C-172 versus Sundowner

there is no door on the left side of a warrior
BT

wrote in message
...
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 2006-07-08, wrote:
Quirks: C-172 none, Sundowner appears to require a bit of dual to
learn how to land without porpoising.

Whoever's spouting that is talking rubbish (or can't control their
airspeed). The Sundowner will NEVER porpoise if you touch down main
wheels first. It's one of the easiest planes to land out there.

I converted to the Beech Super Musketeer (200hp) as an early solo
student pilot with only 30 hours. The checkout only lasted an hour, and
half of that was airwork.

The Musketeer/Sundowner is an excellent plane. Fly it properly (i.e.
don't come in fast) and it virtually lands itself. I never had a bad
landing in a Musketeer.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

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?


I used to have a Sundowner and my only complaint was it was a little
slow. It flew nice, had plenty of room inside, was solid, and wasn't
hard to land. I didn't notice that the maintenance was any more than
any other plane. Go for it.

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-07-08, wrote:
Quirks: C-172 none, Sundowner appears to require a bit of dual to
learn how to land without porpoising.

Whoever's spouting that is talking rubbish (or can't control their
airspeed). The Sundowner will NEVER porpoise if you touch down main
wheels first. It's one of the easiest planes to land out there.

I converted to the Beech Super Musketeer (200hp) as an early solo
student pilot with only 30 hours. The checkout only lasted an hour, and
half of that was airwork.

The Musketeer/Sundowner is an excellent plane. Fly it properly (i.e.
don't come in fast) and it virtually lands itself. I never had a bad
landing in a Musketeer.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

It is Aviation Consumer that is "spouting that".

From Aviation Consumer on the Musketeer/Sport/Sundowner series:

These airplanes have developed a reputation for providing some ego-crushing
landings for even experienced pilots. Student pilots who were unfortunate
enough to endure training in the Sport all too often wound up with more than
their egos crushed.

The reason for all this sturm and prang is the airplane's bad habit of
porpoising and crow-hopping on landing, a trait it shares with Mooneys but
not with other trainer types in this class.

Some experienced Sport pilots can regale hangar-flying crowds with tales
of epic wrestling matches as they worked throttle and yoke desperately
trying to stop the porpoise before A) the nose gear collapsed; B) the
aircraft groundlooped; C) the runway ended; or D) all of the above.

At least part of the reason for this touchdown behavior is the landing
gear design. Beech chose a trailing-beam configuration for the aircraft.
Normally, this type of landing gear is quite forgiving of botched landings.

But Beech went for stiff rubber shock mounts instead of oleos, converting
what would have been wonderful cushioning into terrible springs, ready to
help the aircraft rebound into the air at the drop of a wheel. With it's
stiff rubber donuts, the Mooney gear has the same shortcoming with the
same results for hapless pilots.

Gentle, mains-first touchdowns are the rule to prevent a crow-hopping
excursion across the field. All this is not to imply that good landings
are impossible in the Musketeers. Precise speed control is the key. If
you're the type who likes to tack on a few knots for the insurance company
and another couple for the wife and kids, buy a Cherokee or some similar,
more forgiving design.

The Sport and Sundowner demand precision handling down final and into the
flare. If your landing technique is off, these aircraft will show you
exactly where you're going wrong by magnifying the results out of all
proportion to anything you've seen before. Great training, if it doesn't
scare you to death.

Also:

At least the aircraft are consistent in this regard. Consider that an
NTSB study reaching back to the early 1970s identified the Sundowner
as the worst aircraft in its class for hard landings. We're talking
about a rate of hard landings that was five times worse than the Cessna
Skyhawk or the Piper Cherokee.

Indeed, every time we've looked at the safety records of the Sport and
Sundowner, the story has been the same-lots of hard landings and lots
of overshot landings. And even today we find the pattern intact. One
interesting finding of our studies through the years has been the low
rate of groundloop accidents.


From the above it would seem to me to be prudent for the average GA pilot
to get a bit of dual.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote)
The reason for all this sturm and prang is the airplane's bad habit of
porpoising and crow-hopping on landing...


