Beechcraft Sundowner

[VM]

I'm considering buyint a 1978 Beechcraft Sundowner. I have concerns about
being able to find spare parts, etc. I'm also considering a Piper Archer
II. The Sundowner I've found is $15,000 less than a comparable Piper
Cherokee Archer II. The Sundowner looks like a new airplane both inside and
out and everything works. The Archer looks ok but needs paint and needs a
handfull of minor repairs, all of which are included in the purchase. Any
thoughts?

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

VM wrote:
> I'm considering buyint a 1978 Beechcraft Sundowner. I have concerns about
> being able to find spare parts, etc. I'm also considering a Piper Archer
> II. The Sundowner I've found is $15,000 less than a comparable Piper
> Cherokee Archer II. The Sundowner looks like a new airplane both inside and
> out and everything works. The Archer looks ok but needs paint and needs a
> handfull of minor repairs, all of which are included in the purchase. Any
> thoughts?

Yeah. Talk to local pilots, find out who they recommend to maintain
planes. If there's a Beech type club, join it, and talk to local members.

Then talk to the mechanics they recommend.

If there's a problem obtaining parts, they'll let you know. And
which ones. You'll also know exactly where the maintenance "gotchas"
are and how to check for them.

Another strategy is to get some airplane catalogs and browse through
them for stuff like, oh, mixture and throttle cables. Look for
Alcor replacements and see if they're STC'd for your plane.

Many of the parts on an airplane which commonly need replacing aren't
model-specific. Engine parts, hoses, brake shoes, brake lines, o-rings,
etc.

Parts which are more likely to be an issue would be things like ailerons
and trim tabs (if there's an "oops"), landing gear parts, etc.

I own a less-numeric plane of the "Archer" class. It's a good 10 kts
faster on the same engine, fixed gear, and fixed prop. It typically
costs less than an Archer of comparable age and equipment, just because
it's less "familiar" and people worry about "parts". In fact, we have
excellent parts support through the current TC holder and several other
shops, and an excellent owner/maintenance network. (I own a Grumman)

So I say, do your homework then go for it. I've never flown one but
I've heard the Beechcraft are very nice planes. Roomy, comfortable,
easy to land, and stable. Bit slow for their class is the only drawback
but, that really doesn't affect much overall. Is $15k worth getting
there 20 minutes faster.

Cheers,
Sydney (Grumman AA5B "Tigger")

[A Lieberman]

VM wrote:

> I'm considering buyint a 1978 Beechcraft Sundowner. I have concerns about
> being able to find spare parts, etc. I'm also considering a Piper Archer
> II. The Sundowner I've found is $15,000 less than a comparable Piper
> Cherokee Archer II. The Sundowner looks like a new airplane both inside and
> out and everything works. The Archer looks ok but needs paint and needs a
> handfull of minor repairs, all of which are included in the purchase. Any
> thoughts?

VM

I have a 76 Sundowner. For me, I am planning long cross countries. The
Sundowner will not get you there in a hurry, but you cannot beat the
comfort level inside. Much more roomier then a Cessna. The two doors
are really convienant, as a pilot, I can assist others into the plane
rather then me in the plane first. Expect 10 GPH fuel burn rate at 2300
RPM. I plan for 110 knot cruise in my flight planning. May be pokier
then others, but sure beats driving by car!

Feel free to email me if you want more "intimant" details of my
ownership.

Allen

[Captain Wubba]

Howdy. I own a Musketeer and have a few hundred hours in it, as well
as a few dozen in Sundowners. Basically the same plane, the Sundowner
climbs better (but still not well) and is a shade faster (not even 5
knots, in general). Our Musketeer is an *old* one (1963), but we
haven't had any problem finding parts. The engine is just an O-320
(O-360 in the Sundowner) that every mechanic on earth knows like the
back of his hand. The rest is just an airplane. A very simple,
reliable airplane. The Beech parts we have bought have been somewhat
more expensive than Piper or Cessna parts, but seem to be built
better. Even with such an old plane, we've had relativly few large
maintenence expenses.

I only have a few hours in an Archer, but the Archer wasn't nearly as
comfortable as the Sundowner or Musketeer. It was a bit faster, but
not by a whole lot. The real difference seemed less than 10 knots. For
a 300 NM trip, that comes out to a difference of about 10 minutes. To
me, the comfort was well worth the extra few minutes. Our Musketeer
cost $10,000 less than a comparable 172 or Cherokee. The visability of
a Sundowner is simply stunning, compared to anything else short of a
Katana (I've been flying a Cessna 206 quite a bit lately - great
plane, but the visability is much worse than on any of the Beeches).

I'd buy a Musketeer/Sundowner again in a heartbeat. They are fun to
fly (great control response, very predictable). Actually, they land
better than the Cessnas I used to fly. The key (as in most planes) is
airspeed control. if you are on the speeds over the numbers, the Mouse
can make you look like a much better pilot than you deserve to look
like. Of course, the penalty for being wrong is greater than in the
Cessnas, but if you are careful, it lands beautifully. The biggest
problem is the climb. The Sundowner is better than the Mouse, but
still not very good. The Musketeer can be downright dangerous if you
don't plan well. It's climb rate is scary-bad. The Sundowner's is just
bad. But if you plan for this, you can manage it.

Honestly, I can recommend the Sundowner/Musketeer family very highly.
Our Mouse has proven to be very inexpensive to operate, fun to fly,
and very reliable. If you understand the limitations of the Sundowner
and are willing to accept them, then you can find yourself a truly
wonderful plane for a bargain price.

Cheers,

Cap


"VM" > wrote in message ink.net>...
> I'm considering buyint a 1978 Beechcraft Sundowner. I have concerns about
> being able to find spare parts, etc. I'm also considering a Piper Archer
> II. The Sundowner I've found is $15,000 less than a comparable Piper
> Cherokee Archer II. The Sundowner looks like a new airplane both inside and
> out and everything works. The Archer looks ok but needs paint and needs a
> handfull of minor repairs, all of which are included in the purchase. Any
> thoughts?

[Bill]

I have a 76 Sundowner since March 5. A great plane. Very Stable, and the 2
doors blow the socks off the crawl over the seat Pipers especially after a 3
hr cross country and you and the co-pilot have to hit the head !
ROOMY too. Good load, just DONT FILL THE TANKS unless you've done the W&B
first or fly alone.
I keep 34 gal ready to go and get 8.3GPH on 105KT cruise. That's 4 hrs of
bladder bursting flying in my book. I plan to stop at 2.5 hrs or less for a
break and re-fuel.
Nice stable platform for IFR training too if you don't have your ticket. I
got mine in 8 weeks after I got the Sundowner.
Dr. Bill
N9230S
8A6, NC

"Roger Tracy" > wrote in message
...
> I owned a Sundowner for a while. Was a very nice plane for the money.
> I had virtually no trouble with it, it was very well made and it was
> comfortable to
> fly in. It just isn't fast. I sold it and bought a Grumman Tiger which I'm
> very happy with. But
> the Tigers cost more. I don't think you can go wrong with the Sundowner as
> long as the speed works for you.
>
>
> "VM" > wrote in message
> arthlink.net...
> > I'm considering buyint a 1978 Beechcraft Sundowner. I have concerns
> about
> > being able to find spare parts, etc. I'm also considering a Piper
Archer
> > II. The Sundowner I've found is $15,000 less than a comparable Piper
> > Cherokee Archer II. The Sundowner looks like a new airplane both inside
> and
> > out and everything works. The Archer looks ok but needs paint and needs
a
> > handfull of minor repairs, all of which are included in the purchase.
Any
> > thoughts?
> >
> >
>
>
>