Musketeer vs a C172

simtech

simtech

En-Route
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
3,089
Location
mississippi
Display Name
Display name:
Simtech
I'm considering getting a Beech Musketeer or a 172. I can't find solid numbers on the beech, they seem to range a lot. Some people say it compares to a 172 just bigger and a tad slower while other compare it to a 150. They also say it climbs like an iron sled. So...does anybody have any real numbers they care to share? I'm thinking of the 23, 19, or 23-24 model. My main trip is carrying me and the wife 400nm to Dallas and back to MS and shorter trips of course. So the 172 could be faster but I would have to fuel stop whereas the possibly slower beech can make it nonstop. These are my thoughts. Also scared of possible resale on the beech...

I've noticed I can get a nice looking musketeer, IFR for under $30k and a comparable 172 closer to $40k.

And why are the planes on trade a plane so much more than on barnstormers!?
 
And why are the planes on trade a plane so much more than on barnstormers!?
Click to expand...
That's just the way it happens. But often you need to search many sites to learn about the types and educate yourself on the market.

But also many times, the best plane at the best price is found not in the listing rags or sites, but by asking around at the local fields.

Start spreading the word and a business card that you're hunting and what you want to find. Speak to the mechanics. Speak to other aircraft owners. Talk it up with the rampers at the FBO.

Mouse vs. 172 -- The 172's are a getting a higher price because there is a larger demand than the Mouse. With so many 172's in the flight schools, first time aircraft buyers like purchasing what they are familiar with.

I'll let others comment on the pros/cons of the type since I'm not familiar with them.

Also, don't count out the Piper Cherokees. For the price range you're implying, there are many good examples for sale with the upgraded 160hp engine. If you can stretch into the high 30's, there are some nice PA28-180's too. Tony Scarpelli is a good resource here on how to fly very economically in Cherokees.
 
Not sure, but I believe the maintenance on the Beech would be more expensive.
 
What make/model are you currently using for the 400 nm trips to TX? How often have you flown the trip?
 
Yeah I need to start looking around. The problem is I'm not 100% into the mode yet, just putting out feelers. I've not written off the pipers but I like having two doors and not having to crawl across the passenger seat to get in.

Ive read about the IO-346..what is that the 165hp, yeah I would not touch one!

As far as the trip, well...I have not done it yet. I'm from Dallas and we drive the 9 hour trip a few times a year and it is getting old. Figured it's time to start using my cert for what I got it for, traveling home, to the beach, and new places outside of MS. Currently I fly a newer 172 and really like it but a 2000 model 172 is way out of my price range!
 
wabower said:
What make/model are you currently using for the 400 nm trips to TX? How often have you flown the trip?
Click to expand...

Valid point.

I recently did my longest trip so far of 315 nm each way (Denton to Dalhart back to Denton) in a C182P. 5.25 hrs total flying and I was quite comfortable and not worn out at the end. In a PA28-140... maybe not so comfortable.

Before you make up your mind on Mouse, 172, or any other. Actually fly the trip in something that is a good example of what you see. Or do at least a 2hr one way run. You will quickly determine how happy you are with the performance and personal fit of that type of aircraft.
 
simtech said:
As far as the trip, well...I have not done it yet. I'm from Dallas and we drive the 9 hour trip a few times a year and it is getting old. Figured it's time to start using my cert for what I got it for, traveling home, to the beach, and new places outside of MS. Currently I fly a newer 172 and really like it but a 2000 model 172 is way out of my price range!
Click to expand...

Find a co-owner or club arrangement with a C182. For your mission of local shorter hops and the occasional Dallas run, it would fit very well.

Co-ownership makes flying much more affordable than sole. Many threads and other articles on this topic, so I'll leave it to you to search for them.

An example is what I have with www.metroflyersclub.com. Affordable equity buy-in, $300/mo dues, rent $110/tach hr wet, and only about 60% of the current members are actually flying regularly.
 
Trained in a 172, but I bought a Sundowner. The Sundowner has a tad more room. It will carry a little more fuel. It's not going to win a speed award, but a 172 isn't either. The 172 is probably a tad more forgiving. You really need to flight the Mouse by the numbers. Parts and maintenance will probably be a tad easier to find and cheaper on the 172. I haven't experienced any problems though with the Sundowner.