"sturm and prang" ...Funny, once I looked it up! :-)

http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics....=true&UID=1266

http://www.bartleby.com/62/94/S1469400.html


Montblack

Montblack,

"sturm and prang" ...Funny, once I looked it up! :-)


Yep. An easier catch for a German ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 2006-07-12, wrote:
It is Aviation Consumer that is "spouting that".

Yep, spouting alright!

These airplanes have developed a reputation for providing some ego-crushing
landings for even experienced pilots. Student pilots who were unfortunate
enough to endure training in the Sport all too often wound up with more than
their egos crushed.

I did a good portion of my training in a Musketeer. I'm hardly Super
Pilot, but I *never* had a crow-hop, wheel barrow or porpoise in the
plane. I found it vastly easier to get a greaser of a landing in the
Musketeer than I did in the Cessna 172 that I started in.

Perhaps my instructor just taught me right from the start, but I never
had a problem as a low-time pilot in the aircraft. But then again, I
never did acquire the bad habit of tacking on 5 knots to the approach
speed for Grandma. The book final approach speed for a GA plane is for
maximum gross weight and has plenty of margin for error - anyone who
tacks on five knots to the book speed - especially when solo - is an
accident looking for an airport.

I had one or two firm landings in the plane too, but since they were all
main wheels first, they never resulted in any crow hopping (and from
experience, you've got to drop it in to make a landing feel firm).

As a low time pilot, whenever I took passengers I tried to take the
club's Musketeer, because it made me look good because the landings were
almost universally greasers!

At least the aircraft are consistent in this regard. Consider that an
NTSB study reaching back to the early 1970s identified the Sundowner
as the worst aircraft in its class for hard landings. We're talking
about a rate of hard landings that was five times worse than the Cessna
Skyhawk or the Piper Cherokee.

That sounds like instructors to blame for not teaching proper airspeed
on final which is very basic airmanship. It's not the fault of the plane
which when flown with proper BASIC skills (a skill I managed to master
as a low time student pilot, and as I said, I'm not Super Pilot by any
means) is very easy to land.

From the above it would seem to me to be prudent for the average GA pilot
to get a bit of dual.

It's prudent to get a checkout in any plane. However, if it needs more
than an hour of dual to get checked out in a Musketeer, it's due to a
general problem with the pilot's skill level: either they haven't been
taught how to control airspeed by their instructor, or they've developed
terrible habits such as tacking on extra speed - which contrary to their
belief makes their approach and landing more dangerous regardless of the
aircraft type.

The question you should ask yourself if you're buying a Musketeer is
this. What's my approach speed on short final in the plane I'm currently
flying? Does it exceed the book speed? If the answer to that question is
"yes" well, then you need some remedial work regardless of the plane
you're flying. The Musketeer isn't tolerant of being flown too fast on
approach. However, when flown within the parameters (which, as I bear
witness to is perfectly possible as a low time student), the plane is
extremely easy to land and will make you look really good in front of
your passengers (who tend to grade your entire skill as a pilot on the
quality of your touchdown!)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-07-12, wrote:
It is Aviation Consumer that is "spouting that".

Yep, spouting alright!

These airplanes have developed a reputation for providing some ego-crushing
landings for even experienced pilots. Student pilots who were unfortunate
enough to endure training in the Sport all too often wound up with more than
their egos crushed.

I did a good portion of my training in a Musketeer. I'm hardly Super
Pilot, but I *never* had a crow-hop, wheel barrow or porpoise in the
plane. I found it vastly easier to get a greaser of a landing in the
Musketeer than I did in the Cessna 172 that I started in.

Maybe I'm even further from Super Pilot, but I've done it. It's darn scary
too. I added to the mistake by not trying to go around. I took about 3
nasty hops was pretty sure the 4th was going to result in a prop strike but
luckily it had slowed enough to just settle hard on all the wheels. I had
been flying the same plane for several years and never had anything like
that happen before. I'm not sure the cause was I was coming in too fast.
It could be I flared too soon and the nose wheel dropped. I say this not to
scare you out of buying a Sundowner, but just to make the point that sometimes
a reputation is just that; a series of problems that have been "reputed".
Having owned my Musketeer for a few years now, I prefer landing it to the
occasional 172 I rent. Probably more due to the fact that I'm accustomed to
the visual cues than anything else. I rarely land with full flaps though,
I'm much more likely to grease a landing with no flaps or half flaps.

