Beechcraft Sundowner info

[Agpilot 27]

Anyone have any experience with the Sundowner? How does it fly compared to a 172 or 177? I have read about the possible landing issues, slower speed, low wing vs high wing, etc. Is the payload with full fuel a true 650 lbs? How does it perform (feel) compared to the cessnas? The extra cabin space is nice. Thanks for the help.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Anyone have any experience with the Sundowner? How does it fly compared to a 172 or 177? I have read about the possible landing issues, slower speed, low wing vs high wing, etc. Is the payload with full fuel a true 650 lbs? How does it perform (feel) compared to the cessnas? The extra cabin space is nice. Thanks for the help.

The airplane had to have been designed by an executives nephew, because it is junk. The Sundowner is equiped with break away landing gear to prevent damage to the runway, in the event of a hard landing

Seriously, stay away from the Sundowner. It is slow, uncomfortable in the summer and unreliable. Get a newer 172, you'll be much happier.

 

[Singlecoil]

I thought the sundowner was much more fun to fly than the 172 and was much more responsive to control inputs. It has a much faster roll rate than a 172.
I'm not aware of any landing issues with the thing except that the gear won't take much of a side load, ergo, don't side load the gear. It's been 20 years since I flew them (600 hours or so) so I can't compare numbers vs. the 172.

 

[Lead Sled]

I thought the sundowner was much more fun to fly than the 172 and was much more responsive to control inputs. It has a much faster roll rate than a 172.
I'm not aware of any landing issues with the thing except that the gear won't take much of a side load, ergo, don't side load the gear. It's been 20 years since I flew them (600 hours or so) so I can't compare numbers vs. the 172.

I agree with you. It's been about the same amount of time for me since I last flew one, but it was a comfomfortable ride - my wife's favorite light plane. It was a bit slower, but the price is right. Besides, who cares if it takes you 5 or 10 minutes longer to fly a 400 mile trip? Most guys are looking at something like that to build time with anyway.

Beech built a few aerobatic versions of them and as I remember, they didn't have to do a lot of modifications to put them in the aerobatic category.

Granted, it's probably not what I would buy for myself today, but if you're looking for something cheap to fly around on the weekends, I wouldn't automatically eliminate it from my list. The big drawback would actually be the price of Beech parts. But it's a simple airplane with simple systems and a bullet-proof engine, so there's not a lot of exposure there.

LS

 

[Agpilot 27]

Thanks for the reply. You covered most of the reasons I am looking at the Sundowner. Price, comfort, simple, 2 doors. The 172 is hard to turn down however the room inside is limited expecially the back seat. The dash is a little higher than I like and even though the plane will probably do better weights than the book it is still close to the Sundowner. The 177 looks better but is a good bit more.

 

[2000Easyguy]

I guess 600 +/- hours is the magic number in the sundowner. That's about what I have and about as long ago. I agree with Singlecoil and Leadsled and would only add one thing. Land with a little power and in trim. They had a rep. about porpoising. There may be a technique with landing without the last notch of flaps, but I may be confusing that with the MU-2.
Have fun!

 

[rbav8r]

MTSAC college uses a Sundowner for flight training. It has been flying for at least the last 15 years. I got my instrument rating in it and enjoyed flying it. I also flew the C172 and equal amount. I think they are both good flying airplanes.

 

[Be 23]

I'll have to chime in here for obvious reasons. It became my choice after some research. The 49" wide cabin makes it more comfortable than most four seaters, and it has a lot of headroom. On the other hand, you get more drag with that space.

Beach parts are definitely more expensive, but they don't break. The stuff that breaks is common to GA aircraft -- avionics and engines -- so parts are available and the same price as everyone else.

They tend to have nose heavy CG's, so you can get in trouble on landing if you let the nose drop. Skip the power and do a full stall landing every time and you'll be fine.

Wing loading is a little higher than the competition, which makes for a slightly smoother flight.

A lot more info at www.beechaeroclub.org

Good luck. Fly safe . . .