Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: Neophyte is adding up the numbers

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChugiakTinkerer View Post
    So I've been researching further, and it looks like my mission requirements are limiting the options to a small range of aircraft. With full fuel and floats, I'd like to have at least 600 lbs of capacity. The 170 with a C-145 on EDO 2000s looks to be the absolute minimum, and would have a payload in the neighborhood of 578 lbs. The next best, by my slip-shod research, are the Stinson 108, the Maule M-4-220, Maule MX-7-180, a Cessna 172/180 conversion, and the C-205/206. Most of those are priced from $50K to $80K on up. The exception is the Stinson 108. At stock it meets my mission requirements and looks to be available in various condition starting around $30K.

    The Aeronca Sedan looks like a truly sweet a/c, but it's stock performance just doesn't meet my needs. At least on paper. A conversion with a 180 hp would probably be perfect for how I think I will want to fly.

    Anyhow, this is all dreaming and scheming. Need to learn to crawl first.
    The 170 w/c145 doesn't do well on floats, most have been converted after the engine crapped out, same with the Sedan. You can't find an engine for the 108 anymore...used maules are a maint disaster...

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChugiakTinkerer View Post
    So I've been researching further, and it looks like my mission requirements are limiting the options to a small range of aircraft. With full fuel and floats, I'd like to have at least 600 lbs of capacity. The 170 with a C-145 on EDO 2000s looks to be the absolute minimum, and would have a payload in the neighborhood of 578 lbs. The next best, by my slip-shod research, are the Stinson 108, the Maule M-4-220, Maule MX-7-180, a Cessna 172/180 conversion, and the C-205/206. Most of those are priced from $50K to $80K on up. The exception is the Stinson 108. At stock it meets my mission requirements and looks to be available in various condition starting around $30K.

    The Aeronca Sedan looks like a truly sweet a/c, but it's stock performance just doesn't meet my needs. At least on paper. A conversion with a 180 hp would probably be perfect for how I think I will want to fly.

    Anyhow, this is all dreaming and scheming. Need to learn to crawl first.
    There is a pretty nice looking Aeronca Sedan at PAWS for sale and it has the 180hp conversion. Has float fittings but no mention of floats on the sign. I haven't seen it listed online anywhere, just a for sale sign in the window. I think he wants 45K.

  3. #23
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,217

    Default

    I think that Sedan came out of Kodiak. I would have flown to Kodiak to give it a look-over but I had sold my plane by then and flying to Kodiak from Homer commercially is a huge pain. We have to go from Homer, to Anchorage and then to Kodiak on Ravn. If I was not dealing with examiners looking at my weight and balance once or twice a week, I would be all over a 180 horse Sedan. The Sedan gross should really be bumped up with a 180 horse. They are built pretty solid.
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  4. #24
    Member ChugiakTinkerer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Chugiak, Alaska
    Posts
    682

    Default

    That Sedan in Kodiak is listed on AlaskasList. He's asking $45K, includes a worn set of EDO floats.

    I spent the weekend scheming about clearing a short airstrip on the property. I think 800' is doable, after that it starts to drop down the hill. This is at 2350' elevation. Any good candidate aircraft that can land and take off in that distance at gross load? This is also the highest ground in the area, and I can remove any trees in the run-out that could pose a hazard.

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Float Pilot View Post
    I think that Sedan came out of Kodiak. I would have flown to Kodiak to give it a look-over but I had sold my plane by then and flying to Kodiak from Homer commercially is a huge pain. We have to go from Homer, to Anchorage and then to Kodiak on Ravn. If I was not dealing with examiners looking at my weight and balance once or twice a week, I would be all over a 180 horse Sedan. The Sedan gross should really be bumped up with a 180 horse. They are built pretty solid.

    The one Wasilla is a different one than the Kodiak sedan on alaskaslist.

  6. #26

    Default

    800 FT at that elevation and low time pilot rules out most everything at gross weight. Supercub maybe, but not for a low time pilot. How steep is the drop down the hill. One thing to consider most all of the STOL you tube stuff is done with a pretty good headwind and 5 gal of fuel onboard. No wind and a full load can turn a 70ft Valdez contender cub into 600-800 ft drag IT off pretty easy.
    DENNY

  7. #27
    Member ChugiakTinkerer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Chugiak, Alaska
    Posts
    682

    Default

    Here it is on the topo.



    The length of the strip as drawn is about 1025'. The prevailing wind is from the southeast, although I've never measured it. It's actually 2550' MSL. The topo lines are at 10', so the hill at the southeast end has about a 5% grade.

  8. #28

    Default

    another key factor here is the prevailing wind at this location. If it is lined up with your runway, that helps an awful lot.
    If not, it is a negative factor in working a short strip.
    Hills can be good if you can learn to use them properly. They slow you down quick landing uphill and of course taking off down hill accelerates faster.

  9. #29
    Member ChugiakTinkerer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Chugiak, Alaska
    Posts
    682

    Default

    My thanks go out to everyone for sharing your thoughts and experience. I appreciate the efforts to open my eyes to reality. I can see that I need to spend some time understanding the compromises that have to be balanced, as well as getting my expectations in line.

    My original post discussed learning to fly once I reach retirement. I'm not sure if I'm prepared to wait that long! Whenever I do take up PPL training, I plan to spend several years building my skills prior to turning our remote property into a flight destination. That should give me time to know my limits and the limits of whatever aircraft we end up getting.

    It will also give me time to balance out the equation of mission requirements versus budget. Right now the budget side is winning. When I get closer to retiring I'll have to decide if I want those mission "wants" enough to keep working so that we can afford the super plane that does it all.

