Today’s Top Pick is a 1979 Beechcraft 77 Skipper.

By the 1970s, when Beechcraft began developing its new trainer, a generation of pilots had trained for their private certificates in Cessna 150s. While the diminutive, utilitarian Cessna has become a classic, those who flew it are well aware of its shortcomings, such as its cramped cabin and poor outward visibility at certain angles. Beechcraft took advantage of that pool of knowledge by surveying pilots who flew 150s and asking them what they would change to make the aircraft better.

The Skipper reflects the results of Beechcraft’s market research. Its low wing eliminates the overhead blind spots that many pilots complained about with the 150, and its bubble-shaped cockpit with large windows aided overall visibility. Beechcraft also made an effort to give the airplane a solid, high-quality feel with chunky control yokes and other features that eliminate the sense of flimsiness common in some other trainers.

Unfortunately, the Skipper arrived on the market only a couple of years before the long general aviation downturn began. Beechcraft turned out just over 300 Skippers before halting production in 1981, making this a rare but appealing bird.

This Beechcraft Skipper has 2,370 hours on the airframe and 250 hours on the engine. The basic panel includes a skyBeacon ADS-B.

Pilots interested in an economical two-seat aircraft with a roomy cabin for training, commuting, traveling, or building time should consider this 1979 Beechcraft 77 Skipper, which is available for $69,500 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Finance. For more information, email info@flyingfinance.com.

• FLYING Magazine: The Increasingly Rare Pleasure of the Beechcraft Skipper
• FLYING Magazine: Aftermarket Stars Part 2: Great Used Planes for Less
• Plane & Pilot: Piper Tomahawk

The post This 1979 Beechcraft 77 Skipper Is a Rare, Roomy ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Customers in every segment were welcomed with an array of options. A shopper interested in a two-seat trainer would have a variety of choices ranging from fabric taildraggers to brand-spanking-new concepts like the Piper Tomahawk and Beechcraft Skipper. Similarly, a shopper looking for four seats and good cross-country capability had a fascinating variety of models from which to choose.

This four-place cross-country category was particularly competitive. With offerings from Cessna, Beechcraft, Piper, Ryan, Aero Commander, Bellanca, Mooney, Grumman, and others, manufacturers found novel ways to provide solutions to a common mission—moving four seats from point A to point B as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

While many utilized similar designs from similar playbooks, a few took their own paths. Among the more interesting alternatives were Mooney with their M20 series, and Grumman with their AA-5 models. These two families of aircraft utilized completely different airframe construction techniques, vastly different cabin designs, and even differed with regard to fixed vs. retractable landing gear. Yet their missions were essentially the same. Here we explore why one might choose a Grumman AA-5 over a Mooney M20 and vice versa. 

Design and Evolution

Looking at the Grumman AA-5 and the four-cylinder Mooney M20 models, one might infer that the chief designers from each company agreed on very little.The low-slung M20 is equipped with retractable gear, while all AA-5 models utilize fixed gear. The Mooney sported the characteristic forward-swept tail that pivots in its entirety to provide pitch trim. Conversely, Grumman’s tail is traditional in both function and appearance. Even access to the cabins is vastly different, with Mooney utilizing a single right-side door while Grumman opted for a large canopy that slides back on rails to provide access from both sides.

Despite the differences, there are some fundamental similarities. The low-wing configuration, for example, four seats, and four-cylinder engines that produce from 150 to 220 horsepower.

To dig down into specifics and conduct a true apples-to-apples comparison with the AA-5, the wide array of Mooney M20 models offered over the years must be narrowed down. Produced from 1955 into the 2000s, more than 11,000 examples have been delivered, and the wide range of subtypes can be divided into groups based on cabin length.

The M20, M20A, M20B, M20C, M20D, and M20E are the “short-body” Mooneys. The M20F, M20G, M20J, and M20K had an additional foot of fuselage length added ahead of the back seats and are thus known as the “medium-body” Mooneys. “Long-body” Mooney production began in 1988. As the long bodies utilize larger, six-cylinder engines, they are less comparable to the Grumman AA-5 series, and we’ll exclude them from this review.

