time you ask a question. They'll flat-out give you a quote while you're on the phone with them, or not... And they'll tell you exactly how much of a break you'll get after x amount of total experience, or time in type, or additional training (I think they knock 5% off if you do the Wings program for instance). It's very easy to find out very quickly what they'll insure you in and how much it'll cost.
Lunar Module said:
I like this idea and will probably pursue it after I get a bit more flight time in my log book. Thanks.
Click to expand...
(This is tailwheel.) This certainly opens up a lot more possibilities for the type of plane you're looking at, but it also means that winds will be a much bigger factor in your go/no-go, you won't be able to fly on windier days, and you're always running the risk of a ground loop. A friend of mine who is a CFI and a competent pilot with over 1000 hours has been waiting for months to get his Citabria back after a prop strike that occurred in a fraction of a second's lapse in concentration.

So, definitely go and do the tailwheel, in a rental, before you buy a plane. Once you're done, you'll probably have an idea of whether you want every landing to be that way. ;)

If you do get the tailwheel, I will happily second the other poster who suggested an A-1B Husky. The B and C Huskies have a change in the flight controls that make them much more fun to fly than the earlier Huskies or any of the Cubs, and they fly with fingertip control on the stick - Really fun. They don't turn upside down like a Citabria but they fly WAY better. (Did you know that "Citabria" is "adverse yaw" spelled backwards? :rofl:)
Lunar Module said:
Great stuff. Thanks! You have summarized my "mission" pretty much exactly. I'll do some research. Thanks for the suggestions.
Click to expand...
You're welcome!
Lunar Module said:
I'm 6'1" so I might be a bit too tall for the DA20.
Click to expand...
See if you can find one to "try on". The issue is the height from the bottom of the seat to the back of the canopy. If you have even a little more of your height in your legs than I do, you'll be fine... And it's a great airplane!
Lunar Module said:
I originally trained in a 150 way back in the day and liked it but it might not work for me because my instructor (who, BTW, isn't hugely younger than I am but who really knows his stuff and is very supportive of my efforts) told me that with him and me in the plane (I weigh 180 lbs) we would be over the weight limit of the 150. I need to be able to take an instructor up with me if I am going to continue my training beyond just getting my biannual flight review (I would like to get an instrument rating once I get more basic skills honed) so it would seem that the 150 might not be ideal.
Click to expand...
You can always leave some fuel behind. That's far easier when it's your airplane. I do recommend a fuel totalizer if you do that though.
Lunar Module said:
Interesting. Thanks. The one for sale on Trade-a-Plane is a King Katmai with the 300 hp engine. I was thinking 300 hp in a 182 would be like a rocket ship.
Click to expand...
300hp in a 182 is like having a turbo minivan. :rofl:
 
Everything else aside, my actual answer to

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

was to fly different airplanes and go places with them. I learned to fly in a Tomahawk. Within the first three months after my private, I added a Cherokee, Cessna 172, and Cessna 152. I’m up to around 30 different types of singles now, depending on how you want to count different models from the same manufacturer. Everything from light sport to 6-seaters.

IMO, “go places with them” is the real builder of experience, but there was a lot of value to me in jumping from airplane to airplane.
 
Last edited:
“Pursuing tailwheel after more time in my logbook,” makes no sense to me. Learning tailwheel from the get go gets your feet working from the beginning. Making rudder control a natural reflex carries over into your other flying. My first seven hours of flight were in an Aeronca Champ. It required virtually constant rudder attention. When I got into a 150 after that, rudder control was almost automatic. Rudder control was reflexive enough that I didn’t have to concentrate on it, leaving my pea brain to learn other things to add to the mix.

I have read instructors saying that someone who has never flown before will solo in about the same amount of time regardless of whether they are in a tailwheel versus a tricycle. I have often wondered if I would have solo’d in 13 hours if I had kept going in the champ instead of switching to the 150. The instructor decided not to carry insurance for his students to solo in the Champ, so that option went away so I’ll never know.


Cheesehead, with all due respect, it’s not as if a thousand hours makes someone an old salt pilot. Just because a pilot who is judged competent, botches a tailwheel landing doesn’t mean that everyone in any tailwheel type will do the same thing.
 
