Poll: best bird under $35K?

[psyshrike]

Howdy,

My Requirements:
3 Humans, 4 hours, VFR, ~ 100 knots.

Put these in order of preference:

Piper Tri Pacer:
Pros: Low acquisition Cost, Tri gear
Cons: Often neglected. Ground Handling, old panel, parts support.

Stinson 108-x:
Pros: Most beautifull of the bunch, good performance.
Cons: Conventional gear, old panel, parts support.

Cessna 175 GO-300
Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna.
Cons: Short engine lifespan, parts support, old panel.

Square Tailed Cessna 172 (as in 58-59 models)
Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna
Cons: Probably more AD's than a 737, old panel

Piper Cherokee 140
Pros: Aluminum, Modern plane, modern panel.
Cons: Doesn't meet weight requirements.


As you can tell, I don't mind old birds. In any case, a well
maintained example will be a personal requirement. A good example of
the worst type is probably better than bad example of the best.

I've got about 250 hours + complex endorsement. I haven't been flying
for a while, but am starting to convince myself that getting another
aircraft is justifiable.

I don't have any time in any of these. I'm asking because I'd like to
narrow up the field before I start running around bugging sellers.

All comments welcomed.
Thanks!
Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(psyshrike) wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> My Requirements:
> 3 Humans, 4 hours, VFR, ~ 100 knots.

[snip]
> Piper Cherokee 140
> Pros: Aluminum, Modern plane, modern panel.
> Cons: Doesn't meet weight requirements.

actually, it might meet the weight requirement if you only
carry 36 gallons, especially if you get an older 140 (which
tend to have a lower basic empty weight than the newer ones).

However, if your "3 humans" are each a bit heavier than 170 lbs...

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[C Kingsbury]

IMHO: 140, 172, Tri-P, 175, Stinson.

1. I don't like old airplanes
2. I don't like oddball engines
3. I don't like fabric
4. I prefer common makes/models

Don't get me wrong, if I hit the lottery I'm buying a Staggerwing. But if
we're talking about a low-cost fly-and-forget bird the PA-28-140 seems a
pretty clear winner. $35k is enough to get a nice one, perhaps even basic
IFR (in case you want to get your ticket someday) and will be very easy to
own.

The only ones I'd be really leery of are the Stinson and the 175, mainly
because of the engines. The O-320 is one of the best engines made and every
mechanic in the world knows how to fix one. If hangars are cheap where you
are then fabric needn't be a big concern but where I am they cost $400/mo
and I ain't leaving a fabric bird outside in New England year-round.

Are you really sure about the 3-person/4-hour requirement? That's a real
long time for somebody to be in the backseat of any of these planes. Frankly
that's a long time to be in the front seat, too, at least for me :)

-cwk.

"psyshrike" > wrote in message
om...
> Howdy,
>
> My Requirements:
> 3 Humans, 4 hours, VFR, ~ 100 knots.
>
> Put these in order of preference:
>
> Piper Tri Pacer:
> Pros: Low acquisition Cost, Tri gear
> Cons: Often neglected. Ground Handling, old panel, parts support.
>
> Stinson 108-x:
> Pros: Most beautifull of the bunch, good performance.
> Cons: Conventional gear, old panel, parts support.
>
> Cessna 175 GO-300
> Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna.
> Cons: Short engine lifespan, parts support, old panel.
>
> Square Tailed Cessna 172 (as in 58-59 models)
> Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna
> Cons: Probably more AD's than a 737, old panel
>
> Piper Cherokee 140
> Pros: Aluminum, Modern plane, modern panel.
> Cons: Doesn't meet weight requirements.
>
>
> As you can tell, I don't mind old birds. In any case, a well
> maintained example will be a personal requirement. A good example of
> the worst type is probably better than bad example of the best.
>
> I've got about 250 hours + complex endorsement. I haven't been flying
> for a while, but am starting to convince myself that getting another
> aircraft is justifiable.
>
> I don't have any time in any of these. I'm asking because I'd like to
> narrow up the field before I start running around bugging sellers.
>
> All comments welcomed.
> Thanks!
> Matt

[G.R. Patterson III]

psyshrike wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> My Requirements:
> 3 Humans, 4 hours, VFR, ~ 100 knots.