  10. #30
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,217

    Default

    What is wrong with the beach area in the lower right corner of the map pic?
    Have you spent much time out at this place?
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  11. #31
    Member ChugiakTinkerer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Chugiak, Alaska
    Posts
    682

    Default

    There isn't a beach area to the southeast, that appears to be a glitch from the computerized topo generation. Our float pilot typically lands on the lake with an approach from the NW and beaches at an area on the north edge of the property, just east of the lagoon puddles, which are accurately depicted.

    We have owned the property for almost two years. I've documented some of our plans and progress on the CountryPlans forum. We didn't buy with the thought of becoming pilots, but the lake is plenty big for landing any sot of bush plane on floats.

    http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=14235.0

  12. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    314

    Default

    FWIW thoughts on strip size and aircraft:

    - My cabin strip has a fantastic approach from both ends and is at circa 1200' elevation....
    - I'm 15 minutes (at the outside) flying time from the Palmer airport......and if I read it right, you're close to the end of Lake Louise road..not sure how close that is to LL strip
    - I have about 700' usable on my strip, although I have another 5-700 feet suitable for runout if needed and there are no obstacles to speak of on either end;
    - For several years, I used the -12 (at gross) to haul people and supplies in...sometimes from Los Anchorage, often from Palmer. We would stuff everything into / onto our truck and trailer, wife would take it to Palmer, and I'd ferry from there to the cabin. I recall family reunion time when the family was strangely void of any ATV's, UTV's or Sno-goes, when I took (IIRC) 12 round trips to Palmer to get everyone and everything in....only to repeat it a week later.

    Point is that if one is relatively close to the road system, a smallish plane that isn't a huge people or freight hauler can still provide just that last little bit of access that can make a remote place much more enjoyable. Granted, 2300' feet is higher than 1200' but I'd not hesitate to operate the -12 off an 800 foot strip stuffed to the gills (which would almost assuredly be at gross, although for hauling "stuff" I often found the volume to limit at much as weight), particularly if the approach is decent.
    Back in AK

  13. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChugiakTinkerer View Post
    My thanks go out to everyone for sharing your thoughts and experience. I appreciate the efforts to open my eyes to reality. I can see that I need to spend some time understanding the compromises that have to be balanced, as well as getting my expectations in line.

    My original post discussed learning to fly once I reach retirement. I'm not sure if I'm prepared to wait that long! Whenever I do take up PPL training, I plan to spend several years building my skills prior to turning our remote property into a flight destination. That should give me time to know my limits and the limits of whatever aircraft we end up getting.

    It will also give me time to balance out the equation of mission requirements versus budget. Right now the budget side is winning. When I get closer to retiring I'll have to decide if I want those mission "wants" enough to keep working so that we can afford the super plane that does it all.
    Many folks talk about flying and learning to fly and all the opportunities it opens up...Just as many find out that flying is expensive, stressful in the learning process and not for them...Talking about what you are going to do with aviation without first going through that "learning process" is often a waste of time. Go find out if you have what it takes, then start planning what you are going to do with it...

  14. #34

    Default

    You know a 172 with a STOL kit does very good short field, mine has 170b wings, a 172 will cost half in insurance than a 170 and do more than the 170 can. My first airplane was a Mooney M20F so I know what it means to pay for and expensive performer. Loved the Mooney but no good for AK and I have a really hard time paying for cool factor in an airplane I'm am landing in rocks and ice and everything else. Just my opinion from my short 10yr so far in aviation.

  15. #35

    Default

    You also can put 35" tires on a 172 if ya want!! I've seen one if I can figure it out I will put it up.

  16. #36

    Default

    Only a cub or tailwheel will do right? just poking and having friendly fun...

    I wouldn't hesitate on but to fly my 59 0-300 172 at gross from there any time.

    Dont get me wrong I like cubs just fine, IMHO they are worth about 50% to Me than what they cost. That's all

  17. #37
    Member ChugiakTinkerer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Chugiak, Alaska
    Posts
    682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mooneyman View Post
    You know a 172 with a STOL kit does very good short field, mine has 170b wings, a 172 will cost half in insurance than a 170 and do more than the 170 can. My first airplane was a Mooney M20F so I know what it means to pay for and expensive performer. Loved the Mooney but no good for AK and I have a really hard time paying for cool factor in an airplane I'm am landing in rocks and ice and everything else. Just my opinion from my short 10yr so far in aviation.
    That's 10 years more than me! Assuming I can make a semi-improved airstrip I'd think a 172 or PA22 would land just fine, and take off fine too. I'm seeing the beauty of a tricycle geared plane as at least a trainer, and if it proves adequate for my needs then I'd be doing great. But pipercub's got a point, not much use in doing too much planning until I get some hours.

  18. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pipercub View Post
    Many folks talk about flying and learning to fly and all the opportunities it opens up...Just as many find out that flying is expensive, stressful in the learning process and not for them...Talking about what you are going to do with aviation without first going through that "learning process" is often a waste of time. Go find out if you have what it takes, then start planning what you are going to do with it...
    What he said. I gave flying a solid 3 years, bought and learned in a J-3, and enjoyed the flying but I found watching the weather, the time, expense, time needed to become proficient off airport, and hassle of maintaining a plane tied down outside, almost a half hour from where I live just wasn't worth it. Only you and your family can decide if it's right for you and you won't know that until you have owned a plane for a while. I found great value in learning in the plane I owned. I would recommend getting a plane that will hold it's value to learn in, get started and see where it takes you. I also was hesistant to dump a bunch of money into a passion that becomes a way of life, perhaps see it all fall apart with one bad doctor's visit, for me the ocean is my real passion and decided putting half the money into a boat was the way to go.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •