Resource for choosing a plane?

[Douglas Paterson]

So, I've decided to go for my first airplane. As I get started looking for
"the" airplane, I'm hoping I can find some help here in narrowing my
choices. The more I look, the more overwhelmed I get. I'm starting to
think that finding & buying the damn thing will be anticlimactic--deciding
*what* to buy is the hard part!! ;)

What I'd really like to find is some sort of direct comparison tool--like
you find in an auto magazine, say--such as a table with columns listing
features, with added commentary on each model's pros and cons. From reading
this group, I've found a couple of browsing tools, but nothing that really
hits the mark. Suggestions? Ideally, I'd really like an online database
that I can play with different parameters and see different results....

While I've got your eye, I may as well solicit direct advice, too. All the
opinions I've formed so far are written in Jell-O, so please poke holes in
any misconceptions you may spot.

Me:
~4,200 hours: mostly in heavies (various C-135 models); a few hundred in
USAF trainers (T-37/T-38); and about 150 in GA SEL airplanes (Cessnas,
Pipers, and Grummans). PP/SEL, CP/MEL, Instrument, & ATP tickets. My only
GA complex time is the ~4.5 in the Seneca I took my ATP in.

What I've eliminated:
- Twin: in my budget range, twins seem to double (or more) operating
expense for little if any performance gain--redundancy seems to be the real
value-added for entry-level twins. Not that I'm knocking redundancy, but
this prospect will be a wallet-strain as it is.
- Experimentals/Homebuilts/Warbirds: I don't have the fortitude to deal
with the idiosyncrasies of non-certificated. First time out calls for baby
steps.
- Turbines/Floats/Fabric wings/anything else "weird": baby steps again.
- Combine all of the above: I've eliminated everything that's NOT a
certificated, piston, SEL w/ metal hull/wings.

Assumptions/Considerations:
- I will be starting to fly soon w/ a local club that has Cessnas (fixed
and c/s prop models) and Arrows--in addition to currency (I haven't flown GA
for 8+ years, and my last heavy flight was February [now in staff job :( ]),
I plan to use that time to get comfortable in a small airplane again,
comfortable with a c/s prop, etc.
- I'm less concerned about acquisition cost than recurring
costs--especially if I can find a circumstance where spending a bit more
up-front buys a plane requiring less outlay for maintenance, insurance,
whatever. I've set a ceiling of $100K, but that's only a notional number at
this point. All things being equal, cheaper is better, of course....
- I've had mixed information on just "how much" extra maintenance (read:
$$$) is required on a retract vs fixed gear, and/or c/s vs fixed prop. What
about turbo-charging? I really need to learn in this area....
- I have no idea what my insurance situation will be; I've been assuming
that any time-in-type requirements won't be too restrictive given my
experience, and that I'll be able to get that time w/ an instructor easily
enough.
- I live in Colorado Springs. Airport elevations here run between ~6,000'
and ~7,000', and I'm told 10,000'+ density altitude is commonplace in the
summer. Do I need turbo-charging?
- I want a "real" four-seater, whether that means a heavy-lifting four-seat
or a six-seat. I'm also pretty broad across the shoulders, and not small in
any dimension (6'0", 250#), so comfort is a consideration.
- I want reasonable speed--150 knots-ish seems about right, more is
better....
- I prefer low-wing, but that's a marginal distinction for me. I do wonder
if I'll ever get the urge to land on grass/gravel/etc, in which case I
assume I'd want the high-wing w/ fixed gear, yes?

Thoughts:
It sounds like I want a Mooney for speed & fuel economy, a Dakota for
lifting, and Bonanza for size--or something like that! That brings me back
to my original request, for a means to make direct comparisons between the
various choices out there--I'm having trouble determining what & how I need
to make trade-offs without that sort of tool....

Thanks for any help!

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[George Patterson]

Douglas Paterson wrote:

> What I'd really like to find is some sort of direct comparison tool--like
> you find in an auto magazine, say--such as a table with columns listing
> features, with added commentary on each model's pros and cons. From reading
> this group, I've found a couple of browsing tools, but nothing that really
> hits the mark. Suggestions?

I know of nothing out there. What I did when I was shopping for my first
aircraft was to buy a copy of Bill Clarke's "The Illustrated Buyer's Guide to
Used Airplanes" and make lists of possible candidates. You should be able to
throw together a table or spreadsheet of possibilities. There won't be too many
singles that fit all of your conditions.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[BTIZ]

Doug.. sounds like you've narrowed it down correctly..
based on your "size" a Turbo Arrow may be too small.. same for the Mooney's.
"If I were you", I'd set my sights on a Turbo Bonanza (yes I think you want
turbo if you are planning on flying anywhere west of Denver) B-36TCs are not
"cheap" but might be found in the under $150K range.

I am (retired) based out of Las Vegas and fly Seneca II (Turbo) on a regular
basis. Normally aspirated Arrow or Bonanza (285HP V35B) do just fine, but
climbs are anemic in summer if near max gross weight.

