Franklyn vs Continental vs Lycoming: which is better?

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

"Malcolm Teas" wrote in message
om...
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

It sounds like you are looking for something fairly cheap. As always, it's
best to avoid the oddball stuff, because if you do have a problem it's going
to cost lots of $$$.

Franklins, although well built, are a pain to get parts for. Same for the
discontinued Continentals and Lycomings. Usually you can get the parts,
just be prepared to be down for a long time waiting and them having a very
high cost. Kinda defeats the purpose of owning.

Maintenance on the older birds depends on how well they were built and how
well they were kept. The Stinsons are solid old planes, same with the
Cessnas. Fabric covered planes will need to be recovered occasionally,
though not as often as they used to be. The Bellanca has wood wings IIRC
and there are only a couple of shops that can rebuild them. Most get scrapp
ed if a wing rots due to the cost of the rebuild.

Beech parts are more expensive than Piper or Cessna, but the Musketeer line
is built like a tank. The price of parts isn't really an issue if you
seldom need any. Maintenance cost is actually lower than a 172 or Cherokee.

I'd say the best values out of what you listed are the Musketeer and the
Tri-Pacer.

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

Just out of curiosity, what are your requirements that you used to narrow down
to these planes? They seem to range the gamut of a couple conflicting requirements
(almost all of them decidedly NOT cheap). Bang for the buck is tough to beat a
Cherokee 140 or 180 if a 172 is adequate.

That said, costs will be huge with a goofy engine. A Cessna 175 seems like a
very undervalued airplane (between a 172 and 182 in size and performance for the same
or less than a 172). The trouble with it was it's oddball GO-300 175 HP engine. Once
they've been converted to a "normal" engine (e.g. O-360 Lyc), they're worth a lot
more.

I'd tend to say that for an older plane like that, the most parts will be had
for cheap on the highest quantity. In particular, the Lycoming O-360 and O-320s.
Continental kept tweaking their engines with minor changes, which means that many
parts are slightly incompatible. The Lycontosaurus didn't go much for incremental
improvements and the parts seem more standardized.

YMMV
-Cory

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

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

Here we go ... Franklins are smooth running engines that often have
cylinders that don't make it to TBO. Parts are hard to find. No problem
getting parts for most Continental O-300, O-470 variants. No problem
getting parts for Lycoming O-320, O-360, IO-360. All bets are *off* for
any other engines you mentioned.

I think you need to decide if you want a taildragger or tricycle gear.
Insurance will be lower for tricycle.

You also need to decide if you want a ragwing or an all-metal bird. You
really need to hanger a ragwing if at all possible. I believe the Ballance
has a wooden wing spar that is subject to rot if not hangered.

That C-180 is a heckuva plane if you want a taildragger. Pretty pricy,
too.

The C-172, C-177, and Musketeers are the only "modern" planes of the
group. I would personally avoid a C-177 unless it had the 180 hp engine.

The most plane for the least money will probably be the Tripacer. The most
overpriced will be the C-172.

The most creature comfort will be in the Musketeer with the C-177 runner
up.

Stinsons are awfully old. Some of the Bellancas are too. I would be
concerned about the parts situation, although I hear Stinson is supported
fairly well by Univair.

C-170 and C180 seem to be real popular with folks who need to operate from
short/rough fields and those that like to spout about how one isn't a
"real" pilot unless the wheel under the tail.

I don't know anything about Maules one way or the other.

People that tell you Musketeers cost more for parts are full of it. Yeah,
individual parts can be pricy if you have to order new from Beech. But ...
the darn things are so well built, you don't need parts very often. And
that's a fact.

Best regards,

Steve Robertson
N4732J 1967 Beechcraft Musketeer Super III (200hp Lyc. IO-360)



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

Comments and info much appreciated!

