10 airplanes to avoid

brien23

brien23

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,489
Location
Oak Harbor
Display Name
Display name:
Brien
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.
 
And this list is based on... ?? What you've heard, or read on the internet, or did you own any of these? I'm pretty sure plenty of people would disagree with the list.
 
Based on the various threads I have read here on PoA over the last year or so, your list should also include:

- No high wing airplanes;
- No low wing airplanes;
- No airplanes with retractable gear;
- No light twins;
- No airplanes without a parachute;
- No airplanes without side stick controls;
- No airplane made out of plastic;
- No airplane with a Continental motor... ;)
 
Dav8or said:
And this list is based on... ?? What you've heard, or read on the internet, or did you own any of these? I'm pretty sure plenty of people would disagree with the list.
Click to expand...
Just my list from working on them for the past 40 years some a little more some a little less.
A&P/IA CFI CFII
 
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
Click to expand...
Poppycock! It would be helpful if you had an explanation behind these. :sosp:
 
And one more to the list:

Any airplane he has worked on. Apparently airplanes are too cranky, much like their caretakers.

If you hate 90% of the GA fleet, then why even bother?
 
I’ll admit that many of those shouldn’t be considered by the average pilot/first time owner.

But- this is also a function of money. If you are looking at an old 35 thinking “cheap flying”, well, not so fast. It depends. If you can handle the bumps, it isn’t as bad as many would indicate.

Regardless, you need an A&P willing to actually learn the quirks of these older types. It’s the reason the previous owner of mine got his A&P ticket. I might head down the same path- I don’t want a guy wrenching on my Art Deco airplane but would rather be working on an SR22.
 
brian] said:
I don’t want a guy wrenching on my Art Deco airplane but would rather be working on an SR22.
Click to expand...
Working in a 1930s Art Deco airplane vs a Cirrus is no different than working on a Model A vs a BMW.

You might make more money as a BMW mechanic, but you’ll have a much easier and enjoyable job working on the antique.
 
Say- where’s Tom? This could get interesting.
 
Cessna, Piper and the Bo have gotten better over the years who would not want the improvements. The early years had some problems that the later models did away with. As for the Franklin engine parts are getting a little hard to find for them. My list is based on that not on how hard or easy they are to work but the upgrades over the years making them better, and the older ones something to stay away from for someone to buy. The only airplane on the list i do not like to work on is the Cessna 337.
 
I would just not buy an airplane, of course, I already own one so no need.
 
I always thought the 337 was a sweet looking plane. Zero personal knowledge of performance or quirks. I would think its a kick in the pants to fly..
 
AKBill said:
I always thought the 337 was a sweet looking plane. Zero personal knowledge of performance or quirks. I would think its a kick in the pants to fly..
Click to expand...
Cessna stopped making them and it was not due to a long waiting list for new ones.
 
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.
 
AKBill said:
I always thought the 337 was a sweet looking plane. Zero personal knowledge of performance or quirks. I would think its a kick in the pants to fly..
Click to expand...

They strike me as being a mechanical nightmare, starting with the gear. And the idea of being sandwiched between the engines never appealed to me.
 
brien23 said:
Cessna stopped making them and it was not due to a long waiting list for new ones.
Click to expand...

That's true of many models though. Doesn't mean they're unsafe or undesirable. Well I might give you undesirable being they're not made anymore.
 
FastEddieB said:
#9 seems odd, in that the geared ROTAX engine is now probably the most popular aircraft engine out there right now.
Click to expand...
Yes, ROTAX is popular and probably should not be part of my list as I know nothing about them.
 
What's the deal with the pre-D 310? Is that the cutoff for the overwing exhaust augmentors? Is that even the extent of the differences? I thought all these models were relatively equally expensive to maintain airframe parts wise, with a special place for the turbo models of course. Parts aren't exactly cheap nor easy to get these days for the 310s.

At any rate, the one I didn't see on the list which I would include, would be the leafspring legged 210s with the midget seats. Especially the ones with the engine driven hydraulic pump, let alone the earlier ones with the shared hydraulic flaps on said setup. A six seater without 6 seats, a twin in cost without the twin engine. :D The tube-legged 210s are more manageable by comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top