Budget Retracts - Anyone own a Sierra or Comanche 180? [Archive]

February 4th 06, 09:32 PM

I'm a PVT, IFR pilot, but fairly low time at 350 hours, mostly in
various fixed gear PA28's.

I'm interested in buying an entry level retractable. I'd like to use
it to get my commercial certificate, and maybe go on to my CFI/CFII.
But the primary mission would be to haul my wife, 1 year old son and
our two small dogs on 200-400 NM x-c's up and down the east coast to
visit family.

I've noticed that the older Comanche 180's and Beech Sierra seem to be
a good buy. There are several on TAP and ASO right now with mid time
engines, modern updated panels and GPS in the $45-$55K range. A
comparable Arrow, C172RG, 177RG or Commander 112 would be at least $65K
and up. Frankly it looks like the owners of these Comanche's &
Sierra's have much more invested in their aircraft than they are worth.

Any owners/operators care to share your experiences with these two
aircraft?
Are Beech parts really *that* much more expensive than Piper parts?
Is it a nightmare trying to maintain an older retractable? I would
hope not to have to sell either one anytime soon. So fast forward 10
years to 2016 --- what you you rather be maintaining, a 37 year old
Beech Sierra or a 57 year old Piper Comanche?

Thanks for sharing!

Rich

kontiki

February 4th 06, 11:50 PM

RH wrote:
> Any owners/operators care to share your experiences with these two
> aircraft?

Generally, the newer the airplane the better. Having said that, if
you really do plan on keeping it for a long time and using it to
fly the family around on trips, then either would be a wash. I happen
own a Comanche 250 and use it for longer cross country trips and very
much appreciate the speed and performance (over the Sierra or 180).

It's old but not a real complicated aircraft to work on or maintain.
The main problem is a long list of ADs. Most, if not all, of the re-curring
ones can be eliminated so I'd look for a plane that has had these ADs
permanently resolved if you can, that will save you in the long run.

Other than that they are both good solid airplanes, especially if
you are willing to do a lot of the maintenance and upkeep yourself
(get your hands dirty so to speak).

Henry A. Spellman

February 4th 06, 11:52 PM

If you have any question regarding Comanches, ask it on the Comanche
Owners' Interactive in the Motor Transport section at delphiforums.com.
That and comancheflyer.com, the web site of the International Comanche
Society, are the two places where those who know Comanches hang out.

It seems that there are three classes of Comanches: basket cases, old
but OK, and cream puffs. There is not a lot in between. The cream
puffs are are generally selling for a lot below what it would take to
reproduce them.

The Comanche 180 is probably the sweetest flying of the family, but the
Comanche 250 is the quintessential version. But whatever you do, get a
prepurchase inspection by someone who knows Comanches before buying one.

Hank
Henry A. Spellman
Comanche N5903P

RH wrote:
> I'm a PVT, IFR pilot, but fairly low time at 350 hours, mostly in
> various fixed gear PA28's.
>
> I'm interested in buying an entry level retractable. I'd like to use
> it to get my commercial certificate, and maybe go on to my CFI/CFII.
> But the primary mission would be to haul my wife, 1 year old son and
> our two small dogs on 200-400 NM x-c's up and down the east coast to
> visit family.
>
> I've noticed that the older Comanche 180's and Beech Sierra seem to be
> a good buy. There are several on TAP and ASO right now with mid time
> engines, modern updated panels and GPS in the $45-$55K range. A
> comparable Arrow, C172RG, 177RG or Commander 112 would be at least $65K
> and up. Frankly it looks like the owners of these Comanche's &
> Sierra's have much more invested in their aircraft than they are worth.
>
> Any owners/operators care to share your experiences with these two
> aircraft?
> Are Beech parts really *that* much more expensive than Piper parts?
> Is it a nightmare trying to maintain an older retractable? I would
> hope not to have to sell either one anytime soon. So fast forward 10
> years to 2016 --- what you you rather be maintaining, a 37 year old
> Beech Sierra or a 57 year old Piper Comanche?
>
> Thanks for sharing!
>
> Rich
>

A Lieberman

February 5th 06, 12:47 AM

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 22:40:26 GMT, B A R R Y wrote:

> I have not found Sundowner parts to be crazy, as many wear items like
> rod bushings and Lycoming engine parts are common to all brands. There
> are unique parts like gear cushion donuts, but members of the Beech
> Aero Club are pretty good about banding together and finding approved
> aftermarket deals.
>
> I'd buy the plane again...

I second what Barry says for the Sundowner. Trailing link gear on the
Sundowner cushions even the hardest of hard landings.

Can't answer for retracts though. I figure my insurance is low enough,
where I wouldn't want to get retracts as I am sure it would triple.

Allen

LWG

February 5th 06, 01:28 AM

I've had a Sundowner for 5 years. There is a very good internet group,
Beech Aero Club, which is a wealth of resources, including highly skilled
and dedicated A&Ps.

I love my Sundowner. I've thought that if I ever traded her, it would be
for a Sierra. There's the extra cost of the constant speed prop, swinging
the gear and another hydraulic system, but that's the case with almost all
retracts.

I've been very lucky with parts. There were enough made that used parts are
available. New vendors are very slowly coming on line for things like the
landing gear donuts. Engines are engines.

Two annuals ago, my parts cost (exclusive of oil and filter) was about 3
dollars for a piece of tubing. I've replaced tires and tubes, plugs and
things like that.

