The twins are a great bargain now. A beech 55 would be great I think!

Thanks for the reply. I have been amazed about how much GA has changed. Satellite weather, engine monitors that actually provide useful information, operating LOP, etc. The BE55 would be the twin of choice. It’s more than able to operate off of a 3,000’ grass runway where I like to fish, good load, speed, and reliability. My travel would however be fairly limited in where I want to go. A long trip would be 8-900 miles to visit my family in NC, but like I mentioned before, I’d most likely buy tickets before piling my wife and possibly my two college aged kids in a plane for a once a year trip. As my parents age, the trip will become more frequent, but when going alone, jumpseating offline is quick, easy, comfortable, and free. I’d very occasionally go somewhere else within 500 miles to see something, but the overwhelming majority of my mission is cutting the travel time to go fly fishing down to 2 hours instead of driving 6+. As much as I’d prefer a twin, I don’t know if I really need that much plane. Also, $130,000 will buy a pretty nice single, but I’m gun shy about getting a “great deal” on a more advanced plane and then dumping money into it. Most of the 55 barons in that range would make me nervous.

Another thought is to start out with something more affordable to purchase and own when starting out. If this proves to be something that I want to keep doing, I can always upgrade later. A well equipped baron wouldn’t be that unreasonable if the 787 captain dollars were rolling in, but it would be hard to justify now.

My Beech mechanic adores the Duchess, hard to kill an o-360. For the mission you described I would look for a 300HP 182 or a 172RG.

A friend has a duchess, but his insurance only covers on pavement. One of the positive aspects of the twin Comanche is that the engine is so reliable and affordable to operate, but it sits so low to the ground, I don’t know how the prop clearance would be on grass. Both airplanes have often been beat up as trainers, but there are some good ones out there. If I were to keep a single at home the wingspan would need to be less than 34’, which rules out a Cessna. A 35 series bonanza would fit my shop, but flying it out of here would be too tight for me. 2100’ of grass with power lines right at each end, plus an oil tank battery. It would work light, on a cool morning, and hard ground. Higher temps or soft ground would just make your day go to pot.

For 300-400nm, you'll likely find that speed doesn't matter much. The mission and personal minimums you describe could be met with a C170 for a lot less than a 180 or a Maule. If you're willing to give up the tailwheel, Mark's suggestion of a Cherokee 180 is a good one. They perform as well as a 172, cost less, and often haven't been trainers.

The 170 won't fit in his hangar. A hershey-bar winged Cherokee will, but I don't think I'd want to operate one off of 2100' grass with power lines. The longer winged one will juuuuust fit in the barn, but I still don't think I'd want to fly it off of 2100' with obstacles on a summer day.

I owned a cutlass (172rg).
Loved the plane. Solid 140 knots on 9 gals per hour. Gear could be tricky at times.
Fine if you maintain it.

The 170 won't fit in his hangar. A hershey-bar winged Cherokee will, but I don't think I'd want to operate one off of 2100' grass with power lines. The longer winged one will juuuuust fit in the barn, but I still don't think I'd want to fly it off of 2100' with obstacles on a summer day.

Is there any chance you can build your door in the broad side of the barn? If you can get 38’ or more, that opens up quite a few more options.

Too many structural beams and a significant drop off right there. If I get something, I’d keep it at the local airport for a while. I’d only spend the money to convert a shop into a hangar if I knew for sure that I would use a plane enough to justify owning it. I’m sure that I could put something like a higher power door on the building. Right now it has a 20’ roll up and a 12’ door also.

I gave you the +1 simply because you know that there is such a plane as the Culver V. You deserve credit for that.

While the V is fuel efficient (120 mph cruise from an 85 hp Continental) and would certainly provide the range the OP is looking for, it really isn’t known for it’s short field performance. Additionally, unless the OP and his wife are slim and trim, weight and balance becomes an issue, further impacting the V’s anemic climb performance.

Further challenges involve the Aeromatic Prop (the guy that owns the Type Certificate will no longer provide part sales to Certificated Aircraft. He does so for Experimentals only) and the Goodyear nylon rubber fuel cells. I understand that you can obtain custom built fuel cell replacements but I imagine they can be pricey.

Insurance is available, at a price. I recently obtained a quote of $1,957 for $25,000 hull value on a V I was considering. The 10 hour dual requirement (how many CFIs with V experience are out there and active?) coupled with an estimated 27-29 hour ferry flight to bring it home made the purchase even more challenging. After all, how many 74 year old, newly purchased, wooden airplanes will provide nearly forty hours of trouble free service? Made me wonder if I could ever get it home.

Al Mooney’s little wooden bullets certainly were neat airplanes.

If you are good with 2 seats, an rv would be a good option.

I reread the OP just to make sure but you didn't mention needing 4 seats other than that's what the airplanes you were looking at had.

If you can get away with 2, there are quite a few RVs that will meet your mission and you can get a pretty nice one for your budget.

I have flown my 65 Debonair 4,300 hours over 25 years. I go into lots of small short fields.

My personal limitations are 1700’ runway with clear approaches and 2000 with obstacles at the ends. Those are conservative limits

I have gone into one particular 2000’ runway with wires at the end hundreds of times. In tall grass, mud, snow. Winds changing unpredictably. Night.

The V35B would be similar. Slightly more HP, slightly more weight. Same wing.

The numbers in the POH are usually at max gross weight. You rarely need to run that heavy. Weight matters a lot.

Does the V35B POH you are looking at including using flaps for takeoff? In recent years Beech has discouraged takeoff with flaps. The reason is complex, and I understand it. But near sea level, below gross weight, taking off with flaps and climbing out at 65 knots will result in remarkably short runway performance.

I have known of people who operate Bonanzas out of 1300’ strips.

I have a friend with a V35B who asked me to meet him for lunch at a 1600’ strip. He is ex Air Force pilot. I said no, the runway is too short for me. He goes there frequently.

Once you get up and out of there, a V35B is worlds beyond the Maule or Dakota as a traveling machine.

The POH that I had was a newer one that didn’t include using flaps for takeoff. I read some of the history on the bonanza and thought it was strange that they removed the charts. The thing that worries me is the condition of the turf. I know that the plane will fit under most situations using a 20% fudge for grass, but what about if the ground is soft? How soft is it, and how big of a penalty do I apply for each situation? Wet mowed grass after a heavy dew is completely different than soft ground after a rain. The numbers were just a little close for my comfort considering the unknowns. I use tight numbers frequently at work, but that is using very accurate weather, tail specific performance data, and paved runways. If I plant grass at my place, it won’t be a purpose built and crowned runway, it will be a strip of mowed Bermuda in a wheat field.

I have given consideration to some of the RV airplanes. My only concern is not knowing anything about experimental airplanes. I have seen some that are built with standards that exceed certified planes, and some that definitely don’t. My attraction to certified is that you start with a known standard. At the same time a well built and meticulously maintained RV would be better than a neglected certified plane. I do like the RV’s. They would easily fit in my shop and 2,100’ of runway is more than enough. My concern with them is build and maintenance quality as well as cargo space. I don’t need to haul camping gear, and other bulky items, but I will need to haul waders, a couple of fly rods broken down in cases, a small amount of tackle, and several days of clothes. I have looked at the RV8. It looks like a fast, fun airplane. It’s a 6g plane, but it’s not really made for snaps or more aggressive aerobatics, but if it could fit my gear in the cargo compartments, or even securely strapped into the empty seat, I’d seriously look at a well built one. I’m glad that this purchase is about 2 years out if the airline industry recovers. There are more options than I realized and a bunch to think about. If the RV would carry what I need, the obvious choice would be a RV 7 or 8 for travel and to show friends basic aerobatics, and a Pitts S-1 for the fun stuff. I don’t need a 2 seat Pitts because I’m 220 lbs, which doesn’t leave much useful load after fuel. A 2 seat comes in a little hot to land at my house anyway.