C-172 versus Sundowner

[[email protected]]

So I've been looking to buy a C-172 and came across this Sundowner.

I've heard all the "Slowdowner" stories and did a side-by-side
from the published specs:

Cruise speed and roc: Sundowner slightly better

Payload: Sundowner slightly better

Runway required: C-172 slightly better.

Fuel burn: C-172 better

Interior room: Sundowner better

Quirks: C-172 none, Sundowner appears to require a bit of dual to
learn how to land without porpoising.

Interior room: Sundowner better

Maintenance: C-172 a bit cheaper (according to my local wrench)

Price: Sundowner $20k - $30k cheaper than comperable TTAF/SMOH/equipped
C-172s, this buys a lot of fuel and maintenance.

I have no intention of ever going to anything other than a paved strip.

Comments?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Newps]

The only downside is it will be harder to sell.



wrote:
> So I've been looking to buy a C-172 and came across this Sundowner.
>
> I've heard all the "Slowdowner" stories and did a side-by-side
> from the published specs:
>
> Cruise speed and roc: Sundowner slightly better
>
> Payload: Sundowner slightly better
>
> Runway required: C-172 slightly better.
>
> Fuel burn: C-172 better
>
> Interior room: Sundowner better
>
> Quirks: C-172 none, Sundowner appears to require a bit of dual to
> learn how to land without porpoising.
>
> Interior room: Sundowner better
>
> Maintenance: C-172 a bit cheaper (according to my local wrench)
>
> Price: Sundowner $20k - $30k cheaper than comperable TTAF/SMOH/equipped
> C-172s, this buys a lot of fuel and maintenance.
>
> I have no intention of ever going to anything other than a paved strip.
>
> Comments?
>

[A Lieberman]

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:05:02 GMT, wrote:
Sundowner a good plane....

Insurance for me $850 a year.
Annual averages $1200 a year
Fuel burn is 10 GPH

> Cruise speed and roc: Sundowner slightly better

In the real world, plan on 110 knots. 105 knots if you go higher then
7000 feet.

> Fuel burn: C-172 better

I get 10 gph at 110 IAS.

> Interior room: Sundowner better

MUCH better, wider cabin for good creature comfort.

> Quirks: C-172 none, Sundowner appears to require a bit of dual to
> learn how to land without porpoising.

One hour dual for me. Big thing is airspeed. Keep it to the numbers and
you will just about grease every landing. Trailing link gear does wonders
for obsorbing those hard landings.

> Maintenance: C-172 a bit cheaper (according to my local wrench)

See above for annual. Can't really compare to a Cessna, but I heard and
felt myself Beech parts are pricey.

> Price: Sundowner $20k - $30k cheaper than comperable TTAF/SMOH/equipped
> C-172s, this buys a lot of fuel and maintenance.

Bought mine for 38K with high time engine. Got the engine overhauled after
a cylinder ate an exhaust valve and another cylinder started acting up.

> I have no intention of ever going to anything other than a paved strip.

Overall great bird for me. Plenty of back seat passenger room, plenty of
cargo room.

Hope this helps.

Allen

[[email protected]]

Newps > wrote:
> The only downside is it will be harder to sell.

Whatever I buy is going to carry me through retirement (which implies
it should be relatively cheap to keep) and won't be sold unless one
of the following happens:

A. I die, then I don't much care.

B. I lose my medical, in which case I'll be so drunk I won't care.

C. I win the lotto, in which case I go to my favorite CFI and ask him
which promising student I should sell it to for $10 and a cheeseburger.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob Fry]

I'm sure you've flown a C172, how about a Sundowner? If not, your
next step is to find one and get a 30 min flight (at least) just to
see how you like it. You'll be spending many hours in the machine and
your decision must include aesthetic values as well as performance and
financial.

My guess? You'll prefer the Sundowner. Find one and let us know.

[[email protected]]

Bob Fry > wrote:
> I'm sure you've flown a C172, how about a Sundowner? If not, your
> next step is to find one and get a 30 min flight (at least) just to
> see how you like it. You'll be spending many hours in the machine and
> your decision must include aesthetic values as well as performance and
> financial.

> My guess? You'll prefer the Sundowner. Find one and let us know.

Probably 99% of my time is in the C172.

