Poll: best bird under $35K?

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 the
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

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

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.

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...

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

(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

(psyshrike) wrote in message . com...


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)

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.