10 airplanes to avoid

brien23 said:
Top 10 airplanes to avoid entirely.
1. Cessna 175
2. Any Bonanza prior to 1958
3. Cessna pre 1971 model 172 with flat gear spring .
4. Any Cessna with a O-300 engine
5. Cessna 337
6. Piper Cherokee without the control levers in a throttle quadrant.
7. Piper Tripacer or Pacer
8. Any round engine plane
9. Any geared engine
10 Any Franklin engine aircraft.
Click to expand...

Guess this means I need to give up my dream of owning a Beech Staggerwing someday. Dang - and here I was just this close
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
Weird. The C337 is probably the best light twin ever created. Ever.

In the history of aviation.
Click to expand...

Better than the twin propeller Wright Flyer? :eek:
Impossible!
 
hindsight2020 said:
What's the deal with the pre-D 310? Is that the cutoff for the overwing exhaust augmentors?
Click to expand...
Yes, although I thought the D’s has the over wing exhaust as well.

The early models also had a tiny baggage door.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Fearless Tower said:
You must not be a very good A&P then if those airplanes are kicking yer butt.
Click to expand...
Where did you get that idea?
50 years in the business as an A&P-IA, should tell you what aircraft have problems.
The C-175, came from the factory with a GO-300- geared engine that is no longer supported, you want one?
The early Bonanzas, you want to deal with that AD lists?
Early Cessna with spring gear. and the 0-300 I love them.
And the newer Franklin 220 horse is a great up grade for the 172. even the older ones are now supported by the after market parts

Round engines FOR EVER. :)
The Jake is well supported, as is the Lycoming W-680/330 horse.
Warner is now being manufactured again. so lots of parts now.
no Radial engines leave out a lot of very beautiful antiques
 
Omalley1537 said:
Soooo...
According to your list, most warbirds are out. Are you nuts? Sure, the average joe probably shouldn’t be getting himself into a Sea Fury, Corsair, etc without substantial time in the books and $$$ in the accounts. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with the planes. No different from the premise that I shouldn’t be looking at Gulfstreams.
Click to expand...
The big thing wrong is the budget required. plus many are very high time, and were built with 6 week time life in mind.
 
WWII Warbirds are 70 plus years old and were built as weapons and never built to last as long as they have. I like them and hate to see one or two a year kill someone, they are very sought after now and well maintained. Their was a time seemed that every airport had a AT-6 or two around and people just flew them till the engines ran out then they sat till someone scraped them. Now if you have one they are money pits and most people can't afford to care and feed them.
 
X-15 - attempted to kill every pilot who flew it, succeeded with one, and maybe two, depending on your scoring. In less than 200 flights.

Space Shuttle - it might not have lifted much load, but at least it couldn't orbit very high. About as "re-usable" as a water baloon. And a crew killer.

Cessna 182 - slow, ponderous, clumsy, pig-sickle. Can't get out of it's own way.

Piper Cub - vicious stall, and pre-WW1 control harmony. Butt ugly, too.

AA1 variants - designed by Bede, to kill as many students and CFIs as possible; shady/sketchy cerification, even to the point of surprising its test pilots.

Most MiGs - are essentially manned target "drones", with a sustained record of being beaten soundly in almost every air-to-air arena, over half a century or more.

Tongue now removed from cheek - the above are pretty much all true statements, but also exclude the bigger picture. . .I like the Skymaster, and would sell my soul to have flown the X-15. . .
 
brien23 said:
Cessna, Piper and the Bo have gotten better over the years who would not want the improvements.
Click to expand...
I am not sure adding something like 8 fuel drains and completely jacking up the replacement parts prices much of an 'improvement'.
 