This was my first airplane, and when I bought her, I knew almost nothing
about airplanes - I mean nothing. I looked at a couple Cherokees, and was
going to buy one until the A&P who did the pre-buy gave me a list of
discrepancies thicker than my checkbook. I found the Sundowner on the
internet, and close by. I had never seen a Sundowner before, and had hardly
heard of Beech. Beech built an excellent machine. When I take of access
panels (like the spar carrythrough), the workmanship makes me tingle.

I never thought that $10,000 annuals were possible, and I had no idea of
what a field overhaul cost, much less a reman. I have been very, very, very
lucky.

"RH" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm a PVT, IFR pilot, but fairly low time at 350 hours, mostly in
> various fixed gear PA28's.
>
> I'm interested in buying an entry level retractable. I'd like to use
> it to get my commercial certificate, and maybe go on to my CFI/CFII.
> But the primary mission would be to haul my wife, 1 year old son and
> our two small dogs on 200-400 NM x-c's up and down the east coast to
> visit family.
>
> I've noticed that the older Comanche 180's and Beech Sierra seem to be
> a good buy. There are several on TAP and ASO right now with mid time
> engines, modern updated panels and GPS in the $45-$55K range. A
> comparable Arrow, C172RG, 177RG or Commander 112 would be at least $65K
> and up. Frankly it looks like the owners of these Comanche's &
> Sierra's have much more invested in their aircraft than they are worth.
>
> Any owners/operators care to share your experiences with these two
> aircraft?
> Are Beech parts really *that* much more expensive than Piper parts?
> Is it a nightmare trying to maintain an older retractable? I would
> hope not to have to sell either one anytime soon. So fast forward 10
> years to 2016 --- what you you rather be maintaining, a 37 year old
> Beech Sierra or a 57 year old Piper Comanche?
>
> Thanks for sharing!
>
> Rich
>

Ken Reed

February 5th 06, 01:32 AM

> I'm interested in buying an entry level retractable. I'd like to use
> I've noticed that the older Comanche 180's and Beech Sierra seem to be
> a good buy.

Also consider the 'C' and 'E' model Mooneys. They're probably the
cheapest retractable to maintain and give good speeds with low fuel
flows. Possibly the 'best bang for the buck' available.
---
Ken Reed
N9124X

Jack Allison

February 5th 06, 01:57 AM

I'm admittedly biased and have not looked at prices in quite some time.
I own a 1/3 share of a '71 Arrow and can say that it's an excellent
platform I intend to use for my commercial certificate someday. I'm
working on my IFR ticket right now and have been enjoying flying the
Arrow. I'm sure that the other models you're looking into would suffice
for what you're looking for and that each has it's respective
advantages/disadvantages.

The best advice I can offer is take your time and be ready to walk away
from a deal. It took us six months to find our plane and we had the
first two deals fall through. In the end, we wound up with a nicely
equipped plane and a very smooth sales transaction.

Good luck in your search.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-IA Student
Arrow N2104T

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

February 5th 06, 03:16 AM

Ken wrote:
>>Also consider the 'C' and 'E' model Mooneys.

I'm a big fan of Mooney's and their efficiency. I think I would need
the extra length of an F model, and those are out of my price range.

February 5th 06, 03:26 AM

and thanks for the delphiforums info! I had no idea that even existed.

Rich

February 5th 06, 04:01 AM

>>The Comanche 180 is probably the sweetest flying of the family, but the
Comanche 250 is the quintessential version.

That's an interesting comment. Can you elaborate on what it is you
like about the 180 over the other Comanches? Most of what I have read
so far online about the 180 says "go for the 250..." So any comments
specific to the 180 from someone who has flown one are greatly
appreciated!

Rich

[email protected]

February 5th 06, 04:51 AM

How about an early Bonanza? I paid $27,000 for my 54 E35 in 1996 and
it is worth about $45,000 today. I go a good 10 knt faster than my
friend's Arrow at lower fuel flow. I flight plan 145 knt @ 10.5 gph,
and it true out at 150 on most days. Parts are more expensive but you
don't need them as often. It is harder to find A/P who knows about
Conti E225 engines but they are out there.

Whatever you buy, do a prepurchase by an A/P who knows the type. If
you need to pay more for a "specialist" to do prebuy, it is still worth
it!

xyzzy

February 5th 06, 05:02 AM

A Lieberman wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 22:40:26 GMT, B A R R Y wrote:
>
> > I have not found Sundowner parts to be crazy, as many wear items like
> > rod bushings and Lycoming engine parts are common to all brands. There
> > are unique parts like gear cushion donuts, but members of the Beech
> > Aero Club are pretty good about banding together and finding approved
> > aftermarket deals.
> >
> > I'd buy the plane again...
>
> I second what Barry says for the Sundowner. Trailing link gear on the
> Sundowner cushions even the hardest of hard landings.

This statement has my head spinning. This the opposite of what I have
read in every review of these planes. Or maybe these types aren't as
similar as I thought. Does the Sundowner have the hard rubber shock
mounts (instead of oleos) in the trailing link gear that the Sport and
Musketeer have, which are reputed to reflect bounce energy right back
and magnify any bounces, instead of cushion them like trailing link
gear is supposed to do?

I would be interested to know if this is not the case, because the two
doors and roomy cabin make it otherwise look very attractive (the lack
of a driver's door was my biggest complaint when I flew Warriors, which
are otherwise great planes IMO), but I know my limitations and know I
can't regularly fly a plane that requires perfect or near-perfect
landing technique every time.

