Why not a Sundowner? Another plane thread...

Haha. No. I changed jobs last year. I wasn't aware until just recently that the new gig has a bonus structure.
After the madness you dealt with a few years ago with both finding a job and the oddball contract employment you had, I'm glad you have something that permits success and recognition.
 
Requirements: 2-doors (not negotiable, single-door pipers etc will not pass the wife test), ....

Did you ask her or you are just sure without? I was adamant about 2 doors too at first too. But when I asked, wife insisted that she would be content with 1 door. For a couple of years I thought that she only said that to be nice. But things seemed okay with trial runs in rentals. Eventually I realized that she was sincere and that boarding procedure, although unpleasant, is only a minor problem in the overall scheme of things. The smell of gasoline, the waiting for rentals, the imperative to foresee when someone on board is going to want to pee -- all those things that make the door insignificant.

Of course having 2 doors is better, which is why Mooney is finally adding the left door. But you aren't in the position to be picky, or you would be looking at buying a Pilatus.
 
....of course no doors is the best alternative - AA5's rock in hot weather - partially open canopy on taxi is not to be discounted as a significant positive. Ingress/egress ease can't be beat if one has a modicum of hip and knee ROM.
 
Glad to see a lot of AA5, and Tiger recommendations. It is a good, efficient, and faster alternative, and easy to ingress/egress.
 
Last edited:
Haha. No. I changed jobs last year. I wasn't aware until just recently that the new gig has a bonus structure.

Well... If you keep posting on this board during work hours, you may not get your bonus! LOL! Of course, I am allowed, I am retired!!!!
 
Can't speak about the sundowner, but your pacer and S108 ideas are solid.

Both great aircraft, quite strong, great performers, easy MX, land anywhere, very safe, backcountry (also useful in the event of a engine failure) friendly, and for 40k you can get a AWSOME example of ether.
 
Stephen Spielberg has been secretly viewing 6PC's videos online, sees remarkable raw talent and has signed up Brian to shoot a six part epic Indiana Jones inspired adventure travelogue starring The Monkey. Brian plans to use his share of box office revenues to ditch the plastic parachute and buy a Gulfstream 650 (which origins mean he still gets a Grumman, sort of) even though it only has one door. ;)

As long as 6PC doesn't pull a real Indiana Jones and land on the...well you know. :D
 
Did you ask her or you are just sure without? I was adamant about 2 doors too at first too. But when I asked, wife insisted that she would be content with 1 door. For a couple of years I thought that she only said that to be nice. But things seemed okay with trial runs in rentals. Eventually I realized that she was sincere and that boarding procedure, although unpleasant, is only a minor problem in the overall scheme of things. The smell of gasoline, the waiting for rentals, the imperative to foresee when someone on board is going to want to pee -- all those things that make the door insignificant.

Of course having 2 doors is better, which is why Mooney is finally adding the left door. But you aren't in the position to be picky, or you would be looking at buying a Pilatus.

There is only one passenger door on the Pilatus Turboprop, so he's screwed...unless of course he can convince himself the baggage door counts as #2.

And that's probably not a good choice for him as it would result in a "6-PC PC-12", which this tough crowd would forever torment him. ;)
 
Glad to see a lot of AA5, and Tiger recommendations. It is a good, efficient, and faster alternative, and easy to ingress/egress.
Anthony!!! Good to see you back in this neck of the web!
 
I plan on 120kts with my 177B and Gary stated he plans on 110kts with his Sundowner. A long XC for me would be about 400 NM, and the difference between the planes would be, non stop, 15 minutes. We normally stop every few hours for a bathroom break and fuel, so the actual difference between the two could depend on how much I shoot the bull with the line guys or other pilots at the fuel stop. When I went shopping, it was two doors or nothing. Beech parts are no more expensive than Cessna parts - a Lycoming is a Lycoming, and sheet metal is sheet metal. The Cardinals command quite a bit more than what you'll give for a Baby Beech, so leverage others' biases to your advantage and get a great plane for a discount.

A C177 (probably not R) would also fit the bill. I've considered a few. Problem there is eveyone I talk to tells me to just look at 182's if you are considering the 177. Ugh. I'm horrible when it comes to deciding on cars, planes are even worse. Practically every single one needs to be considered in it's own right.
 
My first plane was a Sundowner. I let Mascelli take a look at it and next thing I know he has like a billion miles on his own Sundowner.

Two doors - don't underestimate what a plus that is! If you want low wing, Sundowner is a great way to go. 115 ktas on 9.5 iirc. Solid. No parts issues except a nose gear bushing that Beech inexplicably wanted $800, while the local machine shop was happy to accomodate me for maybe $75.

Slow? Well, maybe. But do some flight planning andfigure out whether 115 kts vs 125 is that big a deal. Factor in not staggering seats so your shoulders don't overlap. Pax liked the ride. Tiger will always win the speed/efficiency race, but comfort has gotta count for something!