Thanks,
-Malcolm Teas

Malcolm,

Congratulations on your future purchase! I can see that you are considering
some antique/classic beauties. Do not let comments about these aircraft
being "old" bother you. I have found the usenet groups to be rather ignorant
about our type of aircraft.

First, join the list group and club/association for the airplane or
airplanes that are speaking to your heart. I won't mention your pocket book
as newly restored or well-maintained versions of any of these aircraft are
going to cost ya. These groups will be composed of owners who can give you
accurate information. Even if you decide on a C-172 or C-177, membership in
the CPA is invaluable. You'll get real information, not wives' tales.

I wouldn't be too worried about the engine you choose. Parts can be found.
However, what's more rare are knowledgeable mechanics who can work on them.
That's where the list groups come in handy. They have lists of CFIs for
checkouts and mechanics who know these airplanes. I hate to hear mechanics
spout off about ADs for some of these aircraft when they have no first hand
knowledge!

Most of the aircraft you listed will have a yearly fly-in. Attend them.
There's nothing like examining 50 Stinsons to get an idea of what's nice and
what's not so nice. Talk to the owners face to face. This is good
information to have, especially about ADs or particular problems. I know the
Short Wing Piper Club has many gatherings. Perhaps you can make Oshkosh this
year?

As to tailwheel time (if needed) and insurance, again the usenet groups
typically preach gloom and doom. Unfortunately, most of the information
passed is incorrect or not based on actual experience. If you are not a
member of EAA, then join. At the same time, sign up for the Vintage Aircraft
Association. To save money (two of everything for us), we opt not to get the
Sport Aviation magazine and receive the Vintage magazine instead. Why do
this? Now you will be qualified for insurance through AUA. They have the
lowest rates in the business for insuring these type of aircraft (tailwheel
and/or vintage). You get a 5% discount after a year or so, too. Most
Luscombe pilots, new and not so new, use this company. We insure both of our
Luscombes with full coverage for about the same price it cost of our C-172.

I have flown or have flown in nearly all the airplanes you mentioned except
for the C-177. All are nice. I love a Stinson. I think I would pick a
Tri-Pacer over the C-172. If I had to fly a low wing, the Cruisair is very
stylish. The C-180 is more airplane than I need, but I sure would look good
sitting in it. I'd need some big cushions, though ;-).

Have fun in narrowing your choice!

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 C-195B Restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

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"

I would get either the Cessna 180 or a 172. Tailwheel is the issue
here. Also the 180 is more airplane and more expensive to run. As for
engines, I think the Lycoming 320's and 360's are the most trouble
free. The 470 in the 180 is ok, but the rebuild costs are more. Also
more trouble with needing new cylinders. But the 180 is a great
aiplane.

(Malcolm Teas) wrote in message . com...
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

Malcolm Teas wrote:

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.

Based on the info you gave me privately about your budget, I think you can scratch
the Cessna 180. I would be reluctant to fly in any 180 that you can afford. Decent
ones start at about $80 grand. It's a great plane, though; wish I had one.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

In article ,
(Doug) wrote:

I would get either the Cessna 180 or a 172. Tailwheel is the issue
here. Also the 180 is more airplane and more expensive to run. As for
engines, I think the Lycoming 320's and 360's are the most trouble
free. The 470 in the 180 is ok, but the rebuild costs are more. Also
more trouble with needing new cylinders. But the 180 is a great
aiplane.

(Malcolm Teas) wrote in message
. com...
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

I have been flying behind the O-435, on a Johnson Rocket, for the past
32 years. The O-435 is very easy starting and otherwise practically
bulletproof, but it IS a heavy engine -- as much as an O-540! It burns
11-13 GPH and has a tendency to develop cracks in the cylinder heads.

Parts are relatively cheap -- my last O/H cost about $7500, but I have
to replace one cylinder, due to a head crack. Over the years I have
accumulates a stash of engine parts, so it isn't as bas as it sounds. I
already have a cylinder shop cleaning up a replacement jug.