A Lieberman

February 5th 06, 05:41 AM

On 4 Feb 2006 21:02:30 -0800, xyzzy wrote:

> This statement has my head spinning. This the opposite of what I have
> read in every review of these planes. Or maybe these types aren't as
> similar as I thought. Does the Sundowner have the hard rubber shock
> mounts (instead of oleos) in the trailing link gear that the Sport and
> Musketeer have, which are reputed to reflect bounce energy right back
> and magnify any bounces, instead of cushion them like trailing link
> gear is supposed to do?

The landing reputation of the Sundowner is the porpoising tendencies. It
is extremely forward CG and you basically need a lot of weight in the back
to reduce the porposing tendency. I have 50 pounds in the cargo area when
I fly by myself with full tanks to keep it in the CG envelope. If I take a
passenger, I throw in another 25 pounds (or passenger luggage) in the
luggage compartment to keep the W&B in the CG envelope. The W&B envelope
is very, very narrow.

The mains have the donuts which act wonderfully as shock absorbers.

> I would be interested to know if this is not the case, because the two
> doors and roomy cabin make it otherwise look very attractive (the lack
> of a driver's door was my biggest complaint when I flew Warriors, which
> are otherwise great planes IMO), but I know my limitations and know I
> can't regularly fly a plane that requires perfect or near-perfect
> landing technique every time.

My experiences (4 years and counting) is that if you keep your airspeed on
final by the POH book (68 knot final with full flaps) and bleed the speed
off over the numbers, you will grease the landing. Come in hot, you will
skip like a rock, and because of the forward CG, if you don't maintain back
pressure, your nose will come down first, thus the first step to a
porpoised landing. Come in slow, and you drop like a rock. So, compared
to Cessnas that I have flown, you do have to pay closer attention to your
speed on final. I like the trim wheel placement between the seats, and for
every landing, you can set the trim exactly the same spot every time so
that you know the plane is trimmed the same way every time.

FOR ME, compared to a Cessna, between the trailing link gear and ground
effect, the Sundowner is a lot easier on my landing ego. I have not flown
any other type of plane.

I have made three trips from MS to OH in the past year and because of the
cabin room, it really was a comfortable ride for me.

Allen

Henry A. Spellman

February 5th 06, 06:44 AM

The Comanche line started with the 180, so the whole aircraft was
designed with the 180 hp engine in mind. A year or so later, the 250
came into existence. But the Lycoming O-540 is quite a bit heavier than
the O-320, so the 250 seems a little heavier in pitch, especially in the
landing flare. The 250 is really quite good, it is just that the 180 is
almost perfect.

I have only flown a 180 twice, but I could discern the difference from
my 250 that I have owned for over 20 years. The difference is slight,
but it is there.

The 180 is cheaper to own (lower initial cost, less gas, cheaper engine
overhaul), but you give up some payload and speed to save the money.
You will have to decide the relative worth yourself. I went for the
250, but I think the 180 has very slightly better handling. It all
depends on your mission profile.

Ask this question on the Delphi Forum and I am certain you will get a
number of differing viewpoints.

Hank
Henry A. Spellman
Comanche N5903P

RH wrote:
>>>The Comanche 180 is probably the sweetest flying of the family, but the
>
> Comanche 250 is the quintessential version.
>
> That's an interesting comment. Can you elaborate on what it is you
> like about the 180 over the other Comanches? Most of what I have read
> so far online about the 180 says "go for the 250..." So any comments
> specific to the 180 from someone who has flown one are greatly
> appreciated!
>
> Rich
>

February 5th 06, 01:55 PM

> I second what Barry says for the Sundowner. Trailing link gear on the
> Sundowner cushions even the hardest of hard landings.

>>>This statement has my head spinning. This the opposite of what I have
>>>read in every review of these planes

That's what I have read too. Maybe this trait just gets exaggerated
after hearing it over & over. I cant believe the Sundowner/Sierra
would require superman pilot skills. Is it just that it is intolerant
of those *really* bad landings, ie: those that should have ended in a
go around? With new rubber shocks, would the bouncing be minimized?
Or is it the other way around - with old rubber shocks, is the gear
"softer"?

Rich

February 5th 06, 02:08 PM

>The landing reputation of the Sundowner is the porpoising tendencies. It
>is extremely forward CG and you basically need a lot of weight in the back
>to reduce the porposing tendency.

I guess this tendency would be even worse with the Sierra, given its
higher engine weight?

>I have made three trips from MS to OH in the past year and because of the
>cabin room, it really was a comfortable ride for me.

That's the biggest attraction for me. My wife, a non pilot, does not
really like flying but she tolerates it because she likes going from A
to B in a fraction of the time it takes to drive. That and she prefers
GA travel to the airlines because of all the hassles involved with
commercial air travel nowadays. So keeping her comfortable in the
cabin is really important to me. The two doors are a BIG plus. One
thing she does not like about the Cherokee, is that she has to wait for
me to finish preflighting and then get in the plane last .

I really cant think of a single GA airplane in this price range that is
more passenger friendly than the Sierra. The rear baggage door is huge
too. Real easy to load that baby stroller in and out!

Rich

kontiki

February 5th 06, 02:26 PM

wrote:
> How about an early Bonanza? I paid $27,000 for my 54 E35 in 1996 and
> it is worth about $45,000 today. I go a good 10 knt faster than my
> friend's Arrow at lower fuel flow. I flight plan 145 knt @ 10.5 gph,
> and it true out at 150 on most days. Parts are more expensive but you
> don't need them as often. It is harder to find A/P who knows about
> Conti E225 engines but they are out there.

Old Bonanzas are retro, and, as you say can be had for about the same
price as the Comanche 250. But when you compare the cost and availability
of parts, the Continental Vs. the Lycoming O-540, another 5knots in cruise
as well as maintenance items the PA24 has the edge.

[email protected]

February 5th 06, 03:24 PM

Henry A. Spellman > wrote:
: The Comanche line started with the 180, so the whole aircraft was
: designed with the 180 hp engine in mind. A year or so later, the 250
: came into existence. But the Lycoming O-540 is quite a bit heavier than
: the O-320, so the 250 seems a little heavier in pitch, especially in the
: landing flare. The 250 is really quite good, it is just that the 180 is
: almost perfect.

: I have only flown a 180 twice, but I could discern the difference from
: my 250 that I have owned for over 20 years. The difference is slight,
: but it is there.

Hrm... having flown a 250 a couple of times with a friend that owns one, I can
say it sure is sweet. Granted the retract and CS prop would help, but 180hp on a PA24
seems like it would be awfully marginal... my PA28-180 hardly has power to spare. The
airframe on the PA24 is about 400lbs heavier than my PA28 IIRC, with only 150lbs more
gross. Sounds like a 3-place retract.

The 250 on the other hand climbs great no matter what the load it seems.
There is such a thing as a "resonant design" for aircraft. On the PA28, I'd argue
it's 180hp. For the PA24, it's 250. For a 172, probably 180hp as well.

As far as fuel flow goes, just because you have a bigger engine doesn't mean
you need to cruise with it. With only 60 gallons on a stock PA24 though, it'd be a
little bit short on range.

-Cory

--

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

Doug

February 5th 06, 04:16 PM

You will be paying a big price for retract, in initial cost,
maintenance and insurance. Extra speed for 1 to 2 hour trips doesn't
amount to much. If the wife wants 2 doors, you should probably get two
doors.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

February 5th 06, 05:28 PM

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> This statement has my head spinning. This the opposite of what I have
> read in every review of these planes. Or maybe these types aren't as
> similar as I thought. Does the Sundowner have the hard rubber shock
> mounts (instead of oleos) in the trailing link gear that the Sport and
> Musketeer have, which are reputed to reflect bounce energy right back
> and magnify any bounces, instead of cushion them like trailing link
> gear is supposed to do?
>
> I would be interested to know if this is not the case, because the two
> doors and roomy cabin make it otherwise look very attractive (the lack
> of a driver's door was my biggest complaint when I flew Warriors, which
> are otherwise great planes IMO), but I know my limitations and know I
> can't regularly fly a plane that requires perfect or near-perfect
> landing technique every time.
>

Wow, that's news to me - I flew a Beech Sport for a while. The only problem
I has with landings was that I had a hard time getting the hang of the flap
thingies (I was too used to slipping in with no flaps in a Cessna 120).

Don't recall any problem with bouncing once I got it to the runway. Perhaps
I just didn't know that it was supposed to be hard? Or perhaps, the
reputation exceeds the reality.

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

A Lieberman

February 5th 06, 05:34 PM

On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:28:18 -0500, Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

> Wow, that's news to me - I flew a Beech Sport for a while. The only problem
> I has with landings was that I had a hard time getting the hang of the flap
> thingies (I was too used to slipping in with no flaps in a Cessna 120).
>
> Don't recall any problem with bouncing once I got it to the runway. Perhaps
> I just didn't know that it was supposed to be hard? Or perhaps, the
> reputation exceeds the reality.

I *think* the porpoising tendencies started with the Sundowner / Sierra
series?

More weight in front with 180HP vs the sport 150HP would be my hypothesis.

Allen

Henry A. Spellman

February 5th 06, 06:19 PM

wrote:

The
> airframe on the PA24 is about 400lbs heavier than my PA28 IIRC, with only 150lbs more
> gross. Sounds like a 3-place retract.

I can't disagree with that. But for many missions, that is just fine.

> As far as fuel flow goes, just because you have a bigger engine doesn't mean
> you need to cruise with it. With only 60 gallons on a stock PA24 though, it'd be a
> little bit short on range.

60 gallons is fine for the Comanche 180. At roughly 10 gph, that is 6
hours, which is much longer than most people want to sit. The early
models of the 250 (1958 through 1960) also had 60 gallons, which is not
enough at 12 to 14 gph, particularly for IFR trips. After 1960,
virtually all the 250 and 260 models had 90 gallons. Many of the pre
1961 aircraft have added tip tanks for an additional 30 gallons and a
gross weight increase of 200 pounds (less for post 1960 models). There
is also a baggage compartment tank available (20 gallons).

I agree with you that the Comanche 250 is a fine machine. It was my
choice. But the OP specifically mentioned a Comanche 180. The 180 also
has its place and, in some circumstances, is a superior choice than a
Comanche 250.

Hank
Henry A. Spellman
Comanche N5903P

[email protected]

February 5th 06, 09:01 PM

Hello to all. I am new to this board and have my own aircraft
maintenance business. I work on mostly Pipers but also a Sierra that
may be for sale soon. I think you would find that the 180 Comanche is a
fine plane but you need to have it maintained by someone who
understands the landing gear system. So many of the old ones have been
bellied in at one time in their past. The Sierra does have a roomy
cabin and a short CG range. I had to change the landing gear doughnuts
on this model and it's not a job I want to do again any time soon.
First of all, you have to rent a special tool from Beech and they want
a $2000.00 deposit before they will send it to you. I think it cost
about $200.00 to use it plus the shipping charges both ways. If you
don't change the doughnuts ($900.00 worth) when they are sagging, you
might find the gear don't fit in the wheel wells they way they are
supposed to. The gear may or may not extend all the way when you leave
the ground, and one or the other will hit the up lock bracket and stay
there, instead of snapping into place. I changed every oring on the
hydraulic system cylinders (at owners request) and found the retract
cycle went from over 30 seconds to 14 seconds. Someone had put an oring
in the left cylinder that was too skinny to fill a groove on the
piston. I once did a prebuy on a Sundowner and found intergranular
corrosion on the left spar in two places. Aft side, lower web, near the
tip and just outboard of the fuel tank area. Beech has an approved
repair kit for this so you know it has been seen before. Also, don't
buy one of these planes with a fuel stain under the wings. Leaks can be
hard to fix in the wet wing fuel tanks. Finally, show me a plane where
they had to hang a ball of lead ballast on it and I'll show you an AD
note. This goes for other brands too.

LWG

February 7th 06, 09:44 PM

A Sundowner is the easiest and most stable plane you will likely ever fly.
There is one thing that really makes it a delight. When you are landing,
dial in 75 kts on final using the trim. The trim will maintain the
airspeed. Use the throttle for altitude. When you are in ground effect,
slow up and pull back slowly until the runway disappears, and hold the yoke
back in your lap. If you use full flaps, you can stop in a few hundred
feet.

Thr thing about porpoising is related to landing too fast, and then letting
the nose slam down while you are peering out over the nose looking for the
runway. It's not the plane's fault, it still thinks it's flying.

One nice thing that is rarely discussed is that it is almost immune to
crosswinds. It's big and heavy, and doesn't get blown around much. The
demonstrated cross wind is not that high, but I think it can be landed
safely with a considerably greater crosswind.

You won't break many speed records, and headwinds can be frustrating. I
think if Beech put a bigger engine in the Sundowner, like they did with the
earlier Super Musketeers, they could sell them today.

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:28:18 -0500, Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>
>> Wow, that's news to me - I flew a Beech Sport for a while. The only
>> problem
>> I has with landings was that I had a hard time getting the hang of the
>> flap
>> thingies (I was too used to slipping in with no flaps in a Cessna 120).
>>
>> Don't recall any problem with bouncing once I got it to the runway.
>> Perhaps
>> I just didn't know that it was supposed to be hard? Or perhaps, the
>> reputation exceeds the reality.
>
> I *think* the porpoising tendencies started with the Sundowner / Sierra
> series?
>
> More weight in front with 180HP vs the sport 150HP would be my hypothesis.
>
> Allen

A Lieberman

February 8th 06, 01:01 AM

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:44:40 -0500, LWG wrote:

> A Sundowner is the easiest and most stable plane you will likely ever fly.
> There is one thing that really makes it a delight. When you are landing,
> dial in 75 kts on final using the trim. The trim will maintain the
> airspeed. Use the throttle for altitude. When you are in ground effect,
> slow up and pull back slowly until the runway disappears, and hold the yoke
> back in your lap. If you use full flaps, you can stop in a few hundred
> feet.

Add in the droop wing tips I have on my plane, and it is stable as a table.
Only thing above I do differently is fly final at 68 knots unless I am
doing an ILS, which I go at 90 knots down to the middle marker.

> One nice thing that is rarely discussed is that it is almost immune to
> crosswinds. It's big and heavy, and doesn't get blown around much. The
> demonstrated cross wind is not that high, but I think it can be landed
> safely with a considerably greater crosswind.

Its funny you mentioned this as I posted my experiences on
rec.aviation.student on going out in direct Xwinds of greater then 15
knots. I was extremely pleased how the plane handled, and here I thought
it was me *big smile*.

> You won't break many speed records, and headwinds can be frustrating. I
> think if Beech put a bigger engine in the Sundowner, like they did with the
> earlier Super Musketeers, they could sell them today.

You mean that the Super M's had more then 180HP?

Allen

[email protected]

February 8th 06, 05:54 AM

On 5-Feb-2006, "Doug" > wrote:

> You will be paying a big price for retract, in initial cost,
> maintenance and insurance. Extra speed for 1 to 2 hour trips doesn't
> amount to much.

If you fly over 100 hrs/year the savings in fuel costs with RG compared to a
FG with similar performance will more than offset the added costs for
maintenance and insurance.
--
-Elliott Drucker

John Theune

February 8th 06, 01:48 PM

wrote:
> On 5-Feb-2006, "Doug" > wrote:
>
>
>>You will be paying a big price for retract, in initial cost,
>>maintenance and insurance. Extra speed for 1 to 2 hour trips doesn't
>>amount to much.
>
>
>
> If you fly over 100 hrs/year the savings in fuel costs with RG compared to a
> FG with similar performance will more than offset the added costs for
> maintenance and insurance.
I'd really like to see some number to support your conclusion. By my
estimates 100 hrs * 11 gals per hour = 1100 gal per year. RG decreases
fuel need by 5% or 55 gal * $3.50 = 192.50 per year in fuel savings.
From the numbers throw about by my aircraft owning buddies the delta in
ownership costs for a retract are much more then that.

