Ok - I think I'm getting better at this...

Its kind of funny the very low time comment. Used to be, 20 years ago that anything over 2000 hours was considered High Time. What a difference 20 years and the fact that they don't make many airplanes makes.

Having said that, I don't have any comment on this particular airplane. However, having flown all three of the ones you've mentioned, I would look at the Archer. The extra 30 horses makes a pretty big difference in performance and usefull load.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
However, having flown all three of the ones you've mentioned, I would look at the Archer. The extra 30 horses makes a pretty big difference in performance and usefull load.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but the Archer commands quite a higher price. If you don't need the useful load of the Archer, a properly maintained Warrior works. I have been 4-up with partial fuel in one many times on hot days, and the climb is anemic under those conditions. However, if you're flying two, the Warrior is fine.
 
Don't rule out the lowly 172. Perhaps a victim of its own success its still a reliable, safe and easy to get repaired workhouse.
 
Assuming it's mechanically OK, the only thing I'd be concerned with is the avionics if you plan on flying IFR. On the surface it appears to be equipped for IFR, but the KX-170b is pretty much junk if it ever needs repair and there's no autopilot (not even a wing leveler). If you expect to move on to another airplane after IR training (it should be fine for that) or have no plans to fly actual IMC then I wouldn't worry much. In general it's supposed to be more cost effective to buy a plane with the radios you want/need rather than upgrade after purchase.
 
Any one of the 3 would be a good choice. They are all in the same class. But of the 3, I'd take an Archer (no offense intended to my '47H).
A warrior is a fine aircraft. I did most of my primary training in '47H. It has a good set of legs (6 + hours @ 100Knots), moves along nicely, and apparently flies quite smooth as I have had my passengers fall asleep on me.
 
NickDBrennan said:
I am still looking at possibly buying an airplane. I have been researching the crap out of what I want. I think I've narrowed it down to a Warrior, an Archer, or a C172.

What do y'all think of this one:

http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?OHID=1090299&guid=9C30B8A9627546A28A17805FF777F7DD
Click to expand...

As others mentioned, the Archer is the best choice, but you'll surely pay for it. You are a big man, you might want to make sure you fly that Warrior on a warm day to make sure you are happy with it's performance. It can get kind of doggy on climb. Still, you can't get a much simpler and cheaper plane to own and operate. They are good planes.

I'm hoping the owner isn't talking about logs when he/she says they have most of the "original delivery paperwork." I doubt it though.

As for the KX 170, they are good radios while they work. It's really not economically worthwhile to do much repair work on them. You can get a slide in replacement for the KX 170 for about $1500. There is a review here about the TKM radios: http://www.avionix.com/rev-tkm.html. The TKMs have worked well in every plane I've used them in. You can also get a KX-125 for around $2000. I'd buy this plane ready to replace the KX 170 when it breaks, though.

The paint looks a little oxidized. You may be able to rescue it, or may want to be willing to repaint it someday. Kind of depends on how pretty you want it, and how much money you want to spend on it.

Don't let them slide one of their annuals past you. YOU have one done by the mech of your choice as part of the pre-buy.

Price looks OK for a Warrior. I sure wouldn't mind owning this plane!
 
Joe Williams said:
Price looks OK for a Warrior. I sure wouldn't mind owning this plane!
Click to expand...

Do a search in Trade a Plane with your max acquisition price and see what pops up. I'm sure you will be surprised at what you can buy for $50K. A very interesting exercise.

Len
 
NickDBrennan said:
I am still looking at possibly buying an airplane. I have been researching the crap out of what I want. I think I've narrowed it down to a Warrior, an Archer, or a C172.

What do y'all think of this one:

http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?OHID=1090299&guid=9C30B8A9627546A28A17805FF777F7DD
Click to expand...

Not bad, kinda an anemic plane for a big guy. If that's all the plane you want, fine. All the planes listed though....eh. They just have such limited performance. Granted, everybody works on them and as simple as they are, they are of a relatively low maintenance and operational cost. It's just that they are so common, no matter how nice it is, it lacks "cool". Though people will say "Nice Plane", no one will say "cool plane". Then even more importantly, there is the performance factor, they are just all too slow and with fixed gear are not as efficient as possible, and as all who know us Germans, we are all about efficiency.;) Some people go by the "Step Up" theory of aircraft ownership. I don't agree, I go by the "Buy as much as you think you'll want eventually, up to what you can insure in of course. If I was looking for a single engine plane to travel and fly frequently with some utility, I'd be looking at this http://tappix.com/715006 The Super Vikings are probably the most underpriced aircraft on the GA market at this time. They are available from $34k up.

If you want some utility and XC ability and will trade off a bit of performance for a bunch of "Cool Points", this will do the job nicely for the same price as the Warrior.

1958 BELLANCA CRUISEMASTER, 14-19-2, 2300-TT, 135-SMOH. '93 ultra restoration, $90K plus time invested, 4-time EAA Award Winner "Best Bellanca". Too many new parts to list. Always hangared. $55,000 firm. WI(920) 834-5700.
http://tappix.com/675290
 
One other plane that fits in this price,speed and useful load range is the Beechcraft 180 hp Sundowner. I have seen several in the 38,000-48,000 range with nice IFR packages and autopilot, plus its a low wing with a pilots door.
 
Well, I'm tremendously biased here, but my vote is for the Archer. I hear Ken talking that you'll pay considerably more for the Archer than for the Warrior, (I read those very comments in a book you published years ago, I think eh Ken?), but I have been very happy with paying the extra, and she has been good to us over the last five years. Now my problem has become all the goodies I'd like to have but can't justify. Sure would love GPS, and a Stormscope and an Autopilot, and an HSI and....... it never ends. Just as a side note in order for me to find an aircraft with all the bells and whistles I would want, SOMEBODY had to put them in. It's all going to come down to what is most important and useful and forget the thought of getting it back at selling time.

As always, pre-buy, shop around, good luck and of course tailwinds.
 
NickDBrennan said:
I am still looking at possibly buying an airplane. I have been researching the crap out of what I want. I think I've narrowed it down to a Warrior, an Archer, or a C172.
Click to expand...

When I started looking at planes, this was my list too. Once I started looking closely at useful loads, however, I realized that none of these planes were true 4 seaters. I ended up buying a 1967 Skylane and I am convinced it was the right choice. I can carry 4 people and full fuel without worrying about weight and balance (I've done the calculations for all reasonable configuirations), and I can even add enough bags for a weekend. Plus, I can cruise at about 140 knots TAS, and the plane is a delight to fly. Although it is close to 40 years old, it looks new. And when I stopped for fuel while flying it home, the FBO did indeed say "cool plane" (or something equivalent)!
 
BillG said:
How about a Grumman...?
Click to expand...

Bill,

Great timing.

1975 AA5 TRAVELER w/160HP conversion. TTAF 3150, SMOH 28, full IFR, over $40,000 spent in complete overhaul. Too much to list. All logs. Sell for $38,000. NH/603-785-4227. kas@prooracle.com
http://tappix.com/718151

As it is a '75 make sure a Grumman savy person check out the bonding or any repairs that may have been made over the years.

The nice thing about Grumman aircraft is that you get some of that cool that Henning mentions without having to worry about termites or the other down sides of owning "unique" aircraft.

Len
 
I did a search on Tap with a dollar range of $10K to $50K and again at $20K to $50K...each time over 500 aircraft showed up on the listing. When I changed the range to $30K to $50 the range was just under 500 aircraft...some pretty neat stuff. There was, of course, a plethoria of 172s.
 
Len Lanetti said:
The nice thing about Grumman aircraft is that you get some of that cool that Henning mentions without having to worry about termites or the other down sides of owning "unique" aircraft.

Len
Click to expand...

Ha Len! Right after I sold my Cherokee and was getting ready to buy the Tiger a beautiful Bellanca Cruisemaster came up for sale at my home airport. As Witmer's is the East Coast Bellanca guru, he gets nice ones in all the time. I have to admit, I was tempted. The "Baby Connies" are beautiful airplanes.

Occasional, pre-emptive spraying of the Bellanca wings with Raid is recommended. :)
 
If a 172 meets your needs, then so does a Warrior (or Cheetah/Traveler), and you should save your money and not look at Archers. If you need the Archer payload, you should be comparing it to a Cardinal or Tiger. BTW, Travelers are very good buys in comparison with Warriors and 172's of similar vintage, equipment, and condition. For more on Grummans, check the Grumman Gang email list (http://www.grumman.net) and the AYA web site (http://www.aya.org).
 
Ever thought of forming a partnership? If you found the right partner, you could stretch your dollar a bit further with 2 people. I think a 2 owner partnership is the best deal in the world. (Unless you hit that powerball jackpot everyone was talking about.)

Have you identified your needs? Your missions?

When I was looking, I wanted a 'true 4 place aircraft.' In reality, I have yet to put 4 people in the plane, but 3 with a ton of gear fit well. I don't often fly over the Sierra mountains, so I didn't need a turbo. I also fly some longer trips around 300miles or so. Range and speed became a little more important to me then.

In then end, I stumbled accross a great deal in a V35 Bonanza.

Depending on your total time, I'd stay away from RG aircraft for insurance reasons. I don't think they would have insured me in the V35 without my instrument rating.

I'd look into a 182 or equivalent. The 182 seems to hold its price well though.
 
AirBaker said:
Have you identified your needs? Your missions?
Click to expand...

I have identified my needs and average missions as follows:

Needs to hold at least 2 fat people, or 1 fat person and 2 average builds
Needs to have a range of about 300-400 miles
No Tailwheel (I just don't want a taildragger)
Low wing preferred, but if the price is right, I'll go high wing
Price range from unrealistic 10K to more likely 60K
Insurance not causing even more grey hair

I love the look and feel of the Grumman Yankees, but that's the only Grumman I've ever flown. I'm just not sure about hauling 2 fat people in one.
 
NickDBrennan said:
I have identified my needs and average missions as follows:

Needs to hold at least 2 fat people, or 1 fat person and 2 average builds
Needs to have a range of about 300-400 miles
No Tailwheel (I just don't want a taildragger)
Low wing preferred, but if the price is right, I'll go high wing
Price range from unrealistic 10K to more likely 60K
Insurance not causing even more grey hair

I love the look and feel of the Grumman Yankees, but that's the only Grumman I've ever flown. I'm just not sure about hauling 2 fat people in one.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like you're a perfect candidate for one of the Cherokees.
 
Ron Levy said:
If a 172 meets your needs, then so does a Warrior (or Cheetah/Traveler), and you should save your money and not look at Archers. If you need the Archer payload, you should be comparing it to a Cardinal or Tiger. BTW, Travelers are very good buys in comparison with Warriors and 172's of similar vintage, equipment, and condition. For more on Grummans, check the Grumman Gang email list (http://www.grumman.net) and the AYA web site (http://www.aya.org).
Click to expand...

Are you bringing the Cheeger to Gastons, Ron? I'd love to check it out and see what one looks like up close.
 
NickDBrennan said:
Are you bringing the Cheeger to Gastons, Ron? I'd love to check it out and see what one looks like up close.
Click to expand...
Yes, we're flying her in. And a Traveler or Cheetah will match up very nicely with your "two fat people" requirement -- a 2-place Grumman won't do that. You can get a REALLY nice Cheetah for $60K, and a pretty decent Traveler for $40K or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top