FWIW, I will fly my C170 in any wind I also will fly a C172. It is plenty capable, and if the wind is too bad (say direct crosswind 40+ kts) then I will just land her directly into the wind (in an emergency situation).

On most piston singles my wind limit is around 30 kts, but that is mainly due to the fact the ride is going to be rough and headwinds bite too deep into my 102 ktas.
 
Yes Texasclouds, there is always a way to get it on the ground. I learned to fly at a WWII bomber maintenance field with three runways and a long center taxiway in the center, perpendicular to the main runway and extremely light air traffic. I was barely a private pilot when I tried several times to get in on a runway before throwing in the towel and landing on the taxiway straight into the wind. When the wind is that strong it shortens your distance such that it doesn’t take much distance.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
(Did you know that "Citabria" is "adverse yaw" spelled backwards? :rofl:)
Click to expand...
Boy, you're not kidding! My first flight in my old Citabria, I put the stick over to the left and the nose went right like the airplane and I were having a disagreement about our destination! Turns out those pedals on the floor are kind of important. I even learned to love heel brakes, although I never did quite become smooth enough to pivot my heels without feeling like I was losing some ability on the rudder.
 
WDD said:
Somewhat related question: Do you have your Basic Med or 3rd class medical taken care of?
Click to expand...
Got my third class medical before I started retraining just to be sure. No issues. I'm pretty healthy for a 74 yo. I plan to renew with Basic Med when the third class expires in 18 months, not because of health concerns but because I like that the renewal period is every four years rather than the two years for the third class certificate. Insurance might demand that I renew with a third class certificate, but I will deal with that when/if it ever arises.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
WDD said:
As someone who rented while training, rented after getting my PPL and Instrument, now owns a plane (182), and still rents, here is my perspective for your consideration.

1) Owning a plane means you get to fly it when it's not in maintenance. When it is (and it will), it could be down for weeks / month. Just because you own doesn't mean you'll be able to fly it whenever you want. You'll want a rental for at least back up. Add on that the time spent dealing with storing it, working with your A&P to schedule work, and managing it.

2) Letting a school deal with its maintenance isn't a bad thing.

3) As a student, you'll be scheduling as much flight time with an instructor as possible, so 2 weeks out just means you keep reserving time in advance.

4) You'll need to find an independent instructor who will teach in your plane. That may also be a botte neck.

5) Condition of a rental plane - it may not look "nice", but if it has a GPS and Nav/Com, it's all you need for instrument.

6) Did I mention I own a plane, but still rent from my club for various reasons (currency flying with another club member where we trade being the SP, maintenance issues, etc.) ?

7) Ask yourself if you might have "I want a planeitis" . I know I did. I also knew postively I wanted "XYZ" airplane, until I flew it a few times, and then I didn't.
Click to expand...
Good info. Thanks.

Yes, having the school deal with maintenance is super nice. But I have discovered that rental planes and planes used by flight schools are in the shop a lot, so I actually have trouble getting the plane that I want some times because of this. If I owned my own plane I imagine that I would just rent a plane when my own was in maintenance. Not a big deal.

I have an instructor who I think would be willing to teach me in my own plane if I asked. He is semi-retired and very flexible. I don't think the school would prevent him from doing this, but I'm not sure.

The problem I have faced with scheduling recently is that I am completely dependent upon the weather. My airport tends to get fogged in in the morning year round. During the winter storms blow in every week or two. Since I am locked into a specific slot two plus weeks in advance, if the weather isn't VFR during my scheduled time slot I'm screwed for that week. I have had five or six cancellations this season due to weather. And the schedule is busy enough that I can't simply grab another slot a day or two later. It's been frustrating.

One of the 172s at the school has a nice GTN750, which I like a lot and which I would want to use for IFR training. Very intuitive and easy to use. But the other planes all have GNS530s, which I hate because of the need to enter waypoints/etc using the knobs, which I find distracting while trying to keep the plane straight and level and not fly into other planes. So for IFR training I am really down to just a single plane (by choice). Not a deal breaker, but it does limit my options. Also, I would love to train on an avionics setup that is the exact setup that I would end up using in whatever plane I might end up owning, so if I used my own plane for training I would accomplish that. Again, not a big deal, but it would be nice.

And yes, I think I do have a bit of "I want a planeitis". No doubt about it. I imagine that this condition is not rare, however. : )
 
MBDiagMan said:
Don’t be afraid of a taildragger! There are some people who try to make it sound as if only Chuck Yeager and Bob Hoover were the only pilots ever capable of handling a tailwheel plane. Although in the beginning, a taildragger will make you feel like a klutz, once you get it, you will have more versatility and develop good rudder control. I am no Bob Hoover, but I have somewhere around a couple of thousand tailwheel landings with no issues and LOTS of fun doing it.

As far as insurance, it will be FAR cheaper than a retract. When I turned 73, in spite of a lot of retract time and time in type, my retract insurance tripled. My tailwheel insurance has been stable for years and has not changed due to age.

Don’t miss the fun of tailwheel flying. Don’t cheat yourself.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Very encouraging. I would love to get a tailwheel endorsement and plan to do so at some point. I wish I got started on this years ago. So much to learn, so little time!
 
MBDiagMan said:
I think that you will find that your age doesn’t have a large influence on insurance price UNLESS……. you are in a retract.
Click to expand...
Even though I love Bonanzas and would love to ultimately end up with one at some point in the future I have ruled out a retractable of any kind for that very reason. Sad, but realistic I think.
 
MBDiagMan said:
I hate to see you rule out a taildragger. The insurance would be a hit in the beginning, but 50 hours will pass before you know it and in the long run the added insurance cost will not be a big piece of your flying expense. Ruling out tailwheel flying will cause you to miss a wonderful, enjoyable added dimension to your flying experience.

I went a long, long time being one of the five pilots on Earth that had never flown a 172. Then my son in law bought a very nice M model and learned to fly in it. He moved on to a Baron and almost entirely stopped flying the 172. He asked me to fly it, just because it needed to be flown, so I probably put about fifty hours on it before he finally sold it.

I hope I don’t stir up anything, and I’m not trying to cause any bad feelings, but I found the 172 to be very dull, mundane flying. It is a really easy plane to fly, but that’s sort of the problem. There is just no challenge or particular pleasure in flying one. First of all you sit on a bar stool with the rudder pedals below you and the panel is sort of in a tunnel way out in front of you. The seating position is just something that has a lot to do with what you get used to and I was never completely comfortable in it. The electric flaps are something I just really hated to a point that most of the time I wouldn’t even bother with them except on a short runway. The flaps are annother item that is a lot about what you get used to.

Since the 172 is so easy to fly, it seems to make a good plane for learning basic flight, but beyond that, it just brings nothing to the flight experience. No challenges. Just boring flying. As a fellow late in life flyer, I hate to see you lock yourself into such a limited flying experience.

I reiterate. I don’t intend to step on toes or insult anyone’s 172. I am just calling it as I see it.
Click to expand...
LOL. Appreciate your comments on the 172. I kind of alluded to what you are saying in my initial comments about it being "sedate" and got a bit of mild chiding, but I totally get what you are saying and that is the motivation for me to seek something with a bit more "spice", if you will. I'm not saying that I don't like the 172 (or 182 or "fill in the blank equivalent"), I'm just saying that my "mission" is to have fun and challenge myself, and it seems to me that the mission of the 172 (etc) is to be easy to fly and to get the job done in an orderly and straightforward manner, which it does brilliantly. But "fun" isn't one of the basic elements (except for the fun of just flying, which is intrinsic to every airplane). That is the motivation for me to seek out other options, and I am getting the impression from many of the people here that taildraggers should be a part of that process. Thanks very much for your insights.
 
idahoflier said:
I don't think anyone else has mentioned an RV-12. It fits your mission profile and is easy and fun to fly. Depending on the year and configuration it offers phenomenal avionics. It burns auto fuel which given your location is probably a plus and makes it an economical aircraft to operate. Give it a look.

Blue Skies!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the suggestion. I am very impressed by the Van's planes. I was actually looking at the RV14. Seems like a very cool plane. The RV12 is almost certainly more appropriate for someone like me but the idea of having a plane capable of aerobatics has a certain appeal in a bad boy kind of way. : )
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top