Short- and medium-body Mooney production took place from 1955 through 1998. With a handful of exceptions, the vast majority utilized the Lycoming O-360 and IO-360 engines, ranging from 180 to 200 horsepower. The M20K was the only turbocharged variant among the short and medium bodies and offered 210 to 220 horsepower.

The relative consistency among short- and medium-body Mooneys makes the shopping process fairly straightforward. Many shoppers exclude the M20and M20A from contention, as these early subtypes incorporated wood construction in the wing and tail. The criteria among the remaining models mostly come down to engines, which typically becomes a choice between 180 and 200 horsepower. Besides cabin length and the presence of an additional cabin window in the medium-body airplanes, other differences include manual vs. powered flaps and landing gear, and throttle quadrants vs. push/pull knobs.

One notable development was the M20D Master, which came from the factory with fixed, non-retractable landing gear. It was marketed as “convertible” and one could upgrade it to retractable gear. Virtually all have been converted, and only a few remain in their original fixed-gear configuration. While the fixed gear reportedly reduces cruise speed by approximately 25 knots, it would also presumably reduce insurance premiums appreciably.

The Grumman AA-5 Traveler has had a considerably less complex array of subtypes, but was produced under a variety of manufacturer names as ownership of the company changed over the years. Production began in 1971 with the 150 hp AA-5 Traveler. This initial type was produced by American Aviation and later, by Grumman Aviation.

The AA-5A Cheetah was introduced as a 1976 model. Produced by Grumman American and then Gulfstream American, it had the same horsepower but was faster, thanks to drag reduction modifications. Along with all subsequent AA-5 subtypes, it incorporated a larger horizontal stabilizer that expanded the CG range, and fuel capacity increased from 37 to 52 gallons.

For the 1975 model year, the 180 hp Grumman American/Gulfstream American AA-5B Tiger was introduced. In addition to the greater speed and power provided by the more powerful engine, it also introduced a slightly thicker wing spar and a 200-pound gross-weight increase.

Production of all AA-5 subtypes ended in 1979, but between 1990 and 1993, a newly-formed company, American General Aviation Corporation, resumed production of the Tiger as the AG-5B. AGAC modified it with various minor aerodynamic and systems improvements, and built a total of 181. The Tiger was resurrected yet again when Tiger Aircraft produced an additional 51 AG-5Bs between 2001 and 2006.

Market Snapshot

A recent survey of M20 and AA-5 variants listed for sale on six of the most popular online classified sites at the time of this writing provides a breakdown of the median asking prices.

One of the most notable takeaways is the consistency in asking prices of the two types. For all of their differences, they still utilize nearly-identical engines to move four seats a similar distance at a similar economy. The market appears to place similar values on this level of functionality.

Predictably, newer models command higher prices and vice-versa. And not surprisingly, the older airplanes generally have a higher number of airframe hours than the newer ones. One anomaly is apparent in the median price of the newer Tigers, although the limited sample size likely plays a role. Also apparent is the massive increase in asking prices post-pandemic. While we did not conduct a comprehensive pricing survey of the M20 family prior to or in the early days of the pandemic, a FLYING evaluation of the AA-5 in mid-2020 revealed a median asking price of $48,500 across all subtypes. Today, that figure has increased to $122,500—a 153 percent increase.

The number of active listings for each type reflects production numbers and fleet sizes. With such a lengthy production run, just over 9,000 short- and medium-body M20s have been produced to date. In contrast, only 3,282 AA-5s have been produced in total.

Today, 5,231 short- and medium-body M20s remain active on the FAA registry, compared to 1,839 Grumman AA-5s. This reflects 58 and 56 percent of the original fleet sizes, respectively. This illustrates the greater selection that prospective Mooney owners have compared with those shopping for a Grumman.

Flight Characteristics

The different design philosophies between the Grumman and the Mooney become evident the moment one steps onto the wing to board. Like many low-wing aircraft, admittance to the Mooney is provided via a single door on the right side of the fuselage. Comparatively, the Grumman incorporates a canopy that slides back on rails, allowing occupants to board from either side. When it comes to ease of access, Grumman has the advantage here. If there’s a downside, it’s that opening the canopy in the rain will expose far more of the cabin to the elements.

Once settled inside, the expansive windows that make up the Grumman’s canopy and low sill height provide a spacious feel with a panoramic view. But while the Grumman has an inch and a half more headroom than the Mooney, the Mooney is approximately 1 to 3 inches wider, depending on the specific model and which interior door and wall panels are installed.

The Mooney’s slight lack of headroom can create a marginally more restrictive feeling. Similarly, the Mooney’s panel and window sills are higher than the Grumman’s, adding to the closed-in effect. Talk to Mooney owners, though, and even those on the taller side report having sufficient space to stretch their legs and get comfortable.

The back seats differ more than the front. Grummans provide backseat occupants with a more roomy environment, and Grumman owners love how easy it is to fold the back seats forward to create a spacious cargo area. With the removal of their front wheels, two full-sized adult bicycles can easily be carried in the back.

The rear seating area in short-body Mooneys is notoriously cramped. Anyone planning to invite an adult to ride there with any regularity would be well-advised to opt for a medium-body Mooney, as the additional foot of fuselage length is placed between the front and rear seats. Mooney owners report no perceptible difference in front-seat comfort between short- and medium-body models.

Another difference arises while taxiing. While the Mooney’s rudder pedals are linked directly to nosewheel steering in the traditional manner, the Grumman utilizes a free-castering nosewheel and, thus, requires differential braking to steer and maintain directional control. Critics of this design are quick to mention the increased brake wear that comes from frequent steering inputs and brake applications, but fans counter by touting the ability to deftly pivot into and out of tight parking spaces with little effort.

Takeoff, climb, and cruise performance vary substantially based on specific subtypes. Grumman owners report that the 180-hp Tiger, despite having only 30 more horsepower than the Traveler and Cheetah, exhibits vastly better takeoff and climb performance than the lower-powered versions. Similarly, the performance difference between a 180 hp Mooney with no aerodynamic mods and a 200-plus horsepower Mooney with those mods is substantial.

A Lot of Speed in an Economical Package

FLYING has flown the Mooney M20s and Grumman AA-5s since each model was born. And since that time, we’ve remarked on how they deliver honest cross- country speed at a price that was relatively easy to accept.

In a March 1997 used airplane report on the M20 series, Richard L. Collins wrote, “In 1963, Mooney tweaked the M20C Mark 21 and added the M20D to the line. Dubbed the Master, it is a fixed-gear airplane with the option to convert it to a retractable. The Master’s standard price new was $13,995, and when you got tired of cruising at 140 mph, Mooney would convert the airplane to a retractable for $1,600. Most have been converted…Mooney was selling a lot of airplanes in those days simply because they delivered a lot of speed in an economical package.”

The same words echoed in FLYING’s report on the new Tiger in February 1975. Collins wrote, “If the next era is to be one of efficient simplicity, Grumman American is right on target. The four GA lightplanes…are as basic as they come…[and the Tiger’s] 139-knot cruising speed, healthy rate of climb, and good useful load make it a contender in the marketplace…”

We can, however, make a direct comparison by reviewing the published performance data of a 180 hp Tiger and a 180 hp M20C. At maximum takeoff weight and similar environmental conditions, some differences become apparent. The Mooney, for example, provides better takeoff performance, with a ground roll of 815 feet, and 1,395 feet required to clear a 50-foot obstacle. This compares to 909 feet and 1,628 feet for the Grumman, respectively.

Once in the air, the two airplanes return nearly identical rates of climb at sea level—800 fpm for the Mooney and 808 fpm for the Grumman. In cruise, the Mooney’s retractable gear provides an advantage in cruise speed, but not as large as one might expect. At 7,000 to 7,500 feet, 32 to 34 degrees Fahrenheit, and 2,700 rpm, the Mooney will reach 146 knots—only slightly faster than the 139-knot Grumman.

In real-world conditions with decades-old airplanes, M20C owners report 140- to 145-knot cruise speeds, and Tiger owners report a range of 125 to 135 knots. Cheetahs are typically about 10 knots slower. On the other end of the spectrum, one M20E owner reports his 200-hp machine with extensive speed mods reaches 155 to 160 knots while burning 10 gallons per hour.

In terms of knots per gallon, both airplanes perform admirably, especially compared to competing types. At the commonly-reported figures of roughly 135 knots and 9 gallons per hour, the Grumman Tiger boasts 15 knots per gallon of fuel burn. At an additional 10 knots with the same fuel burn, many M20C owners see that figure rise to 16.

