Piper vs. Cessna

I've never flown a light cessna I liked, and they are all hideous looking IMHO. That said, the Citation series and the Caravan are pretty cool planes (I recall the CJ as being a nice airplane to fly). My main beef is with high wings, and just the general excessive lightweight and overly simple nature of the 152/172/182 series. I'd much prefer an Arrow or at least a Warrior or something if I were looking at those price points for purchase.
 
///AMG said:
I've never flown a light cessna I liked, and they are all hideous looking IMHO. That said, the Citation series and the Caravan are pretty cool planes (I recall the CJ as being a nice airplane to fly). My main beef is with high wings, and just the general excessive lightweight and overly simple nature of the 152/172/182 series. I'd much prefer an Arrow or at least a Warrior or something if I were looking at those price points for purchase.
Click to expand...

206 and 207s are good airplanes. Nice and heavy on the controls, and aren't "chinsy" feeling like the smaller ones.
 
Well i favor beech, but for obvious reasons. I know on my baron the approx cost to overhaul the engines is 20 to 25k (each)...but they are bigger engines than a 172 or archer. The TBO (time between overhaul) on my engines is 1700hours...im sure the tbo on the cessna engines is real similar....I would suggest going to lycoming or continentals website to find the exact TBO.

Any other questions about the forms needing to go to the faa and whatnot you can PM me and id be more than happy to fill you in.
 
Polar742 said:
Would something like a Stinson 108 fit the bill?
Click to expand...

You know, I was thinking the 108 Stinson which is an amazing airplane. I do believe that most you would find (without needed to do lots of work) would be over the $30k number. The Franklin engines (while very smooth) can be challenging to find parts for, and the STC to the more common motors will often push them out of range. The 108 Stinson was a great airplane though (like every Stinson I've ever flown - just a real • cat - doesn't matter if its a Stinson Jr, a Reliant, a V-77 or a 108 - they are all just great airplanes).
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Its a tough market out there for planes. Just because they're listed that high, doesn't mean they sell that high. If you find the right buyer, who wants to sell, they will come down in price.
Click to expand...

Hi KS,

I couldn't agree more. There are some screaming good deals out there if you are in the right place/right time/right cash bundle.

A buddy of mine bought a fully loaded T182RG with all the latest Garmin stuff for a scosh under 125k. Same plane 3 years ago would have run you close to 190k. Some people out there are in WAY over their heads, and need to sell NOW. Others are hanging onto the notion that their bird is worth the same as it was 3 years ago, and are in for a big disapointment. Others are pulling their birds off the market, pickleing them, and waiting for prices to come back up.

Some airplanes have held their value a bit better than others.. prices for fixed gear 182s is pretty close to similar vintage 182RGs (T or NA) with similar avionics. Really weird when you consider the difference in performance. A clean T182RG is a pretty serious travelling machine.

Dakotas (PA-28-236) have held up pretty well, too. Last I checked, the tab for a clean one was still north of 120k.

But as others have said, those are the high dollar machines. On the low end, there might be some deals, but probably to a lower degree because the margins are so much smaller. Many people are trading down these days, but others are simply walking away.

As always, do research. Get a GOOD pre-purchase from a guy NOT related to the seller in any way. If they insist that their mechanic does the inspection, don't walk, run away.

A clean, mechanically sound bird is where it's at. The engine should have been run frequently. I'd rather take a mid time engine run every day than a low time one that's sat for months on end.

Paint and interior are easy and relatively cheap to fix, so if the paint is ugly, and the seats look like they were covered with a tablecloth from Pizza Hut, who cares?

If able, find a bird with the avionics close to what you want, because they take the biggest hit in depreciation when it comes time to re-sell.

Richman
 
A Tri-Pacer will meet your needs. 4 place, near Cessna 172 performance at half the price. The downside is that this is not a good plane for a 40 hour brand new private pilot. They can be interesting to handle in a crosswind landing, not really hard but different. Ugly to boot.

Are fabric airplanes a option?
 
Rudabega said:
A Tri-Pacer will meet your needs. 4 place, near Cessna 172 performance at half the price. The downside is that this is not a good plane for a 40 hour brand new private pilot. They can be interesting to handle in a crosswind landing, not really hard but different. Ugly to boot.

Are fabric airplanes a option?
Click to expand...

Also...Don't forget about the Pacer...not Tri-Pacer, but Pacer. The utility of the taildragger is neat. Also, from a re-sale perspective, keep this in mind: Many people convert Tri-Pacers into Pacers...but nobody converts a Pacer into a Tri-Pacer. Think about it.

As for fabric airplanes - opinion here. The covering systems today are significantly better than the covering systems of even 15 years ago. When my Grandpa's Waco's were first restored (in the 1960's) they were recovered with grade-A cotton, and dope. To get any kind of good finish you had to hand-rub (wet sand) the dope in between coats. On the cabin Waco that ended up being 30 coats. This created an amazing finish, but it also was hard work (try wet sanding a cabin Waco thirty times) and it was heavy. Also, the cover lasted about 15 years (and this was a hangered airplane) before it failed the punch test. Todays covering systems are much stronger and require only a handful of coats (silver, then color) with limited or no sanding in between coats. If stored in a hanger these finishes will last 30 years. Also, they are lighter than even the factory coverings that were original potentially giving the airplane better performance.
 