And the alleged difficult landing characteristics? Pah! Only promulgated by someone who has never landed a Sundowner. 65kts down final (full back trim if you like) and that baby will sit on the runway like she has trailing link gear.
 
My first plane was a Sundowner. I let Mascelli take a look at it and next thing I know he has like a billion miles on his own Sundowner.

Two doors - don't underestimate what a plus that is! If you want low wing, Sundowner is a great way to go. 115 ktas on 9.5 iirc. Solid. No parts issues except a nose gear bushing that Beech inexplicably wanted $800, while the local machine shop was happy to accomodate me for maybe $75.

Had my 1974 baby Beech for 20 years and have not changed out many worn airframe parts. The O-360 is a great engine and will run a long time with a little TLC.

If you hanger the plane and do the preventive maintenance it will fly for many years without breaking your pocket book...:)

Join Beech Areo Club (BAC) about $40 a year. Great information on how to keep the baby Beech running for years at low cost...:)
 
Buy a Grumman. A Cheetah will be cheaper than a Tiger and with all of you being lightweights should do just fine. With a canopy you don't need silly doors.


What he said (Cheetah owner over here)...
 
Don't make the mistakes I made - it doesn't matter what type of plane you buy; what matters is the pre-buy and the mechanic. Are you sure you can afford some giant discovery AFTER you own the plane? For me it was valve wobble on the #3 cylinder 18 months after purchase. I chose a Penn Yan rebuild which was not cheap, which leads to another life lesson: don't ever be a cheapskate with engine work.

If you find a plane that looks interesting, you want your mechanic or a mechanic that specializes in the type to look it over. Not their mechanic - your chosen mechanic. No exceptions. Offer to pay for half a typical annual (half of $1500 or the half the actual annual price - which ever is less). If the buyer won't go for that - NEXT.

I cannot stress this enough - you make the seller fly his/her plane to your chosen mechanic. Look for a renowned mechanic close to them if possible.

The reason I say all this is because of the 177B: unfortunately you cannot do a decent pre-buy on that plane unless you take out the headliner to inspect the spar. I'm pretty sure this is a major P.I.A. - but you gotta do it for that plane. I love the 177B so am learning everything about it.

As my mechanic told me in no uncertain terms: stick with Lycoming, stick with fixed gear, and try to stay with fixed-pitch props. I know that most of that translates to un-sexy and quasi-slow but you won't go bankrupt heeding those words. I will say this: the Grummans are WAY WAY more fun than stodgy old 172s. The difference is night and day. Regardless, all the planes you've mentioned are excellent first-time-owner aircraft.
 
I will say this: the Grummans are WAY WAY more fun than stodgy old 172s. The difference is night and day. Regardless, all the planes you've mentioned are excellent first-time-owner aircraft.

Nothing wrong with a Sundowner, PA28, C-172, etc. but I will agree the Grummans are a good solid GA plane, and will get you more speed on the same power, and are fun to fly.
 
Don't make the mistakes I made - it doesn't matter what type of plane you buy; what matters is the pre-buy and the mechanic. Are you sure you can afford some giant discovery AFTER you own the plane? For me it was valve wobble on the #3 cylinder 18 months after purchase. I chose a Penn Yan rebuild which was not cheap, which leads to another life lesson: don't ever be a cheapskate with engine work.

Please pardon my confusion, but the above paragraph sounds really strange to me, in two areas.

First, finding a "valve wobble" "18 monts after purchase" implies that the airplane has passed an annual inspection once in the new ownership. What were the chances that the pre-buy inspection would find the problem if the annual inspection did not? Thus, I don't think this experience points out "mistakes I made".

Second, if you "chose a Penn Yann", it cannot provide a "life lesson: don't ever be a cheapskate". If you did _not_ choose Penn-Yann, and the engine threw a rod in 100 hours after the rebuild, then it _would_ be such life lesson. But as it is, it's not.

Mind, I fully agree with not going cheap on prebuys and getting a good overhaul, but the logic seems to be missing in the quote above.
 
Please pardon my confusion, but the above paragraph sounds really strange to me, in two areas.

LOL are you a lawyer? Attempting to clarify (apologies for poor penmanship - i'm actually a technical writer):

#1. My pre-buy wasn't thorough enough - we did not do a borescope/valve wobble test because your's truly (an amateur) didn't even know what that was. Ditto the first annual. I didn't know about the Valve Wobble test, which is kinda mandatory for hot-cowled Grummans. Finally, at second annual, we did it. The engine on my plane was the ORIGINAL engine - yeah, that one (from 1979). I thought that was a good thing. OOPS...

#2. I have read endless reams of Grumman Gang posts of people trying to cheapskate their way through an engine 'overhaul' or 'top overhaul' and it just makes me cringe. Replacing this one cylinder or that one cylinder may be my reality in the not-too-distant future, but at least my baseline is/was a pretty-close-to-new engine.
 
