Jacko wrote:
whereas something like a Bearhawk or Murphy Moose will generally beat any RV on real world door-to-door journey time – because RVs need a runway.
Hardly. The typical tale is people flying their Cubs to desolate “bush strips” only to find an RV-4 already there. But I guess this has more to do with what the pilot is used to in terms of “bush” rather than the real capability of the aircraft. A 180 HP C-172 for two people is also a very capable “bush plane” with lots of luggage space. I forgot about the Bearhawk.
Jacko wrote:
A Carbon Cub is a nice beach toy, but with such limited range and cargo/passenger capacity, it can’t really be considered a “bushplane”.
It depends what you mean. Aircraft are used in Norway to find/gather reindeer and sheep in the mountains/woods. A CC would be as good as anything for that purpose, as well as microlights. Just a couple of days ago the investigation report of a crashed microlight came out (both occupants died). It was used to find reindeer. A Storch CLJ Amphibian
Another matter is that it’s not allowed to do commercial flying in neither microlights, nor experimental homebuilts, but that’s beside the point here (a main point in the accident report though 
). The point is that “bush flying” is much more than hauling tourists and their equipment around.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Jacko wrote:
on which planet does an O-360 burn 6.5 gallons an hour at 75% power?
Are they really saying that? I can’t find that claim on their web page.
http://cubcrafters.com/compare
46 gal usable fuel, 7 hours endurance. I wish.
As for the range figures, apart from the fact that they’re not calculated in a consistent manner, they are garbage. If there’s an engine somewhere which will pull a ragwing and bushwheels through the air at 114 mph (assuming no reserve!) on 6.57 gallons per hour, I’d like to buy the factory.
“Bushplane” is a subjective term (like safe flight), but here’s what it means to me:
To qualify as a bushplane, rather than a STOL toy, a flying machine needs to carry 4 POB or two and camping/fishing/hunting gear for a week, or a motorcycle or a 45 gallon drum. It’s going to land in places no other plane has been and nobody has checked except from the air, so it needs 31” tyres with ground (i.e. tyre) pressure less than 10 psi – we shouldn’t laugh at RVs on nice grass runways with spats full of mud or bogged to the axles, or nose-down in “rotovator mode”, but it is quite funny. It needs a good 24” of prop clearance. It needs to carry fuel for 300 nm each way, with a good hour in reserve. It needs to fly in IMC, preferably with GPSS so you can relax and/or attend to nature. It has to be a taildragger; anything with a nosewheel tends to throw mud and gravel into the prop, can’t hydroplane on water and can’t manoeuvre easily on the ground. That’s about it. A C180 is the archetype.
That’s not to denigrate STOL toys like CC or CH701, or the semi-acro RVs. Those are huge fun and excellent for their respective roles.
A problem with owning a bushplane is that you end up hauling fuel, food and beer for the STOL toys.
Jacko wrote:
To qualify as a bushplane, rather than a STOL toy, a flying machine needs to carry 4 POB or two and camping/fishing/hunting gear for a week, or a motorcycle or a 45 gallon drum. It’s going to land in places no other plane has been and nobody has checked except from the air, so it needs 31” tyres with ground (i.e. tyre) pressure less than 10 psi – we shouldn’t laugh at RVs on nice grass runways with spats full of mud or bogged to the axles, or nose-down in “rotovator mode”, but it is quite funny. It needs a good 24” of prop clearance. It needs to carry fuel for 300 nm each way, with a good hour in reserve. It needs to fly in IMC, preferably with GPSS so you can relax and/or attend to nature. It has to be a taildragger; anything with a nosewheel tends to throw mud and gravel into the prop, can’t hydroplane on water and can’t manoeuvre easily on the ground. That’s about it. A C180 is the archetype.
The main problem with bush planes, is they utterly suck compared with this (experimental registered, to keep this somewhat on topic):
Or the commonly available and numerous (but certified) R44:
Up until 20-30 years ago there were many “taxi flying” companies in Norway. They typically had a variety of planes from bush/float planes to twins and TPs, even small jets. Today they are all helicopter, 100%. Lots of R44 and AS350 series, and a few larger Bell helicopters here and there. Anyway, my club now has a C-185 on wheels we can use. It was “converted” from float, and I believe WingsWaterandWheels has flown it a lot (when it was on floats). I have to try it myself at some point, as it certainly looks cool.
Interesting that RV-10 vs SR22 “comparison”. That “drag race”, what was that all about?
Jacko wrote:
46 gal usable fuel, 7 hours endurance. I wish.
They specified the power setting for cruise speed, but not for endurance…
LeSving wrote:
Interesting that RV-10 vs SR22 “comparison”. That “drag race”, what was that all about?
Both plane fly side by side and then push their engine to max speed setting. Then the photo aircraft 1 or 2 miles ahead is the finish line.
I was selling the RV10 to my girlfriend but when she saw some sandbar landings on Youtube, she said : “Now, THAT’s cool !”.
Now I am looking at Bearhawks 
Isn’t life strange sometimes ?
It all depends on the Mission..
A Bush Plane, with a big draggy wing, is a pita in a 40 kt headwind…but great at landing on unprepared strips
Have you been in a helicopter for 6 hours? They are very noisy, uncomfortable for long periods and expensive to operate…but great at getting in and out of tight spaces.
Decide on your Mission…be realistic……then choose your aeroplane..
Teal wrote:
Have you been in a helicopter for 6 hours?
A SEP for 6 hours isn’t better. “Real” aircraft for “bush” use are helicopters or float planes, and sometimes ski. If there is a dirt strip, then it isn’t “real bush” IMO. I call it “bush light”, and it’s what I usually fly Most SEPs and smaller TP aircraft can operate from those places. Hence, a 180 hp C-172 for one or two people is a a very good compromise, much better in 99% of the cases than a Carbon Cub for instance (not thinking about sex appeal and such things ) There are very few dirt strips or plain fields (dirt or grass, sandbanks or whatever) that can be used by a C-185 and not by a C-172. But in a C-185, you do it in style
But in a C-185, you do it in style
Yes and as the propeller tips go super sonic with a lot of noise!
The radial 195 is more stylish and neighbourly and working versions cost around a quarter to a half of a 185
The problem with the iconic 180/185 family is the relatively weak gear. In Alaska they might paraphrase you fly out in a Skywagon but fly back in a Super Cub.
The SC may not meet some of the criteria cited as defining a ‘bush plane’ but they are the predominant type in Alaska.
Loading with the cub types is certainly more of a challenge, that’s why it’s handy to know someone with a bushplane that’s wide so they can take all your extra luggage and you keep sufficient space for the dog in row 3.
ploucandco wrote:
From my perspective, (and I am biased as I own an for more than 10 years), the Europa XS with a ROTAX 914 si the best performance against investment and operation cost. The current market is at less than 50K like this one: https://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent=da&id=47797&cor=y planecheck_G_FITY_47797_pdf
@ploucandco – I couldn’t agree more The Europa is dramatically underestimated regarding bang for the bug. Even a VL3 will not outperform a Europa Monowheel.