A Turbo Lance (Cherokee 6) may get the "heavy lift" you seek, but not as
fast.
BT

"Douglas Paterson" > wrote in message
...
> So, I've decided to go for my first airplane. As I get started looking
> for "the" airplane, I'm hoping I can find some help here in narrowing my
> choices. The more I look, the more overwhelmed I get. I'm starting to
> think that finding & buying the damn thing will be anticlimactic--deciding
> *what* to buy is the hard part!! ;)
>
> What I'd really like to find is some sort of direct comparison tool--like
> you find in an auto magazine, say--such as a table with columns listing
> features, with added commentary on each model's pros and cons. From
> reading this group, I've found a couple of browsing tools, but nothing
> that really hits the mark. Suggestions? Ideally, I'd really like an
> online database that I can play with different parameters and see
> different results....
>
> While I've got your eye, I may as well solicit direct advice, too. All
> the opinions I've formed so far are written in Jell-O, so please poke
> holes in any misconceptions you may spot.
>
> Me:
> ~4,200 hours: mostly in heavies (various C-135 models); a few hundred in
> USAF trainers (T-37/T-38); and about 150 in GA SEL airplanes (Cessnas,
> Pipers, and Grummans). PP/SEL, CP/MEL, Instrument, & ATP tickets. My
> only GA complex time is the ~4.5 in the Seneca I took my ATP in.
>
> What I've eliminated:
> - Twin: in my budget range, twins seem to double (or more) operating
> expense for little if any performance gain--redundancy seems to be the
> real value-added for entry-level twins. Not that I'm knocking redundancy,
> but this prospect will be a wallet-strain as it is.
> - Experimentals/Homebuilts/Warbirds: I don't have the fortitude to deal
> with the idiosyncrasies of non-certificated. First time out calls for
> baby steps.
> - Turbines/Floats/Fabric wings/anything else "weird": baby steps again.
> - Combine all of the above: I've eliminated everything that's NOT a
> certificated, piston, SEL w/ metal hull/wings.
>
> Assumptions/Considerations:
> - I will be starting to fly soon w/ a local club that has Cessnas (fixed
> and c/s prop models) and Arrows--in addition to currency (I haven't flown
> GA for 8+ years, and my last heavy flight was February [now in staff job
> :( ]), I plan to use that time to get comfortable in a small airplane
> again, comfortable with a c/s prop, etc.
> - I'm less concerned about acquisition cost than recurring
> costs--especially if I can find a circumstance where spending a bit more
> up-front buys a plane requiring less outlay for maintenance, insurance,
> whatever. I've set a ceiling of $100K, but that's only a notional number
> at this point. All things being equal, cheaper is better, of course....
> - I've had mixed information on just "how much" extra maintenance (read:
> $$$) is required on a retract vs fixed gear, and/or c/s vs fixed prop.
> What about turbo-charging? I really need to learn in this area....
> - I have no idea what my insurance situation will be; I've been assuming
> that any time-in-type requirements won't be too restrictive given my
> experience, and that I'll be able to get that time w/ an instructor easily
> enough.
> - I live in Colorado Springs. Airport elevations here run between
> ~6,000' and ~7,000', and I'm told 10,000'+ density altitude is commonplace
> in the summer. Do I need turbo-charging?
> - I want a "real" four-seater, whether that means a heavy-lifting
> four-seat or a six-seat. I'm also pretty broad across the shoulders, and
> not small in any dimension (6'0", 250#), so comfort is a consideration.
> - I want reasonable speed--150 knots-ish seems about right, more is
> better....
> - I prefer low-wing, but that's a marginal distinction for me. I do
> wonder if I'll ever get the urge to land on grass/gravel/etc, in which
> case I assume I'd want the high-wing w/ fixed gear, yes?
>
> Thoughts:
> It sounds like I want a Mooney for speed & fuel economy, a Dakota for
> lifting, and Bonanza for size--or something like that! That brings me
> back to my original request, for a means to make direct comparisons
> between the various choices out there--I'm having trouble determining what
> & how I need to make trade-offs without that sort of tool....
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
> --
> Doug
> "Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring,
> "Twilight Zone"
> (my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate
> change to contact me)
>

[kontiki]

There is really not much to choose from that meets all of your criteria
in the under $100K category. Someone makes a real nice turboprop conversion
for the Cessna 210. I forget the manufacturer but I had a chance to gawk
at one when it stopped in for fuel a couple of months ago. Based on the
numbers that aircraft would fit your profile fairly well, except it
would exceed $100K.

[Jim Burns]

Pathfinder/Dakota/Turbo Dakota may give you the most bang for your buck
while filling most if not all of your requirements. $100,000 will give you
several to pick from.
Jim

[Jay Honeck]

> Pathfinder/Dakota/Turbo Dakota may give you the most bang for your buck
> while filling most if not all of your requirements. $100,000 will give
> you
> several to pick from.