I crossed the Warrior off my list because in just an hour my elbow
seemed to be always banging into the door and it became annoying as
hell, so I get your drift. Maybe I'm built weird.

I have a particular Sundowner in mind.

Unless someone posts something that causes me to reconcider, or
something too good to pass up comes up before then (fat chance),
next Friday I'm going to see about a test flight.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Newps]

I never thought I'd sell my 182 either. Now here I am with a Bonanza
lovin' life.




wrote:

> Newps > wrote:
>
>>The only downside is it will be harder to sell.
>
>
> Whatever I buy is going to carry me through retirement (which implies
> it should be relatively cheap to keep) and won't be sold unless one
> of the following happens:
>
> A. I die, then I don't much care.
>
> B. I lose my medical, in which case I'll be so drunk I won't care.
>
> C. I win the lotto, in which case I go to my favorite CFI and ask him
> which promising student I should sell it to for $10 and a cheeseburger.
>

[[email protected]]

Newps > wrote:
> I never thought I'd sell my 182 either. Now here I am with a Bonanza
> lovin' life.

> wrote:

> > Newps > wrote:
> >
> >>The only downside is it will be harder to sell.
> >
> >
> > Whatever I buy is going to carry me through retirement (which implies
> > it should be relatively cheap to keep) and won't be sold unless one
> > of the following happens:
> >
> > A. I die, then I don't much care.
> >
> > B. I lose my medical, in which case I'll be so drunk I won't care.
> >
> > C. I win the lotto, in which case I go to my favorite CFI and ask him
> > which promising student I should sell it to for $10 and a cheeseburger.

Assuming I don't win the lotto, if I buy anything else it will be
a "fun" airplane like an Ercoupe as something to fool around in when
the wife isn't around.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Montblack[_1_]]

wrote)
> Assuming I don't win the lotto, if I buy anything else it will be a "fun"
> airplane like an Ercoupe as something to fool around in when the wife
> isn't around.


I talked with a guy on Friday selling his "beautiful" Ercoupe D (1,400 lb).
85 hp.

It has the SB #32 FIX!

He rebuilt the the main spar section / center section. Took care of that!
It's already been signed off and approved, paperwork stamped by the FAA,
etc. He doesn't think he'll have to do this every 6 years, like the rest of
the fleet - though he's waiting for that to be written in stone. So far just
a lot of positive feedback to his work - but no definitve guarantee ...yet.

http://www.univairparts.com/svc.php
The following items are Service Letters, Bulletins, Memoranda and AD's that
concern the "Classic" vintage aircraft that Univair supports. The following
are only RECENTLY issued service related items.

http://www.univairparts.com/bulletin_add/serviceb_32.pdf
The dreaded Ercoupe SB #32.

His Ercoupe is not on the market, yet. But it is for sale. He lives on piece
of land with a small private strip next to his house.


Montblack

[.Blueskies.]

>
>> I have no intention of ever going to anything other than a paved strip.
>
> Overall great bird for me. Plenty of back seat passenger room, plenty of
> cargo room.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Allen

What is the useful load, range with 4 folks on board, etc?

[A Lieberman]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 12:03:43 GMT, .Blueskies. wrote:

>>
>>> I have no intention of ever going to anything other than a paved strip.
>>
>> Overall great bird for me. Plenty of back seat passenger room, plenty of
>> cargo room.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Allen
>
> What is the useful load, range with 4 folks on board, etc?

After full tanks (58 gallons) I count on 600 pounds for live meat (AKA
passengers) and baggage.

I have had two adults in the front and two lighter weight adults in the
back with full tanks. Performance was just fine.

Most of my flying have been with three people on board.

As far as range, well, my longest flight by myself was 4.25 hours on one
leg of a 700 nm journey, and that was pushing myself to the limits.
Airplane still had about 15 gallons of fuel on landing.

Can't say what the useful range with 4 on board as the longest I have flown
with 4 people on board was 1 1/2 hours.

Allen

[Thomas Borchert]

> I crossed the Warrior off my list because in just an hour my elbow
> seemed to be always banging into the door
>

You sat on the right side?

Definitely try the Sundowner. Everybody can own a 172...

You might want to get the used airplne report from Aviation Consumer on
both types. Pay and download at aviationconsumer.com

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> > I crossed the Warrior off my list because in just an hour my elbow
> > seemed to be always banging into the door
> >

> You sat on the right side?

Nope, left.

Got a check out from an FBO just to see how I liked the airplane.

In a 172, my elbow sits comfortably on the arm rest with a couple of
fingers on the yoke in cruise.

> Definitely try the Sundowner. Everybody can own a 172...

> You might want to get the used airplne report from Aviation Consumer on
> both types. Pay and download at aviationconsumer.com

When I decided I'm going to buy an airplane, I bought their CD; well
worth the money in my opinion.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[A Lieberman]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:05:03 GMT, wrote:

> When I decided I'm going to buy an airplane, I bought their CD; well
> worth the money in my opinion.

Where are you based Jim?

If you are within a 1 to 2 hour flight from KMBO, I'd be more then willing
to fly up so you can see how my Sundowner performs.

Allen

[Mike Spera]

wrote:

> So I've been looking to buy a C-172 and came across this Sundowner.
>
>
> Comments?
>

Flew with locals who own both and watched their trials and tribulations
with each type. The Sundowner is quite well built and had great interior
room. It also has a low glareshield that affords a wonderful view out
the front window. Both planes are pretty docile to fly.

My observation is that you may find it difficult to locate a well
maintained Sundowner with good cosmetics. Not sure why but almost every
one I have seen is quite beat up.

Most parts that you will need during normal service are consumables
and/or are from Lycoming. Yes, Beech parts are even more outrageous than
the other makes. That drives you to the boneyards.

That is where the Skyhawk shines. With so many of them, there are plenty
of wrecks and used parts are usually not hard to locate. The Sundowner
fleet was much smaller and you may have to do more searching for
airframe parts.

The Sundowner doors and vents seal well, some Skyhawks can have problems.

That is my limited observation set. Others with more experience can
chime in, but I always hold suspect an opinion from someone who owns
one. Few will admit their bird has any deficiencies.

Good Luck,
Mike

[[email protected]]

A Lieberman > wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:05:03 GMT, wrote:

> > When I decided I'm going to buy an airplane, I bought their CD; well
> > worth the money in my opinion.

> Where are you based Jim?

> If you are within a 1 to 2 hour flight from KMBO, I'd be more then willing
> to fly up so you can see how my Sundowner performs.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm about 40 miles East of Los Angeles.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> So I've been looking to buy a C-172 and came across this Sundowner.
>
> I've heard all the "Slowdowner" stories and did a side-by-side
> from the published specs:
>
> Cruise speed and roc: Sundowner slightly better
>
> Payload: Sundowner slightly better
>
> Runway required: C-172 slightly better.
>
> Fuel burn: C-172 better
>
> Interior room: Sundowner better
>
> Quirks: C-172 none, Sundowner appears to require a bit of dual to
> learn how to land without porpoising.
>
> Interior room: Sundowner better
>
> Maintenance: C-172 a bit cheaper (according to my local wrench)
>
> Price: Sundowner $20k - $30k cheaper than comperable TTAF/SMOH/equipped
> C-172s, this buys a lot of fuel and maintenance.
>
> I have no intention of ever going to anything other than a paved strip.
>
> Comments?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>

I looked at Sundowners alot 9 years ago when I was deciding. I called
to make an offer on one I had seen, only to find it had sold. Like you,
I saw that the Shyhawk cost alot more, and didn't have the room or load
carrying ability. So I am an unbiased as to which one to buy. A closer
look showed me more options. I found 1969 Cardinal with bad paint and
interior but a good corrosion free airframe and a well overhauled 600
hr engine that has performed flawlessly for another 800. It has as much
or more room than the Sundowner, has great visibility as you can lean
slightly forward and see in front of the wing so you can see up or down
in the pattern (few planes have this), and a low cost fixed pitch prop
and the same 180 HP Lyc that the Sundowner has (great engine, maybe the
best). The useful load is over 1000 lbs. With 48 usuable gallons on
board, it will haul over 725 lbs, and that is with a heavy starter and
an old 16 lb radio that I never use still in the weight list. It
performs well at that weight as I have done so on several occasions.
When I bought mine, Cardinals had not had the price upswing that
they have enjoyed over the last 9 years, so a good early model like
mine (only 200 were made) are hard to find sometimes, and the price may
be more than the Sundowner for a comparable plane. The Cardinal is
faster and looks cool too! But the Sundowner is a good choice.
I have had a good experience with my plane. Get involved in the
maintainence of yours, and so will you.