I guess I hang out in the wrong crowd.
  • One owner has a SeaBee - hopefully it will be flying again by spring.
  • The owner of my previous -35 contacted me. I think he is interested in restoring it if the current owner gives up
  • There is a Beech 18 on field with me. Still haven't seen it taxi yet, but I hear there is a lot of restoration efforts underway
  • We have a Waco round engine biplane that was ground looped and being restored
  • I watched a C120 guy overhaul the "rare engine" (sorry - I forget the details) and has an amazing airplane now!
  • Several locals have been dropping the E-Series engines from Navions replacing them with 520s (I might go that route someday myself - but with a 470. Not likely, but possible.)
  • My uncle is a real instigator - he tried to sell me on a beautiful yellow pre-war cabin class airplane of some kind with a round engine (sorry - forgot the details)
  • Then there is the local Howard restoration - wow! what an airplane!
  • (On BT, there is a group of T-Bone, Duke and BE56 restoration guys - I like to watch, but .. not me.. wallet too small)
Of course, everyone else seems to be building an experimental of some stripe. I guess all of my mentors have rejected the "approved list" of airplanes.

For me - there is just something interesting about these post WWII airplanes that is lacking from the modern ones. Yea, I'll likely get something on your "approved list" for business use, but you gotta have something that just makes you smile - and mine does. This is my second "bad beater bonanza" and I'll likely have this one for a very long time.

You live once. Your medical won't last as long as you will. Don't buy more than you can afford and go enjoy it while you can!!
 
Tom-D said:
Round engines FOR EVER. :)
The Jake is well supported, as is the Lycoming W-680/330 horse.
Warner is now being manufactured again. so lots of parts now.
no Radial engines leave out a lot of very beautiful antiques
Click to expand...
The R-985/R-1340 very well supported as is the Continental W670 also.

Only radials that are getting more problematic are the odd ball small ones like Kinners and the bigger multi-row monsters.
 
brien23 said:
Top 10 airplanes to avoid entirely.
1. Cessna 175
2. Any Bonanza prior to 1958
3. Cessna pre 1971 model 172 with flat gear spring .
4. Any Cessna with a O-300 engine
5. Cessna 337
6. Piper Cherokee without the control levers in a throttle quadrant.
7. Piper Tripacer or Pacer
8. Any round engine plane
9. Any geared engine
10 Any Franklin engine aircraft.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with the pacer?

Or franklins

Or radials

?
 
brien23 said:
Top 10 airplanes to avoid entirely.
1. Cessna 175
2. Any Bonanza prior to 1958
3. Cessna pre 1971 model 172 with flat gear spring .
4. Any Cessna with a O-300 engine
5. Cessna 337
6. Piper Cherokee without the control levers in a throttle quadrant.
7. Piper Tripacer or Pacer
8. Any round engine plane
9. Any geared engine
10 Any Franklin engine aircraft.
Click to expand...
One of the top 10 posts to avoid entirely
 
mscard88 said:
Nothing. brien23 is wrong.
Click to expand...

I think he is correct to point out that most of the aircraft on that list have unique maintenance and parts challenges. Some of them may not be the right choice for someone with either a thin wallet or a need for high dispatch reliability. There are just parts that you can't order with a mouse-click or it may require calling around to find 'the guy' who knows how to overhaul a component. Doesn't make them 'aircraft to avoid'.
 
All radial engines are the same? My Jacobs engines are well supported, relatively inexpensive to overhaul (compared to brands C & L with 300HP engines) and super reliable. The Continental 220s I understand are the same way. Generalities are usually silly; this one is especially so!
 
weilke said:
I think he is correct to point out that most of the aircraft on that list have unique maintenance and parts challenges. Some of them may not be the right choice for someone with either a thin wallet or a need for high dispatch reliability.
Click to expand...
My Beech 18 flies almost 100 hours per year. All x-country business and personal trips. Two radial engines - with the same reliability and dispatch rate as my previous 1978 Baron. Never had to cancel a trip because of a maintenance issue. I have always been able to strategically address my maintenance issues to maintain a high dispatch rate.

Like Ernie said, generalities are usually silly. This is how old wives tales get spread.
 
The list can hardly be called "advice." It's really just an unsubstantiated, conclusory list.
 
brien23 said:
Top 10 airplanes to avoid entirely.
1. Cessna 175
2. Any Bonanza prior to 1958
3. Cessna pre 1971 model 172 with flat gear spring .
4. Any Cessna with a O-300 engine
5. Cessna 337
6. Piper Cherokee without the control levers in a throttle quadrant.
7. Piper Tripacer or Pacer
8. Any round engine plane
9. Any geared engine
10 Any Franklin engine aircraft.
Click to expand...

