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

[Stewartb]

How about what airplane DID you buy or build for fun flying?

My first airplane was a 172XP. I’d probably still have up if I didn’t fly on skis. I replaced the 172 with a Cessna 180 30 years ago and still have it. For fun? I like Cubs. Experimental, very powerful Cubs.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

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.

This is my situation. The flight school I worked for could not continue to insure me after December 31st because I will be 80 later this year. So, out of a job, and told directly that I cannot do any instruction in any airplane at this airport because I am not an "approved vendor."

 

[Lunar Module]

This is my situation. The flight school I worked for could not continue to insure me after December 31st because I will be 80 later this year. So, out of a job, and told directly that I cannot do any instruction in any airplane at this airport because I am not an "approved vendor."

Wow. Do they have an exclusive contract with the airport for flight instruction? If not, I don't see how they could enforce that.

 

[Lunar Module]

How about what airplane DID you buy or build for fun flying?

My first airplane was a 172XP. I’d probably still have up if I didn’t fly on skis. I replaced the 172 with a Cessna 180 30 years ago and still have it. For fun? I like Cubs. Experimental, very powerful Cubs.

What kind of experimental cubs?

 

[Ed Haywood]

All dogs are good dogs. All airplanes are fun to fly.

The 172 is the most numerous airplane ever built. There's a reason for that. In addition to being an excellent trainer, its good manners mean that newer pilots or older pilots can go places and do things without worrying about the airplane biting them. Still plenty of fun to be had with navigating, weather, short/soft fields, fly-ins, taking friends sightseeing, etc. Plus every mechanic in the country knows them. Hard to go wrong with a 172 as a first airplane.

I am very much a taildragger proponent. I fly tricycle aircraft as rarely as possible. But it is an acquired taste. Almost any pilot will benefit from getting the TW endorsement. Some will fall in love. Many will decide they prefer an airplane that does not constantly want to bite them on the ground. The only way to know which you are is to get a taste.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Wow. Do they have an exclusive contract with the airport for flight instruction? If not, I don't see how they could enforce that.

Some airports have "minimum standards" for businesses operating at the airport. It's not that common for an airport to bar independent instructors, but it has been done. There's even FAA guidance on the subject.

 

[Tusayan]

There are some relatively rare planes that might also fit your needs.

My choice along those lines was and is a Bölkow Monsun, with except for the bush plane aspect the same mission as the OP in mind. Very high quality of construction, stick controls and very fun to fly. Essentially the same mechanicals as a Cherokee or Varga. There are about five flying regularly in the US, and about four or so hangar queens. Many of the original US buyers in the 70s kept them for decades, but have been aging out over the last 20 years. In case you’re wondering I know of three for sale in the US, although two of them are bizarrely overpriced by a common owner. No affiliation but as you can imagine the owners tend to be aware of each other.

Boelkow Monsun Pilot Report

This is a rare opportunity to promote the type

 

[MBDiagMan]

This is my situation. The flight school I worked for could not continue to insure me after December 31st because I will be 80 later this year. So, out of a job, and told directly that I cannot do any instruction in any airplane at this airport because I am not an "approved vendor."

Sounds Ike age discrimination.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

Sounds Ike age discrimination.

Insurance companies can discriminate based on age. It is not illegal. The flight school would be willing to continue to employ me as a ground or sim instructor, but I didn't find that very appealing.

 

[Lunar Module]

My choice along those lines was and is a Bölkow Monsun, with except for the bush plane aspect the same mission as the OP in mind. Very high quality of construction, stick controls and very fun to fly. Essentially the same mechanicals as a Cherokee or Varga. There are about five flying regularly in the US, and about four or so hangar queens. Many of the original US buyers in the 70s kept them for decades, but have been aging out over the last 20 years. In case you’re wondering I know of three for sale in the US, although two of them are bizarrely overpriced by a common owner. No affiliation but as you can imagine the owners tend to be aware of each other.

