PROS AND CONS PA28-140 VS BE19(M23-19) - Buying aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PROS AND CONS PA28-140 VS BE19(M23-19) - Buying aircraft
I'm in the market for an aircraft and have basically shortlisted two aircraft that were offered to me.
If anyone else here has a single engine, 4 place for sale in Australia, I'd be interested to hear from you as well. My budget is around $30-50k.
I'm sitting in between two shortlisted aircrafts being a Beechcraft Musketeer 19A AKA M23-19 or Piper Cruiser PA28-140. I trained in the Archer III's so I'm more familiar with the PA28 series but would like to keep my options open.
Can anyone give me pros and cons of each, common issues, and parts availability?
If anyone else here has a single engine, 4 place for sale in Australia, I'd be interested to hear from you as well. My budget is around $30-50k.
I'm sitting in between two shortlisted aircrafts being a Beechcraft Musketeer 19A AKA M23-19 or Piper Cruiser PA28-140. I trained in the Archer III's so I'm more familiar with the PA28 series but would like to keep my options open.
Can anyone give me pros and cons of each, common issues, and parts availability?
I've flown the Musketeer B23 and the Cherokee 140.
Based on my experience of the 180 HP B23 Musketeer I'd say the 160 HP A19 would be a real slug.
Mind you the Cherokee 140 performance isn't startling either though many have had the HP upgraded to 160 during engine overhaul. This does improve things to some extent.
The early 140's had a shorter fuselage than the later ones so the legroom in the back is a tad tight on the early ones, certainly not a true four seater. Also the cabin door isn't as long on the early ones. If you can get the later 140 with the longer fuselage (same size as the Archer) I would take it over an earlier one. Though with a 150 HP engine, it's still probably a three person aircraft or two adults and two children.
In my opinion the Cherokee 140 has much nicer handling qualities than the Musketeer though that is subjective. One advantage the Musketeer has is it has two cabin doors, well the B23 did anyway.
The Cherokee is probably a better bet airframe wise as parts will be more plentiful.
Based on my experience of the 180 HP B23 Musketeer I'd say the 160 HP A19 would be a real slug.
Mind you the Cherokee 140 performance isn't startling either though many have had the HP upgraded to 160 during engine overhaul. This does improve things to some extent.
The early 140's had a shorter fuselage than the later ones so the legroom in the back is a tad tight on the early ones, certainly not a true four seater. Also the cabin door isn't as long on the early ones. If you can get the later 140 with the longer fuselage (same size as the Archer) I would take it over an earlier one. Though with a 150 HP engine, it's still probably a three person aircraft or two adults and two children.
In my opinion the Cherokee 140 has much nicer handling qualities than the Musketeer though that is subjective. One advantage the Musketeer has is it has two cabin doors, well the B23 did anyway.
The Cherokee is probably a better bet airframe wise as parts will be more plentiful.
Last edited by 27/09; 4th Feb 2018 at 08:11.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've owned both BE23 and PA28. I'd be looking harder to find a Cherokee 180 with worse paint and interior to make it match your budget. I'd only operate a Cherokee 140 two up. Whereas the same engine in a 172M can lift four people in no distance at all.....
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are used to Archer III performance I would advice against a Cruiser, or take a good introduction with an FI - you will feel a significant lack of power. The Musketeer is nice, but also more of an exotic girl - you have to like the rubber puck gear but only if you are really good in landings. Both are definitely no serious 4 seater, more 2 seater max 3 light ones.
What is your typical mission to fly and what is your thought home base runway length?
What is your typical mission to fly and what is your thought home base runway length?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are used to Archer III performance I would advice against a Cruiser, or take a good introduction with an FI - you will feel a significant lack of power. The Musketeer is nice, but also more of an exotic girl - you have to like the rubber puck gear but only if you are really good in landings. Both are definitely no serious 4 seater, more 2 seater max 3 light ones.
What is your typical mission to fly and what is your thought home base runway length?
What is your typical mission to fly and what is your thought home base runway length?
Mainly to get around for fun and build hours with my goal to get into airlines. I've been told it has a STC 160. Probably lease it out privately as well.
The cosmetic condition of the aircraft I'm looking at is pretty nice and clean, has been restored with fresh paint and interior.
I do fancy the bubble windscreen over the piper where theres a structural bar going through it. home base RWY length is 1100 meters (YSBK, Aus).
I started off with a Warrior II 160HP so 10HP can't do that much damage?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
General aviation is a very wasteful business.
Most Cessnas and Pipers in the UK market are over 40 years old and are still marketable, but renovation is as you rightly say never worth the cost, so they gradually deteriorate. A decent 172M is worth looking out for in the UK but is rare as hen's teeth. Look for a French-built example as they were better made than the American versions.
I reckon in the UK a '73 model PA28-180 needing new paint and an engine is worth around US$20k or $60K sorted out for a school fleet. Perhaps they should have put some of those scrap PA28s in a shipping container and sent them over here!
TOO
Moderator
A lot of good advice here. I bought my first plane 31 years ago, with no real plan for it succession, and I still have it. I support the idea that in this era of older planes, approach your purchase as you might be the last owner of that plane. Buy well within your means, maintain it so you can fly it, and fly the heck out of it. Don't expect to recover investment you have made in it, other than lots of great flying. If you can sell it later, bonus (though you may have to give it away), but maybe you just own it into it's retirement.
Have the aircraft really well inspected before you commit. For a Cherokee, confirm that the wing spars and primary structure are okay. I am aware that for some older Pipers, Piper will not provide parts. I have this first hand from Piper. Much of the structure of the aircraft can be repaired by simple sheet metal work, not requiring Piper parts, but a few primary structure parts, like spars, cannot be made in the field. If you can't buy them, you're grounded. Corrosion on the wing spars could be a concern, particularly if the aircraft lived near a salty environment.
The aircraft manufacturers did not intend that we operate these older aircraft anywhere near as long as we have. For some, more intrusive inspections are being mandated, and that's not a bad idea. For many, the manufacturer simply has no interest in maintaining a parts supply for the older aircraft, when they could sell you a brand new one. Do your homework, and inspect the plane!
Have the aircraft really well inspected before you commit. For a Cherokee, confirm that the wing spars and primary structure are okay. I am aware that for some older Pipers, Piper will not provide parts. I have this first hand from Piper. Much of the structure of the aircraft can be repaired by simple sheet metal work, not requiring Piper parts, but a few primary structure parts, like spars, cannot be made in the field. If you can't buy them, you're grounded. Corrosion on the wing spars could be a concern, particularly if the aircraft lived near a salty environment.
The aircraft manufacturers did not intend that we operate these older aircraft anywhere near as long as we have. For some, more intrusive inspections are being mandated, and that's not a bad idea. For many, the manufacturer simply has no interest in maintaining a parts supply for the older aircraft, when they could sell you a brand new one. Do your homework, and inspect the plane!
4 seats does not mean four people
RIC The PA 28 140 is not really a 4 place machine (especially in a hot climate)
To be honest a C172 is a far better load hauler and actually does what it says on the tin.
I have used Cessna's commercially for decades; they do work and are very adaptable, plus there is always a market for one.
It is surprising how useful having two doors is also.
There are those out there who think a high wing and struts looks old fashioned, but to be honest they do the business, and are far more 'strip-able' if you ever need it.
To be honest a C172 is a far better load hauler and actually does what it says on the tin.
I have used Cessna's commercially for decades; they do work and are very adaptable, plus there is always a market for one.
It is surprising how useful having two doors is also.
There are those out there who think a high wing and struts looks old fashioned, but to be honest they do the business, and are far more 'strip-able' if you ever need it.
