A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Newbie question Cessna or Beechcraft?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 8th 03, 02:00 PM
Steve Robertson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.