You might find an older 180hp Maule for that price. In fact, the 160hp MX-7 will do
this job if those are FAA adults with little luggage. Mine carries 806 pounds and
holds 43 gallons, giving me a useful load of 548 pounds with the tanks full.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[jls]

"psyshrike" > wrote in message
om...
> Howdy,
>
> My Requirements:
> 3 Humans, 4 hours, VFR, ~ 100 knots.
>
> Put these in order of preference:
>
> Piper Tri Pacer:
> Pros: Low acquisition Cost, Tri gear
> Cons: Often neglected. Ground Handling, old panel, parts support.
>
> Stinson 108-x:
> Pros: Most beautifull of the bunch, good performance.
> Cons: Conventional gear, old panel, parts support.
>
> Cessna 175 GO-300
> Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna.
> Cons: Short engine lifespan, parts support, old panel.
>
> Square Tailed Cessna 172 (as in 58-59 models)
> Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna
> Cons: Probably more AD's than a 737, old panel
>

Am I ever in love with the 172! I have worked on several of them and been
in on the restoration of two, both of which I fly regularly. These are
just wonderful airplanes and great for flying locally or cross-country.
No, not that many AD's, and I love those old O-300 engines and the 150-horse
Lycoming. The nose-gear struts are miracles of engineering, and I always
look forward to rebuilding one--- at least six O-rings in that sucker. As a
matter of fact there's not one system on a 172 that's not fun and easy to
work on, except having to change out the O-rings in the fuel valve. Where
in the hell is the weak spot on a 172? There just isn't a weak spot.
Take care of one, treat it against corrosion, keep it hangared if you can,
know how to pamper it and keep your engine happy, and it will last you 20
years, guaranteed.

There is nothing wrong with your other choices. I respect them too, but
they can't hold a candle to a 172.

You're going to love how it flies too, and how versatile it is in short
fields and out in the bush. Don't get me started. I'm just about to jump
up and shout.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
psyshrike > wrote:
>
>My Requirements:
> 3 Humans, ...
>
>Square Tailed Cessna 172 (as in 58-59 models)
>Piper Cherokee 140

There's a big difference there in terms of comfort for the third passenger
and room for baggage. Have you been in a 140? It's a lot tighter than
a 180.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[[email protected]]

Tripacer is the most bang for your buck.
under valued and better performance than the 140 or the 172.
I don't understand why most people are afraid of fabric airplanes.

Dave


Ben Jackson wrote:
> In article >,
> psyshrike > wrote:
>
>>My Requirements:
>>3 Humans, ...
>>
>>Square Tailed Cessna 172 (as in 58-59 models)
>>Piper Cherokee 140
>
>
> There's a big difference there in terms of comfort for the third passenger
> and room for baggage. Have you been in a 140? It's a lot tighter than
> a 180.
>

[Darrel Toepfer]

psyshrike wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> My Requirements:
> 3 Humans, 4 hours, VFR, ~ 100 knots.

Grumman/American General AA-5/A Traveller/Cheeta. Newer than most those
you favor, probably better equipped as well...

> Put these in order of preference:
>
> Piper Tri Pacer:
> Pros: Low acquisition Cost, Tri gear
> Cons: Often neglected. Ground Handling, old panel, parts support.
>
> Stinson 108-x:
> Pros: Most beautifull of the bunch, good performance.
> Cons: Conventional gear, old panel, parts support.

Both of these are well supported by UniVair, both were available in
metalized form via STC's...

[Bruce Cunningham]

(psyshrike) wrote in message >...
> Howdy,
>
> My Requirements:
> 3 Humans, 4 hours, VFR, ~ 100 knots.
>
> Put these in order of preference:
>
> Piper Tri Pacer:
> Pros: Low acquisition Cost, Tri gear
> Cons: Often neglected. Ground Handling, old panel, parts support.
>
> Stinson 108-x:
> Pros: Most beautifull of the bunch, good performance.
> Cons: Conventional gear, old panel, parts support.
>
> Cessna 175 GO-300
> Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna.
> Cons: Short engine lifespan, parts support, old panel.
>
> Square Tailed Cessna 172 (as in 58-59 models)
> Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna
> Cons: Probably more AD's than a 737, old panel
>
> Piper Cherokee 140
> Pros: Aluminum, Modern plane, modern panel.
> Cons: Doesn't meet weight requirements.
>
>
> As you can tell, I don't mind old birds. In any case, a well
> maintained example will be a personal requirement. A good example of
> the worst type is probably better than bad example of the best.
>
> I've got about 250 hours + complex endorsement. I haven't been flying
> for a while, but am starting to convince myself that getting another
> aircraft is justifiable.
>
> I don't have any time in any of these. I'm asking because I'd like to
> narrow up the field before I start running around bugging sellers.
>
> All comments welcomed.
> Thanks!
> Matt


