Poll: best bird under $35K?

Howdy,

I'm thinking more 3 hours plus an hour reserve. I've done quite a few
3 hour stretches, and always carry maximum fuel. I'm just a firm
believer in variable reduction. Extra fuel cancels more variables than
it creates.

Many of the places I want to go on a regular basis are at about a 300
mile radius. If I can do it in one hop I would. I used to drive an
M20E. I can't afford that much airplane right now (and was foolish to
think I could when I had it).

Point taken about the oddball stuff. Keeping up with annuals is
expensive enough as it is, even with good equipment. I'll be looking
for a pristine model of whatever it is, and hope to defer some of the
issues created by the oddball-alities for the first few years by doing
so. I know: Fat Chance. But I can hope :-)

Thanks!
Matt

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message thlink.net...
IMHO: 140, 172, Tri-P, 175, Stinson.

1. I don't like old airplanes
2. I don't like oddball engines
3. I don't like fabric
4. I prefer common makes/models

Don't get me wrong, if I hit the lottery I'm buying a Staggerwing. But if
we're talking about a low-cost fly-and-forget bird the PA-28-140 seems a
pretty clear winner. $35k is enough to get a nice one, perhaps even basic
IFR (in case you want to get your ticket someday) and will be very easy to
own.

The only ones I'd be really leery of are the Stinson and the 175, mainly
because of the engines. The O-320 is one of the best engines made and every
mechanic in the world knows how to fix one. If hangars are cheap where you
are then fabric needn't be a big concern but where I am they cost $400/mo
and I ain't leaving a fabric bird outside in New England year-round.

Are you really sure about the 3-person/4-hour requirement? That's a real
long time for somebody to be in the backseat of any of these planes. Frankly
that's a long time to be in the front seat, too, at least for me

-cwk.


SNIP

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
psyshrike wrote:

Howdy,

My Requirements:
3 Humans, 4 hours, VFR, ~ 100 knots.

You might find an older 180hp Maule for that price. In fact, the 160hp MX-7 will do
this job if those are FAA adults with little luggage. Mine carries 806 pounds and
holds 43 gallons, giving me a useful load of 548 pounds with the tanks full.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

I had thought of that.

I guess if I'd be willing to get my tailwheel ticket for a Stinson,
why not an M4 or M5? I just hadn't noticed many for sale lately. A few
years ago they seemed pretty available, but I've only seen one or two
for sale in recent history. I wonder if a glut of MX7's on the market
is causing everybody to hang on to them?

Didn't the M4 have the 220HP Franklin? Is that that the same engine
now offered by PZL?

Thanks!
Matt

Conventional gear on the Stinson is hardly a con. If anything, it's a pro
as it offers better handling on grass strips. Learning to fly a taildragger
will improve your stick and rudder skills no end.

The downside for me would be the oil bill from a big ol' radial but, all
other things being equal, I'd go for the Stinson.

Shawn
Taylorcraft BC-12D, G-BRPX
Pitts S-1D, G-BKVP
"psyshrike" wrote in message
om...
Howdy,

My Requirements:
3 Humans, 4 hours, VFR, ~ 100 knots.

Put these in order of preference:

Piper Tri Pacer:
Pros: Low acquisition Cost, Tri gear
Cons: Often neglected. Ground Handling, old panel, parts support.

Stinson 108-x:
Pros: Most beautifull of the bunch, good performance.
Cons: Conventional gear, old panel, parts support.

Cessna 175 GO-300
Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna.
Cons: Short engine lifespan, parts support, old panel.

Square Tailed Cessna 172 (as in 58-59 models)
Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna
Cons: Probably more AD's than a 737, old panel

Piper Cherokee 140
Pros: Aluminum, Modern plane, modern panel.
Cons: Doesn't meet weight requirements.


As you can tell, I don't mind old birds. In any case, a well
maintained example will be a personal requirement. A good example of
the worst type is probably better than bad example of the best.

I've got about 250 hours + complex endorsement. I haven't been flying
for a while, but am starting to convince myself that getting another
aircraft is justifiable.

I don't have any time in any of these. I'm asking because I'd like to
narrow up the field before I start running around bugging sellers.

All comments welcomed.
Thanks!
Matt

Forgot at least one: Beech Musketeer

PZL stopped production of the Frnklin engines about a year ago. No more!

KG
"psyshrike" wrote in message
om...
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
psyshrike wrote:

Howdy,

My Requirements:
3 Humans, 4 hours, VFR, ~ 100 knots.

You might find an older 180hp Maule for that price. In fact, the 160hp
MX-7 will do
this job if those are FAA adults with little luggage. Mine carries 806
pounds and
holds 43 gallons, giving me a useful load of 548 pounds with the tanks
full.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
have
been looking for it.

I had thought of that.

I guess if I'd be willing to get my tailwheel ticket for a Stinson,
why not an M4 or M5? I just hadn't noticed many for sale lately. A few
years ago they seemed pretty available, but I've only seen one or two
for sale in recent history. I wonder if a glut of MX7's on the market
is causing everybody to hang on to them?

