Buying my first plane: Piper Warrior vs. Beech Sundowner or Musketeer

C

callegro

Pre-Flight
Joined
May 30, 2014
Messages
72
Display Name
Display name:
Callegro
Hi Guys,

New to the forums, but it seems like theres a lot of feedback on them so here it goes.

I'm in the position where I can afford a plane. My budget is about $60k. So I'm expecting to spend around $130/hr. I'm in southern California and would love to keep my plane at VNY. I heard BUR is cheaper with tiedowns. Kinda not a fan of WHP, even though I learned to fly there. So as in the title, I've been looking into these aircraft. Learned in a Warrior, haven't flown the Beech, but for my missions, looks pretty nice.

Probably fly around no more than 150 mi. flights. Hours maybe around 200-300 annually? Me and another passenger, maybe 3. Doing weekend trips, small payloads. Would love for the plane to be IFR equipped and am a low wing fan.

Guys have any input. I know there will be more questions about mission and whatnot, so lemme have it!

Thanks ahead of time for the comments ;)

Chris
 
Warrior just for parts purposes.
 
For 60k, why not get an archer?
 
At aroubnd 60k you may be able to do an Archer or a Cherokee 180. Never know when the slightly higher usefulload and slightly faster may come in handy.
 
The Sundowner is just a newer name for later models of the Model 23 Musketeer/Musketeer Custom, but the Musketeer also came in the Model 19 (aka Musketeer Sport). The Model 23 has a 180 HP engine, a bit more speed, and around 100 lb more useful load than the 150HP Model 19. Thus, the Model 19 is the one directly comparable to the 150/160 HP Warrior or earlier Piper 150/160 Cherokees. OTOH, the 180HP Model 23 is more directly comparable to the 180HP Piper Archer/180 Cherokee.

My advice would be first to decide which power level you need based on the loads you intend to carry. The 180HP versions will carry three adults plus baggage very happily, but the 150-160Hp versions are more like 2+2 planes -- two adults and a pile of baggage, or two adults plus two kids and a pile of baggage.

Once you've done that take a good look at (including flying, if you can arrange that) all the different models of simple fixed-gear airplanes in that class. For the 150-160HP class, that would include:

  • Cessna 172
  • Piper 140/150/160 Cherokee
  • Beech Model 19
  • Grumman AA-5/5A Traveler/Cheetah
For the 180HP class, that would include:


  • Cessna 172Q or other 172's with the 180HP STC'd conversion
  • Cessna 177 Cardinal (but not the original 1968 model with the 150HP engine)
  • Piper Archer/180 Cherokee
  • Beech Model 23
  • Grumman AA-5B Tiger
When you've done that, you should have a much better idea which one suits you best and you enjoy flying most. And if you're married, I strongly advise you to involve your spouse in that decision, especially if s/he will be traveling with you in that plane.
 
There's really not much difference between the sundowner and the musketeer. It's a sturdy aircraft, a bit heavier than the warrior/archer hence a bit slower but a bit more comfortable in the cabin - slightly wider.

One of the substantial differences is the landing gear. Pipers use a hydraulic system where the Beech have a rubber donut. The Beech have a trailing link nose wheel where the Pipers have a hydraulic/oleo, same as the mains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Musketeer

I agree with earlier posters - the warrior or archer because Piper is still making the aircraft & parts are readily available. The musketeer manufacturing ended in 1983.

Second agreement - if you have any interest in trips over a couple hours or higher terrain, go for the archer or 180hp cherokee. A bit more expensive in the fuel burn but worth it in the long run.

Disclaimer - I own a cherokee, but before I bought it, I had cashier's check in hand to buy a mouseketeer 200 hp and the guy sold it an hour before I got there.
 
Last edited:
Musketeer A23-24 super III.

You'll know it when you sit in it and take off.

/thread
 
Out of those choices, I would rather have a Piper Warrior although I think Pipers are somewhat homely airplanes. My personal preference would be for a Cessna Cardinal FG with a CS prop. Two big doors are nice as long as you are careful not to let them slam. :)
 
MSPAviator said:
Out of those choices, I would rather have a Piper Warrior although I think Pipers are somewhat homely airplanes. My personal preference would be for a Cessna Cardinal FG with a CS prop. Two big doors are nice as long as you are careful not to let them slam. :)
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Glad you said it and not me!

I couldn't agree more.
 
Welcome to the board,look for a clean low time Cherokee 180. A lot of bang for your buck.
 
At 60k I'd be looking for a Grumman Tiger over the Warrior/Cherokee 180/Archer.

Low time, GPS equipped models are easily bought at that price.
 
Hocky said:
:rofl:

Glad you said it and not me!

I couldn't agree more.
Click to expand...

And Cessna's are sexy? Pipers and Cessnas are what they desinged to be, practical. Now Mooney's and Beechcraft can be sexy. :p
 
As those who frequent this forum well know, I'm a hard-over Grumman guy, but even I won't push the Tiger as the "only choice" (or even the "best choice") for someone who's never flown one or all of its competitors. I say again -- choose your power class, fly them all, and then decide what you (and, if applicable, your spouse) like best.

One example I would give is a pilot many of us here know who is, well, let's just say when he jogs, a "WIDE LOAD" sign on his fanny might be appropriate. His wife is equally, ummm...comfortable. For them, the much more generous cabin width of the Sundowner combined with doors on both sides was the driving force in his choosing that over the Piper/Grumman/Cessna products in that class. And no matter how much I love Grummans, I wouldn't have suggested anything else but that Beech for him.

Which one's right for the OP? Nobody here can say except the OP after checking them all out.
 
I pretty much agree with Ron's observations. I don't know nuthn bout Sundowners/Musketeers, but my club does operate both a Warrior and an Archer.

If you fly an Archer at Warrior speed you get so close to Warrior gas consumption that it's not worth thinking about. Both of them have more range than most human beings have when confined to light plane cockpits.

Given the upcoming ADS-B mandate I'd look for a Warrior or Archer that has a Garmin 430 or other WAAS capable GPS. I'm not sure if you'll find a nice $60K Archer with WAAS, but there ought to be nice Warriors at that price.

On thing about any Cherokee, a lot of them have been abused by students and many fly kind of crooked, especially in roll. Look for good hands off roll behavior when you test fly it.

The Warrior and Archer are extremely popular for a reason.
 
MSPAviator said:
Out of those choices, I would rather have a Piper Warrior although I think Pipers are somewhat homely airplanes. My personal preference would be for a Cessna Cardinal FG with a CS prop. Two big doors are nice as long as you are careful not to let them slam. :)
Click to expand...

I don't think you can get a nice C177 FG for $60K. They are in huge demand. But if you can, they are pretty much the best airplane in the 180hp class.
 
drotto said:
And Cessna's are sexy? Pipers and Cessnas are what they desinged to be, practical. Now Mooney's and Beechcraft can be sexy. :p
Click to expand...

Cardinal's are sexy.
 
JimNtexas said:
I don't think you can get a nice C177 FG for $60K. They are in huge demand. But if you can, they are pretty much the best airplane in the 180hp class.
Click to expand...

I've seen a few in the $60-65k range, but you're correct that they demand for Cardinals remains strong and the prices reflect that.

for the OP, if the budget affords you a 180HP aircraft, give it strong consideration. The extra power helps in many ways and the nice-ities of having it offsets the cost of acquiring and operating.
 
We looked at the warriors and the 180's and went with a Piper 235. The cessna 172 and 182 was priced well above our budget we wanted to keep. I personally think that the Piper's are sexy aircraft. The interiors are nice and the center quadrant is a big plus because I like the fact that I can use my right hand and two fingers to adjust the prop, rather than right hand moving left to right to adjust the prop and power. Plus we wanted the extra horsepower and heavier weight carrying capabilities. With that kind of budget, you should look at the 235's or 236's.
 
muleywannabe said:
We looked at the warriors and the 180's and went with a Piper 235. The cessna 172 and 182 was priced well above our budget we wanted to keep. I personally think that the Piper's are sexy aircraft. The interiors are nice and the center quadrant is a big plus because I like the fact that I can use my right hand and two fingers to adjust the prop, rather than right hand moving left to right to adjust the prop and power. Plus we wanted the extra horsepower and heavier weight carrying capabilities. With that kind of budget, you should look at the 235's or 236's.
Click to expand...


As a 235 owner, I agree. But the penalty for the 235 is the fuel burn, 12-15GPH.
 
muleywannabe said:
I personally think that the Piper's are sexy aircraft. The interiors are nice and the center quadrant is a big plus because I like the fact that I can use my right hand and two fingers to adjust the prop, rather than right hand moving left to right to adjust the prop and power.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I could never figure out why so called "high-end" airplanes have engine controls like something Casey Jones might have used.
 
Ron Levy said:
Grummans are sexier. :wink2:
Click to expand...