While a new owner of either airplane would be wise to obtain flight instruction from an instructor intimately familiar with the type, Mooney owners are quicker to warn newcomers to the peculiarities of the M20, emphasizing precise airspeed control on final.The airplane is particularly unforgiving of being forced onto the runway before the wing is finished flying. In an attempt to avoid pilot-induced oscillations, one Mooney training curriculum strongly warns against attempting to salvage a bounced landing, and recommends initiating a go-around on the first bounce.

The Mooney requires more runway distance for landing than the Grumman, with a 595-foot ground roll and a 1,550-foot distance over a 50-foot obstacle listed in the book. This compares with 415 feet and 1,135 feet for the Grumman. This may be partially because of the Mooney’s 69-knot approach speed, which is 6 knots faster than the Grumman.

Valuable as raw numbers may be, Grumman fans tout some of the less-quantifiable characteristics and features of their beloved airplanes. All AA-5s, for example, can be flown with the canopy slightly open. On the ground, it may be opened up completely for a refreshing blast of cool air on hot summer days.

Grumman owners also rave about their airplane’s handling characteristics. Control forces are notably light, requiring only slight fingertip pressures to maneuver as desired. The M20 series provides accurate, predictable handling as well but is noticeably heavier on the controls. This may appeal to instrument pilots with a preference for hand flying. Both airplanes utilize torque tubes and push/pull rods, providing a more precise connection to the ailerons than traditional cables.

According to the books, the M20C has a useful load of 1,050 pounds, slightly more than the Tiger’s.

Ownership

A thorough pre-purchase inspection by an experienced A&P is critical for both the AA-5 and M20 series. In addition to the usual threat of corrosion in aging aircraft, attention is prudent in areas unique to these types.

Although the Mooney is traditional in many respects, there are a few concerns. Mooney service bulletin M20-208B, for example, recommends a thorough annual inspection of the steel frame surrounding the cabin to determine whether any corrosion is present. As this check is not mandated, some owners might not perform it annually as recommended.

The nose gear is another critical check for the Mooney. The structure has strict tow limits, and if an unaware line worker attempts to turn the nose gear too sharply in either direction while towing, structural damage can occur that requires a rebuild to the tune of several thousand dollars. A careful visual inspection determines whether this damage is present.

Mooney fuel tanks are known to develop leaks. While they can be resealed, fuel bladders are a popular modification providing a more permanent solution. And although the Mooney’s landing gear lacks more complex air shocks or oil damping, the manufacturer does recommend replacement of the rubber shock absorber pucks every 8 to 10 years at a current cost of approximately $2,000 for the pucks themselves, before labor.

The Grumman has its unique pre-purchase and ongoing maintenance considerations. Early AA-5s developed problems with airframe bonding failing and resulting in delamination. Fortunately, most that have experienced the problem are thought to have been identified and permanently fixed. It remains important to have this confirmed by an A&P familiar with the issue.

Simple as the Grumman’s landing gear is, particularly compared to a retract, it has unique maintenance needs. The nose gear utilizes a design that should be thoroughly inspected prior to purchase and then at every annual. Grumman maintainers report that this item may be skipped or completed in an insufficient manner, resulting in pricey repairs down the road.

AA-5 wing spars are life-limited to 12,000 to 12,500 hours. Few AA-5s are approaching this amount of use, and the median airframe hours among the examples listed for sale at the time of this writing were less than 3,000. Anyone considering a particularly high-time AA-5 would be wise to take it into consideration.

The Grumman is otherwise a straight forward airframe design. Unlike most comparable aircraft, there are no moving parts inside an AA-5’s wing—all flap and aileron actuation is achieved via easily accessible torque tubes, upon which each control surface pivots. One maintainer points out there are fewer moving parts in an AA-5 than in a Cessna 150, and another enjoys how all flight control cables are neatly located in the center of the aircraft and are rather short.

Otherwise, no airworthiness directives (ADs) make ownership burdensome for either airplane. All tend to be one-time or recurring ADs that are straightforward to address. The Mooney owners we surveyed report uneventful annuals at $2,500 to $3,000. Grumman owners report a range of $1,500 to $2,500.

Insurance cost is one element of ownership in which the two types differ substantially. To compare the two types, we asked an insurance broker to create quotes for a 40-year-old private pilot with no instrument rating, 250 hours total time, and 5 hours in type. For a 1977 Grumman Tiger valued at $110,000 and liability limits of $1,000,000/$100,000, this theoretical pilot could expect to pay roughly $1,900 per year. For a 1969 Mooney M20C with the same hull value and liability limits, they could expect to pay roughly $6,000 per year.

If this pilot obtained an instrument rating and 1,500 hours total time with 25 hours in type, they could expect to pay roughly $1,500 per year for the Grumman and $4,000 per year for the Mooney. That makes the Mooney nearly three times as expensive to insure—an added $208 to $341 per month over a year in this case. Both models are well supported by active and bustling owners’ groups. The Grumman Owners and Pilots Association is the original type club for the Grumman. It holds regular events including an annual convention, and offers a pilot familiarization program for new Grumman pilots.

The Mooney Aircraft Pilots Association, or MAPA, is a valuable resource for Mooney ownership information. Additionally, Mooneyspace.com is an active forum, and Mooneysafety.com offers training resources and proficiency programs.

Our Take

In aviation, speed costs money, and diminishing returns approach quickly. When operating with a modest budget, the M20 and AA-5 series provide what might be the greatest-knot-per-dollar among four-place certified aircraft. Other types might offer more speed, but at the cost of six-cylinder fuel burn. Others might be less expensive to purchase and operate but will likely fall short in cross-country traveling ability.

Both the Mooney and Grumman seem to provide a nice balance of speed, operating economy, and ease of ownership. Without any overly difficult-to-source airframe parts, massive ADs, or orphaned engines in the equation, both types offer a compelling solution for longer-distance travel without an overly-burdensome ownership experience. 

Perhaps best of all, both types are enthusiastically supported by vibrant owners’ groups. For a nominal annual fee, a new owner can unlock a level of support, expertise, and camaraderie that owners of less-common types can only dream of. Whether a buyer opts for the M20 or the AA-5, it’s a safe bet they’ll enjoy their purchase for many years.

This article was originally published in the April 2023, Issue 936 of  FLYING.

The post Air Compare: Grumman AA-5 vs. Mooney M20 Series appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In terms of outward appearance, the Piper PA-38 Tomahawk and Beechcraft Skipper look nearly identical. The visual differences are few and minor, and differentiating them requires some attention to detail. The Tomahawk has square side windows and a full wraparound rear window, for example, while the Skipper has trapezoidal side windows and two separate triangular rear windows.

The Tomahawk’s vertical stabilizer extends above the horizontal stabilizer while the Skipper’s is a true T-tail, resembling that of its big brother, the Beechcraft King Air. This was intentional on Beechcraft’s part; in print ads, the Skipper was touted as using “the T-tail design of the Super King Air turboprop.” And while theTomahawk’s gear attaches at the wing, the Skipper’s is slightly narrower and attaches to the fuselage’s belly.

Beyond those differences, the two models are near carbon copies in terms of appearance. While the competitive environment in those days was rather cut-throat and corporate espionage has been suggested as the reason for the similarity, inherent technical constraints likely played a large part.

Tasked with utilizing the same power plant (the 112-to 115-hp Lycoming O-235), carrying two people, and offering comfort and visibility superior to the Cessna 150 in a low-wing configuration, it’s perhaps not surprising that both Piper and Beechcraft arrived at the same general layout when designing their new trainers.

In the case of the Skipper, the design goals seem to have been achieved. Cabin space is noticeably more accommodating than the 150/152, and outward visibility is similarly superior by virtue of the low wing and large windows.

Overall, the Skipper’s cabin indeed feels like a more ergonomic, pleasant place to be when compared with the 150/152.

Model History

Unlike other types that were produced over many decades and were offered in dozens of subtypes, the Skipper is simple and uniform. Only the Model 77 was produced, with no special editions or improved versions ever offered. Accordingly, Skippers are consistent in specifications, amenities, and stock panel layouts.

The prototype first flew in 1975, two years after the Tomahawk’s first flight. After lengthy experimentation with various engines and tail configurations, production started in 1979. Beechcraft built a total of 312 Skipper examples through 1981.

At that time, the market began to soften and Beechcraft suspended production, reportedly pending an improvement in market conditions. No such improvement occurred, however, and some unsold Skippers were offered as 1982 models.