Why did I buy the Sundowner? I'm a big guy. I was tired of groping my co-pilot. I really have no complaints.
 
Please send picture of Mouse and copilot.

fishhog said:
Trained in a 172, but I bought a Sundowner. The Sundowner has a tad more room. It will carry a little more fuel. It's not going to win a speed award, but a 172 isn't either. The 172 is probably a tad more forgiving. You really need to flight the Mouse by the numbers. Parts and maintenance will probably be a tad easier to find and cheaper on the 172. I haven't experienced any problems though with the Sundowner.

Why did I buy the Sundowner? I'm a big guy. I was tired of groping my co-pilot. I really have no complaints.
Click to expand...
 
AggieMike88 said:
Find a co-owner or club arrangement with a C182. For your mission of local shorter hops and the occasional Dallas run, it would fit very well.

Co-ownership makes flying much more affordable than sole. Many threads and other articles on this topic, so I'll leave it to you to search for them.

An example is what I have with www.metroflyersclub.com. Affordable equity buy-in, $300/mo dues, rent $110/tach hr wet, and only about 60% of the current members are actually flying regularly.
Click to expand...

I was part of a club that only had a 150 and it has since folded. And sadly there are no other clubs anywhere near me as GA is not very active. I am definitely not opposed to a partnership and do feel it would be best. It's just tough finding compatible people. I actually considered starting my own club, but we will see. I'm in no rush but if I own solo I don’t want and overly expensive plane at this point in my life. To be honest I'd like a RV-6a as this would make my Dallas run 3 hours...man that would be great, but they are out of my range in an IFR bird. Speaking of my Dallas run, Im driving that 9 hours in October! Ugh!!

The cockpit size is what I like about the mouse(??)...I'm an average size 5-11 at 175 and my wife is tall and slender so I don’t need the size but more room is better to me. This is all new to me so Ill research until it gets the best of me. If I find a decent deal..well...I hope I can compose myself. Haha But Im still trying to figure which will suite me best.

I heard the Beech is subject to harsh landings and most accident are landing accidents as with the 182 due to its heavy controls.
 
fishhog said:
Trained in a 172, but I bought a Sundowner. The Sundowner has a tad more room. It will carry a little more fuel. It's not going to win a speed award, but a 172 isn't either. The 172 is probably a tad more forgiving. You really need to flight the Mouse by the numbers. Parts and maintenance will probably be a tad easier to find and cheaper on the 172. I haven't experienced any problems though with the Sundowner.

Why did I buy the Sundowner? I'm a big guy. I was tired of groping my co-pilot. I really have no complaints.
Click to expand...

How much slower is the sundowner? With not having to refuel as often would they pretty much cancel each other out and be a draw?
 
Banging around for 4 hours is frustrating. I fly a Cherokee six for work and a mooney for fun - not a huge different between the two as far as block time, but gas bills are cheaper on the mooney.
 
And that's a 25 knot difference - the difference between a sundowner and a 172 won't be much.
 
I had an identical mission. 420NM leg across Texas and back, twice a month, for a year. My solution? Post '78 (1983) PA-28-161 Warrior II. 110-112KTAS on the late wheel pants, 8gph, 50 gal tanks, 2440# MGW from the factory. I made it non-stop every time. 265 hours I put on that SOB last year. Trip times ranged from 3.5-4.5 depending on winds. No-wind trip was a 3.8. I felt fairly rested after the trip. I also got it for a considerable discount over C-172 of the same vintage, and the Warrior has longer range.

I wouldn't recommend a 182 for these longish trips. The gas will eat you alive if you plan on flying more than 10,000NM/yr. If you're gonna attempt such a trip on a higher performance than a fixed prop four banger, you're better off going retract. Otherwise you truly can make the mission for a lot cheaper for not much penalty in the trip block time by going with a piper fixed prop 4 banger. Considering I flew 240+ hours on the Warrior, I'd still would have come under budget with it as the total fuel burned was in the order of 500 dollars more than it would have been in the Arrow I currently own. The maintenance is a lot more on my Arrow than it was on the Warrior. My A&P doubles my annual flat rate just because of the gear, so there goes that saving, and that's before anything gets serviced/replaced.

