Franklyn vs Continental vs Lycoming: which is better?

On 9 Jun 2004 06:29:40 -0700, (Malcolm Teas) wrote:

Gee, how's that for an incendiary topic? grin

In my ongoing quest for a plane, I've narrowed down the types I'm
looking at. Currently it's down to Stinson, Pacer/Tripacer, Cessna
170, 172, 177, and 180, Maule M4, Musketteer, and Bellanca Cruiseair.
Naturally I need to reduce this list a bit more! Availability will do
that some, but I'm looking at engines right now.

A number of them like the Stinson, Bellanca, etc have Franklin
engines. Others engine types are Cont C-145, Cont O-300, Cont O-470,
Lyc O-290, Lyc O-360, and Lyc O-435. Yup, some are old types, that's
my concern.

Have you had or heard of experiences maintaining some of these older
engine types? I've heard, for example, that the Franklins are hard to
find parts for and that this raises overhaul costs. Also, I'd
appreciate comments on the other engines as well. I've also been told
that Beech parts are priced with respect to the original sale cost so
that maintenance the Musketteer is more expensive.

Comments and info much appreciated!

Thanks,
-Malcolm Teas


My 2 cents (as short as possible):

Cessna 180 is the best in the bunch (hauls the most best performance,
etc) The O-470 is a Very good engine, and has the lore of having a
"bullet proof" lower end. I've known people to do a top at TBO and
get another 1000 hours out of it.

Ditch the 177 from the list. Heard not so great things about it from
people I know who've flown and/or owned them; and there was a thread
backing this up just a couple days ago. I'd also say the same for the
Musketeer. Haven't heard many good things about it, but don't have
any first hand experience.

I almost bought a Bellanca. My A&P/mentor steered me away from it
because of all the wood inside. He said its sometimes hard to spot a
problem early (may just be his experience). If you get a good one it
won't be a problem, but... I went for a metal airplane.

170/172 - nosewheel vs. tailwheel both have O-300 your choice.
Stinson has a better useful load (assuming you're looking at the
108-3, or Stationair) and a little more room in it. 108-3 has fabric
wings so there's something else to look at.


This isn't turning out to be a short response. Too many options.

I think you need to refine what you are looking for in an airplane
some more. You've go a wide range of aircraft listed which are all
useful for different types of flying.

Figure out your budget and let that narrow your choices naturally.
Then you can zero in on what you should buy.

HTH.

z

In article , zatatime wrote:
Ditch the 177 from the list. Heard not so great things about it from
people I know who've flown and/or owned them; and there was a thread
backing this up just a couple days ago. I'd also say the same for the
Musketeer. Haven't heard many good things about it, but don't have
any first hand experience.

Well let me be the first to disagree. With the exception of the very
early C177 which is a bit underpowered (IIRC, only 150 hp engine), the
Cardinal is a fine aircraft which is also very good looking. You get
good visibility up and down as you sit a bit ahead of the wing. Easy to
get into and out of. Fast for the horsepower.

Not all Musketeers are equal, either. There is the IO-346 powered model
which has an orphaned engine, but the 200hp Super Musketeer is another
great plane, and I've flown one a fair bit. It's solid, flies well,
rides turbulence well and it's easy to make consistent soft landings to
impress your passengers. The only real problem is that they aren't
really very fast, but that's the tradeoff for having a relatively large
cabin. The Mouse (at least the Super III) has 60 gallon tanks so decent
range too, as well as a good useful load.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"