Beech Sierra

Dead Stick said:
Buy a Baby Beech and put the difference in the bank - it will likely pay for a lot of fuel or several years worth of insurance, and maintenance. Cost effectiveness matters too. ;)
Click to expand...

That doesn't solve the going faster issue.

A quick look shows Sierras around the same price as Comanches and Mooneys. You ain't saving nothing
 
EdFred said:
Not my flights. I bought my plane to go places, not to look at the flat land of Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana. Gulf of Mexico non stop? Don't mind if I do! I'm not doing that in a 172, Cherokee, Sierra, etc...
Click to expand...
I wouldn't do it in one either. Not every airplane fits every set of parameters. Personally, if I were in the market for a light 4-seat retractable, the one that would fit my current personal style best would be a FIKI equipped Mooney M20K Encore. But that would be overkill for a lot of folks.
 
Dead Stick said:
I wouldn't do it in one either. Not every airplane fits every set of parameters. Personally, if I were in the market for a light 4-seat retractable, the one that would fit my current personal style best would be a FIKI equipped Mooney M20K Encore. But that would be overkill for a lot of folks.
Click to expand...

I meant those planes won't do it. They just don't have the efficiency. I have done non-stop from Michigan to Sarasota, FL. But, I can also pull the Comanche back and fly on 8gph faster than a Cherokee.
 
Dead Stick said:
Buy a Baby Beech and put the difference in the bank - it will likely pay for a lot of fuel or several years worth of insurance, and maintenance. Cost effectiveness matters too. ;)
Click to expand...

Did ya see?:

YMMV, things are closer than they appear, don't try this at home, pro driver on a closed course, and settling may have occurred.

Anyway, if there's savings on the Sierra over a Bo or Mooney that's fine. Taken to it's logical conclusion one should just drive around in a Aerocommander Darter, or Stinson 108.
 
Speaking as a current Sierra owner, '79 C24R, I can say the plane flies great, solid IMC platform for IFR work, low maintenance for a retract, gives a true 130-132KIAS on 9.2gal/hr, can carry 4 full size adults. (I hate it when others dispute factual information that REAL OWNERS give when they are only speaking an opinion that is misleading.........). Only drawback I find is it takes a bit more runway for takeoff/landing margin......just plan on using Runways with min 2500'.

It's not the fastest, but may be the roomiest interior and is very comfortable and solid beech quality, meaning "fit and finish" and quality of materials and structure of wing spar/landing gear make it a very solid feeling platform. I'm very happy with mine. As another member mentioned, the 5-10Kts difference in some of these other similar powered models never amounted to much net operational difference in a 300-400 mile trip which is pretty typical of my travels.

I had a '58 J35 Bonanza, this Sierra is much easier on the pocketbook with fuel burn and maintenance and none of the V-tail worries. I had a Citabria before that. I have flown 152s, 172s, 182s, Cherokees, Archers, Cherokee 6s, DA20, DA40, Cheetah, Tigers, Bonanzas, Skippers, Sundowners, Duchess, Cirrus SR22. I would love to have a DA40/50 or Cirrus but that's a whole different financial equation that I can't do right now. I wanted to get the most VALUE for the budget that I had to play with, that's why I ended up buying the Sierra.

There are lot's of choices, no one should be so ABSOLUTE for/against a plane model because everyone's tastes are different. I was considering (actually searching to buy) a Grumman/American Tiger AA5 because of it's speed and efficiency at 180HP, but the plane felt "light in the pants" when in a little IFR turbulence and not as easy to keep on track so that changed my mind. I still think that a Tiger would be a joy to have, but for carting my family around, I felt much more "assured" with the Sierra.

Mooney's are great, just a little cramped for my taste......and my family's opinion counted much in my decision on "cabin comfort" (Wife and two daughters.) Piper's are solid just not as well appointed in my opinion, and Cessna's are "high wing" and more expensive and don't provide any advantages that I can see. The aforementioned models are typically much more expensive to acquire than the Sierra, so again, like another member mentioned, I chose to buy a more recent model (1979 Sierra vs a Mid-60's to early 70's model of the others) with better avionics and pocket the savings for more flying. Just my two cents.......
 
The one advantage to a high wing is getting in and out in the rain, camping tarp over the wing is a plus as well. For a 4 cyl single, the Sierra and Cardinal RG are the ones I'd look at, and likely the Cardinal would win due to use as a photo platform.
 
Tigerphan2007 said:
Speaking as a current Sierra owner, '79 C24R, I can say the plane flies great, solid IMC platform for IFR work, low maintenance for a retract, gives a true 130-132KIAS on 9.2gal/hr, can carry 4 full size adults. (I hate it when others dispute factual information that REAL OWNERS give when they are only speaking an opinion that is misleading.........). Only drawback I find is it takes a bit more runway for takeoff/landing margin......just plan on using Runways with min 2500'.

It's not the fastest, but may be the roomiest interior and is very comfortable and solid beech quality, meaning "fit and finish" and quality of materials and structure of wing spar/landing gear make it a very solid feeling platform. I'm very happy with mine. As another member mentioned, the 5-10Kts difference in some of these other similar powered models never amounted to much net operational difference in a 300-400 mile trip which is pretty typical of my travels.

I had a '58 J35 Bonanza, this Sierra is much easier on the pocketbook with fuel burn and maintenance and none of the V-tail worries. I had a Citabria before that. I have flown 152s, 172s, 182s, Cherokees, Archers, Cherokee 6s, DA20, DA40, Cheetah, Tigers, Bonanzas, Skippers, Sundowners, Duchess, Cirrus SR22. I would love to have a DA40/50 or Cirrus but that's a whole different financial equation that I can't do right now. I wanted to get the most VALUE for the budget that I had to play with, that's why I ended up buying the Sierra.