800 SMOH 10/10 $30K for a Sundowner is a steal. This is basically a Beech Archer. They are well built planes, though parts could get a little pricey. It I were in the market for another plane, this one would sound good. Just get a good pre-buy.
 
I've done quite a bit of "internet shopping" over the past few weeks. I still like the Sundowner in general, but I'm also considering the Grumman Cheetah/Tiger. Seems like there are a fair number of them available at the $45K and less price range in (apparent) decent shape. I'd really like to find/see/ride in/fly one of each at some point. Keep in mind the only things I've ever personally flown in are: C172, C150, Cherokee 140, Arrow, Acro Sport II Biplane, and a long time ago a C185 on floats and Twin Comanche. I've got nothing against the Cessnas, just like I have nothing against a Chevy Malibu, but I want something low wing, and 2-door (or no door).

Sundowner:
+ wider/roomier
+ 2 doors, conventional layout
- slower

Grumman:
+ sexier looking
+ I dig the sliding canopy
+ faster & more efficient
- Somewhat more cramped
- canopy might suck in the rain

Wash:
o Both have possible parts/supply issues ($$ and or availability)
o Both have good enthusiast/type group support
o Both carry about the same payload (+/- depending on specifics)

When the time comes (or over this summer if I can) I would like to find some local to look at/fly in. Just to see what really works for me.
 
Grumman:
- Somewhat more cramped
The Grumman's huge windows, and slightly bug-eyed upper cabin cross-section, along with the low-set panel and glareshield, make it seem more spacious than the numbers suggest. Try one on for size.

- canopy might suck in the rain
My hours in American AA-1 and Grumman-American AA-5 types: 570
Number of times rain has caused a problem in those aircraft: 0

Carry an umbrella if you're in rainy weather. Look at how far the cabin doors of most low-wing airplanes extend up into the roof. In rain you'll get wet in a Cherokee, Mooney or Bonanza with the door open, too.
 
Found a AA-5 Cheetah with hail damage for $14K. 7677 AFTT, 1029 SMOH. In annual as of 3/2017. Not sure if the hail damage was after that annual. Pics:

http://www.barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=1239346

Thoughts? I might email the seller and see what the deal is with the damage (if after annual) and how bad it is. It looks to be more than just a little, I see at least two fist-sized spots with paint coming off. I know a lot of folks on the internet say hail damage in general doesn't "ruin" a plane, but it sure destroys the value/price. On the other hand, buying one for cheap if I don't care just to build time... For the price of a cheap 150...
 
.....When the time comes (or over this summer if I can) I would like to find some local to look at/fly in. Just to see what really works for me.

I'm sure there is someone local to your area that can give you a ride or give you a look at a Sundowner. I can post on the Beech Aero Club site that you are looking. PM me an email or contact number that you can be reached at, if you're interested.

Or, you can join the Beech Aero Club and post for yourself. http://www.beechaeroclub.org/forum.php

If you're ever in the ocean city Maryland area (KOXB) I'll take you up for a flight.
 
Sign up for the Grumman Gang mail list and post your interest in getting a ride in a Cheetah or Tiger (http://grumman.net/index.html). Or you can try emailing the northeast director of the AYA (one of the 2 type clubs) and see if he can recommend someone (NE@AYA.org).

If you're ever down in NJ or southeast NY you can PM me and I can give you a ride in mine.
 
Found a AA-5 Cheetah with hail damage for $14K. 7677 AFTT, 1029 SMOH. In annual as of 3/2017. Not sure if the hail damage was after that annual. Pics:

http://www.barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=1239346

Thoughts? I might email the seller and see what the deal is with the damage (if after annual) and how bad it is. It looks to be more than just a little, I see at least two fist-sized spots with paint coming off. I know a lot of folks on the internet say hail damage in general doesn't "ruin" a plane, but it sure destroys the value/price. On the other hand, buying one for cheap if I don't care just to build time... For the price of a cheap 150...


First thing I see is those radios... is the plane cheap enough to consider replacing them right away?
Hail damage.... Are they metal wings or some composite thing? Does hail affect them differently that just denting them?

Just saw the last picture. Yikes. Looks like someone was shooting marbles at it with a slingshot.
 
I think on the AA-5 the wings are aluminum, but are "bonded" not riveted. So that does bring up a good possible issue. A couple of those hits look pretty major too, like softball sized hail... I don't think I would seriously consider this one, but it was interesting to me that it could be had for (probably less than) $14K, cost of an inexpensive 152. Radios, yeah, I would want to upgrade at least one of them.
 
The AA-5 wings are aluminum, and bonded (glued) without rivets. Parts are not an issue, and Fletchair has them, so I'd give them a call to discuss what hail damage repair would entail.
 
I have no real complaints about mine, so far. Very solid, and easy to land once you learn to leave a little power in. It has been inexpensive to fly, so far, and does the 200-300 mile missions quite well, at 9-10gph.
 
Back
Top