What is the most economical 4 seater to fly for traveling to remote fishing lakes?

Question

I was thinking a small cessna float plane but really have no solid ideas.

Answer 1

Cessna 206 w/ floats.

Answer 2

My choice is the Piper PA-14.  Its the same basic airframe as the PA-18 Super Cub but wider, seating four.  The standard engine is the 0320/ 150 horsepower Lycoming, that burns far less fuel per hour than the Cessna 185 or 206 (bigger engines) plus you can STC it for automotive fuel instead of aviation fuel, much cheaper.  But its a rag aircraft and isn't cheap (about $60 to $90,000).  It gets on and off shorter than the bigger, heavier Cessnas but the tradeoff is speed (about 100 to 110).  So, if you are not in a hurry its a fine bush aircraft on wheels, floats or skis and it will get in and out of places the Cessnas can't.

Answer 3

The 206 is indestructible, comfortable, and flyable.  It is "economical" in the sense that Donald Trump would accept, but it ain't cheap.  If you really want to carry a pilot and three passengers, luggage, and fishing gear, the 206 is about the best all around.

A Piper Cherokee Six is about the same capabilities, and might be bought or rented a little cheaper than the 206, but there are not as many of them available on floats.

Have fun.

Answer 4

A 206 is hardly economical... For personal use, a 180hp Cessna 172 on floats is a better option for economy, however range will be limited. A Maule M-5 is also a very reasonable choice.

Answer 5

I like the 206 also but they aren't cheap. You can find a few Cessna 172XP's with floats. I have even seen Piper cubs with floats although they are 2 seaters.

A 182 with floats might make a fairly economical "fisher."

Check out www.wipaire.com. I think they can put just about anything that flies on floats.

Answer 6

The problem is that if you actually plan to use all four seats, plus carry even a limited amount of gear, and presumably the aircraft will be on floats, then I cannot think of any "4 seater" that is likely to do the job.  I'd cast my vote for a 206.  Although it is not exactly "economical" it will do what you seem to be asking.