Poll: best bird under $35K?

In article .net, "C
Kingsbury" wrote:

wrote in message news:4Lehd.349231$D%.124138@attbi_s51...
Tripacer is the most bang for your buck.
under valued and better performance than the 140 or the 172.
I don't understand why most people are afraid of fabric airplanes.

Well, this person lives in a place where hangars cost $400+/month after
you've waited 5 years to get into one.

only 5 years? I had to wait 9 years before getting one at KBED.
But cheer up, if Massport keeps raising the hangar rates then
the wait will get even shorter. :-(

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

A Cherokee 140, but add the 160hp STC, and a PowerFlow exhaust, would
be enough power to safely carry 3 adults and 4 hours fuel. There are a
lot of decent 140's for sale right now so you could probably have one
equipped that way in the 35K ballpark. The 140's cabin is rather
comfortable for the front seat occupants too, but the rear seat is
cramped. The Cherokee is a very docile-handling, forgiving and easy to
fly plane too. You might even find a 180 in that price range, tho'
it's be lessor equipped, higher time engine ,or poorer paint/interior.

You left out the possibility of a 165 or 180hp Beech Musketeer.
That'll carry three adults, very roomy cabin, but slow. You can count
on nearly 5 knots slower than a comparable Cherokee, but they are
flying gas tanks with 60 gal capacity. The 165hp fuel injected
Continental is a bit of an orphaned engine, but still maintainable if
you find a knowledgeable A&P who has connections to obtain spare parts
from the dwindling resources available.

Elwood Dowd wrote in message ...
Forgot at least one: Beech Musketeer

Thanks!

I had forgot all about those. That actually looks like a really good
option. I prefer a low wing.

How is the maintenance on these aircraft?

-Thanks
-Matt

The musketeer is a big, slow aircraft, but extremely large and comfy
inside. The gear are bulletproof. Many prefer the Lycoming 160hp
engine as fuel use is about the same as the 150hp but power is a little
better and parts availability is much improved. Airframe parts from
Raytheon are ridiculously expensive, but not all that different from
other manufacturers at this point.

I would venture to guess that the Musketeer is no more of a maintenance
burden than your average 172 or Cherokee. Maybe a bit slower, although
the C-model Sundowner is quite a bit faster, and the retract Sierra is
faster still.

Come over to the Beech Aero Club and do some research, several years of
the Musketeer mailing list are archived the
http://www.beechaeroclub.org

psyshrike wrote:
Elwood Dowd wrote in message ...

Forgot at least one: Beech Musketeer


Thanks!

I had forgot all about those. That actually looks like a really good
option. I prefer a low wing.

How is the maintenance on these aircraft?

-Thanks
-Matt

Check this group out. You'll learn a lot.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musketeermail/


Trip



In article , says...

Elwood Dowd wrote in message news:t4WdnS4tD_5A4xvcRVn-qg@adelphia
.com...
Forgot at least one: Beech Musketeer

Thanks!

I had forgot all about those. That actually looks like a really good
option. I prefer a low wing.

How is the maintenance on these aircraft?

-Thanks
-Matt

I had forgot all about those. That actually looks like a really good

An Aero Commander 100 150 or 180 HP with a new 430 type panel can probably be
had for less than 35000.00

Compareable to 172 but can take off in about 500 feet.

PInc972390 wrote:

An Aero Commander 100 150 or 180 HP with a new 430 type panel can probably be
had for less than 35000.00

Compareable to 172 but can take off in about 500 feet.

Aftermarket or original parts aren't as available though. Has a steel
tubing structure vs all aluminum for the Cessna, each can have its
issues when it comes to corrosion...

We shopped these pretty heavily, ended up with the 172 instead...

Here is my 2 cents worth. Why not get
a 150 or 152 with a 150/160 HP engine.
Throw in a taildragger mod. and you are
somewhere near $35K. Now you have the
most bullet proof cessna made, parts are
still around, will outrun a 172, take off
in a litle over 400 ft, land in the same
distance, all metal, and burn about 7 plus
GPH. Unless you are hung up on 4 seats,
This is a fun Airplane. With Madras tips
instead of STOL kit, it is a pussy cat.
But I guess it lacks all the pinball wizard
things that everybody is lookin for now days. Good luck in your quest!!!!!!!!!!

Bill Oparowski

OSKI 3 wrote:
s
instead of STOL kit, it is a pussy cat.
But I guess it lacks all the pinball wizard
things that everybody is lookin for now days. Good luck in your quest!!!!!!!!!!

You can soup up a VW Bug, but it's still a bug.
Actually, while I've never flown a taildragger conversion, I did fly on of the
HP-enhanced 150's.

OSKI 3 wrote:

Here is my 2 cents worth. Why not get
a 150 or 152 with a 150/160 HP engine.

Those are rare...

Throw in a taildragger mod. and you are
somewhere near $35K. Now you have the

Even more rare...

most bullet proof cessna made, parts are
still around, will outrun a 172, take off
in a litle over 400 ft, land in the same
distance, all metal, and burn about 7 plus
GPH. Unless you are hung up on 4 seats,
This is a fun Airplane. With Madras tips
instead of STOL kit, it is a pussy cat.
But I guess it lacks all the pinball wizard
things that everybody is lookin for now days. Good luck in your quest!!!!!!!!!!

Problem is it'd still have the seating space of a 150/152. A more
commonly seen bird with more elbow room would be a Grumman Yankee AA1A
with the tailwheel and 150/160hp upgrade mods, and still fits in the
price range. I dunno the takeoff/landing requirements, but it will blow
the doors off of a 150/152 mod for cruising. Although I have seen a 150
on floats, but not a Yankee... 8-)