Methinks this post is purely to get a rise out of PoA.
 
Fearless Tower said:
My Beech 18 flies almost 100 hours per year. All x-country business and personal trips. Two radial engines - with the same reliability and dispatch rate as my previous 1978 Baron. Never had to cancel a trip because of a maintenance issue. I have always been able to strategically address my maintenance issues to maintain a high dispatch rate.
Click to expand...

I didn't say your girlfriend was ugly.

You are flying a type that was used in commercial service until a few years ago. Good parts support, some dismantled airframes for spares. Given a healthy maintenance budget I dont see why you shouldn't be able to maintain a high dispatch rate.
 
weilke said:
You are flying a type that was used in commercial service until a few years ago. Good parts support, some dismantled airframes for spares. Given a healthy maintenance budget I dont see why you shouldn't be able to maintain a high dispatch rate.
Click to expand...
Which is precisely why it is asinine to put out some ridiculous generalized list under the guise of giving people advice.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Which is precisely why it is asinine to put out some ridiculous generalized list under the guise of giving people advice.
Click to expand...

For the life of me I can't find anything wrong with earlier cherokees with the push-pull controls. They don't even qualify for the 'pricey to maintain' category.
 
weilke said:
For the life of me I can't find anything wrong with earlier cherokees with the push-pull controls. They don't even qualify for the 'pricey to maintain' category.
Click to expand...
Agree. The only thing I don’t like about them are the early ones that only have the hand brake and were never modified with toe brakes. But that isn’t necessarily a reason to avoid them if the price is right.
 
brien23 said:
Top 10 airplanes to avoid entirely.
1. Cessna 175
2. Any Bonanza prior to 1958
3. Cessna pre 1971 model 172 with flat gear spring .
4. Any Cessna with a O-300 engine
5. Cessna 337
6. Piper Cherokee without the control levers in a throttle quadrant.
7. Piper Tripacer or Pacer
8. Any round engine plane
9. Any geared engine
10 Any Franklin engine aircraft.
Click to expand...

Glad to see my beloved Piper Tomahawk didn't make the list...
 
Are there any early model Bonanzas flying without AD compliance? If so, some IAs are signing off on a lot of illegal airplanes.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Agree. The only thing I don’t like about them are the early ones that only have the hand brake and were never modified with toe brakes. But that isn’t necessarily a reason to avoid them if the price is right.
Click to expand...

As mechanical systems go, the hand brake is simpler than separate toe brakes. At one point, I flew a yellow/red striped 140 with the 'parking brake' and the only time I missed the toe brakes was on iced over runways.
 
My daily driver is a 1982 Jeep CJ8 Scrambler. No fancy computers or electronics. Craftsman tools fix everything. The internet of experts takes a dump on old CJ's, IH scouts, and their other "peers" while they spend 10x the money on new models that require specialized technicians and have "replacement" protocols for engines, transmissions, emissions etc... Meanwhile, I maintain 90% of my Jeep's ailments with a trip to Napa and $20 cash in my pocket.
 
N659HB said:
Are there any early model Bonanzas flying without AD compliance? If so, some IAs are signing off on a lot of illegal airplanes.
Click to expand...

Unlikely - that one is well known. But what some people don't know is that the 1947,48,49 and 1950 model years DO NOT need "the cuff". Just a balance to ensure nothing will flutter. The C35 and after are pretty easy to verify initial compliance: "the cuff" is there. Just need to check it occasionally.

Now, there are A&Ps that think stop drilling magnesium is a good idea ...

The one thing interesting about the old Bo's is that the American Bonanza Society and Beech Talk are very active. If you don't know about any of this as an A&P/owner - well, you didn't ask. I wouldn't be surprised if support for the older 35's is better than some of the new "approved" aircraft ...

... finding parts, however, can be measured with a calendar ...
 
This OP is trolling...and he just made my "Top 10 POA's to Avoid"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top