Ok guys talk me out of this.
The idea of having a plane nearby in a „shed“ on some leased farmland and reducing the flying to, well, the flying, skipping airport security, bureaucracy etc… and actually having an affordable way to fly is very appealing. I’m thinking of good weather, me, my kids, a tent and some italian grass fields and just go flying.
Is there such a thing as a high wing 4 seater (not 4 seats plus full fuel!) that runs on gasoline (non avgas) and (drum roll) is affordable to buy and own?
Safe and simple (no metal pipes piercing me during a rough landing)
Mission: day vfr touring, short-ish grass strips, still not super slow for cruise, economic fuel consumption (rotax?)
Category: „normal sep, LSA or VLA, experimental if build quality can be assured.
Somehow I like high wings, they seem easier to fly and more stable to me (pendelum principle). Is my feeling complete aerodynamic BS?
Most of the high tech ultralight stuff shown at Aero has been “price adjusted” in line with the SEPs. A basic SEP now costs 500k to a million and a basic UL is priced just below that at some 200k.
Anyone ever heard of the Ventura? At Aero it had the Rotax 915. Apparently if they build it for you it is 120k, still a looooot of money I think. But I liked the “utilitarian” style.
I’m I turning into a one way street here?
Better to just buy an old Cherokee or similar for 25k and keep cash for pop up ADs, SBs and parts?
As always, all opinions valued!
Snoopy wrote:
Somehow I like high wings, they seem easier to fly and more stable to me (pendelum principle). Is my feeling complete aerodynamic BS?
Yes and no. There are several ways to achieve stability. High wings are one. Dihedral another one. Compare a C172 and a PA28. You can’t simply say that one way will give more stability than the other, it depends on the design.
Snoopy wrote:
Category: „normal sep, LSA or VLA, experimental if build quality can be assured.
If you want 4 seats, you already have restricted yourself to normal SEP and experimental. “if build quality can be assured” tells me you should never purchase an experimental plane. It’s the builder/owners responsibility to “assure” these things, and if you cannot/will not do it yourself, then get a certified plane.
This leaves you with an old C-172, but to get a good used one these days is almost impossible. They are either grossly over-priced old wrecks or even more grossly over-priced newer G-1000 variants (soon to be old wrecks).
A C182 is very popular 
Regarding fuel consumption, a Lyco/Conti does not burn any more fuel per mile (or fuel per HP) than a Rotax. All the time you are burning petrol, stochiometric or so, you are getting more or less the same SFC. The economy of the Rotax is an enduring myth… it originates with all the Rotax-powered planes being basically small, and that is how you get more MPG.
I was taught that engine economy , or to say better engine efficency , is described with fuel\hp\hour and that the number for Rotax 912 is 215 g
Someone knows the same number for Lyco and Conti ?
You should get a Maule or a Cessna 182.
ormazad wrote:
Someone knows the same number for Lyco and Conti ?
For a 180 hp Lyco (e.g. IO-360) at 65%, the figure is about 180 g/hp/hr if you lean properly.
Maybe a new thread about fuel economy?
The big advantage of the Rotax is that it takes the pilot out of the equation. When doing airwork, landing circuits, IFR approaches and even en-route descents or climbs, most pilots do not optimise the leaning at any given time. Or how about simply forgetting to lean properly for a while after climbing to cruise altitude – how many pilots have not done that? And I haven’t even mentioned the flock of pilots that is scared to death from ever touching the red lever.
High-compression engines do better than low-compression. Injected engines a little better than carb’ed ones. But even the big carb’ed Lycoming O-540s claim 190 g according to the engine manual. Then some carb’ed engine individuals are really bad because the fuel distribution is so lousy that proper leaning cannot remotely be obtained without the engine going rough.
Snoopy wrote:
Better to just buy an old Cherokee or similar for 25k and keep cash for
If that is your budget, then not a bad choice. The Cherokee is reliable and robust and prices are reasonable. But the C172 would always be better suited to farm strips not only because of high wings and lower wing loading, but also because of its undercarriage. Everything rattles more in a Piper that in a Cessna when operating on uneven ground, and that wears the airframe and equipment.
Snoopy, I thought you were on the verge of buying an SR20?
On the aircraft side, regarding farm strips and a true 4 seater I would have to say the 180hp+ Moranes would be the perfect plane. Malte (mh) has written an excellent articles on those. They are built for that, but they definitly are not fast nor modern. But they will lift MTOW out of strips most other planes will not go to. And they are cheap to buy.
Otherwise, the Cherokee 180 is definitly worth looking at as well, as I suppose are some C182’s.
Where I see a problem is the farm strip idea, however I don’t know how that works in Austria or, given your location, in Slovenia. But I have to say that the recent talks I had with the Bulgarian CAA at the Aero and the huge masses of abandoned air strips there which still have lovely concrete runways is thought provoking, particularly seeing how some of them get bought by private citizens, put back to use and even apply for GNS approaches with full cooperation from the CAA there… Quite unthinkable in most of Europe.