My thoughts exactly.

It's not *quite* 150 knots, (more like 140, in our Pathfinder), but it's a
true 4-place plane (1400 pound useful load) that can be landed on grass
comfortably.

If you have any detailed questions about the breed, fell free to ask.
(Also, check this site out: http://www.pa28.com/cherokee235/home.htm )
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michelle]

Douglas Paterson wrote:

>

Aviation Consumer Airplane buyers guide.
www.aviationconsumer.com
Michelle

[ktbr]

kontiki wrote:
> Someone makes a real nice turboprop conversion
> for the Cessna 210. I forget the manufacturer but I had a chance to gawk
> at one when it stopped in for fuel a couple of months ago. Based on the
> numbers that aircraft would fit your profile fairly well, except it
> would exceed $100K.
>
This: http://www.onaircraft.com/Silver%20Eagle.htm

[Dan Luke]

"Douglas Paterson" wrote:

> Thoughts:
> It sounds like I want a Mooney for speed & fuel economy, a Dakota for
> lifting, and Bonanza for size--or something like that!

A turbo Cesnna 210 would fit the bill for everything but fuel economy. A
turbo 182RG would be a good cheaper, slower alternative. Given your high
altitude surroundings, a turbo would seem to be a must.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Nathan Young]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 21:28:17 -0700, "Douglas Paterson"
> wrote:

>So, I've decided to go for my first airplane. As I get started looking for
>"the" airplane, I'm hoping I can find some help here in narrowing my
>choices. The more I look, the more overwhelmed I get. I'm starting to
>think that finding & buying the damn thing will be anticlimactic--deciding
>*what* to buy is the hard part!! ;)

Actually, deciding which plane to buy is the easy part! The hard part
is finding one with the right features (panel, paint, interior,
engine), good condition, and at the right price.

>What I'd really like to find is some sort of direct comparison tool--like
>you find in an auto magazine, say--such as a table with columns listing
>features,

See risingup.com for a list of manufacturers performance claims.

>Thoughts:
>It sounds like I want a Mooney for speed & fuel economy, a Dakota for
>lifting, and Bonanza for size--or something like that!

With the high DA's I would consider a turbo. A turbo Lance will
probably be the lowest cost 6-place turbo.

You are correct to be more concerned about op costs than acquisition
costs. Minus cost of money, you will get your acquisition costs back
when you sell. Op costs can be dramatic if maintenance is considered.
I imagine you will pay >$2k/year for insurance on a $100-125k
6-seater. Fuel costs close to $4.00/gallon @ 16gph = $64/hr. Hangars
are $2-600 per month at many airports. Factoryengines.com lists an
overhaul on a TIO540 engine (for the Turbo Lance) at $40k. Annuals
and misc maintenance will probably be several thousand more per year.
Bottom line, you can easily spend $15-20k/year owning, maintaining,
and operating a complex 6-place.

Good luck, and have fun searching!
Nathan

[Nathan Young]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:28:49 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Pathfinder/Dakota/Turbo Dakota may give you the most bang for your buck
>> while filling most if not all of your requirements. $100,000 will give
>> you
>> several to pick from.
>
>My thoughts exactly.
>
>It's not *quite* 150 knots, (more like 140, in our Pathfinder), but it's a
>true 4-place plane (1400 pound useful load) that can be landed on grass
>comfortably.

The PA28-235 is a great plane, but is this true in Colorado Springs?
In the summer?

My Cherokee 180 serves as a wonderful 2-place in the Midwest, but when
I visited Boulder in the summer, takeoff and climbout were less than
spectacular, and I was 200lbs under gross.

[Jim Burns]

Thus why I also suggested the Turbo Dakota. It really depends on the
mission or what percentage of his missions would be 4 place/full fuel out of
CS.

Everything is a trade off and priorities need to be addressed. The $100,000
price limit would also limit the number of well equipped Turbo Dakotas
available but if my missions were mostly at heavy takeoff weights I would
definitely put my priorities in the Turbo column over the "well equipped"
column.

Once you get the engine/airframe you want, everything else is simply money.
Make it what you want after it meets your performance requirements. A glass
cockpit will never decrease your takeoff distance or increase your climb
rate.

YMMV.
Jim

[Montblack]

("Douglas Paterson" wrote)
> Thoughts:
> It sounds like I want a Mooney for speed & fuel economy, a Dakota for
> lifting, and Bonanza for size--or something like that! That brings me
> back to my original request, for a means to make direct comparisons
> between the various choices out there--I'm having trouble determining what
> & how I need to make trade-offs without that sort of tool....


Navion?

<http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an29.htm>
<http://www.warbirdalley.com/l17.htm>

It'll lift almost as much as a Dakota and you'll have 'almost' a warbird -
if you choose to paint it as such. <g>

<http://www.navionskies.com/Photos/Navions-Tour%20026.jpg>

<http://www.navionskies.com/Photos/Navions-Tour%20027.jpg>

<http://www.navionskies.com/Photos/Navions-Tour%20004.jpg>


Montblack

[Bret Ludwig]

Just buy whatever you really want. It's going to put you in the
poorhouse anyway.

Ya can't go wrong with a Citabria, Dcathlon, or a T-6....

[Mike Noel]

You might check some of the 'Buying an Airplane' books at your local
bookstore. 'Buying and owning your own airplane' by Ellis and 'Airplane
Ownership' by Wanttaja have some useful info.

--
Best Regards,
Mike
http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel
"Douglas Paterson" > wrote in message
...
> So, I've decided to go for my first airplane. As I get started looking
> for "the" airplane, I'm hoping I can find some help here in narrowing my
> choices. The more I look, the more overwhelmed I get. I'm starting to
> think that finding & buying the damn thing will be anticlimactic--deciding
> *what* to buy is the hard part!! ;)
>
> What I'd really like to find is some sort of direct comparison tool--like
> you find in an auto magazine, say--such as a table with columns listing
> features, with added commentary on each model's pros and cons. From
> reading this group, I've found a couple of browsing tools, but nothing
> that really hits the mark. Suggestions? Ideally, I'd really like an
> online database that I can play with different parameters and see
> different results....
>
> While I've got your eye, I may as well solicit direct advice, too. All
> the opinions I've formed so far are written in Jell-O, so please poke
> holes in any misconceptions you may spot.
>
> Me:
> ~4,200 hours: mostly in heavies (various C-135 models); a few hundred in
> USAF trainers (T-37/T-38); and about 150 in GA SEL airplanes (Cessnas,
> Pipers, and Grummans). PP/SEL, CP/MEL, Instrument, & ATP tickets. My
> only GA complex time is the ~4.5 in the Seneca I took my ATP in.
>
> What I've eliminated:
> - Twin: in my budget range, twins seem to double (or more) operating
> expense for little if any performance gain--redundancy seems to be the
> real value-added for entry-level twins. Not that I'm knocking redundancy,
> but this prospect will be a wallet-strain as it is.
> - Experimentals/Homebuilts/Warbirds: I don't have the fortitude to deal
> with the idiosyncrasies of non-certificated. First time out calls for
> baby steps.
> - Turbines/Floats/Fabric wings/anything else "weird": baby steps again.
> - Combine all of the above: I've eliminated everything that's NOT a
> certificated, piston, SEL w/ metal hull/wings.
>
> Assumptions/Considerations:
> - I will be starting to fly soon w/ a local club that has Cessnas (fixed
> and c/s prop models) and Arrows--in addition to currency (I haven't flown
> GA for 8+ years, and my last heavy flight was February [now in staff job
> :( ]), I plan to use that time to get comfortable in a small airplane
> again, comfortable with a c/s prop, etc.
> - I'm less concerned about acquisition cost than recurring
> costs--especially if I can find a circumstance where spending a bit more
> up-front buys a plane requiring less outlay for maintenance, insurance,
> whatever. I've set a ceiling of $100K, but that's only a notional number
> at this point. All things being equal, cheaper is better, of course....
> - I've had mixed information on just "how much" extra maintenance (read:
> $$$) is required on a retract vs fixed gear, and/or c/s vs fixed prop.
> What about turbo-charging? I really need to learn in this area....
> - I have no idea what my insurance situation will be; I've been assuming
> that any time-in-type requirements won't be too restrictive given my
> experience, and that I'll be able to get that time w/ an instructor easily
> enough.
> - I live in Colorado Springs. Airport elevations here run between
> ~6,000' and ~7,000', and I'm told 10,000'+ density altitude is commonplace
> in the summer. Do I need turbo-charging?
> - I want a "real" four-seater, whether that means a heavy-lifting
> four-seat or a six-seat. I'm also pretty broad across the shoulders, and
> not small in any dimension (6'0", 250#), so comfort is a consideration.
> - I want reasonable speed--150 knots-ish seems about right, more is
> better....
> - I prefer low-wing, but that's a marginal distinction for me. I do
> wonder if I'll ever get the urge to land on grass/gravel/etc, in which
> case I assume I'd want the high-wing w/ fixed gear, yes?
>
> Thoughts:
> It sounds like I want a Mooney for speed & fuel economy, a Dakota for
> lifting, and Bonanza for size--or something like that! That brings me
> back to my original request, for a means to make direct comparisons
> between the various choices out there--I'm having trouble determining what
> & how I need to make trade-offs without that sort of tool....
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
> --
> Doug
> "Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring,
> "Twilight Zone"
> (my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate
> change to contact me)
>

[[email protected]]

For what its worth, I just became a first time aircraft owner a few
months ago. In my case I did decide to go with something "weird" vs
sticking with a more common aircraft. I started out with the same
philosophy you have, and ultimately decided that since I have good
access to a local rental fleet with C172c, a G-1000 C182, and a C206;
that I couldn't justify the cost of buying something I could rent.
Since 75% of my flying over the past 5 years has been for recreation
vs. 25% for travel, in the end the recreational side won out and I
purchased a trainer warbird. So far its been a great decision.