Boelkow Monsun Pilot Report

This is a rare opportunity to promote the type

Looks kind of like a Van's RV 14.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

Wow. Do they have an exclusive contract with the airport for flight instruction? If not, I don't see how they could enforce that.

Yes. The FBO has a contract with the city to manage the airport in return for exclusive rights to sell fuel, provide instruction and airplane rentals. An "approved vendor" would have to provide insurance to protect the city and have a classroom and restroom facilities and would still have to fight the exclusive agreement that the FBO has with the city.

 

[Lunar Module]

Yes. The FBO has a contract with the city to manage the airport in return for exclusive rights to sell fuel, provide instruction and airplane rentals. An "approved vendor" would have to provide insurance to protect the city and have a classroom and restroom facilities and would still have to fight the exclusive agreement that the FBO has with the city.

Dang. Doesn't sound very promising.

 

[idahoflier]

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. : )

An RV-14 would be sweet for sure, but it's going to be expensive to own and operate. Of course if $ is no object, party on! ;-)

 

[Tusayan]

Looks kind of like a Van's RV 14.

The Monsun has similar looks but is a certified aircraft built in 1971. It’s 30 kts slower than the RV but fun to own and fly, nicely constructed and was a fraction of the cost.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Aerobatics is another acquired taste. Almost every pilot could benefit from an intro course. Some fall in love. Many find the idea more appealing than the actual experience. IMO generally speaking it is not a good criteria for your first plane, unless you have caught the disease, which is incurable.

 

[Lunar Module]

Aerobatics is another acquired taste. Almost every pilot could benefit from an intro course. Some fall in love. Many find the idea more appealing than the actual experience. IMO generally speaking it is not a good criteria for your first plane, unless you have caught the disease, which is incurable.

Well, I think of all the options available to me in aviation at the present moment, aerobatics is probably not at the top of my list (although if I were 20+ years younger I would definitely be interested.) I'm just trying to have fun and not kill myself in the process. Getting a "sporty" plane would probably be more than enough to keep me happy until I'm no longer fit to fly. If money were no object (unfortunately, it is) I would just get a Cub Crafters NX Cub equipped for IFR flight and be done with it. And I would probably get the conversion kit so I could turn it into a taildragger if the mood struck me (which I'm sure it would). I wish that the NX Cub had come on the market 10+ years ago so there would be some nice used specimens to buy, but it is so new that even the used ones are almost as expensive as new ($450K+).

 

[Lunar Module]

An RV-14 would be sweet for sure, but it's going to be expensive to own and operate. Of course if $ is no object, party on! ;-)

The cost of the kit is not cheap for sure. And the most discouraging thing about the Van's kits is that the lead times are pretty long. If you want to get the "Quick Build" wing and fuselage kits for almost any plane the offer the wait time is 51 weeks. And the lead time for the standard Lycoming engines is 18 months and for the Thunderbolt engines is...wait for it...36-48 months! Unbelievable.

 

[AV8R_87]

And the lead time for the standard Lycoming engines is 18 months and for the Thunderbolt engines is...wait for it...36-48 months!

One thing that irks me about Van's and a few others - they behave too much like certified aircraft builders but without a type certificate. "We can only support then installation of this powerplant! Don't even talk to us if you want a different, more affordable and readily available engine!". Some would go as far as banning you from their forums.

That's one think I like about Zenith - they tell you the engine weight has to be within a certain range, and same with power output. Want to put a Corvair engine on it? Have fun!

 

[Lunar Module]

How about what airplane DID you buy or build for fun flying?

My first airplane was a 172XP. I’d probably still have up if I didn’t fly on skis. I replaced the 172 with a Cessna 180 30 years ago and still have it. For fun? I like Cubs. Experimental, very powerful Cubs.

Nice Deere, BTW. I had one similar to that around 25 yrs ago that I beat into the ground. I have a 3 acre place and used it for weed control. I really abused that thing but it hung in there for a couple of decades. When it finally died I got a heavy duty Toro zero turn mower that I absolutely love.

