Beech Musketeer/Sundowner

Jmcmanna

Jmcmanna

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
320
Location
Southern WI
Display Name
Display name:
Jmcmanna
Why aren't these more popular? There are a couple near me for sale in the $30K range. One in particular is an '83 Sundowner with a mid-time engine, standard avionics, appears to be in good shape, etc... Comparable Archers seem to be selling for $20-$30K more. How come?
 
Archers go faster, carry more load and (arguably) look way better.

A better comparison to Musketeer/Sundowner would be a Cherokee 140/Warrior. Those can be found in the $30k range.

I know of a 200-hp Super Museketeer for $35k if you're interested. That model has book numbers more comparable to the Archer, but there aren't a ton of Supers out there.
 
Bunch of time in Sundowners and Sierras. They're solid little planes, albeit awfully slow.

Back in the day, Beech quality came with a price - my impression was Beech parts were more expensive than equivalent Cessna or Piper parts. I have no idea if that still holds.
 
Just like in high school, some brands are popular simply because the cool kids like em, and some are unpopular because the cool kids don't like em. Size it up for yourself and if you feel the Sundowner is every bit as good of an airplane, but with 2 doors a lot more interior room, all for the cost of a few knots cruise speed, take the $20-$30k and laugh all the way to the bank. I personally see the mice as a well built, good flying, comfortable airplane and I'd own one before a PA-28 even if they were the same price. It all depends on how much that cruise speed penalty means to you.
 
And a few of the 150 hp and 180 hp models were built certified aerobatic, so you can liven up those long, slow trips. :D

be_a23_aerobatic_1969.jpg
 
Sierra and Sundowner time aplenty. Very comfortable cabin plus the convenience of two doors. I don't think you could go wrong. So what if it's a bit slower than the competition, won't make much difference on the average trip distance. Had a few people have problems though with the porpoising on landing, pilot induced.
 
mscard88 said:
So what if it's a bit slower than the competition.
Click to expand...

The real problem isn't just with being slower, it's with being underpowered for it's size and weight. Many get in trouble and stall during approach and the result is a significantly poorer safety record than comparable Cessna or Piper aircraft. I say this as someone who has done a lot of research and came very close to buying a 1978 Sundowner last year. That said, there are steps you can take to improve performance and safety. Power flow exhaust and vortex generators are popular mods that help.
 
TexasAviation said:
Archers go faster, carry more load and (arguably) look way better.

A better comparison to Musketeer/Sundowner would be a Cherokee 140/Warrior. Those can be found in the $30k range.

I know of a 200-hp Super Museketeer for $35k if you're interested. That model has book numbers more comparable to the Archer, but there aren't a ton of Supers out there.
Click to expand...

PM sent.
Do the super IIIs have 2 doors?
 
I flew one in the 80s quite a bit when my airplane was being worked on. The FBO had two. The one I flew was not underpowered, roomy and docile. It had no bad habits . If you stalled it in the pattern you didn't know how to fly it and you probably died. The FBO used it for a shuttle at times , had no problems either.
 
As mentioned, Archers are not comparable in performance, however I wouldn't shun a Sundowner as they are nice little airplanes. Cabin is a bit snug but not really any tighter than most of it's class. Just depends on the size of the pax ;)
 
I've been flying a Sundowner since 2009, love the plane. Two doors, plenty of room and yes it is a bit slower than the archer. I flew an Archer for a few years prior to purchasing our Sundowner. As for the Archer, I hated the one door, loved the useful load and it was a good overall travel machine. As far as looks....beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I love the mouse. Baby beech aircraft are built like tanks yet handle very well and my typical annuals are pretty consistent, they don't break the bank. I also stay ahead of maintenance by upgrading or replacing items as often as I can.

The Beech Aero Club is an excellent organization, knowledgeable people that share what they have learned over the years and a great source for parts and tips on maintenance. I flight plan for 110 knots, max fuel load is @59 gallons so I run four hour legs, (if the bride falls asleep), if not three hours is comfortable for her. Very stable IFR platform, I've seen avionics across the board, from old technology to glass. Our plane has ADS-B, Garmin 530W and working on an auto-pilot upgrade.

hope the info helped
 
What it boils down to is this: Slowdowner lotta room, comfortable, solid airplane, pretty slow for the fuel burn, and Cherokee 140 a bit faster, not as roomy, about same useful load, burns way less gas. Cherokee 180, way faster, way more useful load, burns less gas, with same engine as slowdowner. Best I could ever get out of the Slowdowner was about 100mph @9gph, The Cherokee 180 would do 115kts @8gph, The Cherokee 140 is 115mph @7.5gph. I did have a Cherokee 140 that would do 115kts @8gph, but sold it. (guy made an offer that I couldn't refuse)
I consistently fly very conservatively, throttled back, leaned aggressively.
 