You might want to look at the 68 Cardinal. If 3 people is all you
require, then it will haul it. They are maligned birds by many but are
good as long as you fly them within that envelope. The 3 person max
will do that. They have tremendous interior room, fly great, and are
maybe the best looking singles around. I don't think most of the bad
talk is justified, as I own a 69 model (180 HP). I absolutely love it.
With a little practice, they land great. They just don't land or fly
like a Skyhawk, just different. A 150 HP VFR 68 can be bought for 35
if you look hard. If you do and later decide you want more
performance, you can upgrade the 150 to 160 HP and add a Powerflow
exhaust for a lot less than trading in for new bird. Several I know
have done this, and they perform almost like 180 HP models.

Bruce
N30464

[C Kingsbury]

> wrote in message news:4Lehd.349231$D%.124138@attbi_s51...
> Tripacer is the most bang for your buck.
> under valued and better performance than the 140 or the 172.
> I don't understand why most people are afraid of fabric airplanes.

Well, this person lives in a place where hangars cost $400+/month after
you've waited 5 years to get into one. After seeing what New England winters
do to my new car I'll be damned if I'm keeping a fabric plane outside.

-cwk.

[psyshrike]

Howdy,

I'm thinking more 3 hours plus an hour reserve. I've done quite a few
3 hour stretches, and always carry maximum fuel. I'm just a firm
believer in variable reduction. Extra fuel cancels more variables than
it creates.

Many of the places I want to go on a regular basis are at about a 300
mile radius. If I can do it in one hop I would. I used to drive an
M20E. I can't afford that much airplane right now (and was foolish to
think I could when I had it).

Point taken about the oddball stuff. Keeping up with annuals is
expensive enough as it is, even with good equipment. I'll be looking
for a pristine model of whatever it is, and hope to defer some of the
issues created by the oddball-alities for the first few years by doing
so. I know: Fat Chance. But I can hope :-)

Thanks!
Matt

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message .net>...
> IMHO: 140, 172, Tri-P, 175, Stinson.
>
> 1. I don't like old airplanes
> 2. I don't like oddball engines
> 3. I don't like fabric
> 4. I prefer common makes/models
>
> Don't get me wrong, if I hit the lottery I'm buying a Staggerwing. But if
> we're talking about a low-cost fly-and-forget bird the PA-28-140 seems a
> pretty clear winner. $35k is enough to get a nice one, perhaps even basic
> IFR (in case you want to get your ticket someday) and will be very easy to
> own.
>
> The only ones I'd be really leery of are the Stinson and the 175, mainly
> because of the engines. The O-320 is one of the best engines made and every
> mechanic in the world knows how to fix one. If hangars are cheap where you
> are then fabric needn't be a big concern but where I am they cost $400/mo
> and I ain't leaving a fabric bird outside in New England year-round.
>
> Are you really sure about the 3-person/4-hour requirement? That's a real
> long time for somebody to be in the backseat of any of these planes. Frankly
> that's a long time to be in the front seat, too, at least for me :)
>
> -cwk.
>

<SNIP>

[psyshrike]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> psyshrike wrote:
> >
> > Howdy,
> >
> > My Requirements:
> > 3 Humans, 4 hours, VFR, ~ 100 knots.
>
> You might find an older 180hp Maule for that price. In fact, the 160hp MX-7 will do
> this job if those are FAA adults with little luggage. Mine carries 806 pounds and
> holds 43 gallons, giving me a useful load of 548 pounds with the tanks full.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.

I had thought of that.

I guess if I'd be willing to get my tailwheel ticket for a Stinson,
why not an M4 or M5? I just hadn't noticed many for sale lately. A few
years ago they seemed pretty available, but I've only seen one or two
for sale in recent history. I wonder if a glut of MX7's on the market
is causing everybody to hang on to them?

Didn't the M4 have the 220HP Franklin? Is that that the same engine
now offered by PZL?

Thanks!
Matt

[ShawnD2112]

Conventional gear on the Stinson is hardly a con. If anything, it's a pro
as it offers better handling on grass strips. Learning to fly a taildragger
will improve your stick and rudder skills no end.

