Re: Narrowing it down... Comanche?

[Jim Carter]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kontiki ]
> Posted At: Monday, February 20, 2006 5:47 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: Narrowing it down... Comanche?
> Subject: Re: Narrowing it down... Comanche?
>
> Douglas Paterson wrote:
> --Stuff snipped--
> > Among the Comanches: after toying with the idea of the 400, I
calmed
> down.
> > :) The 180s seem like a steal, but the useful load is marginal and
I
> worry
> > about the climb-at-altitude. So, I'm down to the 250/260/260B/260C
> > decision--but I'm holding off on that for the moment.
> >
> > Before I burn too many brain bytes or go too far down the rabbit
hole,
> I'm
> > hoping for either confirmation or contradiction of my thought
processes
> > here. If you've read this far, you must have at least SOME opinions
to
> > share...! Thanks for any help or advice you have to give.
>
> It sounds as though you have done a pretty thorough job of analyzing
and
> summarizing the situation. I did a similar thing a couple of years ago
and
> ended up bying myself a Comanche 250. I don't regret that decision and
> still
> today I think the PA24 is an excellent bang for the buck. However, if
you
> are one of those people that aren't willing (or knowledgable enough)
to do
> some minor maintenance or learn about the systems on your own airplane
you
> are better off buying a newer airplane (a LOT newer!). As long as you
are
> performing the proper maintenance and understand the essential systems
the
> PA24 is a solid airplane made to fly for many thousands of hours, haul
a
> good load at speeds obtainable only by much high priced competitors.
>
> Pipers systems are well known and not that hard to work on. The
> International
> Comamche Society is an excellent source of technical information as
well
> as
> people you can help you resolve all the issues about owning the
Comanche.
[Jim Carter]
I have to agree about the maintenance point Kontiki was making
-- if you aren't going to "get involved" with your aircraft stick to
something newer and more plentiful (I'm not implying the PA24 isn't
plentiful).

I noticed you indicated a sweet spot for the PA28-180, but
didn't talk about the 235, why was it eliminated or was it not
considered?

Personally I'm partial to the Navion, I secretly believe that
you can disassemble a 172 and carry it as baggage in the passenger
compartment -- those things are huge. (But man that Meyers/Interceptor
400 is a sexy bird). Again however, it is not the plane for a pilot that
farms out all the maintenance and it is a bit of a classic so there
aren't that many (young) mechanics around that know them very well. On
the other hand, the American Navion Society has a good club and lots of
information. Kind of like the Cardinal Flyers, Cessna Pilots Assn,
American Bonanza Society, and on and on. If you're interested, stick
with something that's still fairly popular, and don't mind getting your
hands dirty, there's lots of help available -- just look at the
responses you got from this newsgroup.

Blue skies...

[Margy]

Jim Carter wrote:
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: kontiki ]
>>Posted At: Monday, February 20, 2006 5:47 AM
>>Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
>>Conversation: Narrowing it down... Comanche?
>>Subject: Re: Narrowing it down... Comanche?
>>
>>Douglas Paterson wrote:
>>--Stuff snipped--
>>
>>>Among the Comanches: after toying with the idea of the 400, I
>
> calmed
>
>>down.
>>
>>>:) The 180s seem like a steal, but the useful load is marginal and
>
> I
>
>>worry
>>
>>>about the climb-at-altitude. So, I'm down to the 250/260/260B/260C
>>>decision--but I'm holding off on that for the moment.
>>>
>>>Before I burn too many brain bytes or go too far down the rabbit
>
> hole,
>
>>I'm
>>
>>>hoping for either confirmation or contradiction of my thought
>
> processes
>
>>>here. If you've read this far, you must have at least SOME opinions
>
> to
>
>>>share...! Thanks for any help or advice you have to give.
>>
>>It sounds as though you have done a pretty thorough job of analyzing
>
> and
>
>>summarizing the situation. I did a similar thing a couple of years ago
>
> and
>
>>ended up bying myself a Comanche 250. I don't regret that decision and
>>still
>>today I think the PA24 is an excellent bang for the buck. However, if
>
> you
>
>>are one of those people that aren't willing (or knowledgable enough)
>
> to do
>
>>some minor maintenance or learn about the systems on your own airplane
>
> you
>
>>are better off buying a newer airplane (a LOT newer!). As long as you
>
> are
>
>>performing the proper maintenance and understand the essential systems
>
> the
>
>>PA24 is a solid airplane made to fly for many thousands of hours, haul
>
> a
>
>>good load at speeds obtainable only by much high priced competitors.
>>
>>Pipers systems are well known and not that hard to work on. The
>>International
>>Comamche Society is an excellent source of technical information as
>
> well
>
>>as
>>people you can help you resolve all the issues about owning the
>
> Comanche.
> [Jim Carter]
> I have to agree about the maintenance point Kontiki was making
> -- if you aren't going to "get involved" with your aircraft stick to
> something newer and more plentiful (I'm not implying the PA24 isn't
> plentiful).
>
> I noticed you indicated a sweet spot for the PA28-180, but
> didn't talk about the 235, why was it eliminated or was it not
> considered?
>
> Personally I'm partial to the Navion, I secretly believe that
> you can disassemble a 172 and carry it as baggage in the passenger
> compartment -- those things are huge. (But man that Meyers/Interceptor
> 400 is a sexy bird). Again however, it is not the plane for a pilot that
> farms out all the maintenance and it is a bit of a classic so there
> aren't that many (young) mechanics around that know them very well. On
> the other hand, the American Navion Society has a good club and lots of
> information. Kind of like the Cardinal Flyers, Cessna Pilots Assn,
> American Bonanza Society, and on and on. If you're interested, stick
> with something that's still fairly popular, and don't mind getting your
> hands dirty, there's lots of help available -- just look at the
> responses you got from this newsgroup.
>
> Blue skies...
>
>
There are quite a few Navion mechanics around and they aren't that
complicated, so once a mechanic who knows how to ask questions has
worked on a few for a bit they get fairly good at it. If you can find a
Navion with a new engine conversion (520 or 550) you have a really
decent plane.

