![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Roger Halstead wrote: snip! The biggest difference between the two is one has the wing on top, the other has the wing on the bottom. The Cessna can take off and land in a shorter Are you sure on that? A beech Bonanza (F33 and Debonair) will both land shorter than a 172, but I don't know the figures on the Sundowner. Yes, I am positive. I've got many hours in 172, C35 Bonanza, and Sundowners, and am a current owner of a 200hp Musketeer Super III (older version of Sundowner, the Sundowner having only 180hp). A Bonanza is indeed a good short field bird, as is the 172. But the Musketeer/Sport/Sundowner/Sierra series is not particularly spectacular in that regard. Much more like Piper Cherokee/Warrior/Archer/Arrow. The Musketeer/Sport/Sundowner/Sierra series has the same rugged, roomy, and comfortable construction as the Bonanza, but performance is just not the same (neither is the price, though!). The airframe just isn't as aerodynamically clean. Having said all this, don't get the idea that the Sundowner needs huge runways to operate. I'm just saying that one needs a bit more r/w than a C172. Of course, in a big crosswind, I can probably get my Musketeer down safely in less room than the typical 172 driver. That's because I can still use full flaps and don't have to carry extra airspeed to stay on a normal approach, even in a huge wing-low situation. That super-wide landing gear stance and terrific ground effect are also just the ticket. FWIW, one will normally find that climb and cruise performance of the 180hp Sundowner will be almost identical to that of a 150/160hp C-172, and short field performance of Brand B just isn't as good as Brand C. The Sundowner is a bigger, heavier plane, so it takes a few more hp to get similar climb and cruise. The Sundowner also has a higher stall speed, so you just can't "hover it in" like a 172. But, as I said in a previous post, the "Baby Beech" has a strength for each weakness. Just like the 172. Or Cherokee. Best regards, Steve Robertson N4732J 1967 A23-24 Musketeer Super III ex-N1151Y 1962 Cessna 150B ex-N5839C 1953 C35 Bonanza ex-N33337 1972 Cherokee 140 Cruiser ex-N5828E 1959 Cessna 150 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
camcorder recording Cessna intercom audio question | Marty from Sunny Florida | Owning | 7 | November 15th 04 04:26 PM |
Newbie Question, really: That first flight | Cecil Chapman | Home Built | 25 | September 20th 04 05:52 AM |
Newbie Question - Vacuum vs Electric | Bill Denton | Aerobatics | 1 | April 15th 04 11:30 PM |
Cessna 172A Question | MRQB | Owning | 9 | February 6th 04 08:46 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |