| | Joined: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,005 Member/1000+posts | | Member/1000+posts Joined: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,005 | I have a chance to fly a friends 150hp Traveler and he asked me if I wanted first dibs on it a few months ago. Now, I know this wouldn't be comparable to a high performance 150/150 but I think it would be a great platform for me and the kids or my wife and I to pack it full of camping gear and go fly. Anybody flown the Travelers any?
In Memory of Dad 11/21/47 - 09/24/2011 Last flight in N3101N
| | | | | Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 11,389 Likes: 923 Member/10,000+ posts! | | Member/10,000+ posts! Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 11,389 Likes: 923 | Mike,
The Traveler was the forerunner of the Cheetah. The Cheetah is a very nice airplane - it was the Traveler made right (and fast). In my opinion, I'd buy a 172, Musketeer or Cherokee 140 (all 150 HP machines) before I'd go with a Traveler.
Warmest regards,
Rick | | | | | Joined: Mar 2004 Posts: 4,842 Likes: 259 Member/2500+posts | | Member/2500+posts Joined: Mar 2004 Posts: 4,842 Likes: 259 | Might be just me but I 'd keep clear of the Musketeers line. I normally don't give in to superstition particularly where airplanes are concerned, but every Musketeer/sport/Sierra I've come across over the years has crashed. Every one, without exception. One killing a good friend of mine. Seriously, every single one. Even those that I knew nothing about other than seeing it tied down on the field. Id show up one day, see it gone then find out that sure enough it went in somewhere.
The first plane crash I witnessed, (then made a mad dash across the field to pull four people out of) was - you guessed it - a Musketeer Sport.
I really like Beech products but no Musketeers for me - Bad mojo!
Last edited by Tactic; 02/07/13 12:01 PM.
| | | | | Joined: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,005 Member/1000+posts | | Member/1000+posts Joined: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,005 | Mike,
The Traveler was the forerunner of the Cheetah. The Cheetah is a very nice airplane - it was the Traveler made right (and fast). In my opinion, I'd buy a 172, Musketeer or Cherokee 140 (all 150 HP machines) before I'd go with a Traveler.
Warmest regards,
Rick Thanks for the info!
In Memory of Dad 11/21/47 - 09/24/2011 Last flight in N3101N
| | | | | Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 19,082 Likes: 2291 Member/15,000 posts | | Member/15,000 posts Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 19,082 Likes: 2291 | If I ever got a four seater fixed gear. It would be a Tiger, a 172, or a Musketeer. Amy - skip the 172 - I have a chunk of time in it and they are just bigger 150's and boring in comparison (OK there is a lot of editorializing in that). Like Andrew I am in horror of the Musketeer. Factory - they come with two "U" shaped lead trimming weights which you move back and forth under the seats to get the plane in CG. There is a recipe for disaster if ever there was one! Which from your choice of three leaves you with the Tiger - great plane - had a ride in the one tied down next to me once. Still if you are going for a Tiger - why not go for an RV. More modern design - better chance of long term support...... After all, the Spitfire only had about 90 minutes of fuel initially, I think. Correct and there never really was a satisfactory resolution throughout the war because there was simply nowhere to put fuel. Final marks had large fuel tanks behind the pilot balanced by the ever larger Griffon engines in front of the pilot. But even then they had a pretty marginal aft CG and had to burn that tank off first before considering combat. It was a little easier in the Photo Reconnaissance variants - without armament - you could fill the torsion box leading edge of the wings, forward of the main spar with fuel. | | | | | Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 9,797 Likes: 97 Member/7500+posts | | Member/7500+posts Joined: Apr 2005 Posts: 9,797 Likes: 97 | skip the 172 - I have a chunk of time in it and they are...boring in comparison... Whatcha got, Graeme, 10 hours in a 172? A plane is as boring as your sense of adventure. While certainly not as agile as a 150/150 taildragger that'll not do anything you ask it to,  they're very comfortable magic carpet rides with an enormous amount of safety built in to the structure and flying characteristics. I do agree with your recommendation of an RV, though. Now THERE'S an awesome machine. 
Gary Shreve When writing the story of your life, never, ever let someone else hold the pen. [ Linked Image] | | | | | Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 13,969 Member/10,000+ posts! | | Member/10,000+ posts! Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 13,969 | skip the 172 - I have a chunk of time in it and they are...boring in comparison... Whatcha got, Graeme, 10 hours in a 172? A plane is as boring as your sense of adventure. While certainly not as agile as a 150/150 taildragger that'll not do anything you ask it to, they're very comfortable magic carpet rides with an enormous amount of safety built in to the structure and flying characteristics. +1 There are several destinations we go every year where you will find 150's, 152's and 172's but the two "Grumman's" of our group are very noticeably absent, especially on those warmer days.......... skip the 172........ they are just bigger 150's and boring in comparison....... I find that to be a very........ "interesting" statement to make on a forum dedicated to 150's and 152's? Bill | | | | | Joined: Mar 2004 Posts: 4,842 Likes: 259 Member/2500+posts | | Member/2500+posts Joined: Mar 2004 Posts: 4,842 Likes: 259 | I've got a few hundred hours in 172s and I like them. For certain missions they are just the ticket. Roomy, stable instrument platform, long legs, handles crosswinds well, carries a respectable amount of ice  (long story), economical to operate. If you think of the Cessna 150 as the VW Bug, then the 172 is kind of like the K-Car, family sedan. Ubiquitous, not sexy, but reliable, capable and economical. I'd like a little more speed out of them, but that speed would come at a cost. That cost would likely be a C-177RG or C-182 I flew a 180 HP C-172 around the San Jose, San Francisco bay area and that seemed to be just the right match for the 172. Didn't give you much more speed, but the increased climb capabilities were just what was needed in the high density altitudes and mountains between San Jose and Reno. The C172 XP is a nice upgrade as well. Now, just how far have we gotten this thread off track?  Anyone interested in buying a Tiger? 
Last edited by Tactic; 02/08/13 03:30 PM.
| | | | | Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 13,969 Member/10,000+ posts! | | Member/10,000+ posts! Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 13,969 | | | |
|
|