Jmcmanna said:
Why aren't these more popular? There are a couple near me for sale in the $30K range. One in particular is an '83 Sundowner with a mid-time engine, standard avionics, appears to be in good shape, etc... Comparable Archers seem to be selling for $20-$30K more. How come?
Click to expand...

Some are scared off by the O-346 powerplant. Not a bad motor but just not widely adopted. Plus it's way under-powered. Later models had the O-380 IIRC.
 
What about Sierras tho? 1,000lb useful and 130kt cruise in wide-cabin comfort. Are these number realistic?
 
labbadabba said:
Some are scared off by the O-346 powerplant. Not a bad motor but just not widely adopted. Plus it's way under-powered. Later models had the O-380 IIRC.
Click to expand...
The IO-346 was only used for about four years in the late sixties, and with 165hp it wasn't way underpowered. Even the first year O-320 160hp wasn't bad.

What the hell is a O-380?
 
tyndall said:
The IO-346 was only used for about four years in the late sixties, and with 165hp it wasn't way underpowered. Even the first year O-320 160hp wasn't bad.

What the hell is a O-380?
Click to expand...

O-360. Was thinking 180hp and it slipped out. Tho, the Cont. 360s are 200 hp. I had a dumb.
 
I'd probably own one except my better half says, "Airplanes MUST wear pants".
 
Beech Aero Club for the win. Great guys. Almost bought a B-19 last year. Great plane, but logs issues galore and a bunch of nickel and dime stuff that would have turned into hundreds and thousands. Black Ducting is a kiss of death, along with landing gear donuts. My wife (who was anti-flying and anti-high-wing due to claustrophobia) enjoyed the view over the nose quite well and they appear to be well built like their come-from-together counterparts.
 
labbadabba said:
Some are scared off by the O-346 powerplant. Not a bad motor but just not widely adopted. Plus it's way under-powered. Later models had the O-380 IIRC.
Click to expand...
In addition, IMHO the word "porpoiseing" was coined because of the Muskeeter' tendency. I owned one for years. I found it hard to "grease" it in. Landing was more of a "dirty" stall. Since it was built like a tank it could repeatedly drop 10-15 inches AGL w/o sustaining structural damage(s) after repeated "experiences".

Frankie Piloto
 
Someone mentioned the 180 engine compare that to the warrior and the beech has a bigger cabin two doors and the price explains it. It's like a bonanza vs a Cherokee.
 
Sundownerpilot12 said:
Someone mentioned the 180 engine compare that to the warrior and the beech has a bigger cabin two doors and the price explains it. It's like a bonanza vs a Cherokee.
Click to expand...
Our club has had a Sundowner for 10 years and over 2500 hours.
We've trained many primary students in it with no issues what so ever. It's a nice stable plane if flown properly.
The key to landings is to fly a stabilized approach and cross the fence at 70 Kts slowing to 65 or so as the energy disapates, not 75 or more.
Try to force it on and that is when you get in trouble.
 
Flew the 172 and Musketeer during flight training, I actually kinda liked it. Didn't fit in it too well but it was pretty easy to fly and I didn't notice anything that would prevent me from renting one in the future.
043869.jpg
 
mscard88 said:
Sierra and Sundowner time aplenty. Very comfortable cabin plus the convenience of two doors. I don't think you could go wrong. So what if it's a bit slower than the competition, won't make much difference on the average trip distance. Had a few people have problems though with the porpoising on landing, pilot induced.
Click to expand...
A little bit of extra power on landing seems to take care of that problem easily.
 
FlyingElvii said:
A little bit of extra power on landing seems to take care of that problem easily.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think leaving power in is one of the last things I'd want to prescribe to a pilot to reduce porpoising.

What's the logic?

As an aside, in my time spent in Sundowners and Sierras, most of it instructing, I do not recall them being at all prone to porpoising.
 
FlyingElvii said:
A little bit of extra power on landing seems to take care of that problem easily.
Click to expand...