Market Snapshot

When it comes to assessing the current market value of the Skipper, its rarity makes it more challenging to evaluate than others. Combing through the offerings of over a half-dozen sources for three months, we were only able to find six examples listed for sale. This includes regular scouring of Craigslists nationwide as well as eBay. Few Skippers were built to begin with, fewer remain today, and naturally, only a handful are listed for sale each year.

Of the examples we found, the least expensive was listed for $30,000 and the most expensive was listed for $45,000. The median price came to $34,000, and the median total airframe time was 4,900 hours. Among 1980s-era aircraft, it’s one of the most affordable.

Flight Characteristics

The Skipper stands out on most ramps. A relatively unique design compared with traditional Cessnas and Pipers, the Skipper’s larger and taller cabin creates greater ramp presence than a 150 or 152, as does he T-tail. When it’s time for the preflight, the T-tail becomes more of a nuisance than a benefit, as close inspection and snow/ice removal are far more cumbersome than with a conventional low horizontal stabilizer.

With a cabin that places the seat 7 inches higher than the 150’s, boarding the Skipper feels quite a bit different. Rather than ducking beneath an eye-level wing to enter a relatively claustrophobic cabin, one climbs up onto the Skipper’s wing and steps through a comparatively massive, welcoming door.

After settling into the seat that’s perched atop the low wing, the outward view is open and bright. Headroom and shoulder room are ample, and with 5 additional inches of cabin width compared to the 150, husky occupants needn’t inhale deeply to shut the doors. This additional space also allows occupants to wear multiple layers and winter coats without feeling too cramped.

Beechcraft engineers began with a clean sheet when designing the cabin and panel, and accordingly, the ergonomics are outstanding. The panel is clean and uncluttered, the circuit breakers and radios are all positioned above the level of the yokes, and the engine instruments are intuitively organized immediately above the throttle and mixture levers.

Stepping on the brakes and handling the controls, it becomes evident that those same engineers wanted to make the diminutive Skipper feel like a larger Beechcraft. The yokes are substantial and exhibit none of the flex inherent in the Tomahawk and 150. The rudder pedals are large aluminum affairs, solid and beefy. And most of the touchpoints are similarly reinforced to provide an overall feeling of quality compared with other bargain-basement types.

Performance-wise, the most limiting aspect of theSkipper is the meager useful load. With 30 gallons of fuel capacity, the full-fuel payload is only 400 pounds. With the addition of optional avionics and typical cabin items, a Skipper pilot must be vigilant about passenger weights and may consider leaving some fuel behind for shorter flights.

With 115 hp on tap, the reality of always operating within a few hundred pounds of maximum takeoff weight makes for a relatively lazy takeoff roll and half-hearted climb performance. The book claims a climb rate of 700 fpm is achievable at gross weight, but as with many types, an aging engine and airframe make such numbers appear rather optimistic in reality. Taking off and climbing are not what it does best.

After leveling off, the Skipper can cruise at 105 knots at 2,700 rpm and about 95 knots at 2,450 rpm, numbers on par with many other two-place aircraft in the 100-hp range.

In flight, the Skipper is defined not by any particular performance number, but rather by the quiet competence with which it handles. The solid-feeling controls are smooth and effective, relaying a feeling of robust quality. Handling is entirely predictable and unremarkable, with no unusual traits or characteristics. One simply asks the Skipper to pitch, bank, or stall, and the airplane does as expected without comment or complaint.

Regard the T-tail with some caution, as it has the propensity to act differently during takeoff and landing than conventional tails mounted lower on the empennage. That said, the effect was less noticeable in the example we flew compared with the Tomahawk. Once again, the Skipper generally does as asked with-out complaint.

Ownership

Without question, the single most challenging as-pect of Skipper ownership is the rarity of the type. With such a small fleet size, airframe parts can be difficult to source, qualified and experienced instructors can be hard to find, and support from other owners is not nearly as robust or commonplace as with other types.

The problem is significant, and it’s not getting better. In 1982, most if not all of the 312 examples built were flying. Twenty years later, reports offered that roughly 210 Skippers were active on the FAA register. Today, after another 20 years have passed, only 118 examples appear on the register. If this trend continues, the Skipper will be virtually extinct by 2042.