There are quite a few of the "weirder" planes available for the same
price as a 182, 206, or Cherokee Six; so acqusition cost isn't a
differentiating factor. Also, the Experimental Exhibition registration
on some of the warbirds isn't hard to figure out or comply with even
for a first time owner.

In the end, go with whatever plane you will get the most enjoyment out
of. It will never pay back financially vs. renting or joining a club,
but it is still great to own the plane and have the flexibility to fly
it whenever you want.

Good luck shopping...
Eric
1959 Pilatus P-3
http://www.hometown.aol.com/bartscher/P3A848.html

[George Patterson]

Montblack wrote:

> Navion?

Book cruise of 138 knots. Might do better re-engined. Margy?

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Jay Honeck]

> Thus why I also suggested the Turbo Dakota.

Personally, I'd stay away from that particular model.

It's common to think that the Turbo Dakota used a turbo-charged version of
the six-cylinder O-540 that is standard in all other PA28-235/236s.
Unfortunately, Piper opted to use the Continental TSIO-360 -- a
four-cylinder engine -- and it has been much maligned as being an engine
that is "pushed too hard" and thus doesn't last long.

Here is a telling excerpt from the "Buyer's Guide" on the Cherokee 235/236
owners group website:

"In the opinion of most, the only model to stay away from is the Turbo
Dakota
(PA28-201T). There were only 89 built in 1979 and they were plagued with
engine problems from the Continental TSIO-360. One member felt that
although the Turbo Dakota is much-maligned, due to its reportedly unreliable
engine, under certain circumstances it may be worth a look (i.e. you really
need to fly high). He met one Turbo Dakota driver who claimed that with
proper engine management, he had experienced no trouble at all."

That's what I call "damned with faint praise."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Scott Skylane]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
>
> Personally, I'd stay away from that particular model.
>
> It's common to think that the Turbo Dakota used a turbo-charged version of
> the six-cylinder O-540 that is standard in all other PA28-235/236s.
> Unfortunately, Piper opted to use the Continental TSIO-360 -- a
> four-cylinder engine -- and it has been much maligned as being an engine
> that is "pushed too hard" and thus doesn't last long.
/snip/

Well, Jay,

For one thing, the TCM IO/TSIO-360 is a *six* cylinder powerplant, that
puts out the same 200 horses that Lycoming's *four* cylinder IO-360
does. So, no, "overworking" is not an issue. Secondly, although the
turbo's original iteration included a fixed wastegate and no
intercooler, subsequent mods have made these improvements available,
with the benefit of much better durability.

I believe the Turbo Dakota would be a *very* viable choice, given the
OP's stated requirements, especially in regards to density altitude of
the airports he plans to operate out of.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane
N92054

[Marco Leon]

Eric,
A bit off-topic from the original post: did I read that right on your
webpage that the P-3 has a Max speed that's twice the cruise speed (270 kts
135 kts)? Are there different criteria for these speeds in Europe?

Marco Leon

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> For what its worth, I just became a first time aircraft owner a few
> months ago. In my case I did decide to go with something "weird" vs
> sticking with a more common aircraft. I started out with the same
> philosophy you have, and ultimately decided that since I have good
> access to a local rental fleet with C172c, a G-1000 C182, and a C206;
> that I couldn't justify the cost of buying something I could rent.
> Since 75% of my flying over the past 5 years has been for recreation
> vs. 25% for travel, in the end the recreational side won out and I
> purchased a trainer warbird. So far its been a great decision.
>
> There are quite a few of the "weirder" planes available for the same
> price as a 182, 206, or Cherokee Six; so acqusition cost isn't a
> differentiating factor. Also, the Experimental Exhibition registration
> on some of the warbirds isn't hard to figure out or comply with even
> for a first time owner.
>
> In the end, go with whatever plane you will get the most enjoyment out
> of. It will never pay back financially vs. renting or joining a club,
> but it is still great to own the plane and have the flexibility to fly
> it whenever you want.
>
> Good luck shopping...
> Eric
> 1959 Pilatus P-3
> http://www.hometown.aol.com/bartscher/P3A848.html
>

[Dan Luke]

"Scott Skylane" wrote:

> For one thing, the TCM IO/TSIO-360 is a *six* cylinder powerplant, that
> puts out the same 200 horses that Lycoming's *four* cylinder IO-360 does.
> So, no, "overworking" is not an issue.

What's the number of cylinders got to do with it?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

> The PA28-235 is a great plane, but is this true in Colorado Springs?
> In the summer?

Actually, yes.

> My Cherokee 180 serves as a wonderful 2-place in the Midwest, but when
> I visited Boulder in the summer, takeoff and climbout were less than
> spectacular, and I was 200lbs under gross.

Did you lean the engine for departure?

There is a DRAMATIC difference between taking off with a properly
leaned engine (above 3000 MSL) and an engine running full rich.

Yes, I teach mountain flying in the Cherokee-180 in the Colorado
Rockys.

The Colorado Pilots Association will present the mountain flying
course in May an August this year at Centennial Airport (APA), south
of Denver.

I am available for mountain flight instruction (your airplane or
mine) any time, at your convenience.

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction/mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 235 Young Eagles!

[Scott Skylane]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Scott Skylane" wrote:
>
>
>>For one thing, the TCM IO/TSIO-360 is a *six* cylinder powerplant, that
>>puts out the same 200 horses that Lycoming's *four* cylinder IO-360 does.
>>So, no, "overworking" is not an issue.
>
>
> What's the number of cylinders got to do with it?
>
Dan,
Absolutely nothing, which was my point in responding to Honeck's
assertion that the TCM 360 is a *four* cylinder engine with a reputation
of being "pushed too hard"(his words).

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane
N92054

[George Patterson]

Scott Skylane wrote:

> Absolutely nothing, which was my point in responding to Honeck's
> assertion that the TCM 360 is a *four* cylinder engine with a reputation
> of being "pushed too hard"(his words).

Regardless of the number of cylinders, Jay said it is pushed too hard in
comparison to the O-540. Which puts out 235 hp.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[[email protected]]

On 4-Jan-2006, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> It's common to think that the Turbo Dakota used a turbo-charged version of
> the six-cylinder O-540 that is standard in all other PA28-235/236s.
> Unfortunately, Piper opted to use the Continental TSIO-360 -- a
> four-cylinder engine -- and it has been much maligned as being an engine
> that is "pushed too hard" and thus doesn't last long.


Actually, the Continental TSIO-360 is a 6 cyl engine. Otherwise, I think
Jay's comments are accurate. The Turbo Dakota is really much more a fixed
gear version of the Turbo Arrow. (Same engine, airframe, similar useful
load, but quite a bit slower due to the fixed gear.)

From the OP's list of desired characteristics, I'd have to say that a Turbo
Arrow might be the "obvious" choice. Other models might fit the mission
(and his body size/shape) better, but not within his $100K budget. Some
owners have had issues with the TSIO-360, but it works better on the T-Arrow
than the T-Dakota because of better cooling (due to higher airspeed).
Another factor is that T-Dakotas are rare, but T-Arrows were built in large
numbers in the 1977-80 time frame, and are quite plentiful on the used
market.

As to questions of added costs associated with retractable gear and CS prop:
RG will probably end up costing $200-300 extra per year for hull insurance.
Based on our experience (normally aspirated 1979 Arrow IV) extra
maintenance averages about $250/year. However, we save about $1500 per year
in fuel costs (flying 150 hrs), compared to similar performance FG aircraft
(e.g. C-182, Dakota). The CS prop probably costs about $1.50-2.00/hr in
extra maintenance costs (largely the cost of overhaul). However, it is a
must for turbocharged aircraft.
--
-Elliott Drucker

[Jay Honeck]

> For one thing, the TCM IO/TSIO-360 is a *six* cylinder powerplant,

Whoops. I was mistaking it for the Lycoming O-360.

My bad.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Regardless of the number of cylinders, Jay said it is pushed too hard in
> comparison to the O-540. Which puts out 235 hp.

Actually, I was repeating what the Cherokee 235/236 user's group says about
that bird. I've got no personal experience with the Turbo Dakota.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Douglas Paterson]

I have that book on backorder from Amazon! Should have it in a week or two
(so they say).... ;)

Thanks!

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:QuIuf.2936$If.451@trnddc05...
> Douglas Paterson wrote:
>
>> What I'd really like to find is some sort of direct comparison tool--like
>> you find in an auto magazine, say--such as a table with columns listing
>> features, with added commentary on each model's pros and cons. From
>> reading this group, I've found a couple of browsing tools, but nothing
>> that really hits the mark. Suggestions?
>
> I know of nothing out there. What I did when I was shopping for my first
> aircraft was to buy a copy of Bill Clarke's "The Illustrated Buyer's Guide
> to Used Airplanes" and make lists of possible candidates. You should be
> able to throw together a table or spreadsheet of possibilities. There
> won't be too many singles that fit all of your conditions.
>
> George Patterson
> Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
> your slightly older self.

[Douglas Paterson]

Combining my response to several posters, all with great information. I'm
"new" here, yet this group is already giving me a mile when I asked for an
inch--thanks everyone for the advice! I've responded individually to a
couple of posters who touched on some points I have a specific follow-up
about, but I appreciate ALL of the responses.

Careful--you guys keep being nice to me, I may stick around.... ;)
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

> wrote in message ...
>> The PA28-235 is a great plane, but is this true in Colorado Springs?
>> In the summer?
>
> Actually, yes.
>
>> My Cherokee 180 serves as a wonderful 2-place in the Midwest, but when
>> I visited Boulder in the summer, takeoff and climbout were less than
>> spectacular, and I was 200lbs under gross.
>
> Did you lean the engine for departure?
>
> There is a DRAMATIC difference between taking off with a properly
> leaned engine (above 3000 MSL) and an engine running full rich.
>
> Yes, I teach mountain flying in the Cherokee-180 in the Colorado
> Rockys.
>
> The Colorado Pilots Association will present the mountain flying
> course in May an August this year at Centennial Airport (APA), south
> of Denver.
>
> I am available for mountain flight instruction (your airplane or
> mine) any time, at your convenience.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jer/ "Flight instruction/mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard
>
> --
> Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
> CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
> C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
> CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 235 Young Eagles!

[Douglas Paterson]

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
[snip]
> You are correct to be more concerned about op costs than acquisition
> costs. Minus cost of money, you will get your acquisition costs back
> when you sell.

My thoughts exactly--that's why my $100K figure is "soft," more of a comfort
number than anything else.

> Factoryengines.com lists an
> overhaul on a TIO540 engine (for the Turbo Lance) at $40k.

Now there's a number that kinda scares me--that's at least twice the amount
of any overhaul estimates I've seen in my (admittedly limited) reading. Is
that a function of the turbo??

As I said, my "requirements" are all written in Jell-O. I'm *just* getting
started--really, this discussion is the most in-depth I've gotten so far.
If turbo is the only way I can get the heavy lift I want from my
high-altitude location, but it's prohibitively expensive, well, I may have
to revise my requirements.... That goes for everything I listed in my
original post.... That Cherokee 140 for $25K is looking better and better
at this point!! :)

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Douglas Paterson]

> wrote in message
news:D%lvf.2414$q26.1856@trnddc03...
>
[snip]
> As to questions of added costs associated with retractable gear and CS
> prop:
> RG will probably end up costing $200-300 extra per year for hull
> insurance.
> Based on our experience (normally aspirated 1979 Arrow IV) extra
> maintenance averages about $250/year. However, we save about $1500 per
> year
> in fuel costs (flying 150 hrs), compared to similar performance FG
> aircraft
> (e.g. C-182, Dakota). The CS prop probably costs about $1.50-2.00/hr in
> extra maintenance costs (largely the cost of overhaul). However, it is a
> must for turbocharged aircraft.

Elliott:

Thanks, that's the sort of rough numbers I've been looking for viz c/s vs
fixed prop, retract vs fixed gear, etc. That sounds like, all told <$1K /
year "extra" for the retract (ins + mx) and c/s prop (mx).

Is your $10/hr "savings" based on going the same speed but burning ~2.5 - 3
gph less to do it in a retract (less drag, I assume)? I'm still getting a
feel for performance comparisons (hence this thread!), I don't want to make
a bad assumption on what you're saying....

What about turbo vs normal aspiration? Another poster suggested ~$40K for
an overhaul of a (specific model) t/c engine, which seems to be ~2x what
I've read elsewhere. What about annual & "surprise" mx cost differences?

If I'm understanding you correctly, the differences (not including turbo)
should be about a wash for flying 100 hrs/yr. Even if it's not (or if I
fall into the apparently common category of overestimating my annual
flying), $1K / yr extra doesn't scare me....

Thanks!

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Douglas Paterson]

Heh. Those two titles just arrived from Amazon today. "The Illustrated
Buyer's Guide to Used Airplanes"
by Bill Clarke is on backorder, they tell me to expect it in a week or
two.... ;) I've got LOTS of reading & learning yet to do before I write a
check....

Thanks!

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

"Mike Noel" > wrote in message
. ..
> You might check some of the 'Buying an Airplane' books at your local
> bookstore. 'Buying and owning your own airplane' by Ellis and 'Airplane
> Ownership' by Wanttaja have some useful info.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Mike

[[email protected]]

wrote:
: Actually, the Continental TSIO-360 is a 6 cyl engine. Otherwise, I think
: Jay's comments are accurate. The Turbo Dakota is really much more a fixed
: gear version of the Turbo Arrow. (Same engine, airframe, similar useful
: load, but quite a bit slower due to the fixed gear.)

My mechanic owns a Turbo Arrow with the TSIO-360 in it. He loves it, but I
wouldn't consider an aircraft with that engine in it for anything I would own. It's
not really all that high-strung, it's just abused in its implementation. It's
essentially a beefed up C-172 O-300 engine. IIRC, 210hp at 7:1 CR. It needs the
turbo to make marginally more HP than a Lycoming IO-360 on the same displacement.
Stock "wastegate" blows goats (and cylinders)... throttled compressed intake gasses is
a horribly stupid idea. It was extremely twitchy and easy to overboost with the stock
system, and only marginally better with the aftermarket wastegate controller he added.