I never had a problem either FastEddie, but have seen pilots mess up the nose gear by getting into a porpoising situation. The FBO where I instructed had a Sundowner for rental, and of all people an ANG F-16 pilot (who really flares F16s) he took out the nose gear by getting into a porpoise situation. I never had a problem w/ either the Sierra or Sundowner, so I don't know why folks have this problem. Seems to be a deal where they touch on the mains and relax too much back pressure causing the nose gear to slam down too hard perhaps. I often wonder if CG location was a problem also, but I wouldn't think so loaded properly.
 
Beech Sundowners are great planes. A little slow 115kts, very stable and responsive. 60gal, 56 usable, fuel burn around 10gph.. Easy to maintain.
 
One of my best friends has a Sierra. He loves it. I've enjoyed flying it as well. One thing that really strikes me about it is the roominess the interior of the airplane.... however I will say the gear feel very very stiff, when taxiing around its quite noticeable
 
Last edited:
AKBill said:
Beech Sundowners are great planes. A little slow 115kts, very stable and responsive. 60gal, 56 usable, fuel burn around 10gph.. Easy to maintain.
Click to expand...

That's best case. Seen lots of people say 105-110 knots is more realistic.

Everyone always says "oh it won't make enough of a difference to matter." Compared to even the relatively slow 135 knots of a 182, that's 30 more minutes in the air in a Sundowner over a relatively short 300nm trip. That's enough to "make a difference" in my book just from a comfort standpoint. Never mind the large differences if you get into most retracts.

I'd only recommend a Sundowner to someone looking for a long term traveling machine if they are absolutely sure they are Ok with going that slow. When you don't own an airplane and are coming from a local hole burner's mindset, it's easy to think you'll be happy with anything. But once you have it, opinions and tolerances can change quickly. Make sure 110 knots isn't going to drive you nuts after the first few longer trips.

I say that as someone who thought 110kts would be fine. But now I couldn't imagine going slower than my 182, and even it feels slow to me.
 
Bonchie said:
I say that as someone who thought 110kts would be fine. But now I couldn't imagine going slower than my 182, and even it feels slow to me.
Click to expand...

I totally understand what you are saying. To put it bluntly, what did you pay for your 182? My point is for the price of a Sundowner you get a good bang for your buck. Easy to maintain, comfortable plane to fly.
 
TexasAviation said:
and (arguably) look way better.
....
Click to expand...

?

They look nearly the same, taxi past one I can't even tell the difference unless I'm really looking.




But to answer the OPs question, because new pilots don't know what they don't know, same reason grummans arnt as popular, same reason folks don't build their flying foundation in a glider or tailwheel, they just know what their CFI teaches them and what they see at flight school, and have often 172/52/PA28
 
Without doing any research I venture to guess that my Cessna 140 with O-200 engine is as fast as a Musketeer while burning less fuel, although it only has two seats.

On the positive side for the Musketeer, it is a Beech! That means solidly built.
 
AKBill said:
I totally understand what you are saying. To put it bluntly, what did you pay for your 182? My point is for the price of a Sundowner you get a good bang for your buck. Easy to maintain, comfortable plane to fly.
Click to expand...

Not much but I'm in a partnership. Regardless, I get that if it's just about cost, then you look for trade offs (obviosly a 182s advantage isn't really the extra speed anyway, it's the ability to haul what I want, where I want).

But my point isn't just about cost analysis. It's about making sure a plane is going to make you happy.

For the money, I'd probably prefer a Warrior over a Sundowner but that's personal preference. I liked 112 knots on 8gph and the really good useful load. Also much easier to resell when you upgrade.
 
mscard88 said:
I never had a problem either FastEddie, but have seen pilots mess up the nose gear by getting into a porpoising situation. The FBO where I instructed had a Sundowner for rental, and of all people an ANG F-16 pilot (who really flares F16s) he took out the nose gear by getting into a porpoise situation. I never had a problem w/ either the Sierra or Sundowner, so I don't know why folks have this problem. Seems to be a deal where they touch on the mains and relax too much back pressure causing the nose gear to slam down too hard perhaps. I often wonder if CG location was a problem also, but I wouldn't think so loaded properly.
Click to expand...

Many porpoising incidents start with a too-fast approach, then the pilot relaxes yoke (or pushes forward) because the plane hasn't touched down yet. The impact is nose gear first, which then bounces back up, the pilot pulls back on the yoke, wing stalls, nose drops landing on nose gear, which bounces back up . . . This out-of-sync process continues, with higher bounces each time, until either the nose gear breaks off or the pilot wises up, pushed the throttle all the way in and goes around. Thus the name "Pilot Induced Oscillation," or PIO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top