Regards,

[Thomas Borchert]

> In a 172, my elbow sits comfortably on the arm rest with a couple of
> fingers on the yoke in cruise.
>

What I was getting at was that there is no door on the left side of the
Warrior. A serious design flaw, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> > In a 172, my elbow sits comfortably on the arm rest with a couple of
> > fingers on the yoke in cruise.
> >

> What I was getting at was that there is no door on the left side of the
> Warrior. A serious design flaw, IMHO.

> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dooh; a senior moment.

I'm too used to 2 door airplanes.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[BTIZ]

> Quirks: C-172 none, Sundowner appears to require a bit of dual to
> learn how to land without porpoising.
>

BS !!!

If one is taught to land correctly in any aircraft... one can land a Beech
Sport/Sundowner/Sierra.

The problem lies in that many Piper and Cessna trained pilots are not taught
proper speed control on final and always come in to fast.

The Beech Sport/Sundowner/Sierra will float down the runway if to fast on
final, then the pilot gets nervous seeing the end of the runway approaching
and forces the aircraft down onto the nose wheel. Rubber donuts in that
suspension and it bounces right back into the air.. PIO and maybe a broken
nose gear.

That old, Book Speed plus 5Knts for mom and each of the kids does not work
with the Sport/Sundowner/Sierra.

BT

[BTIZ]

there is no door on the left side of a warrior
BT

> wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>> > I crossed the Warrior off my list because in just an hour my elbow
>> > seemed to be always banging into the door
>> >
>
>> You sat on the right side?
>
> Nope, left.
>
> Got a check out from an FBO just to see how I liked the airplane.
>
> In a 172, my elbow sits comfortably on the arm rest with a couple of
> fingers on the yoke in cruise.
>
>> Definitely try the Sundowner. Everybody can own a 172...
>
>> You might want to get the used airplne report from Aviation Consumer on
>> both types. Pay and download at aviationconsumer.com
>
> When I decided I'm going to buy an airplane, I bought their CD; well
> worth the money in my opinion.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-07-08, > wrote:
> Quirks: C-172 none, Sundowner appears to require a bit of dual to
> learn how to land without porpoising.

Whoever's spouting that is talking rubbish (or can't control their
airspeed). The Sundowner will NEVER porpoise if you touch down main
wheels first. It's one of the easiest planes to land out there.

I converted to the Beech Super Musketeer (200hp) as an early solo
student pilot with only 30 hours. The checkout only lasted an hour, and
half of that was airwork.

The Musketeer/Sundowner is an excellent plane. Fly it properly (i.e.
don't come in fast) and it virtually lands itself. I never had a bad
landing in a Musketeer.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Otis Winslow]

wrote:
> So I've been looking to buy a C-172 and came across this Sundowner.
>
> I've heard all the "Slowdowner" stories and did a side-by-side
> from the published specs:
>
> Cruise speed and roc: Sundowner slightly better
>
> Payload: Sundowner slightly better
>
> Runway required: C-172 slightly better.
>
> Fuel burn: C-172 better
>
> Interior room: Sundowner better
>
> Quirks: C-172 none, Sundowner appears to require a bit of dual to
> learn how to land without porpoising.
>
> Interior room: Sundowner better
>
> Maintenance: C-172 a bit cheaper (according to my local wrench)
>
> Price: Sundowner $20k - $30k cheaper than comperable TTAF/SMOH/equipped
> C-172s, this buys a lot of fuel and maintenance.
>
> I have no intention of ever going to anything other than a paved strip.
>
> Comments?
>

I used to have a Sundowner and my only complaint was it was a little
slow. It flew nice, had plenty of room inside, was solid, and wasn't
hard to land. I didn't notice that the maintenance was any more than
any other plane. Go for it.

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2006-07-08, > wrote:
> > Quirks: C-172 none, Sundowner appears to require a bit of dual to
> > learn how to land without porpoising.

> Whoever's spouting that is talking rubbish (or can't control their
> airspeed). The Sundowner will NEVER porpoise if you touch down main
> wheels first. It's one of the easiest planes to land out there.

