10 airplanes to avoid

My Beech 18 flies almost 100 hours per year. All x-country business and personal trips. Two radial engines - with the same reliability and dispatch rate as my previous 1978 Baron. Never had to cancel a trip because of a maintenance issue. I have always been able to strategically address my maintenance issues to maintain a high dispatch rate.

Like Ernie said, generalities are usually silly. This is how old wives tales get spread.
All general statements are false.

But you really should listen to the OP. Everything about your Beech 18 is just terrible. Round engines. Too many engines to begin with. A taildragger. We won't even talk about the looks. If you can even get $15,000, you should sell it immediately. So.......will you take $20,000 for it?

This list of planes to avoid sounds a lot more like a list of planes that I wish I had.
 
All radial engines are the same? My Jacobs engines are well supported, relatively inexpensive to overhaul (compared to brands C & L with 300HP engines) and super reliable. The Continental 220s I understand are the same way. Generalities are usually silly; this one is especially so!
Show me a master rod for a Warner 125 or 145. or a new cylinder.
 
I wouldn't advise a first time buyer to buy any of the listed aircraft. each have a problem

and of course you can fine a beautiful example of each somewhere, and some one to love it.
 
The R-985/R-1340 very well supported as is the Continental W670 also
Only because P&W made a bazillion of them and the Beaver and Otter were so popular.
Price of a 985 overhaul by P&W is approaching a hundred grand.
That's enough to scare me off.
 
Price of a 985 overhaul by P&W is approaching a hundred grand.
That's enough to scare me off.
That’s because P&W only wants to work turbines now.

A Covington overhaul is $60k, Tulsa less than that.
 
Show me a master rod for a Warner 125 or 145. or a new cylinder.
And that affects Jacobs and Continental how? There are bad models of Jacobs and I assume Continental. There are a lot of orphan radials as well. I seem to have heard there are a few Continentals and flat Lycomings that are hard to support too. I stand by my point: a generality about radials is silly.
 
Meanwhile, Russians have finally stopped making round engines in 2015 and are putting their faith into a V-12/V-6 diesel of all things. Although, Chinese still put a round motor onto the same airframe in the guise of L-7.
 
That’s because P&W only wants to work turbines now.

A Covington overhaul is $60k, Tulsa less than that.
That's because the factory gives you a new engine with 0 time.
the rest are patch and paint. PAR = Paint and return.
 
And that affects Jacobs and Continental how? There are bad models of Jacobs and I assume Continental. There are a lot of orphan radials as well. I seem to have heard there are a few Continentals and flat Lycomings that are hard to support too. I stand by my point: a generality about radials is silly.
want the best advise on old radials? contact the Curry Brothers at Radial engines inc. they have stopped rebuilding several engine because of part issues.
 
And that affects Jacobs and Continental how? There are bad models of Jacobs and I assume Continental. There are a lot of orphan radials as well. I seem to have heard there are a few Continentals and flat Lycomings that are hard to support too. I stand by my point: a generality about radials is silly.
Nothing is impossible for the one that doesn't have to fix it.
 
Hi Brien.
I am curious what makes the C172 pre 1971 to make the list?
I know that the the gear is slightly narrower and the original engines, had a shorter TBO, which were all replaced by now with the 2000 TBO, but they were / are slightly faster, some of the smoother and straighter running 172s I've flown. Some say that the metal /aluminum used was better grade than some of the later models.
 
Other than it being noisy, what's so bad about this plane? I often hear the 337 spoken of negatively.. but it's a cool airplane and having multi-engine redundancy without the whole asymmetric thrust thing doesn't, at least on paper, seem like a bad thing. Almost all of the ones on controller are under $100K, so obviously the market doesn't like them. Why not?

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1317403/1973-cessna-p337

I’ve always wondered the same thing. I don’t know anything about them. There is one at KDVT that has been sitting on the ramp (no cover just out in the sun all day) that is pretty much scrap metal at this point. Been there for years and years.
 
I recall Skymasters were maintenance intensive while simultaneously being difficult to work on. In spades for the pressurized model.

And that was when they were relatively new. Imagine 50 years on.

Think of Richard Collins’ P210 problems, but with a second engine in the mix.
 
X-15 - attempted to kill every pilot who flew it, succeeded with one, and maybe two, depending on your scoring. In less than 200 flights.

Space Shuttle - it might not have lifted much load, but at least it couldn't orbit very high. About as "re-usable" as a water baloon. And a crew killer.

Cessna 182 - slow, ponderous, clumsy, pig-sickle. Can't get out of it's own way.

Piper Cub - vicious stall, and pre-WW1 control harmony. Butt ugly, too.

AA1 variants - designed by Bede, to kill as many students and CFIs as possible; shady/sketchy cerification, even to the point of surprising its test pilots.

Most MiGs - are essentially manned target "drones", with a sustained record of being beaten soundly in almost every air-to-air arena, over half a century or more.

Tongue now removed from cheek - the above are pretty much all true statements, but also exclude the bigger picture. . .I like the Skymaster, and would sell my soul to have flown the X-15. . .

The original Yankee had some issues with stall/spin that made them more prone to spin in than the rest of the trainer fleet. Starting with the AA1A, this was rectified. I trained in AA1B's ad AA1C's, with no issues. Out of all the two seaters I've flown (150, AA1B, AA1C, Tomahawk) I'd prefer either of the AA1's as a personal plane, then the Tomahawk.
 