The downside for me would be the oil bill from a big ol' radial but, all
other things being equal, I'd go for the Stinson.

Shawn
Taylorcraft BC-12D, G-BRPX
Pitts S-1D, G-BKVP
"psyshrike" > wrote in message
om...
> Howdy,
>
> My Requirements:
> 3 Humans, 4 hours, VFR, ~ 100 knots.
>
> Put these in order of preference:
>
> Piper Tri Pacer:
> Pros: Low acquisition Cost, Tri gear
> Cons: Often neglected. Ground Handling, old panel, parts support.
>
> Stinson 108-x:
> Pros: Most beautifull of the bunch, good performance.
> Cons: Conventional gear, old panel, parts support.
>
> Cessna 175 GO-300
> Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna.
> Cons: Short engine lifespan, parts support, old panel.
>
> Square Tailed Cessna 172 (as in 58-59 models)
> Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna
> Cons: Probably more AD's than a 737, old panel
>
> Piper Cherokee 140
> Pros: Aluminum, Modern plane, modern panel.
> Cons: Doesn't meet weight requirements.
>
>
> As you can tell, I don't mind old birds. In any case, a well
> maintained example will be a personal requirement. A good example of
> the worst type is probably better than bad example of the best.
>
> I've got about 250 hours + complex endorsement. I haven't been flying
> for a while, but am starting to convince myself that getting another
> aircraft is justifiable.
>
> I don't have any time in any of these. I'm asking because I'd like to
> narrow up the field before I start running around bugging sellers.
>
> All comments welcomed.
> Thanks!
> Matt

[Elwood Dowd]

Forgot at least one: Beech Musketeer

[kage]

PZL stopped production of the Frnklin engines about a year ago. No more!

KG
"psyshrike" > wrote in message
om...
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> >...
>> psyshrike wrote:
>> >
>> > Howdy,
>> >
>> > My Requirements:
>> > 3 Humans, 4 hours, VFR, ~ 100 knots.
>>
>> You might find an older 180hp Maule for that price. In fact, the 160hp
>> MX-7 will do
>> this job if those are FAA adults with little luggage. Mine carries 806
>> pounds and
>> holds 43 gallons, giving me a useful load of 548 pounds with the tanks
>> full.
>>
>> George Patterson
>> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
>> have
>> been looking for it.
>
> I had thought of that.
>
> I guess if I'd be willing to get my tailwheel ticket for a Stinson,
> why not an M4 or M5? I just hadn't noticed many for sale lately. A few
> years ago they seemed pretty available, but I've only seen one or two
> for sale in recent history. I wonder if a glut of MX7's on the market
> is causing everybody to hang on to them?
>
> Didn't the M4 have the 220HP Franklin? Is that that the same engine
> now offered by PZL?
>
> Thanks!
> Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
. ..
> Conventional gear on the Stinson is hardly a con. If anything, it's a pro
> as it offers better handling on grass strips. Learning to fly a
taildragger
> will improve your stick and rudder skills no end.
>
> The downside for me would be the oil bill from a big ol' radial but, all
> other things being equal, I'd go for the Stinson.

A Stinson 108 with a radial. Now that would be something to see.

[Michael]

(psyshrike) wrote
> Piper Tri Pacer:
> Pros: Low acquisition Cost, Tri gear
> Cons: Often neglected. Ground Handling, old panel, parts support.
>
> Stinson 108-x:
> Pros: Most beautifull of the bunch, good performance.
> Cons: Conventional gear, old panel, parts support.

Parts support is actually not a problem for either one of these.
Univair has everything you might ever need. What's more, there just
aren't that many parts in there.

The issue with the Stionson is the engine, assuming it has the
original Franklin. Nothing wrong with it, but parts are an issue.
The TriPacer has a Lycoming.

The issue with fabric airplanes (and most TriPacers and Stinsons are)
is needing a hangar. If you're not going to hangar it, don't mess
with it - sitting outside is rough on a fabric bird. Also, make sure
you buy one with good fabric - punch to at least 5 lbs over mins on
the TOPS of the fuselage, tailfeathers, and wings. Recover jobs are
VERY expensive if done professionally, and VERY time-consuming if you
do it yourself. BTDT.