> I converted to the Beech Super Musketeer (200hp) as an early solo
> student pilot with only 30 hours. The checkout only lasted an hour, and
> half of that was airwork.

> The Musketeer/Sundowner is an excellent plane. Fly it properly (i.e.
> don't come in fast) and it virtually lands itself. I never had a bad
> landing in a Musketeer.

> --
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

It is Aviation Consumer that is "spouting that".

From Aviation Consumer on the Musketeer/Sport/Sundowner series:

These airplanes have developed a reputation for providing some ego-crushing
landings for even experienced pilots. Student pilots who were unfortunate
enough to endure training in the Sport all too often wound up with more than
their egos crushed.

The reason for all this sturm and prang is the airplane's bad habit of
porpoising and crow-hopping on landing, a trait it shares with Mooneys but
not with other trainer types in this class.

Some experienced Sport pilots can regale hangar-flying crowds with tales
of epic wrestling matches as they worked throttle and yoke desperately
trying to stop the porpoise before A) the nose gear collapsed; B) the
aircraft groundlooped; C) the runway ended; or D) all of the above.

At least part of the reason for this touchdown behavior is the landing
gear design. Beech chose a trailing-beam configuration for the aircraft.
Normally, this type of landing gear is quite forgiving of botched landings.

But Beech went for stiff rubber shock mounts instead of oleos, converting
what would have been wonderful cushioning into terrible springs, ready to
help the aircraft rebound into the air at the drop of a wheel. With it's
stiff rubber donuts, the Mooney gear has the same shortcoming with the
same results for hapless pilots.

Gentle, mains-first touchdowns are the rule to prevent a crow-hopping
excursion across the field. All this is not to imply that good landings
are impossible in the Musketeers. Precise speed control is the key. If
you're the type who likes to tack on a few knots for the insurance company
and another couple for the wife and kids, buy a Cherokee or some similar,
more forgiving design.

The Sport and Sundowner demand precision handling down final and into the
flare. If your landing technique is off, these aircraft will show you
exactly where you're going wrong by magnifying the results out of all
proportion to anything you've seen before. Great training, if it doesn't
scare you to death.

Also:

At least the aircraft are consistent in this regard. Consider that an
NTSB study reaching back to the early 1970s identified the Sundowner
as the worst aircraft in its class for hard landings. We're talking
about a rate of hard landings that was five times worse than the Cessna
Skyhawk or the Piper Cherokee.

Indeed, every time we've looked at the safety records of the Sport and
Sundowner, the story has been the same-lots of hard landings and lots
of overshot landings. And even today we find the pattern intact. One
interesting finding of our studies through the years has been the low
rate of groundloop accidents.


From the above it would seem to me to be prudent for the average GA pilot
to get a bit of dual.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Montblack[_1_]]

wrote)
> The reason for all this sturm and prang is the airplane's bad habit of
> porpoising and crow-hopping on landing...


"sturm and prang" ...Funny, once I looked it up! :-)

http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=1266

http://www.bartleby.com/62/94/S1469400.html


Montblack

[Thomas Borchert]

Montblack,

> "sturm and prang" ...Funny, once I looked it up! :-)
>

Yep. An easier catch for a German ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-07-12, > wrote:
> It is Aviation Consumer that is "spouting that".

Yep, spouting alright!

> These airplanes have developed a reputation for providing some ego-crushing
> landings for even experienced pilots. Student pilots who were unfortunate
> enough to endure training in the Sport all too often wound up with more than
> their egos crushed.

I did a good portion of my training in a Musketeer. I'm hardly Super
Pilot, but I *never* had a crow-hop, wheel barrow or porpoise in the
plane. I found it vastly easier to get a greaser of a landing in the
Musketeer than I did in the Cessna 172 that I started in.

Perhaps my instructor just taught me right from the start, but I never
had a problem as a low-time pilot in the aircraft. But then again, I
never did acquire the bad habit of tacking on 5 knots to the approach
speed for Grandma. The book final approach speed for a GA plane is for
maximum gross weight and has plenty of margin for error - anyone who
tacks on five knots to the book speed - especially when solo - is an
accident looking for an airport.

I had one or two firm landings in the plane too, but since they were all
main wheels first, they never resulted in any crow hopping (and from
experience, you've got to drop it in to make a landing feel firm).