There are lot's of choices, no one should be so ABSOLUTE for/against a plane model because everyone's tastes are different. I was considering (actually searching to buy) a Grumman/American Tiger AA5 because of it's speed and efficiency at 180HP, but the plane felt "light in the pants" when in a little IFR turbulence and not as easy to keep on track so that changed my mind. I still think that a Tiger would be a joy to have, but for carting my family around, I felt much more "assured" with the Sierra.

Mooney's are great, just a little cramped for my taste......and my family's opinion counted much in my decision on "cabin comfort" (Wife and two daughters.) Piper's are solid just not as well appointed in my opinion, and Cessna's are "high wing" and more expensive and don't provide any advantages that I can see. The aforementioned models are typically much more expensive to acquire than the Sierra, so again, like another member mentioned, I chose to buy a more recent model (1979 Sierra vs a Mid-60's to early 70's model of the others) with better avionics and pocket the savings for more flying. Just my two cents.......
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC, the Model 19/23/24's are the most "dangerous" SEL Certified planes out there.
 
Interesting. Thanks.

Surprising in that I have a fair amount of time in them, and they seemed rather benign and, well, pedestrian.

Not a dig - they just did not seem dangerous - or particularly exciting.

Got the job done though, with both quality and comfort.

Anyone guessing why their fatal rates seem high?
 
FastEddieB said:
Interesting. Thanks.

Surprising in that I have a fair amount of time in them, and they seemed rather benign and, well, pedestrian.

Not a dig - they just did not seem dangerous - or particularly exciting.

Got the job done though, with both quality and comfort.

Anyone guessing why their fatal rates seem high?
Click to expand...

Yep, their owners are the least proficient is what I gathered from the hours operated.
 
FastEddieB said:
Anyone guessing why their fatal rates seem high?
Click to expand...
I'm guess that many (most) of them started out as training aircraft in the Beech Aero Clubs. Training always seems to extract the highest accident tolls from any airframe. I always felt the airplanes were well built and had no handling vices. In fact, if I recall correctly, the only thing Beech had to do to get the Sundowner certified for aerobatics was to install cowling strakes, a ventral fin under the rudder, fairings ahead of the stabilator, a G-meter and quick-release doors.
 
EdFred said:
All I know is I had to sit with my head cranked over to the left to keep from banging on the headliner and my right arm in front of me because my right shoulder was pressed TIGHT against the side.
Click to expand...
It must be a combination of body type and specific airplane. I logged some 5 hours in 1968 M20E when I thought about buying one, and it was comfortable. I am 6 feet 5 inches tall. The two things I did not like were the gear bar (I started by ripping the skin in my palm), and the fuel selector. The valve was very tight, and the "off" position is between left and right, so you must risk getting stuck in "off" every time you switch tanks. In the same time, the handle is miniscule and located between your legs. The owner of the plane even fashioned a special crank out of PVC pipe to turn that valve! Oh and also, every time I lowered the gear, I unbuckled myself and had to buckle the seatbelt again. Right in the time when I have my task load creeping up. So yeah, I did not enjoy Mooney. But no comfort issues.
 
zaitcev said:
It must be a combination of body type and specific airplane. I logged some 5 hours in 1968 M20E when I thought about buying one, and it was comfortable. I am 6 feet 5 inches tall. The two things I did not like were the gear bar (I started by ripping the skin in my palm), and the fuel selector. The valve was very tight, and the "off" position is between left and right, so you must risk getting stuck in "off" every time you switch tanks. In the same time, the handle is miniscule and located between your legs. The owner of the plane even fashioned a special crank out of PVC pipe to turn that valve! Oh and also, every time I lowered the gear, I unbuckled myself and had to buckle the seatbelt again. Right in the time when I have my task load creeping up. So yeah, I did not enjoy Mooney. But no comfort issues.
Click to expand...

I know this is thread creep, but if these two issues are what soured you on Mooneys, you should really have another look. The fuel valve on the early planes is in a stupid place. It makes perfect sense for the engineers, but not the pilot. However, the one you flew sounds like it needs some work. I have a '66 F and my valve is not hard to turn at all and there is little to no risk of it getting stuck in the off position.

The PVC pipe tool is common vintage Mooney owner project and I had always wanted to make it just for fun. It's purpose isn't to over come the valve that is hard to turn, but rather so you don't have to bend down between your legs to switch tanks. By the time I finally got around to making one, I was completely used to just reaching down and turning the valve. Now I force myself to use the tool just because I paid for it and built it damn it! :lol: On later model Mooneys, they moved the valve to be at the center console area and much more convenient.

The manual gear you used is only on some vintage Mooneys. If you don't like it, (many Mooney owners absolutely love it) find a Mooney with electric gear. Mine has electric gear and it works just like any other airplane. Gear up and down with a flip of a switch. M20 C, D, E, F and G are all available out there with electric gear. Of course J and onward are only electric gear.

Like I said, if those two things really put you off Mooney, keep looking, you can find a Mooney without those issues.
 
I find the fuel valve placement on my Arrow to be a PITA. To change tanks requires you to almost bend over double and lean to the left at the same time. It is just far enough away to force you to use your fingertips and never get a real grip on it. While bending down and to the left it is easy to push on the yoke in a manner that can change your heading and altitude. I have learned to make all these movements in a quick bend, lean, push or pull and return to upright position to avoid getting rib cramps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top