Ground handling issues on the TriPacer are WAY overblown. No, it's
not as stable as a Cherokee - but then again, a Cherokee doesn't have
the same ground clearance either. And certainly a Stinson is a lot
easier to ground loop than a TriPacer is to tip over. Get checked out
by someone who knows the type, and it won't be a problem.

The Stinson is more of an issue in that regard, and the insurance will
reflect it. If you like the looks of conventional gear, the Pacer (or
conversion) is another good choice. It's slightly lighter than the
TriPacer, and people claim it's a bit faster but you couldn't prove it
by me.

The others are, well, spam cans. These newfangled all-metal airplanes
are a fad, anyway. They'll never last. Rag and tube is the way to go
:)

Michael

[G.R. Patterson III]

psyshrike wrote:
>
> I guess if I'd be willing to get my tailwheel ticket for a Stinson,
> why not an M4 or M5? I just hadn't noticed many for sale lately.

There's a '67 M4 up on ASO for $34,999. No photos and not much detail in the ad.

> A few
> years ago they seemed pretty available, but I've only seen one or two
> for sale in recent history. I wonder if a glut of MX7's on the market
> is causing everybody to hang on to them?

M4s are scarce -- it's not unusual to see a dearth of ads at any point in time.

> Didn't the M4 have the 220HP Franklin? Is that that the same engine
> now offered by PZL?

According to Clarke's book, it has the Continental O-300-A.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[John Galban]

(Ben Jackson) wrote in message news:<IDehd.349223$D%.320668@attbi_s51>...
>
> There's a big difference there in terms of comfort for the third passenger
> and room for baggage. Have you been in a 140? It's a lot tighter than
> a 180.

The primary space difference between the -140 and -180 is the
baggage area. Seating accomodations are the same for both. If you
were looking for a plane with the -180's baggage area and door, and
the same power as the -140, you'd be looking for the -150.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[John Galban]

(psyshrike) wrote in message >...

>
> Square Tailed Cessna 172 (as in 58-59 models)
> Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna
> Cons: Probably more AD's than a 737, old panel

I owned one of these in the 90s and there weren't an unusual amount
of recurring ADs.

>
> Piper Cherokee 140
> Pros: Aluminum, Modern plane, modern panel.
> Cons: Doesn't meet weight requirements.

I didn't see any weight requirements, other than 3 people. If these
are standard people (170 lbs.) then most 140s can handle it with fuel
at the tabs (36 gal., or 4+ hrs.). There is little difference in the
weight carrying capabilities of the straight tailed Cessnas and the
Cherokee 140s. What often throws people off is that the Cherokee can
carry 50 gals. of fuel (roughly 6 hrs.) and therefore carries a
smaller cabin load with full fuel. What this really means is that it
is more flexible. With a light load, you can choose to fly a longer
leg by adding fuel. You can't do that with the Cessna.

Overall, the primary difference between the two above (IMHO) is
passenger room. The 172 has more interior space for the rear seat
passengers. The baggage area on the 140 is limited. The ('56-'59)
172 has a nice baggage area, but no external baggae door. A Cherokee
150 (slightly better equipped version of the 140, same hp) will have
both a large baggage area and an external baggage door.

Shop around and don't limit yourself to one model. Last time I went
shopping, I made a basic list of requirements and considered every
plane that satisfied them. For the price range you've specified, it's
going to come down to the individual qualities of each prospective
airplane, rather than the pros and cons of the type as a whole.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Bob Noel]

In article . net>, "C
Kingsbury" > wrote:

> > wrote in message news:4Lehd.349231$D%.124138@attbi_s51...
> > Tripacer is the most bang for your buck.
> > under valued and better performance than the 140 or the 172.
> > I don't understand why most people are afraid of fabric airplanes.
>
> Well, this person lives in a place where hangars cost $400+/month after
> you've waited 5 years to get into one.

only 5 years? I had to wait 9 years before getting one at KBED.
But cheer up, if Massport keeps raising the hangar rates then
the wait will get even shorter. :-(

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Rutger]

A Cherokee 140, but add the 160hp STC, and a PowerFlow exhaust, would
be enough power to safely carry 3 adults and 4 hours fuel. There are a
lot of decent 140's for sale right now so you could probably have one
equipped that way in the 35K ballpark. The 140's cabin is rather
comfortable for the front seat occupants too, but the rear seat is
cramped. The Cherokee is a very docile-handling, forgiving and easy to
fly plane too. You might even find a 180 in that price range, tho'
it's be lessor equipped, higher time engine ,or poorer paint/interior.

You left out the possibility of a 165 or 180hp Beech Musketeer.
That'll carry three adults, very roomy cabin, but slow. You can count
on nearly 5 knots slower than a comparable Cherokee, but they are
flying gas tanks with 60 gal capacity. The 165hp fuel injected
Continental is a bit of an orphaned engine, but still maintainable if
you find a knowledgeable A&P who has connections to obtain spare parts
from the dwindling resources available.

[psyshrike]

Elwood Dowd > wrote in message >...
> Forgot at least one: Beech Musketeer

Thanks!

I had forgot all about those. That actually looks like a really good
option. I prefer a low wing.

How is the maintenance on these aircraft?

-Thanks
-Matt

[Elwood Dowd]

The musketeer is a big, slow aircraft, but extremely large and comfy
inside. The gear are bulletproof. Many prefer the Lycoming 160hp
engine as fuel use is about the same as the 150hp but power is a little
better and parts availability is much improved. Airframe parts from
Raytheon are ridiculously expensive, but not all that different from
other manufacturers at this point.

I would venture to guess that the Musketeer is no more of a maintenance
burden than your average 172 or Cherokee. Maybe a bit slower, although
the C-model Sundowner is quite a bit faster, and the retract Sierra is
faster still.

Come over to the Beech Aero Club and do some research, several years of
the Musketeer mailing list are archived there:
<http://www.beechaeroclub.org>

psyshrike wrote:
> Elwood Dowd > wrote in message >...
>
>>Forgot at least one: Beech Musketeer
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> I had forgot all about those. That actually looks like a really good
> option. I prefer a low wing.
>
> How is the maintenance on these aircraft?
>
> -Thanks
> -Matt

[TripFarmer]

Check this group out. You'll learn a lot.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musketeermail/


Trip



In article >, says...
>
>Elwood Dowd > wrote in message news:<t4WdnS4tD_5A4xvcRVn-qg@adelphia
>.com>...
>> Forgot at least one: Beech Musketeer
>
>Thanks!
>
>I had forgot all about those. That actually looks like a really good
>option. I prefer a low wing.
>
>How is the maintenance on these aircraft?
>
>-Thanks
>-Matt

[PInc972390]

>I had forgot all about those. That actually looks like a really good

An Aero Commander 100 150 or 180 HP with a new 430 type panel can probably be
had for less than 35000.00

Compareable to 172 but can take off in about 500 feet.

[Darrel Toepfer]

PInc972390 wrote:

> An Aero Commander 100 150 or 180 HP with a new 430 type panel can probably be
> had for less than 35000.00
>
> Compareable to 172 but can take off in about 500 feet.

Aftermarket or original parts aren't as available though. Has a steel
tubing structure vs all aluminum for the Cessna, each can have its
issues when it comes to corrosion...

We shopped these pretty heavily, ended up with the 172 instead...

[OSKI 3]

Here is my 2 cents worth. Why not get
a 150 or 152 with a 150/160 HP engine.
Throw in a taildragger mod. and you are
somewhere near $35K. Now you have the
most bullet proof cessna made, parts are
still around, will outrun a 172, take off
in a litle over 400 ft, land in the same
distance, all metal, and burn about 7 plus
GPH. Unless you are hung up on 4 seats,
This is a fun Airplane. With Madras tips
instead of STOL kit, it is a pussy cat.
But I guess it lacks all the pinball wizard
things that everybody is lookin for now days. Good luck in your quest!!!!!!!!!!

Bill Oparowski

[Ron Natalie]

OSKI 3 wrote:
s
> instead of STOL kit, it is a pussy cat.
> But I guess it lacks all the pinball wizard
> things that everybody is lookin for now days. Good luck in your quest!!!!!!!!!!
>
You can soup up a VW Bug, but it's still a bug.
Actually, while I've never flown a taildragger conversion, I did fly on of the
HP-enhanced 150's.

[Darrel Toepfer]

OSKI 3 wrote:

> Here is my 2 cents worth. Why not get
> a 150 or 152 with a 150/160 HP engine.

Those are rare...

> Throw in a taildragger mod. and you are
> somewhere near $35K. Now you have the

Even more rare...