As a low time pilot, whenever I took passengers I tried to take the
club's Musketeer, because it made me look good because the landings were
almost universally greasers!

> At least the aircraft are consistent in this regard. Consider that an
> NTSB study reaching back to the early 1970s identified the Sundowner
> as the worst aircraft in its class for hard landings. We're talking
> about a rate of hard landings that was five times worse than the Cessna
> Skyhawk or the Piper Cherokee.

That sounds like instructors to blame for not teaching proper airspeed
on final which is very basic airmanship. It's not the fault of the plane
which when flown with proper BASIC skills (a skill I managed to master
as a low time student pilot, and as I said, I'm not Super Pilot by any
means) is very easy to land.

> From the above it would seem to me to be prudent for the average GA pilot
> to get a bit of dual.

It's prudent to get a checkout in any plane. However, if it needs more
than an hour of dual to get checked out in a Musketeer, it's due to a
general problem with the pilot's skill level: either they haven't been
taught how to control airspeed by their instructor, or they've developed
terrible habits such as tacking on extra speed - which contrary to their
belief makes their approach and landing more dangerous regardless of the
aircraft type.

The question you should ask yourself if you're buying a Musketeer is
this. What's my approach speed on short final in the plane I'm currently
flying? Does it exceed the book speed? If the answer to that question is
"yes" well, then you need some remedial work regardless of the plane
you're flying. The Musketeer isn't tolerant of being flown too fast on
approach. However, when flown within the parameters (which, as I bear
witness to is perfectly possible as a low time student), the plane is
extremely easy to land and will make you look really good in front of
your passengers (who tend to grade your entire skill as a pilot on the
quality of your touchdown!)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Don Poitras]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2006-07-12, > wrote:
> > It is Aviation Consumer that is "spouting that".

> Yep, spouting alright!

> > These airplanes have developed a reputation for providing some ego-crushing
> > landings for even experienced pilots. Student pilots who were unfortunate
> > enough to endure training in the Sport all too often wound up with more than
> > their egos crushed.

> I did a good portion of my training in a Musketeer. I'm hardly Super
> Pilot, but I *never* had a crow-hop, wheel barrow or porpoise in the
> plane. I found it vastly easier to get a greaser of a landing in the
> Musketeer than I did in the Cessna 172 that I started in.

Maybe I'm even further from Super Pilot, but I've done it. It's darn scary
too. I added to the mistake by not trying to go around. I took about 3
nasty hops was pretty sure the 4th was going to result in a prop strike but
luckily it had slowed enough to just settle hard on all the wheels. I had
been flying the same plane for several years and never had anything like
that happen before. I'm not sure the cause was I was coming in too fast.
It could be I flared too soon and the nose wheel dropped. I say this not to
scare you out of buying a Sundowner, but just to make the point that sometimes
a reputation is just that; a series of problems that have been "reputed".
Having owned my Musketeer for a few years now, I prefer landing it to the
occasional 172 I rent. Probably more due to the fact that I'm accustomed to
the visual cues than anything else. I rarely land with full flaps though,
I'm much more likely to grease a landing with no flaps or half flaps.

--
Don Poitras

[xyzzy]

Don Poitras wrote:
> Dylan Smith > wrote:
> > On 2006-07-12, > wrote:
> > > It is Aviation Consumer that is "spouting that".
>
> > Yep, spouting alright!
>
> > > These airplanes have developed a reputation for providing some ego-crushing
> > > landings for even experienced pilots. Student pilots who were unfortunate
> > > enough to endure training in the Sport all too often wound up with more than
> > > their egos crushed.
>
> > I did a good portion of my training in a Musketeer. I'm hardly Super
> > Pilot, but I *never* had a crow-hop, wheel barrow or porpoise in the
> > plane. I found it vastly easier to get a greaser of a landing in the
> > Musketeer than I did in the Cessna 172 that I started in.
>
> Maybe I'm even further from Super Pilot, but I've done it. It's darn scary
> too. I added to the mistake by not trying to go around. I took about 3
> nasty hops was pretty sure the 4th was going to result in a prop strike but
> luckily it had slowed enough to just settle hard on all the wheels. I had
> been flying the same plane for several years and never had anything like
> that happen before. I'm not sure the cause was I was coming in too fast.
> It could be I flared too soon and the nose wheel dropped. I say this not to
> scare you out of buying a Sundowner, but just to make the point that sometimes
> a reputation is just that; a series of problems that have been "reputed".
> Having owned my Musketeer for a few years now, I prefer landing it to the
> occasional 172 I rent. Probably more due to the fact that I'm accustomed to
> the visual cues than anything else. I rarely land with full flaps though,
> I'm much more likely to grease a landing with no flaps or half flaps.
>

My club recently had a PIO in a C172 on a calm day.