--
Don Poitras

Don Poitras wrote:
Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-07-12, wrote:
It is Aviation Consumer that is "spouting that".

Yep, spouting alright!

These airplanes have developed a reputation for providing some ego-crushing
landings for even experienced pilots. Student pilots who were unfortunate
enough to endure training in the Sport all too often wound up with more than
their egos crushed.

I did a good portion of my training in a Musketeer. I'm hardly Super
Pilot, but I *never* had a crow-hop, wheel barrow or porpoise in the
plane. I found it vastly easier to get a greaser of a landing in the
Musketeer than I did in the Cessna 172 that I started in.

Maybe I'm even further from Super Pilot, but I've done it. It's darn scary
too. I added to the mistake by not trying to go around. I took about 3
nasty hops was pretty sure the 4th was going to result in a prop strike but
luckily it had slowed enough to just settle hard on all the wheels. I had
been flying the same plane for several years and never had anything like
that happen before. I'm not sure the cause was I was coming in too fast.
It could be I flared too soon and the nose wheel dropped. I say this not to
scare you out of buying a Sundowner, but just to make the point that sometimes
a reputation is just that; a series of problems that have been "reputed".
Having owned my Musketeer for a few years now, I prefer landing it to the
occasional 172 I rent. Probably more due to the fact that I'm accustomed to
the visual cues than anything else. I rarely land with full flaps though,
I'm much more likely to grease a landing with no flaps or half flaps.


My club recently had a PIO in a C172 on a calm day.

When the chief instructor sent the "teachable moment" note out to all
the members, he noted that the club has experienced PIO with every type
that's ever been in the fleet, which includes 152, Warrior, Mooney,
172, and who knows what else from the days before I was a member. It
isn't just a Sundowner problem, but that also doesn't mean they aren't
more prone to it. The same mistake you can get away with in a Cherokee
may bite you in a Sundowner (or a 172 for that matter)

It isn't just hanging onto some extra airspeed on short final that can cause
extra airspeed and a bounce as you touch down. It's not unusual to get hit
by wind gusts at touchdown that can set up the conditions for a bounce.
It's those kinds of unanticipated situations that can get a tired or
distracted but experienced pilot into trouble quickly.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

"Don Poitras" wrote in message
...
Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-07-12,
wrote:
It is Aviation Consumer that is "spouting that".

Yep, spouting alright!

These airplanes have developed a reputation for providing some
ego-crushing
landings for even experienced pilots. Student pilots who were
unfortunate
enough to endure training in the Sport all too often wound up with more
than
their egos crushed.

I did a good portion of my training in a Musketeer. I'm hardly Super
Pilot, but I *never* had a crow-hop, wheel barrow or porpoise in the
plane. I found it vastly easier to get a greaser of a landing in the
Musketeer than I did in the Cessna 172 that I started in.

Maybe I'm even further from Super Pilot, but I've done it. It's darn scary
too. I added to the mistake by not trying to go around. I took about 3
nasty hops was pretty sure the 4th was going to result in a prop strike
but
luckily it had slowed enough to just settle hard on all the wheels. I had
been flying the same plane for several years and never had anything like
that happen before. I'm not sure the cause was I was coming in too fast.
It could be I flared too soon and the nose wheel dropped. I say this not
to
scare you out of buying a Sundowner, but just to make the point that
sometimes
a reputation is just that; a series of problems that have been "reputed".
Having owned my Musketeer for a few years now, I prefer landing it to the
occasional 172 I rent. Probably more due to the fact that I'm accustomed
to
the visual cues than anything else. I rarely land with full flaps though,
I'm much more likely to grease a landing with no flaps or half flaps.

--
Don Poitras