Budget Retracts - Anyone own a Sierra or Comanche 180?

A Lieberman wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 22:40:26 GMT, B A R R Y wrote:

I have not found Sundowner parts to be crazy, as many wear items like
rod bushings and Lycoming engine parts are common to all brands. There
are unique parts like gear cushion donuts, but members of the Beech
Aero Club are pretty good about banding together and finding approved
aftermarket deals.

I'd buy the plane again...

I second what Barry says for the Sundowner. Trailing link gear on the
Sundowner cushions even the hardest of hard landings.

This statement has my head spinning. This the opposite of what I have
read in every review of these planes. Or maybe these types aren't as
similar as I thought. Does the Sundowner have the hard rubber shock
mounts (instead of oleos) in the trailing link gear that the Sport and
Musketeer have, which are reputed to reflect bounce energy right back
and magnify any bounces, instead of cushion them like trailing link
gear is supposed to do?

I would be interested to know if this is not the case, because the two
doors and roomy cabin make it otherwise look very attractive (the lack
of a driver's door was my biggest complaint when I flew Warriors, which
are otherwise great planes IMO), but I know my limitations and know I
can't regularly fly a plane that requires perfect or near-perfect
landing technique every time.

On 4 Feb 2006 21:02:30 -0800, xyzzy wrote:

This statement has my head spinning. This the opposite of what I have
read in every review of these planes. Or maybe these types aren't as
similar as I thought. Does the Sundowner have the hard rubber shock
mounts (instead of oleos) in the trailing link gear that the Sport and
Musketeer have, which are reputed to reflect bounce energy right back
and magnify any bounces, instead of cushion them like trailing link
gear is supposed to do?

The landing reputation of the Sundowner is the porpoising tendencies. It
is extremely forward CG and you basically need a lot of weight in the back
to reduce the porposing tendency. I have 50 pounds in the cargo area when
I fly by myself with full tanks to keep it in the CG envelope. If I take a
passenger, I throw in another 25 pounds (or passenger luggage) in the
luggage compartment to keep the W&B in the CG envelope. The W&B envelope
is very, very narrow.

The mains have the donuts which act wonderfully as shock absorbers.

I would be interested to know if this is not the case, because the two
doors and roomy cabin make it otherwise look very attractive (the lack
of a driver's door was my biggest complaint when I flew Warriors, which
are otherwise great planes IMO), but I know my limitations and know I
can't regularly fly a plane that requires perfect or near-perfect
landing technique every time.

My experiences (4 years and counting) is that if you keep your airspeed on
final by the POH book (68 knot final with full flaps) and bleed the speed
off over the numbers, you will grease the landing. Come in hot, you will
skip like a rock, and because of the forward CG, if you don't maintain back
pressure, your nose will come down first, thus the first step to a
porpoised landing. Come in slow, and you drop like a rock. So, compared
to Cessnas that I have flown, you do have to pay closer attention to your
speed on final. I like the trim wheel placement between the seats, and for
every landing, you can set the trim exactly the same spot every time so
that you know the plane is trimmed the same way every time.

FOR ME, compared to a Cessna, between the trailing link gear and ground
effect, the Sundowner is a lot easier on my landing ego. I have not flown
any other type of plane.

I have made three trips from MS to OH in the past year and because of the
cabin room, it really was a comfortable ride for me.

Allen

The landing reputation of the Sundowner is the porpoising tendencies. It
is extremely forward CG and you basically need a lot of weight in the back
to reduce the porposing tendency.

I guess this tendency would be even worse with the Sierra, given its
higher engine weight?

I have made three trips from MS to OH in the past year and because of the
cabin room, it really was a comfortable ride for me.

That's the biggest attraction for me. My wife, a non pilot, does not
really like flying but she tolerates it because she likes going from A
to B in a fraction of the time it takes to drive. That and she prefers
GA travel to the airlines because of all the hassles involved with
commercial air travel nowadays. So keeping her comfortable in the
cabin is really important to me. The two doors are a BIG plus. One
thing she does not like about the Cherokee, is that she has to wait for
me to finish preflighting and then get in the plane last .

I really cant think of a single GA airplane in this price range that is
more passenger friendly than the Sierra. The rear baggage door is huge
too. Real easy to load that baby stroller in and out!

Rich

I second what Barry says for the Sundowner. Trailing link gear on the
Sundowner cushions even the hardest of hard landings.

This statement has my head spinning. This the opposite of what I have
read in every review of these planes

That's what I have read too. Maybe this trait just gets exaggerated
after hearing it over & over. I cant believe the Sundowner/Sierra
would require superman pilot skills. Is it just that it is intolerant
of those *really* bad landings, ie: those that should have ended in a
go around? With new rubber shocks, would the bouncing be minimized?
Or is it the other way around - with old rubber shocks, is the gear
"softer"?

Rich

On 2006-02-05, RH wrote:
That's what I have read too. Maybe this trait just gets exaggerated
after hearing it over & over. I cant believe the Sundowner/Sierra
would require superman pilot skills.

It doesn't. I was checked out in a Beech Super Musketeer (basically the
same airframe with a 200hp engine) as a 30 hour student pilot. I *never*
had a bad landing in that plane. If you just fly at the airspeed in the
book on short final, it almost lands itself.

I think the stories of the Musketeer/Sundowner being hard to land come
from people who weren't properly taught that you need to touch down main
wheels first (go to any airport and watch how many people land flat -
three pointing a nosewheel plane - translated to a Musketeer/Sundowner,
this results in bouncing).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

"xyzzy" wrote in message
oups.com...

This statement has my head spinning. This the opposite of what I have
read in every review of these planes. Or maybe these types aren't as
similar as I thought. Does the Sundowner have the hard rubber shock
mounts (instead of oleos) in the trailing link gear that the Sport and
Musketeer have, which are reputed to reflect bounce energy right back
and magnify any bounces, instead of cushion them like trailing link
gear is supposed to do?

I would be interested to know if this is not the case, because the two
doors and roomy cabin make it otherwise look very attractive (the lack
of a driver's door was my biggest complaint when I flew Warriors, which
are otherwise great planes IMO), but I know my limitations and know I
can't regularly fly a plane that requires perfect or near-perfect
landing technique every time.


Wow, that's news to me - I flew a Beech Sport for a while. The only problem
I has with landings was that I had a hard time getting the hang of the flap
thingies (I was too used to slipping in with no flaps in a Cessna 120).

Don't recall any problem with bouncing once I got it to the runway. Perhaps
I just didn't know that it was supposed to be hard? Or perhaps, the
reputation exceeds the reality.

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:28:18 -0500, Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

Wow, that's news to me - I flew a Beech Sport for a while. The only problem
I has with landings was that I had a hard time getting the hang of the flap
thingies (I was too used to slipping in with no flaps in a Cessna 120).

Don't recall any problem with bouncing once I got it to the runway. Perhaps
I just didn't know that it was supposed to be hard? Or perhaps, the
reputation exceeds the reality.

I *think* the porpoising tendencies started with the Sundowner / Sierra
series?

More weight in front with 180HP vs the sport 150HP would be my hypothesis.

Allen

A Sundowner is the easiest and most stable plane you will likely ever fly.
There is one thing that really makes it a delight. When you are landing,
dial in 75 kts on final using the trim. The trim will maintain the
airspeed. Use the throttle for altitude. When you are in ground effect,
slow up and pull back slowly until the runway disappears, and hold the yoke
back in your lap. If you use full flaps, you can stop in a few hundred
feet.

Thr thing about porpoising is related to landing too fast, and then letting
the nose slam down while you are peering out over the nose looking for the
runway. It's not the plane's fault, it still thinks it's flying.

One nice thing that is rarely discussed is that it is almost immune to
crosswinds. It's big and heavy, and doesn't get blown around much. The
demonstrated cross wind is not that high, but I think it can be landed
safely with a considerably greater crosswind.

You won't break many speed records, and headwinds can be frustrating. I
think if Beech put a bigger engine in the Sundowner, like they did with the
earlier Super Musketeers, they could sell them today.


"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:28:18 -0500, Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

Wow, that's news to me - I flew a Beech Sport for a while. The only
problem
I has with landings was that I had a hard time getting the hang of the
flap
thingies (I was too used to slipping in with no flaps in a Cessna 120).

Don't recall any problem with bouncing once I got it to the runway.
Perhaps
I just didn't know that it was supposed to be hard? Or perhaps, the
reputation exceeds the reality.

I *think* the porpoising tendencies started with the Sundowner / Sierra
series?

More weight in front with 180HP vs the sport 150HP would be my hypothesis.

Allen

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:44:40 -0500, LWG wrote:

A Sundowner is the easiest and most stable plane you will likely ever fly.
There is one thing that really makes it a delight. When you are landing,
dial in 75 kts on final using the trim. The trim will maintain the
airspeed. Use the throttle for altitude. When you are in ground effect,
slow up and pull back slowly until the runway disappears, and hold the yoke
back in your lap. If you use full flaps, you can stop in a few hundred
feet.

Add in the droop wing tips I have on my plane, and it is stable as a table.
Only thing above I do differently is fly final at 68 knots unless I am
doing an ILS, which I go at 90 knots down to the middle marker.

One nice thing that is rarely discussed is that it is almost immune to
crosswinds. It's big and heavy, and doesn't get blown around much. The
demonstrated cross wind is not that high, but I think it can be landed
safely with a considerably greater crosswind.

Its funny you mentioned this as I posted my experiences on
rec.aviation.student on going out in direct Xwinds of greater then 15
knots. I was extremely pleased how the plane handled, and here I thought
it was me *big smile*.

You won't break many speed records, and headwinds can be frustrating. I
think if Beech put a bigger engine in the Sundowner, like they did with the
earlier Super Musketeers, they could sell them today.

You mean that the Super M's had more then 180HP?

Allen