Didn't the M4 have the 220HP Franklin? Is that that the same engine
now offered by PZL?

Thanks!
Matt

"ShawnD2112" wrote in message
. ..
Conventional gear on the Stinson is hardly a con. If anything, it's a pro
as it offers better handling on grass strips. Learning to fly a
taildragger
will improve your stick and rudder skills no end.

The downside for me would be the oil bill from a big ol' radial but, all
other things being equal, I'd go for the Stinson.

A Stinson 108 with a radial. Now that would be something to see.

(psyshrike) wrote
Piper Tri Pacer:
Pros: Low acquisition Cost, Tri gear
Cons: Often neglected. Ground Handling, old panel, parts support.

Stinson 108-x:
Pros: Most beautifull of the bunch, good performance.
Cons: Conventional gear, old panel, parts support.

Parts support is actually not a problem for either one of these.
Univair has everything you might ever need. What's more, there just
aren't that many parts in there.

The issue with the Stionson is the engine, assuming it has the
original Franklin. Nothing wrong with it, but parts are an issue.
The TriPacer has a Lycoming.

The issue with fabric airplanes (and most TriPacers and Stinsons are)
is needing a hangar. If you're not going to hangar it, don't mess
with it - sitting outside is rough on a fabric bird. Also, make sure
you buy one with good fabric - punch to at least 5 lbs over mins on
the TOPS of the fuselage, tailfeathers, and wings. Recover jobs are
VERY expensive if done professionally, and VERY time-consuming if you
do it yourself. BTDT.

Ground handling issues on the TriPacer are WAY overblown. No, it's
not as stable as a Cherokee - but then again, a Cherokee doesn't have
the same ground clearance either. And certainly a Stinson is a lot
easier to ground loop than a TriPacer is to tip over. Get checked out
by someone who knows the type, and it won't be a problem.

The Stinson is more of an issue in that regard, and the insurance will
reflect it. If you like the looks of conventional gear, the Pacer (or
conversion) is another good choice. It's slightly lighter than the
TriPacer, and people claim it's a bit faster but you couldn't prove it
by me.

The others are, well, spam cans. These newfangled all-metal airplanes
are a fad, anyway. They'll never last. Rag and tube is the way to go


Michael

psyshrike wrote:

I guess if I'd be willing to get my tailwheel ticket for a Stinson,
why not an M4 or M5? I just hadn't noticed many for sale lately.

There's a '67 M4 up on ASO for $34,999. No photos and not much detail in the ad.

A few
years ago they seemed pretty available, but I've only seen one or two
for sale in recent history. I wonder if a glut of MX7's on the market
is causing everybody to hang on to them?

M4s are scarce -- it's not unusual to see a dearth of ads at any point in time.

Didn't the M4 have the 220HP Franklin? Is that that the same engine
now offered by PZL?

According to Clarke's book, it has the Continental O-300-A.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

(Ben Jackson) wrote in message news:IDehd.349223$D%.320668@attbi_s51...

There's a big difference there in terms of comfort for the third passenger
and room for baggage. Have you been in a 140? It's a lot tighter than
a 180.

The primary space difference between the -140 and -180 is the
baggage area. Seating accomodations are the same for both. If you
were looking for a plane with the -180's baggage area and door, and
the same power as the -140, you'd be looking for the -150.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

(psyshrike) wrote in message . com...


Square Tailed Cessna 172 (as in 58-59 models)
Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna
Cons: Probably more AD's than a 737, old panel

I owned one of these in the 90s and there weren't an unusual amount
of recurring ADs.


Piper Cherokee 140
Pros: Aluminum, Modern plane, modern panel.
Cons: Doesn't meet weight requirements.

I didn't see any weight requirements, other than 3 people. If these
are standard people (170 lbs.) then most 140s can handle it with fuel
at the tabs (36 gal., or 4+ hrs.). There is little difference in the
weight carrying capabilities of the straight tailed Cessnas and the
Cherokee 140s. What often throws people off is that the Cherokee can
carry 50 gals. of fuel (roughly 6 hrs.) and therefore carries a
smaller cabin load with full fuel. What this really means is that it
is more flexible. With a light load, you can choose to fly a longer
leg by adding fuel. You can't do that with the Cessna.

Overall, the primary difference between the two above (IMHO) is
passenger room. The 172 has more interior space for the rear seat
passengers. The baggage area on the 140 is limited. The ('56-'59)
172 has a nice baggage area, but no external baggae door. A Cherokee
150 (slightly better equipped version of the 140, same hp) will have
both a large baggage area and an external baggage door.

Shop around and don't limit yourself to one model. Last time I went
shopping, I made a basic list of requirements and considered every
plane that satisfied them. For the price range you've specified, it's
going to come down to the individual qualities of each prospective
airplane, rather than the pros and cons of the type as a whole.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)