When the chief instructor sent the "teachable moment" note out to all
the members, he noted that the club has experienced PIO with every type
that's ever been in the fleet, which includes 152, Warrior, Mooney,
172, and who knows what else from the days before I was a member. It
isn't just a Sundowner problem, but that also doesn't mean they aren't
more prone to it. The same mistake you can get away with in a Cherokee
may bite you in a Sundowner (or a 172 for that matter)

[Mike Noel]

It isn't just hanging onto some extra airspeed on short final that can cause
extra airspeed and a bounce as you touch down. It's not unusual to get hit
by wind gusts at touchdown that can set up the conditions for a bounce.
It's those kinds of unanticipated situations that can get a tired or
distracted but experienced pilot into trouble quickly.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

"Don Poitras" > wrote in message
...
> Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> On 2006-07-12, >
>> wrote:
>> > It is Aviation Consumer that is "spouting that".
>
>> Yep, spouting alright!
>
>> > These airplanes have developed a reputation for providing some
>> > ego-crushing
>> > landings for even experienced pilots. Student pilots who were
>> > unfortunate
>> > enough to endure training in the Sport all too often wound up with more
>> > than
>> > their egos crushed.
>
>> I did a good portion of my training in a Musketeer. I'm hardly Super
>> Pilot, but I *never* had a crow-hop, wheel barrow or porpoise in the
>> plane. I found it vastly easier to get a greaser of a landing in the
>> Musketeer than I did in the Cessna 172 that I started in.
>
> Maybe I'm even further from Super Pilot, but I've done it. It's darn scary
> too. I added to the mistake by not trying to go around. I took about 3
> nasty hops was pretty sure the 4th was going to result in a prop strike
> but
> luckily it had slowed enough to just settle hard on all the wheels. I had
> been flying the same plane for several years and never had anything like
> that happen before. I'm not sure the cause was I was coming in too fast.
> It could be I flared too soon and the nose wheel dropped. I say this not
> to
> scare you out of buying a Sundowner, but just to make the point that
> sometimes
> a reputation is just that; a series of problems that have been "reputed".
> Having owned my Musketeer for a few years now, I prefer landing it to the
> occasional 172 I rent. Probably more due to the fact that I'm accustomed
> to
> the visual cues than anything else. I rarely land with full flaps though,
> I'm much more likely to grease a landing with no flaps or half flaps.
>
> --
> Don Poitras

[[email protected]]

I used to belong to a club that had a C172 and now I own a pristine '75
Sundowner. For me the Sundowner wins hands down. Plain and simple - I
think you get more for your money. My Sundowner is more stable in
turbulence and handles crosswind landings easier. I average about 115
knots and 10 gph.

I also much prefer the cabin and instrument panel layout, and it is way
more comfortable on long trips - my wife and I have gone from the
northeast to Utah and Georgia a few times.

My 2 cents.. hope it helps.


wrote:
> So I've been looking to buy a C-172 and came across this Sundowner.
>
> I've heard all the "Slowdowner" stories and did a side-by-side
> from the published specs:
>
> Cruise speed and roc: Sundowner slightly better
>
> Payload: Sundowner slightly better
>
> Runway required: C-172 slightly better.
>
> Fuel burn: C-172 better
>
> Interior room: Sundowner better
>
> Quirks: C-172 none, Sundowner appears to require a bit of dual to
> learn how to land without porpoising.
>
> Interior room: Sundowner better
>
> Maintenance: C-172 a bit cheaper (according to my local wrench)
>
> Price: Sundowner $20k - $30k cheaper than comperable TTAF/SMOH/equipped
> C-172s, this buys a lot of fuel and maintenance.
>
> I have no intention of ever going to anything other than a paved strip.
>
> Comments?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.