Assumptions in above: Fuel burn is about the same for 180HP engines in
Comanche 180 and 172s with 180HP engine. Increased speed reduces need
for fuel by 5% by higher speed in cruise, climb fuel burn is the same.
Big YMMV is added :)

John Theune

February 8th 06, 01:48 PM

[email protected]

February 8th 06, 02:43 PM

John Theune > wrote:
: I'd really like to see some number to support your conclusion. By my
: estimates 100 hrs * 11 gals per hour = 1100 gal per year. RG decreases
: fuel need by 5% or 55 gal * $3.50 = 192.50 per year in fuel savings.
: From the numbers throw about by my aircraft owning buddies the delta in
: ownership costs for a retract are much more then that.

: Assumptions in above: Fuel burn is about the same for 180HP engines in
: Comanche 180 and 172s with 180HP engine. Increased speed reduces need
: for fuel by 5% by higher speed in cruise, climb fuel burn is the same.
: Big YMMV is added :)

Not to be too argumentative, but 5% might not be the right number. A quick
example:
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane432.shtml
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane427.shtml

That's a PA-28-180 vs. a PA-28-180R. Cruise of 119 kts vs. 141 kts. That's
18% improvement in speed. Others are similar around 15%. So, multiply your fuel
savings by a factor of 3 and you get $600/year. That's starting to sound more in line
with the additional costs of a gear swing every year, some more lube, and a
replacement part averaging every 5 or so.

Just food for thought.

-Cory

--

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

John Theune

February 8th 06, 03:29 PM

wrote:
> John Theune > wrote:
> : I'd really like to see some number to support your conclusion. By my
> : estimates 100 hrs * 11 gals per hour = 1100 gal per year. RG decreases
> : fuel need by 5% or 55 gal * $3.50 = 192.50 per year in fuel savings.
> : From the numbers throw about by my aircraft owning buddies the delta in
> : ownership costs for a retract are much more then that.
>
> : Assumptions in above: Fuel burn is about the same for 180HP engines in
> : Comanche 180 and 172s with 180HP engine. Increased speed reduces need
> : for fuel by 5% by higher speed in cruise, climb fuel burn is the same.
> : Big YMMV is added :)
>
> Not to be too argumentative, but 5% might not be the right number. A quick
> example:
> http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane432.shtml
> http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane427.shtml
>
> That's a PA-28-180 vs. a PA-28-180R. Cruise of 119 kts vs. 141 kts. That's
> 18% improvement in speed. Others are similar around 15%. So, multiply your fuel
> savings by a factor of 3 and you get $600/year. That's starting to sound more in line
> with the additional costs of a gear swing every year, some more lube, and a
> replacement part averaging every 5 or so.
>
> Just food for thought.
>
> -Cory
>
> --
>
> ************************************************** ***********************
> * Cory Papenfuss *
> * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
> * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
> ************************************************** ***********************
>
Very good, I was hoping somebody could come up with better numbers then
I had. It looks like from your numbers the fuel savings come close to
the extra maintenance costs so the insurance costs would swing the
balance toward the FG model cost wise. I think the extra "sex appeal"
of the RG might swing it back toward the RG side, but bottom line you
can't argue for the RG just on cost savings over FG.

Aaron Coolidge

February 8th 06, 03:43 PM

wrote:

: That's a PA-28-180 vs. a PA-28-180R. Cruise of 119 kts vs. 141 kts. That's
: 18% improvement in speed. Others are similar around 15%. So, multiply your fuel

Having flown many hours in both, the Arrow numbers are a bit high. Figure
135 kts for the Arrow, and you get ~15% like the others. The 200 HP Arrow
is quite a bit faster.
--
Aaron C.

[email protected]

February 8th 06, 04:30 PM

On 8-Feb-2006, John Theune > wrote:

> I'd really like to see some number to support your conclusion. By my
> estimates 100 hrs * 11 gals per hour = 1100 gal per year. RG decreases
> fuel need by 5% or 55 gal * $3.50 = 192.50 per year in fuel savings.
> From the numbers throw about by my aircraft owning buddies the delta in
> ownership costs for a retract are much more then that.
>
> Assumptions in above: Fuel burn is about the same for 180HP engines in
> Comanche 180 and 172s with 180HP engine. Increased speed reduces need
> for fuel by 5% by higher speed in cruise, climb fuel burn is the same.
> Big YMMV is added :)

I said "RG compared to a FG WITH SIMILAR PERFORMANCE..." For comparison to
an Arrow or Sierra than burns about 10.5 GPH at 75%, that would be something
like a Skylane or Dakota that burns about 3 GPH more. For 100 hrs, that's
300 gallons, or well over $1000 at today's fuel prices.
Additional maintenance costs for an RG will probably run about $300/yr.
(This is based upon my experience and what my A&P told me.) Insurance
difference could be wildly variable depending upon pilot experience and IR
status, In my case, the extra premium for RG runs about $500/yr.
In other words, the cost of folding the gear is more than offset by the cost
of the fuel needed to drag it through the air.

-Elliott Drucker

[email protected]

February 8th 06, 11:34 PM

wrote:
: status, In my case, the extra premium for RG runs about $500/yr.
: In other words, the cost of folding the gear is more than offset by the cost
: of the fuel needed to drag it through the air.

Ahh... but those are the *HIDDEN* costs. Fixed ones like insurance and extra
labor on the annual. The *direct* operating costs are lower. That's all I ever look
at when deciding if I'm going to go somewhere. The fixed costs all get cheaper the
more you fly.

