C-172 versus Sundowner

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

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)

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.

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

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

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.

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,

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)

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.

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