C-172 versus Sundowner

I have no intention of ever going to anything other than a paved strip.

Overall great bird for me. Plenty of back seat passenger room, plenty of
cargo room.

Hope this helps.

Allen

What is the useful load, range with 4 folks on board, etc?

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 12:03:43 GMT, .Blueskies. wrote:


I have no intention of ever going to anything other than a paved strip.

Overall great bird for me. Plenty of back seat passenger room, plenty of
cargo room.

Hope this helps.

Allen

What is the useful load, range with 4 folks on board, etc?

After full tanks (58 gallons) I count on 600 pounds for live meat (AKA
passengers) and baggage.

I have had two adults in the front and two lighter weight adults in the
back with full tanks. Performance was just fine.

Most of my flying have been with three people on board.

As far as range, well, my longest flight by myself was 4.25 hours on one
leg of a 700 nm journey, and that was pushing myself to the limits.
Airplane still had about 15 gallons of fuel on landing.

Can't say what the useful range with 4 on board as the longest I have flown
with 4 people on board was 1 1/2 hours.

Allen

wrote:

So I've been looking to buy a C-172 and came across this Sundowner.


Comments?


Flew with locals who own both and watched their trials and tribulations
with each type. The Sundowner is quite well built and had great interior
room. It also has a low glareshield that affords a wonderful view out
the front window. Both planes are pretty docile to fly.

My observation is that you may find it difficult to locate a well
maintained Sundowner with good cosmetics. Not sure why but almost every
one I have seen is quite beat up.

Most parts that you will need during normal service are consumables
and/or are from Lycoming. Yes, Beech parts are even more outrageous than
the other makes. That drives you to the boneyards.

That is where the Skyhawk shines. With so many of them, there are plenty
of wrecks and used parts are usually not hard to locate. The Sundowner
fleet was much smaller and you may have to do more searching for
airframe parts.

The Sundowner doors and vents seal well, some Skyhawks can have problems.

That is my limited observation set. Others with more experience can
chime in, but I always hold suspect an opinion from someone who owns
one. Few will admit their bird has any deficiencies.

Good Luck,
Mike

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?

--
Jim Pennino


I looked at Sundowners alot 9 years ago when I was deciding. I called
to make an offer on one I had seen, only to find it had sold. Like you,
I saw that the Shyhawk cost alot more, and didn't have the room or load
carrying ability. So I am an unbiased as to which one to buy. A closer
look showed me more options. I found 1969 Cardinal with bad paint and
interior but a good corrosion free airframe and a well overhauled 600
hr engine that has performed flawlessly for another 800. It has as much
or more room than the Sundowner, has great visibility as you can lean
slightly forward and see in front of the wing so you can see up or down
in the pattern (few planes have this), and a low cost fixed pitch prop
and the same 180 HP Lyc that the Sundowner has (great engine, maybe the
best). The useful load is over 1000 lbs. With 48 usuable gallons on
board, it will haul over 725 lbs, and that is with a heavy starter and
an old 16 lb radio that I never use still in the weight list. It
performs well at that weight as I have done so on several occasions.
When I bought mine, Cardinals had not had the price upswing that
they have enjoyed over the last 9 years, so a good early model like
mine (only 200 were made) are hard to find sometimes, and the price may
be more than the Sundowner for a comparable plane. The Cardinal is
faster and looks cool too! But the Sundowner is a good choice.
I have had a good experience with my plane. Get involved in the
maintainence of yours, and so will you.

Regards,

Quirks: C-172 none, Sundowner appears to require a bit of dual to
learn how to land without porpoising.


BS !!!

If one is taught to land correctly in any aircraft... one can land a Beech
Sport/Sundowner/Sierra.

The problem lies in that many Piper and Cessna trained pilots are not taught
proper speed control on final and always come in to fast.

The Beech Sport/Sundowner/Sierra will float down the runway if to fast on
final, then the pilot gets nervous seeing the end of the runway approaching
and forces the aircraft down onto the nose wheel. Rubber donuts in that
suspension and it bounces right back into the air.. PIO and maybe a broken
nose gear.

That old, Book Speed plus 5Knts for mom and each of the kids does not work
with the Sport/Sundowner/Sierra.

BT

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

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