Everyone has their own rationalization of why owning is better. :)

-Cory

--

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

[email protected]

February 9th 06, 03:48 AM

When It really gets down to it, money isn't an issue. $100-200 here and
there isn't a big deal.
Having wheels that go up and down and the speed that goes with it, is.

If your worried about dollars and worried the cents that goes along with
it, you don't need an airplane let alone a retract.

Owning an airplane is a statement and a way of life for alot of people.

If you think that a retract is in your future, then buy one.
Don't bitch about it will cost you an extra $500 a year.

If you want to stay still legged, thats great, too. There is absolutly
nothing wrong with that.

wrote:
> wrote:
> : status, In my case, the extra premium for RG runs about $500/yr.
> : In other words, the cost of folding the gear is more than offset by the cost
> : of the fuel needed to drag it through the air.
>
> Ahh... but those are the *HIDDEN* costs. Fixed ones like insurance and extra
> labor on the annual. The *direct* operating costs are lower. That's all I ever look
> at when deciding if I'm going to go somewhere. The fixed costs all get cheaper the
> more you fly.
>
> Everyone has their own rationalization of why owning is better. :)
>
> -Cory
>

pgbnh

February 9th 06, 06:20 PM

I have been flying my '76 Sierra (B model) for about 16 years. Some
comments:
1. The porpoise phenomenon - true, it will. Fly it properly with attention
to airspeed and with the knowledge that it can run out of aileron authorith
and it will grease on like any other aircraft
2. Not a 'finger flyer'. It flies heavy. I like the feel, but it takes a
hand onthe yoke, not a couple of fingers.
3. Lots of doors. One on either side plus a large luggage door.
4. Annuals have averaged about $2200/year for the past 15 years
5. Insurance - about $1500 currently for two authorized pilots with similar
ratings and time
6. Speed - not real fast. Zero wind is probably about 115kts. But if I am
just out to make holes inthe sky I can crank it back to 17 inches of MP and
2000 rpm and burn 4gph at 90kts.
7. Built like a truck. If you want a sports car, this is not your plane
8. Great instrument platform - stable, fairly high wing loading
"RH" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm a PVT, IFR pilot, but fairly low time at 350 hours, mostly in
> various fixed gear PA28's.
>
> I'm interested in buying an entry level retractable. I'd like to use
> it to get my commercial certificate, and maybe go on to my CFI/CFII.
> But the primary mission would be to haul my wife, 1 year old son and
> our two small dogs on 200-400 NM x-c's up and down the east coast to
> visit family.
>
> I've noticed that the older Comanche 180's and Beech Sierra seem to be
> a good buy. There are several on TAP and ASO right now with mid time
> engines, modern updated panels and GPS in the $45-$55K range. A
> comparable Arrow, C172RG, 177RG or Commander 112 would be at least $65K
> and up. Frankly it looks like the owners of these Comanche's &
> Sierra's have much more invested in their aircraft than they are worth.
>
> Any owners/operators care to share your experiences with these two
> aircraft?
> Are Beech parts really *that* much more expensive than Piper parts?
> Is it a nightmare trying to maintain an older retractable? I would
> hope not to have to sell either one anytime soon. So fast forward 10
> years to 2016 --- what you you rather be maintaining, a 37 year old
> Beech Sierra or a 57 year old Piper Comanche?
>
> Thanks for sharing!
>
> Rich
>

Newps

February 9th 06, 10:11 PM

pgbnh wrote:

> 6. Speed - not real fast. Zero wind is probably about 115kts.

$1500 for insurance, $2200 for annuals and you only get to go 115 kts?
Kee-ryste all mighty.

A Lieberman

February 10th 06, 01:36 AM

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:20:54 -0500, pgbnh wrote:

> 2. Not a 'finger flyer'. It flies heavy. I like the feel, but it takes a
> hand onthe yoke, not a couple of fingers.

Surprised to hear this on the Sierra! My Sundowner, when trimmed is pretty
much hands off.

> 3. Lots of doors. One on either side plus a large luggage door.

Yep, always surprises a lineman when I exit out the left side :-).

> 4. Annuals have averaged about $2200/year for the past 15 years

Mine has been about $1500, so guess flexible gears add to this?

> 5. Insurance - about $1500 currently for two authorized pilots with similar
> ratings and time

Mine is $800 with me having $350 hours at my last renewal. I am now over
$540 so I hope to see a drop.

> 6. Speed - not real fast. Zero wind is probably about 115kts. But if I am
> just out to make holes inthe sky I can crank it back to 17 inches of MP and
> 2000 rpm and burn 4gph at 90kts.

Not quite sure I understand you only getting 5 knots more then my
Sundowner?

> 7. Built like a truck. If you want a sports car, this is not your plane
> 8. Great instrument platform - stable, fairly high wing loading

Yes, agree, trailing link gear, and stable as a table when trimmed right.

Allen

Newps

February 10th 06, 01:48 AM

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:11:38 -0700, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>pgbnh wrote:
>>
>>
>>>6. Speed - not real fast. Zero wind is probably about 115kts.
>>
>>
>>$1500 for insurance, $2200 for annuals and you only get to go 115 kts?
>>Kee-ryste all mighty.
>>
>
>
>
> But it's comfy!

So's a 182 or a Cherokee 235, both of which handily crush your Sierra.
My insurance was always right at $1000 and the annuals were also $1000
on average for my 182 that I recently sold. You're paying quite a
premium to fly that slow and to be required to pay that much attention
to airspeed on final.

>
> How fast is your typical caddy?

Are you serious? Have you seen a Caddy lately? They're as fast as
anything out there.