In almost all situations (except for all-out automotive performance and
aircraft useage), turbochargers on gasoline engines are a dumb idea. I'm not opposed
to owning an aircraft with one, but it would be turbo-normalized at most... no
full-time turbo since you have to throw away HP with CR just to gain it back (and
burn more fuel, require more octane, and cook your jugs).

Maybe something with an aftermarket turbo-normalizer? Comanche-260?

My opinion... YMMV

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Montblack]

wrote)
> In almost all situations (except for all-out automotive performance and
> aircraft useage), turbochargers on gasoline engines are a dumb idea. I'm
> not opposed to owning an aircraft with one, but it would be
> turbo-normalized at most... no full-time turbo since you have to throw
> away HP with CR just to gain it back (and burn more fuel, require more
> octane, and cook your jugs).


What is CR?


Montblack

[[email protected]]

Montblack > wrote:
: wrote)
: > In almost all situations (except for all-out automotive performance and
: > aircraft useage), turbochargers on gasoline engines are a dumb idea. I'm
: > not opposed to owning an aircraft with one, but it would be
: > turbo-normalized at most... no full-time turbo since you have to throw
: > away HP with CR just to gain it back (and burn more fuel, require more
: > octane, and cook your jugs).


: What is CR?

Compression Ratio. The TSIO-360 runs I think a 7:1 compression ratio vs. the
8.5 (8.9?)-ish for the normally-aspirated Lyc IO-360.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Montblack]

wrote)
>> What is CR?

>> Compression Ratio. The TSIO-360 runs I think a 7:1 compression ratio
>> vs. the 8.5 (8.9?)-ish for the normally-aspirated Lyc IO-360.


Thanks. I know what compresion ratio is and knew what the numbers were, I've
just never seen CR like that before. My mind was all over the map trying to
figure that one out - and it was right in front of me. Doh!


Montblack

[[email protected]]

On 5-Jan-2006, "Douglas Paterson" > wrote:

> Is your $10/hr "savings" based on going the same speed but burning ~2.5 -
> 3 gph less to do it in a retract (less drag, I assume)? I'm still getting
> a feel for performance comparisons (hence this thread!), I don't want to
> make a bad assumption on what you're saying....

Yes. Our 200 HP Arrow delivers about the same cruise and climb performance
as a 235 HP C-182 or Dakota, and burns about 3 GPH less per hour. That is a
BIG difference with today's fuel costs. Of course, some of the 182s and
Dakotas can use less expensive mogas, but only if you have a reliable and
reasonably convenient source. The 182 and Dakota also have a higher useful
load, but much of that is eaten up by the requirement to carry much more
fuel for a given mission, especially with IFR reserves (and particularly in
the West where it can be an hour's cruise between a destination and a
workable IFR alternate).


>
> What about turbo vs normal aspiration? Another poster suggested ~$40K for
> an overhaul of a (specific model) t/c engine, which seems to be ~2x what
> I've read elsewhere. What about annual & "surprise" mx cost differences?

I've never owned a TC airplane, so can't give you even antecdotal numbers
for comparison. We recently put a factory rebuilt ("zero time") engine in
the Arrow. Total cost worked out to around $23K, including removal and
reinstallation, new oil lines, and that sort of stuff. We also overhauled
the prop at the same time, which cost an additional $3K or so. I imagine
that costs for a Continental TSIO-360 would be a bit higher. However, you
will probably get fewer hours out of a TC engine simply because they spend
more time putting out higher power, and at higher temps. We got over 2000
hours out of our "old" Lyc. IO-360 engine without any big maintenance costs.
(Never had to pull a cylinder, etc.) I doubt that a Continental TSIO-360
would be able to deliver that kind of service. There is a good article that
touches on this by Richard Collins in the December edition of Flying
Magazine.

>
> If I'm understanding you correctly, the differences (not including turbo)
> should be about a wash for flying 100 hrs/yr. Even if it's not (or if I
> fall into the apparently common category of overestimating my annual
flying), $1K / yr extra doesn't scare me....

As long as you remember to put the gear down for landing.... Actually, the
real cost potential for RG is not routine maintenance but rather the
consequences of gear failure (i.e. failure to extend/lock) for landing.
This is true for both human error and mechanical failure. That is why you
pay higher insurance premiums for the RG. We had just such an instance a
few years ago in the Arrow when the nosewheel failed to fully extend. A
backed-out bolt in the gear scissors got hung up on the gear trunion.
Anyway, all repairs were covered by insurance, and our premiums didn't even
go up the next year. (It helped that the pilot -- a partner, not me -- was
able to stop the engine with the prop horizontal prior to landing, so there
was no engine/prop damage.)

The way I see it, since the likelihood of injury or death in a gear failure
incident in a light single is very low, the risk is purely financial, and
that is covered by insurance.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Douglas Paterson]

> wrote in message
news:cDIvf.287$sa4.102@trnddc07...
>
[snipped great discussion of extra costs associated w/ complex vs
non-complex SEL]

Elliott:

Great info, thanks!!

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)