And entertaining to watch their owners push backwards through the slalom course.

Speaking of which, did you make it to Rockport?
 
This thread reminds me how I was going to buy Trace's Bonanza for $27.5k (asking price). It had a 185 hp engine IIRC. If I had $60k, it would actually make a lot of sense to spend half up front and reserve the rest for the maintenance, while flying a real airplane. Both Bo and Pipers have 1 door. Mooneys, too.
 
Speaking of Mooney's, is Kurt's Mooney still for sale?
 
AggieMike88 said:
And entertaining to watch their owners push backwards through the slalom course.

Speaking of which, did you make it to Rockport?
Click to expand...
Sure did -- great convention. Only problem was the low cloud layer blowing in off the Gulf all week played hob with our flying. We got all the convention events done eventually, but didn't get any good formation in. That said, the food was great, the towns of Rockport and Fulton could not have been better as hosts, and the Aransas County Airport management was absolutely fabulous.
 
Get your taildragger checkout and buy a 180 HP Maule. It will haul more than any of the other planes mentioned (1030 lbs useful load for my MX7-180C) it is cheaper to maintain, and you can land it anywhere. It is also a plane that you can park proudly everywhere. I've parked next to a Gulfstream G-V, and the pilots of the Gulfstream came over to check out the Maule. That won't happen with any of the other planes mentioned. Yes, learning how to fly it well will take some time, but it will be a good investment in your flying skills. You'll learn what the rudder is for, I guarantee that!
 
When I was shopping for a plane I had the same budget. Was torn between the Grumman Tiger, the Piper Archer and the Cherokee 235. In the end gave up on the 235 because of the fuel burn (I figure fuel prices will always go up and up). Couldn't find a Tiger or Archer within my parameters ($60k, IFR-capable, less than 1000 hours in the engine). In the end upped my budget by $5k and bought an Arrow and have been very happy with it. Current estimates is it costs me $150/hour, flying 100 hours a year.
 
arrowjockey said:
When I was shopping for a plane I had the same budget. Was torn between the Grumman Tiger, the Piper Archer and the Cherokee 235. In the end gave up on the 235 because of the fuel burn (I figure fuel prices will always go up and up). Couldn't find a Tiger or Archer within my parameters ($60k, IFR-capable, less than 1000 hours in the engine). In the end upped my budget by $5k and bought an Arrow and have been very happy with it. Current estimates is it costs me $150/hour, flying 100 hours a year.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, the Cessna/Piper/Beech 180-200HP R/G airplanes have folding gear primarily to provide retractable gear training and experience, not to provide significantly better performance (speed/payload). A Tiger will haul the same load, just as fast, and for significantly less money than an Arrow.
 
I am disappointed. Another 'first airplane for 60k' thread and nobody has recommended 'an early 210', a Mooney or a Comanche. We must have lost some regular participants on this forum :D .
 
of those choices, it's hard to go wrong with a cherokee. And when you are ready to trade up there is always a new pilot looking to buy one.
 
weilke said:
I am disappointed. Another 'first airplane for 60k' thread and nobody has recommended 'an early 210', a Mooney or a Comanche. We must have lost some regular participants on this forum :D .
Click to expand...

Owning a mooney requires a special kind of panache and I didn't sense that in the OP. :lol:
 
weilke said:
I am disappointed. Another 'first airplane for 60k' thread and nobody has recommended 'an early 210', a Mooney or a Comanche. We must have lost some regular participants on this forum :D .
Click to expand...

If I had. 60K, I'd be looking at a bonanza or comanche.
 
rbridges said:
Owning a mooney requires a special kind of panache and I didn't sense that in the OP. :lol:
Click to expand...

:lol:

It also requires a particular body type with most of the body length in the legs and very short arms and a narrow upper body (the 'reverse monkey') .
 
bartmc said:
If I had. 60K, I'd be looking at a bonanza or comanche.
Click to expand...

To put-put around within 150nm, that would probably be a waste of money.

However, if he buys a trainer now, he will fly around his 150nm range for a year and realize that the real fun stuff is in a 450nm range. He will then sell the plane, incur expenses to market it and then give the state of california another 9% of his budget for the bonanza he should have bought in the first place.

A gentleman on beechtalk is selling a 1961 N35 for 47k. Nice paint, nice avionics (430W, KX155, freshly installed Brittain autopilot). Engine has 1260 on it, no reason it can't run another 800. Plane is based in VanNuys.

But then again, we would be back to everyone recommending the plane he owns :D .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top