Margy

[Jay Honeck]

> I noticed you indicated a sweet spot for the PA28-180, but
> didn't talk about the 235, why was it eliminated or was it not
> considered?

Actually, he *did* consider the Cherokee 235/236. I quote:

"- Several fixed gear/cs prop models fit the bill. I like the numbers of
the Piper Cherokee 235 (PA-28-235/236) line and the Piper Cherokee Six
(PA-32-260/300/301) line. Ultimately, the bang/buck thing has me leaning to
the Comanche. Comments on that position?"

Personally, I LOVE the Comanche. It is, in my opinion, the ultimate Piper
single to own, perhaps with the exception of the Malibu Meridian. In fact,
the first plane I wanted to buy was a Comanche...

However (there's ALWAYS a "however"), the age and complexity of the beast
MUST be considered. It's been out of production for decades, and many of
these airframes are getting VERY long in the tooth. Thus far obtaining
parts has not been a problem, but this situation won't continue
indefinitely. And finding A&Ps who are familiar with Comanches is not
going to get any easier over time.

The later, stretch-bodied PA28-235s (like our Pathfinder) are superior to
the Comanche 250 in some important ways. (All data obtained here:
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane405.shtml)

1. Useful load. We have a 1460 pound useful load -- the highest in class.
The Comanche 250's is very good, at 1110 pounds -- but if you're interested
in hauling four real people the Pathfinder wins.

2. Range. We carry 84 gallons of fuel, which gives us an incredible range.
The Comanche 250 carries 60 gallons, which gives it an okay range.

3. Maintenance. The Pathfinder wins here, hand's down. Both planes utilize
the Lycoming O-540, but the Pathfinder's is de-tuned to 235 horses. The
Comanche's is pushed a bit harder, running at 250 horses. We burn a bit
less fuel, and the engine (should, in a perfect world) last a bit longer.

Also, the fixed gear of the Pathfinder saves you $$$$ at annual each year.
Several A&Ps told me to estimate an extra $1K per year in maintenance costs
associated with the Comanche's retractable gear. Some years you won't spend
that, others you'll spend way more. Over the lifetime of the plane, you
could easily save yourself many thousands of dollars by sticking with
straight legs.

And, of course, the intangible costs of maintaining a plane that is long out
of production come into play. Although the Pathfinder/Dakota series hasn't
been made in 20 years, many of the parts are shared by the currently
produced Archer. And the knowledge-base for working on the Cherokee line is
so similar as to be considered identical in most important ways.

Now let's talk about areas that the Comanche wins.

1. Speed. The Comanche does win in speed, of course. We cruise at 140
knots, while the Comanche cruises at 157 knots. To put this in
perspective, our flight to St. Louis this weekend took us 1:18. In the
Comanche 250, it would have taken us 1:10.

Now, of course, most Pathfinders aren't so quick (ours has been highly
modified by previous owners), but the point is still this: You've got to go
a VERY long ways for minor speed differences to matter.

2. Looks. There is little doubt that the Comanche is a VERY handsome
airplane. Our Pathfinder is as good as it gets for a Cherokee, but a
Comanche looks heavy and authoritative by comparison. If "ramp appeal" is a
priority, the Comanche wins.

3. Climb. You're in a high altitude area, and the Comanche's extra horses,
lower fuel capacity and longer wing may make all the difference to you,
since they give it a 1350 FPM rate of climb. We climb out at around 800 FPM
with four of us and full fuel, and hit 1600 FPM with two of us and "only" 60
gallons on board.