 

[Stewartb]

Nice Deere, BTW. I had one similar to that around 25 yrs ago that I beat into the ground. I have a 3 acre place and used it for weed control. I really abused that thing but it hung in there for a couple of decades. When it finally died I got a heavy duty Toro zero turn mower that I absolutely love.

That’s sitting waiting to go to my cabin. I use a bigger Cub Cadet to mow.

My Cub started as a Backcountry Supercub kit and got lots of mods along the way. It’s the Backcountry wing. The only thing that compares is Wayne Mackey’s Cubs. Mine has approx 240hp and a 45# constant speed. When I push the throttle, stuff happens fast. It lands at 22-23 mph. Above 25 and it’ll climb in ground effect. It’s a beast but it’s a fun play toy.

 

[Stewartb]

One thing that irks me about Van's and a few others - they behave too much like certified aircraft builders but without a type certificate. "We can only support then installation of this powerplant! Don't even talk to us if you want a different, more affordable and readily available engine!". Some would go as far as banning you from their forums.

That's one think I like about Zenith - they tell you the engine weight has to be within a certain range, and same with power output. Want to put a Corvair engine on it? Have fun!

Experimental. Do whatever you want.

 

[idahoflier]

The cost of the kit is not cheap for sure. And the most discouraging thing about the Van's kits is that the lead times are pretty long. If you want to get the "Quick Build" wing and fuselage kits for almost any plane the offer the wait time is 51 weeks. And the lead time for the standard Lycoming engines is 18 months and for the Thunderbolt engines is...wait for it...36-48 months! Unbelievable.

Yeah, building from a kit would be huge investment in time. I was looking at it from purchasing an already built RV...

 

[Lunar Module]

That’s sitting waiting to go to my cabin. I use a bigger Cub Cadet to mow.

My Cub started as a Backcountry Supercub kit and got lots of mods along the way. It’s the Backcountry wing. The only thing that compares is Wayne Mackey’s Cubs. Mine has approx 240hp and a 45# constant speed. When I push the throttle, stuff happens fast. It lands at 22-23 mph. Above 25 and it’ll climb in ground effect. It’s a beast but it’s a fun play toy.

That’s an amazing plane. Wow. And gorgeous to boot.

 

[Daleandee]

One thing that irks me about Van's and a few others - they behave too much like certified aircraft builders but without a type certificate. "We can only support then installation of this powerplant! Don't even talk to us if you want a different, more affordable and readily available engine!". Some would go as far as banning you from their forums.

That's one think I like about Zenith - they tell you the engine weight has to be within a certain range, and same with power output. Want to put a Corvair engine on it? Have fun!

I have very personal experience with this attitude from the fine folks at Sonex when deciding to install a Corvair conversion on my plane. Those of us using the Corvair were told not to use the Sonex name for these aircraft. Their main reason given was that the weight was above their FWF limit of 200 lbs. In comments attached to a recent video Sonex admitted that the FWF limit was due to W&B reasons and not a structural concern (W&B is dealt with easily during the build). I suspect that their VW conversion with the turbo, added oil filter(s), oil lines, cooling system for the turbo with radiator, electric water pump, coolant, exhaust wrap, turbo blanket, etc, is above their FWF weight limit but that's just a guess.

Recently Sonex increased aircraft gross weight by 70 lbs (after researching the data they had) and they admitted that this was done to help the plane to stay viable in the upcoming market changes after MOSAIC passes. Before the weight increase they put out a letter stating that any plane with a gross over factory recommendations would not be Light Sport legal due to wing loading. That's just not true but being a gentleman I did not challenge them or point this out. Oddly enough now that they have approved a higher gross weight with higher wing loading it is still claimed to be Light Sport compliant ...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

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.

You made me look. I'm at 35 total types if you count by the 4-letter filing code - 1 jet, 1 glider, 3 turboprops, 5 piston twins, and 25 piston singles.

I haven't flown a new type in a while. Need to change that!

IMO, “go places with them” is the real builder of experience,

Absolutely.

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.

Right - It's just a reminder that you don't ever get to take it easy in a tailwheel. There are days I'd love to have a tailwheel, but in all honesty I think my first plane will always be a tricycle and my second plane, should I ever be so lucky, will always be a taildragger.

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!

There's a CFI I know who may still lurk here who loves giving instruction in his Citabria to non-tailwheel pilots. They generally are already not putting enough right rudder in, and after takeoff he tells them to turn to the right, and the airplane just keeps going to the left.

The only thing I've flown that had worse adverse yaw than the Citabria was a glider. Having the ailerons at the end of those loooooooong wings will do that. The Citabria has no such excuse.

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.

Nothing wrong with that. You can challenge yourself in a 172, but you have to work hard to do so, and the physical feel is never going to be that exciting.

The other end of the spectrum is the aerobatic stuff, but somewhere along that spectrum you reach the point where it's "twitchy" which isn't desirable unless aerobatics is the primary mission.

However, there's some types in the middle that are well harmonized and have positive stability, while also being maneuverable and physically easy to control. You can fly them straight and level, or you can slap them around a little and it's just a joy to do.

All dogs are good dogs. All airplanes are fun to fly.

Yes. This is why I never understand the high wing/low wing, nosewheel/tailwheel, and other common arguments in the pilot community over what is "better". I don't care where the third wheel is, I've flown nose, tail and even the 1 main 1 tail on the glider. I've flown high wing, low wing, mid wing, biplane and they're all fun. All airplanes are fun to fly, and we should fly as many different planes as possible and go back to arguing over what the best headset is.

My choice along those lines was and is a Bölkow Monsun, with except for the bush plane aspect the same mission as the OP in mind. Very high quality of construction, stick controls and very fun to fly. Essentially the same mechanicals as a Cherokee or Varga. There are about five flying regularly in the US, and about four or so hangar queens. Many of the original US buyers in the 70s kept them for decades, but have been aging out over the last 20 years. In case you’re wondering I know of three for sale in the US, although two of them are bizarrely overpriced by a common owner. No affiliation but as you can imagine the owners tend to be aware of each other.

Boelkow Monsun Pilot Report

This is a rare opportunity to promote the type

Hah! I have sat in one, possibly even the one pictured, as the owner is one of the guys mentioned in the article and his plane is that color.

His other plane is even rarer!

If money were no object (unfortunately, it is) I would just get a Cub Crafters NX Cub equipped for IFR flight and be done with it. And I would probably get the conversion kit so I could turn it into a taildragger if the mood struck me (which I'm sure it would). I wish that the NX Cub had come on the market 10+ years ago so there would be some nice used specimens to buy, but it is so new that even the used ones are almost as expensive as new ($450K+).

The NX is only unique in that it has the nosewheel. If you go and do the tailwheel, you can just get a Carbon Cub and have the rest of the plane be pretty much the same. Carbon Cubs aren't that old either, though... And Cubs overall don't have the best control harmony. The Husky (A-1B, 1998 or later) does have wonderful control harmony and is a derivative of the Cub line.

What's your budget? https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/240547145/2000-aviat-husky-a-1b-piston-single-aircraft

 

[Tusayan]

Hah! I have sat in one, possibly even the one pictured, as the owner is one of the guys mentioned in the article and his plane is that color.

His other plane is even rarer!

Come on, a Wing Derringer isn’t that rare

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Come on, a Wing Derringer isn’t that rare

Rarer than the BO209. Only 13 built!

First time I saw it was in the shop. I thought it was some kind of experimental composite thing (it is neither) because the wing was so smooth. It's such a cool little airplane.

I do wish I knew him better. He's a fascinating dude. If there were a documentary about him, I'd definitely watch it. (I'd read the book if he did an autobiography too...)

Is he one of the ones selling? He's got to be in his 80s now.

 

[AvNavCom]

Yes. This is why I never understand the high wing/low wing, nosewheel/tailwheel, and other common arguments in the pilot community over what is "better". I don't care where the third wheel is, I've flown nose, tail and even the 1 main 1 tail on the glider. I've flown high wing, low wing, mid wing, biplane and they're all fun. All airplanes are fun to fly, and we should fly as many different planes as possible and go back to arguing over what the best headset is.

What's your budget? https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/240547145/2000-aviat-husky-a-1b-piston-single-aircraft

Hey! I already recommended that same airplane, all the way back in post #8. By now, he should be completing the pre-buy!

Regarding arguments, I like to think that it's all just good-natured ribbing. I've never met an airplane I didn't like. And I'd virtually always prefer to speak to a fellow pilot than someone else. Even a Cirrus pilot, assuming I ever had an in-flight emergency and was forced to land on whatever gold-plated California runways they use and the concierge was able to contact their people to arrange for my people to set up a working lunch paid for by bitcoin.

 

[Dana]

This is why I never understand the high wing/low wing, nosewheel/tailwheel, and other common arguments in the pilot community over what is "better". I don't care where the third wheel is,

It's not really about where the wheel is (though there is a satisfaction in making that perfect 3 point landing that I've never gotten in a tricycle geared ship), but most of the most interesting planes just happen to be taildraggers.

As for high wing/low wing, they're all good, and since my airplane has one of each it must be twice as good.

 

[Tusayan]

Is he one of the ones selling? He's got to be in his 80s now.

The three Monsuns that I’m aware of being available are all in Florida. ‘Our’ friend’s plane in Wisconsin is kind of special, with a larger 180 HP engine and retrofitted retractable nose gear that his plane individually didn’t have when new. I believe it’s in Experimental category as is one of the two in Florida, and would be interesting to fly!

I was kidding about the Wing Derringer not being rare, it certainty is an unusual type. One of those would (on topic) be a really entertaining plane to own and fly too!

 

[Stewartb]

That’s an amazing plane. Wow. And gorgeous to boot.

And very expensive. For a fun flying Cub? A PA-11 or -18 Special would be a good choice. Not great for cross country traveling but for a couple of hours of fun? Lightweight, simple, and very easy on gas has it’s advantages.

Hangar availability should factor in for what aircraft type you choose. You mentioned a Carbon Cub? Parking a half million dollar fabric plane outdoors in the weather isn’t a great idea in my book.

 

[MBDiagMan]

Parking ANY GA aircraft outside long term is a bad idea in my book. Of course I agree that a $400K ragwing would indeed be a REALLY bad idea.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Parking ANY GA aircraft outside long term is a bad idea in my book. Of course I agree that a $400K ragwing would indeed be a REALLY bad idea.

I have seen someone make the case that if hangars are on the expensive side, it can be cheaper to just do new paint and interior on the plane every so often.

 

[Lunar Module]

The NX is only unique in that it has the nosewheel. If you go and do the tailwheel, you can just get a Carbon Cub and have the rest of the plane be pretty much the same. Carbon Cubs aren't that old either, though... And Cubs overall don't have the best control harmony. The Husky (A-1B, 1998 or later) does have wonderful control harmony and is a derivative of the Cub line.

True re the NX. But that is its appeal to me. As a very low hour pilot I am somewhat reluctant to put all my eggs in the taildragger basket from the get go. The appeal of the NX is that I could start out my ownership in the nosewheel configuration and then, as my experience and confidence grew, consider converting it to a taildragger at some point in the future while still retaining the ability to run it as a nosewheel plane if desired. I'm not aware of any other similar sort of plane that offers that flexibility.

I looked at the Aviat web site and their planes look wonderful. Really solid. Gorgeous fit and finish. A bit larger inside than the CubCrafters. The only downside to them (for me at least) is that there isn't a nose wheel option. Also, I was fairly shocked and a bit discouraged to see that their new planes are in the same price range as the CubCrafters planes (high $400Ks). I guess new planes these days are just incredibly expensive. Even the new Piper Archer LX and the 172SP are in that range. I don't know how anyone these days can afford to buy a new plane, even a pretty basic one.

 

[Lunar Module]

For a fun flying Cub? A PA-11 or -18 Special would be a good choice. Not great for cross country traveling but for a couple of hours of fun? Lightweight, simple, and very easy on gas has it’s advantages.

Hangar availability should factor in for what aircraft type you choose. You mentioned a Carbon Cub? Parking a half million dollar fabric plane outdoors in the weather isn’t a great idea in my book.

Thanks. I'll check them out.

Re a hangar: I definitely wouldn't want to leave a fabric plane out in the elements. There is an NX Cub at my airport that is stored under the shades, but even that seems marginal to me. Seems as though it would still be exposed to sunlight and the winds/rains constantly. I submitted an application to be on the waiting list for a hangar at my home airport. They tell me that the wait list might be 9 months or so but who knows. Even parking under the shades has the same waiting period. Makes things a bit more complicated since I don't want to commit to purchasing an airplane until I have a secure place to hangar it but once the airport offers me a hangar slot they will only give me one month to acquire a plane to put into the hanger. They don't want people renting hangars and then keeping them empty given the demand. Kind of a Catch 22 arrangement.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Shade hangars are fine, even for fabric aircraft.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

True re the NX. But that is its appeal to me. As a very low hour pilot I am somewhat reluctant to put all my eggs in the taildragger basket from the get go.

That's why I'd suggest you do the tailwheel now, in a rental, so you can see whether you want to operate that way all the time.

The appeal of the NX is that I could start out my ownership in the nosewheel configuration and then, as my experience and confidence grew, consider converting it to a taildragger at some point in the future while still retaining the ability to run it as a nosewheel plane if desired. I'm not aware of any other similar sort of plane that offers that flexibility.

There are conversion kids for the 150/152 to a taildragger configuration as well, known as the "Texas Taildragger". But you probably don't want to do the tailwheel just to fly a 152.

I'm sure there are other conversions on more popular airframes as well.

I looked at the Aviat web site and their planes look wonderful. Really solid. Gorgeous fit and finish. A bit larger inside than the CubCrafters. The only downside to them (for me at least) is that there isn't a nose wheel option. Also, I was fairly shocked and a bit discouraged to see that their new planes are in the same price range as the CubCrafters planes (high $400Ks). I guess new planes these days are just incredibly expensive.

Yes. Based on your comments about the price of the NX Cub, I figured you were looking at used airplanes like the rest of us. Yes, new airplanes are incredibly expensive.

Even the new Piper Archer LX and the 172SP are in that range. I don't know how anyone these days can afford to buy a new plane, even a pretty basic one.

I'm just glad there's people with enough money to turn new airplanes into used airplanes.

 

[AvNavCom]

Also, I was fairly shocked and a bit discouraged to see that their new planes are in the same price range as the CubCrafters planes (high $400Ks). I guess new planes these days are just incredibly expensive. Even the new Piper Archer LX and the 172SP are in that range. I don't know how anyone these days can afford to buy a new plane, even a pretty basic one.

None of us are buying new planes. Mine is a 1966 model, paid with cash. There may be some folks who can pay cash (or choose to finance) million-dollar aircraft, but I sure don't hang out in those social circles. As a newbie, I'd be looking for something older, sturdy, and fun.

 

[Lunar Module]

Shade hangars are fine, even for fabric aircraft.

That's good to know. It may be my only option at the start.

There is a pecking order for hangars at my airport (as you might imagine) and the shade hangars are one step up from the bottom (after tie downs) and even tie downs have a waiting list!

 

[Lunar Module]

None of us are buying new planes. Mine is a 1966 model, paid with cash. There may be some folks who can pay cash (or choose to finance) million-dollar aircraft, but I sure don't hang out in those social circles. As a newbie, I'd be looking for something older, sturdy, and fun.

How do the airplane builders stay in business if most of their target market can't afford their products?

Even the oldies are ridiculously expensive. I am reading comments in this and other forums from a couple of years ago about prices for various planes that I am considering and it appears that the prices of these planes have increased 50-100% just in the last few years. The cheapest planes I have seen that seem like possibilities for me are now in the $130K range and most are in the $160-210K range.