Other than it being noisy, what's so bad about this plane? I often hear the 337 spoken of negatively.. but it's a cool airplane and having multi-engine redundancy without the whole asymmetric thrust thing doesn't, at least on paper, seem like a bad thing. Almost all of the ones on controller are under $100K, so obviously the market doesn't like them. Why not?

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1317403/1973-cessna-p337

I have a little over 9 hours in a Skymaster, in 4 flights. It was a pressurized model, Riley Rocket conversion. Really beautiful looking inside and out.

On one of the flights at FL190 in the clouds, we lost the rear alternator. I am looking through the checklist and following it trying to get it back on line. Then the front alternator failed, followed by a complete electrical failure. I got my hand held GPS so we could continue to navigate and worked on getting some electrical spark going. Finally the rear alternator came back online and we were able to get into some VFR conditions to finish the flight. Plane sat for 3 months while being repaired. Return flight back home was all VFR and event free.

On another flight we lost vacuum. In the clouds. At 18,000 feet. Both pumps showing no vacuum pull at all. Using no gyro procedures we descended until we were clear of clouds at about 6,000 MSL and finished the trip. This was the leg home where the plane sat at maintenance for another 3 months.

That is all the experience I have in Skymasters, and all the experience I want in one. The owner of this plane was not a pilot, and he wanted 2 pilots up front at all times.
 
I like the 337, even if it is loud. I have more than a few hours in them.
Anything with a radial is OK by me, even the old Jacobs and Wagners. Flown many including the B-17, B-24, B-25, C-47, C-119 and the C-97, and my all-time favorite, the F-24.
I like Tripacers. A very honest airplane. Come to think of it, I like a lot of rag wing airplanes.
My only beef with the C172 (except the 0-300) is that they are boring.
Except for Cubs, I don't like any plane with only one door. Unless it's on my side of the airplane.
 
Air Force flew 'em in Vietnam, and Korea when I was there.

O2.jpg
 
I can see making up a list of airplanes that will probably be difficult to resell (most early twins, 0-290 powered Tri-Pacers, for example), but to avoid? Not really. The only one that comes to mind it the 150 hp Apache.
 
Thanks @Zeldman that's pretty crazy to have some relatively serious failures like that despite redundancy. That would put me off the model as well.. too bad, they're a cool looking bird
 
The original Yankee had some issues with stall/spin that made them more prone to spin in than the rest of the trainer fleet. Starting with the AA1A, this was rectified.
The original Yankee was primarily marketed as a personal runabout and fun flyer rather than as a trainer. Though a number of schools (including the one I worked for) bought them, the training role got only a passing mention in a few of the many ads for the Yankee. American Aviation didn't actively pursue the flight training market until 1970 when they brought out the Model AA-1A Trainer with modified wing leading edge and larger main gear tires, built side-by-side with the original AA-1 Yankee for a year or two.

aa-1_1968ad.jpg
 
Cessna 182 - slow, ponderous, clumsy
I understand the poster's point, but I always wondered the obsession with 172/182 planes. Maybe it goes back to the whole high wing V low wing thing. But besides that I've never flown a high wing Cessna that flew nicer than even an old low wing. Maybe it has been just my luck renting, or there are a lot of people who like the back-country abilities of high wings, but all the high wings I've flown feel remarkably "clumsy" - that was a good way to describe it. Maybe "clumsy" is good for a trainer, but do we want to be training "clumsy" pilots as a side effect?
 
Thanks @Zeldman that's pretty crazy to have some relatively serious failures like that despite redundancy. That would put me off the model as well.. too bad, they're a cool looking bird

You know, it could just be poor maintenance... The same engines are placed in other airplanes too and not on the list.
 
And a year later they stopped making R172Ks, 180s and 310s, and five years later they stopped making 152s and everything else but turbines. Non sequitur.

By the logic of some folks that means all of those planes sucked.

Personally, I do not subscribe to that school of thought.
 
Apropos Zeldman's comment, it reminded me a story of a guy who ferried one to Hawaii. Some 5 hours from SF, the rear engine overheated. He caged it and continued on one engine, but in an hour the front one overheated too. He restarted the rear engine, but it ran too rough. Ended ditching the plane within 50 miles of the Big Island.
 
I can see making up a list of airplanes that will probably be difficult to resell (most early twins, 0-290 powered Tri-Pacers, for example), but to avoid? Not really. The only one that comes to mind it the 150 hp Apache.


150 hp Apache...OK at training weight, otherwise I call it "the Kevorkian."
 
For the life of me I can't find anything wrong with earlier cherokees with the push-pull controls. They don't even qualify for the 'pricey to maintain' category.

Agree. The only thing I don’t like about them are the early ones that only have the hand brake and were never modified with toe brakes. But that isn’t necessarily a reason to avoid them if the price is right.

Yeah seriously, to the OP, what's wrong with the pre-68 Cherokees despite being 50 years old? My personal preference is a throttle quadrant but I didn't think it made any difference in the plane mechanically.
 
I got my multi in a 150 hp Apache out of New Tamiami in S FL.

I can still remember the image of pointing the nose down at the Everglades to maintain Vyse.

Not for the faint of heart!
 
1,3,4 (GO-300) are on my avoid list. Of course, I'm the guy that went and bought one of those twitchy short-coupled tail-wheel experimental airplanes, with backwards running engine. So, my judgement is questionable.
 
Back
Top