> most bullet proof cessna made, parts are
> still around, will outrun a 172, take off
> in a litle over 400 ft, land in the same
> distance, all metal, and burn about 7 plus
> GPH. Unless you are hung up on 4 seats,
> This is a fun Airplane. With Madras tips
> instead of STOL kit, it is a pussy cat.
> But I guess it lacks all the pinball wizard
> things that everybody is lookin for now days. Good luck in your quest!!!!!!!!!!

Problem is it'd still have the seating space of a 150/152. A more
commonly seen bird with more elbow room would be a Grumman Yankee AA1A
with the tailwheel and 150/160hp upgrade mods, and still fits in the
price range. I dunno the takeoff/landing requirements, but it will blow
the doors off of a 150/152 mod for cruising. Although I have seen a 150
on floats, but not a Yankee... 8-)

[Newps]

OSKI 3 wrote:
> Here is my 2 cents worth. Why not get
> a 150 or 152 with a 150/160 HP engine.
> Throw in a taildragger mod. and you are
> somewhere near $35K. Now you have the
> most bullet proof cessna made, parts are
> still around, will outrun a 172, take off
> in a litle over 400 ft, land in the same
> distance, all metal, and burn about 7 plus
> GPH.

And be totally useless because before you put any gas in the useful load
is less than 250 pounds. There was a magazine article on this 150/150
in the last couple of years. Nice idea but without a gross weight
increase it's useless.

[John Galban]

Newps > wrote in message >...
> OSKI 3 wrote:
> > Here is my 2 cents worth. Why not get
> > a 150 or 152 with a 150/160 HP engine.
> > Throw in a taildragger mod. and you are
> > somewhere near $35K. Now you have the
> > most bullet proof cessna made, parts are
> > still around, will outrun a 172, take off
> > in a litle over 400 ft, land in the same
> > distance, all metal, and burn about 7 plus
> > GPH.
>
> And be totally useless because before you put any gas in the useful load
> is less than 250 pounds. There was a magazine article on this 150/150
> in the last couple of years. Nice idea but without a gross weight
> increase it's useless.

I've flown one of these and the main drawback I saw was range. The
bigger engine burns 1/3 more fuel than the original, but the tanks are
the same size.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[G.R. Patterson III]

John Galban wrote:
>
> I've flown one of these and the main drawback I saw was range. The
> bigger engine burns 1/3 more fuel than the original, but the tanks are
> the same size.

I would still agree with newps. The bigger engine weighs more and subtracts from
the useful load, which isn't very much to start with.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[[email protected]]

John Galban > wrote:
: I've flown one of these and the main drawback I saw was range. The
: bigger engine burns 1/3 more fuel than the original, but the tanks are
: the same size.

I never have bought that argument. Just because a plane has a bigger engine
doesn't mean you need to *use* it. Aside from additional weight or ridiculous
extremes (e.g. running a huge engine at 20% power or the like), bolting a larger
engine onto the same airframe doesn't have to cost you range. In fact, I'd argue in
some situations it'll gain you range. Consider that a 150 with an O-235 lycoming
would have more range than one with an O-200 continental... Run it at 65% rather than
75% and the higher compression will get you farther on the same amount of fuel.
You'll also spend less time in extra-bad fuel economy regions like climbout if you
climb faster.

I've got more range on my 180 HP O-360 than on a 150 HP O-320... provided I
don't run it at the same *percent* power... rather the same *absolute* power. Now,
with a 150/150, it might be bordering on wretched excess, so the weight increase may
skew the results a little bit. Still... it's not going to have inherently less range
except for the added 25-50 lbs the engine weighs.

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[WARREN1157]

>Here is my 2 cents worth.

Should that not be 2¢ worth.

[Carl J. Hixon]

> Should that not be 2¢ worth.

I have always wonderd. What has happened to the "¢" sign? Nobody uses it
any more and my computer doesn't even have one on its keyboard.

Lets start a move ment to bring back the ¢ sign.

¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢
¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢

[Elwood Dowd]

> Lets start a move ment to bring back the ¢ sign.

I'm not sure that makes ¢.

[WARREN1157]

>I'm not sure that makes ¢.
>

We are going two make a go around, you had to much power in. We are number too
two land after a Cessna.

Two, too. to and ¢ are never used Wright.

[John Clonts]

"WARREN1157" > wrote in message ...
> >I'm not sure that makes ¢.
>>
>
> We are going two make a go around, you had to much power in. We are number too
> two land after a Cessna.
>
> Two, too. to and ¢ are never used Wright.

It's enough to make you loose your mind!