If you could low-ball a seller and get yourself a post-78 archer II that would be the ultimate sweet spot. Otherwise take a look at the Warrior IIs. I think they're a better value than either the 172 or the Beech product.
 
Last edited:
Refueling stops also mean pit-stops for the pax, many of whom would take that trade-off every trip, especially west-bound. One of the reasons for asking how you're making the trip now was to encourage you to figure out a way to rent or borrow a plane for a trip or two, just to see if it's going to sell in Peoria.

simtech said:
How much slower is the sundowner? With not having to refuel as often would they pretty much cancel each other out and be a draw?
Click to expand...
 
The cream of the Musketeer group is the A23-24 super III. It has 200HP, some have C/S prop and it will go a bit faster than the 172, but on a bit more gas.

Plenty of room, strong and safe. Check the gear donuts, and for corrosion in the rear of the wing.
 
AggieMike88 said:
...
An example is what I have with www.metroflyersclub.com. Affordable equity buy-in, $300/mo dues, rent $110/tach hr wet, and only about 60% of the current members are actually flying regularly.
Click to expand...

Let me jump on this and plug my club: Chandelle Flying Club, Austin Texas.

Three hangered well maintained airplanes, $122/month dues, current rates here. Like AggieMike's club, only about 60% of the members are regularly flying at any given time.

Multiple ownership is the way to go for general aviation pilots who don't need the several hundred hours a year any good GA airplane can generate.
 
Have owned a 172 and a Cherokee liked them both had a beech twin and the maint costs where much higher on the beech because of price of beech parts.the 172 gives you two doors and a slight increase in speed over the beech,probably a little tighter cockpit on the 172. I wouldn't count out a nice pa 28-180 good luck
 
docmirror said:
The cream of the Musketeer group is the A23-24 super III. It has 200HP, some have C/S prop and it will go a bit faster than the 172, but on a bit more gas.

Plenty of room, strong and safe. Check the gear donuts, and for corrosion in the rear of the wing.
Click to expand...

I fly with my friend once a week in his 23-24. It is a 200HP angle valve engine, and their parts are more expensive than the parallel IO360. We generally do a breakfast run about 45 miles away and his and my times (usually 1.2 hours on the hobbs) are about the same, with both of us cruising at 65% and 2500-3500 MSL. He burns 8.6 gph at cruise compared to my Cardinal's O-360 8.2 gph. I've calculated true before, but can't remember. Indicated is ~115 MPH. The Super has a fixed prop and one door, whereas the Sundowner has two doors. The mice are much more roomy than a 172, in my opinion. Yoke forces are a lot heavier in his mouse compared to my Cardinal, and if memory serves, a 172. But his mouse really holds altitude and roll attitude well, once trimmed out.

Almost forgot... We see 1200 fpm climbs from initial climbout to cruise in the early morning, and 900 fpm on the way back.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of Cardinals....

Simtech... you need to add the C177 as a potential to your list. It's another good selection for an aircraft to do short hops and occasional long trips. Roomy, 2 big doors, lots of type club support.
 
Given the differences in power between the three Beech models you mentioned, it's a bit tricky to compare them to the 172. With the same power, the 172 will be faster. With same power, the 172 will climb better. As for range, yes, with 57-60 gallons of fuel, the Beeches will go farther than the standard 40-gallon 172.

FWIW, you may find a Grumman AA-5A Cheetah to be an even better choice in this class. With 120 knots TAS cruise speed on 8.5 gph and 51 gallons of fuel, it can make 400nm non-stop faster than any of the above listed. I've flown a 150HP Cheetah side-by-side with a 180HP Model 23 Sundowner, and the Sundowner could not keep up in either climb or cruise with the same 2-adults/no bags load. And with the sliding canopy, nobody has to crawl across anything to get in from either side. Finally, with the back seat folded down, the Cheetah allows carriage of all the baggage your wife might ever want to drag along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top