[email protected]

February 10th 06, 03:49 AM

On 9-Feb-2006, "pgbnh" > wrote:

> Speed - not real fast. Zero wind is probably about 115kts.

Is that at 75%? If so, it's about 25 kts slower than an Arrow which uses
essentially the same engine (Lyc IO-360). Slower than an Archer with 20
fewer horses and fixed gear. That's pretty ugly!

Are you sure you're remembering to raise the gear?

--
-Elliott Drucker

Mark Hansen

February 10th 06, 03:44 PM

On 02/09/06 16:36, B A R R Y wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:11:38 -0700, Newps > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>pgbnh wrote:
>>
>>> 6. Speed - not real fast. Zero wind is probably about 115kts.
>>
>>
>>$1500 for insurance, $2200 for annuals and you only get to go 115 kts?
>>Kee-ryste all mighty.
>>
>
>
> But it's comfy!
>
> How fast is your typical caddy?

Well, I drive an Eldorado ETC, 300HP, high-performance suspension,
very comfy, etc. When I step on it, it will put you in the back seat ;-)

.... but you did say 'typical' ;-)

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

pgbnh

February 10th 06, 07:33 PM

It is broader and roomier than an Arrow. That interior space comes with a
penalty. I also do not believe an Arrow will get 140kts at 75%
> wrote in message
news:t3UGf.12957$j07.2997@trnddc04...
>
> On 9-Feb-2006, "pgbnh" > wrote:
>
>> Speed - not real fast. Zero wind is probably about 115kts.
>
>
> Is that at 75%? If so, it's about 25 kts slower than an Arrow which uses
> essentially the same engine (Lyc IO-360). Slower than an Archer with 20
> fewer horses and fixed gear. That's pretty ugly!
>
> Are you sure you're remembering to raise the gear?
>
> --
> -Elliott Drucker

[email protected]

February 12th 06, 05:58 AM

On 10-Feb-2006, "pgbnh" > wrote:

> I also do not believe an Arrow will get 140kts at 75%

My Arrow IV seems to. But I usually cruise at 65% and get 135 kts. It does
have a couple of speed mods, however.

--
-Elliott Drucker

Dylan Smith

February 13th 06, 02:51 PM

On 2006-02-05, RH > wrote:
> That's what I have read too. Maybe this trait just gets exaggerated
> after hearing it over & over. I cant believe the Sundowner/Sierra
> would require superman pilot skills.

It doesn't. I was checked out in a Beech Super Musketeer (basically the
same airframe with a 200hp engine) as a 30 hour student pilot. I *never*
had a bad landing in that plane. If you just fly at the airspeed in the
book on short final, it almost lands itself.

I think the stories of the Musketeer/Sundowner being hard to land come
from people who weren't properly taught that you need to touch down main
wheels first (go to any airport and watch how many people land flat -
three pointing a nosewheel plane - translated to a Musketeer/Sundowner,
this results in bouncing).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Dylan Smith

February 13th 06, 03:05 PM

On 2006-02-10, pgbnh > wrote:
> It is broader and roomier than an Arrow. That interior space comes with a
> penalty. I also do not believe an Arrow will get 140kts at 75%

The Arrow I we used to have in our club would always true out at 140kts
at 7000/8000 ft MSL. It had the 200hp IO-360. The 200hp Super Musketeer
the club had would true out at about 115kts TAS at the same altitude.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

CriticalMass

February 18th 06, 01:37 AM

wrote:

>I think you would find that the 180 Comanche is a
> fine plane but you need to have it maintained by someone who
> understands the landing gear system. So many of the old ones have been
> bellied in at one time in their past.

Of course, they're ALL "old ones".

Jay Honeck

February 25th 06, 03:59 PM

> Very good, I was hoping somebody could come up with better numbers then I
> had. It looks like from your numbers the fuel savings come close to the
> extra maintenance costs so the insurance costs would swing the balance
> toward the FG model cost wise. I think the extra "sex appeal" of the RG
> might swing it back toward the RG side, but bottom line you can't argue
> for the RG just on cost savings over FG.

Sorry, I'm late to this thread, but it's an interesting point you bring up.

However, it's only applicable to what we might call "legacy aircraft" --
Pipers, Cessnas, Beechcraft, Navions, etc. All of the "modern" aircraft
(Cirrus, Lancair, Diamond) are going with stiff legs, and don't appear to be
paying much of a price penalty for doing so.

Anyone care to venture a guess as to how much faster an SR-22 (for example)
would go with retractable gear?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bob Noel

February 25th 06, 04:14 PM

In article <u9%Lf.822635$xm3.75681@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Sorry, I'm late to this thread, but it's an interesting point you bring up.
>
> However, it's only applicable to what we might call "legacy aircraft" --
> Pipers, Cessnas, Beechcraft, Navions, etc. All of the "modern" aircraft
> (Cirrus, Lancair, Diamond) are going with stiff legs, and don't appear to be
> paying much of a price penalty for doing so.
>
> Anyone care to venture a guess as to how much faster an SR-22 (for example)
> would go with retractable gear?

Consider the lancair aircraft.

The ES, with 210hp will supposedly do 200mph at 8000'
The ES with 310hp will do 225 mph at 8000'
Both of these are fixed-gear.

The lancair legacy, with the 310hp and retract will supposedly do 276mph at 8000'
The fixed-gear legacy, with 200hp will supposedly do 210 mph at 8000'

so, maybe the SR-22 would gain 30mph or so with a retractable...

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate