Poll: best bird under $35K?

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

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.

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

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 thlink.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 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.

"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

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

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.

"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.

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/