WacoFan said:
Also...Don't forget about the Pacer...not Tri-Pacer, but Pacer. The utility of the taildragger is neat. Also, from a re-sale perspective, keep this in mind: Many people convert Tri-Pacers into Pacers...but nobody converts a Pacer into a Tri-Pacer. Think about it.

As for fabric airplanes - opinion here. The covering systems today are significantly better than the covering systems of even 15 years ago. When my Grandpa's Waco's were first restored (in the 1960's) they were recovered with grade-A cotton, and dope. To get any kind of good finish you had to hand-rub (wet sand) the dope in between coats. On the cabin Waco that ended up being 30 coats. This created an amazing finish, but it also was hard work (try wet sanding a cabin Waco thirty times) and it was heavy. Also, the cover lasted about 15 years (and this was a hangered airplane) before it failed the punch test. Todays covering systems are much stronger and require only a handful of coats (silver, then color) with limited or no sanding in between coats. If stored in a hanger these finishes will last 30 years. Also, they are lighter than even the factory coverings that were original potentially giving the airplane better performance.
Click to expand...

Good post.....Pacer's are great airplanes with the exception of having a steering wheel.
 
t-cart said:
Good post.....Pacer's are great airplanes with the exception of having a steering wheel.
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts about the covering systems today T-cart? Not sure if you had much experience with the older methods vs. what you must be doing with your Clipped T-craft, but would be interested in your thoughts. Wes (Ctab) is a big fan of the newer systems.
 
WacoFan said:
What are your thoughts about the covering systems today T-cart? Not sure if you had much experience with the older methods vs. what you must be doing with your Clipped T-craft, but would be interested in your thoughts. Wes (Ctab) is a big fan of the newer systems.
Click to expand...

I talked to the guy who owns the SuperCub that I did my TW in. His is covered with Ceconite.

He loves the stuff, swears by it not only for durability but simplicity, too. It's apparently easy to work with. He also says there is newer stuff out there which is even more durable, but more expensive.

I asked about the hangaring issue. What he told me is that while hangars are always preferred, there are usually waiting lists and they're expensive. So what you can do is find a covered tie-down for slightly more money. That gives you a lot more protection than a direct-sunlight situation would. His Supercub is under one of these and looks really good for having a 7-year-old fabric job done on it.
 
killbilly said:
I talked to the guy who owns the SuperCub that I did my TW in. His is covered with Ceconite.

He loves the stuff, swears by it not only for durability but simplicity, too. It's apparently easy to work with. He also says there is newer stuff out there which is even more durable, but more expensive.

I asked about the hangaring issue. What he told me is that while hangars are always preferred, there are usually waiting lists and they're expensive. So what you can do is find a covered tie-down for slightly more money. That gives you a lot more protection than a direct-sunlight situation would. His Supercub is under one of these and looks really good for having a 7-year-old fabric job done on it.
Click to expand...

Right - should have specified that a covered T-hanger was suitable. The key, which you point out, is sunlight and water protection.
 
The old cotton coverings with dope methods were good for there time and was the standard covering method of the old days. then came the Ceconite which was advertised as a lifetime cover (under certain conditions such as being hangared). This was and still is a very popular choice when covering.

The latest rage is the Air Tech and Stewart systems. The Air Tech is basically Ceconite but with a much more durable coating and much easier to work with than the old systems. I don't know much about the Stewart system other than hearing that it will be the covering/coating system of the future. It is gaining speed very rapidly.

The T-Cart is covered with the Air Tech system because the facility is about three miles from my house and I have used Mac's products for years on the Ag Cats and they held up very well under the conditions that we subjected them to.
 
Another thought came to my mind today, on 172 like airplanes. How about the baby beech's? Some of them are down below 30K, and have the same engine, slightly less speed, but significantly more room?
 
t-cart said:
The old cotton coverings with dope methods were good for there time and was the standard covering method of the old days. then came the Ceconite which was advertised as a lifetime cover (under certain conditions such as being hangared). This was and still is a very popular choice when covering.

The latest rage is the Air Tech and Stewart systems. The Air Tech is basically Ceconite but with a much more durable coating and much easier to work with than the old systems. I don't know much about the Stewart system other than hearing that it will be the covering/coating system of the future. It is gaining speed very rapidly.

The T-Cart is covered with the Air Tech system because the facility is about three miles from my house and I have used Mac's products for years on the Ag Cats and they held up very well under the conditions that we subjected them to.
Click to expand...

How do the finishes look with the Air Tech? I've seen pictures of the T-cart and they look really good. How hard is it to get a nice finish with the Air Tech products?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top