Accordingly, a prospective Skipper owner must be willing to become a parts-sourcing enthusiast, seeking out and procuring parts before they’re needed. This may involve saving keyword searches on eBay to receive notifications when parts are listed and monitoring salvage websites for wrecked Skippers from which parts can be taken.

There’s a fine line between stockpiling and hoarding, however. To serve as a responsible steward of the type, one should engage with other owners and be willing to sell or exchange spare parts as needed. Making spare parts available to the entire owner group helps to keep the remaining Skippers airworthy and flying, and establishing such goodwill also helps to ensure you will be able to find and obtain parts in your own time of need.

With a 2,400-hour engine TBO and a fuel burn of 6 to 8 gph, ongoing operating expenses are minimal and so are the insurance premiums. One owner reported that with a $25,000 hull value, the annual premium to cover a zero-time pilot was $1,100. This year, when the policy was adjusted to a $35,000 hull value and all covered pilots had more advanced ratings, the annual premium dropped to $700.

Perhaps because so few Skipperswere produced, few airworthiness directives (ADs) apply to the airframe. Of the 11 applicable ADs listed on the FAA database, only one involves a repetitive inspection. It’s fairly straight-forward in nature, requiring a dye penetrant inspection of the nosegear fork axle assembly every 500 hours, and a visual inspection of the assembly every subsequent 100 hours.

Although some 165 supplemental type certificates (STCs) are approved for the Skipper, most are relatively minor. With the exception of those that modernize the panel and avionics, few will have an appreciable effect on the value of an individual airplane. Nor will any of the approved STCs increase horsepower or performance as the vast majority are related to instrumentation, LED lighting, oil filters, and ADS-B installations. Accordingly, most Skippers are largely unchanged from their factory configuration today.

The Beech Aero Club is the official type club of the Skipper. A well-organized and vibrant group, it serves as a source for technical documents and forums in which owners can ask for and provide advice. Like the aircraft itself, however, Skipper owners are correspondingly fewer than owners of other types, and even within the type club, some effort is required to locate experienced owners and maintainers.

The Skipper is one of the few ways to obtain a well-refined, nicely-flying, 1980s-era aircraft in the mid-$30,000 range. The low price of entry reflects the scarcity of airframe parts and type expertise. But with a popular, commonly-found engine and the ever-increasing reach of online networking, the Skipper’s most significant weakness can be manageable with appropriately-adjusted expectations.

In the end, a well-maintained Skipper will likely serve as an enjoyable personal airplane for decades to come.

BEECHCRAFT SKIPPER

Price: $30,000 to $45,000

Powerplant (original): Lycoming 0-235, 115 HP Max Cruise

Speed: 105 mph 

Endurance: 4.9 hours 

Max Useful Load: 580 lbs.

Takeoff Distance Over a 50-ft. Obstacle: 1,350 ft.

Landing Distance Over a 50-ft. Obstacle: 1,300 feet ft.

Insurance Cost: Low

Annual Inspection Expense: Low

Recurring ADs: One Minor

Parts Availability: Poor

Stalls are Very Adequate for Teaching Purposes 

Beechcraft took nearly six years to develop its new trainer, the Skipper, using the GAW-1 airfoil that Cessna had initially tapped for the Model 303 Crusader. The result was a stately if unexciting ride that the company promoted extensively in FLYING’s pages in the early 1980s. Beech tested the airplane with both a conventional tail as well as the T-tail it eventually delivered with. In the September 1979 issue, Richard Collins described flying the new take on training aircraft.

“A Beech design goal for the Skipper was to develop an airplane that would stall cleanly and not fall off and start to spin without provocation. The airplane is approved for spins, but Beech wanted it to spin only when the pilot demanded it, not accidentally, at the drop of a wing.

“Their goals have been met. Aerodynamic warning of a stall is good, without an excessive amount of tail buffeting. The Skipper also has what must be one of the world’s loudest stall-warning horns. The airplane can be held in a stall without tending toward an instant spin; while it is stalled, you can hold the wings level by using ailerons alone and not provoke the airplane. The stalls are very adequate for teaching purposes.”

The post The Increasingly Rare Pleasure of the Beechcraft Skipper appeared first on FLYING Magazine.