Of course, you can always leave 24 gallons of fuel on the ground and easily
match the Comanche's climb rate, so I guess this is a tie, depending on how
important range is to you.

4. Altitude. The Pathfinder's stubby wing doesn't allow it to touch the
Comanche's 20K ceiling. Of course, without oxygen, neither will you -- and
I've flown over the mountains in our Pathfinder -- so (to me, in Iowa,
anyway) that's a moot point.

The guy who owned our Pathfinder before us upgraded to a Comanche 400, which
is THE Comanche to own, IMHO. Of course, he put over $35K in engine
maintenance alone into it in 2004, so that bird should be regarded as a
"collector's item" in the real world. (Although he *does* fly the pants off
of it, flying it to the Ozarks nearly every weekend...)

Personally, if money were no object, I'd buy the Comanche in a heartbeat.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> There are quite a few Navion mechanics around and they aren't that
> complicated, so once a mechanic who knows how to ask questions has worked
> on a few for a bit they get fairly good at it. If you can find a Navion
> with a new engine conversion (520 or 550) you have a really decent plane.

Speaking of which, we haven't heard about you and Ron doing any major trips
in the new bird yet? Whassup with that?
(Well, other than OSH, of course...)

You guys taking it down to SNF '06?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[ktbr]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> 2. Range. We carry 84 gallons of fuel, which gives us an incredible range.
> The Comanche 250 carries 60 gallons, which gives it an okay range.

Hmmmm... well, what's your burn per hour in cruse Vs. the Comanche and
the fact that it takes less time to cover the same distance. My Comanche
has tip tanks (90 gals total) and I seldom use the tips unless I am
going somewhere that has expensive fuel. The thing is, with 90 gallons
I can fly for almost 6 hours covering almost 1000 Nautical miles....
I don't know about you but I'm ready to stretch my legs after 3 hours!
>
> 3. Maintenance. The Pathfinder wins here, hand's down. Both planes utilize
> the Lycoming O-540, but the Pathfinder's is de-tuned to 235 horses. The
> Comanche's is pushed a bit harder, running at 250 horses. We burn a bit
> less fuel, and the engine (should, in a perfect world) last a bit longer.

They are both 2000 TBO, I'm not sure that makes a lot of difference. I'd
rather have the extra horses myself. Even at 250HP the O-540 is very
conservativley rated (compared to the Malibu engine for example)

All your other pros + cons are pretty much right on the money though.

[Margy]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>There are quite a few Navion mechanics around and they aren't that
>>complicated, so once a mechanic who knows how to ask questions has worked
>>on a few for a bit they get fairly good at it. If you can find a Navion
>>with a new engine conversion (520 or 550) you have a really decent plane.
>
>
> Speaking of which, we haven't heard about you and Ron doing any major trips
> in the new bird yet? Whassup with that?
> (Well, other than OSH, of course...)
>
> You guys taking it down to SNF '06?
Well, we've had CRAPPY weekends... We did take it to NC where we
decided to buy and airport lot (www.longislandairpark.com phase II lot
12!) even though we had to land at another airport to pick up a rental
car. We haven't managed to have a decent weekend this year to get back
and now we are into a heavy season at work so I have to work a few
weekends. Those will be the severe clear ones, I'll be off for the
rainy ones (if anyone wants my schedule so they know when to plan their
trips, let me know :-). We have to fly down sometime soon with the
architect so hopefully weather, work and schedules will all come
together at the same time.

We've done a few fly around to no where in particular days, I flew a
reporter and photographer one day (keep you eye out for Teacher
Magazine!) and Ron went up with a friend of ours who is a former U2
pilot and a cfii. Maybe we can get Ron to finish up his instrument
rating at some point!

Next weekend is African Americans in Aviation weekend, so if I pull the
same tough duty I did last year I'll spend the day escorting a few
Tuskeegee Airmen around and making sure they are in the right place at
the right time. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it :-).

SNF would be great, but some of us have to WORK.

Talk to you soon,

Margy

[Jay Honeck]

>> 2. Range. We carry 84 gallons of fuel, which gives us an incredible
>> range. The Comanche 250 carries 60 gallons, which gives it an okay range.
>
> Hmmmm... well, what's your burn per hour in cruse Vs. the Comanche and
> the fact that it takes less time to cover the same distance. My Comanche
> has tip tanks (90 gals total) and I seldom use the tips unless I am
> going somewhere that has expensive fuel.

I was using the 60 gallon tanks of the stock Comanche 250 for comparison
purposes. If you've got 90 gallons, you've got the Pathfinder beat!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Next weekend is African Americans in Aviation weekend, so if I pull the
> same tough duty I did last year I'll spend the day escorting a few
> Tuskeegee Airmen around and making sure they are in the right place at the
> right time. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it :-).

Cool! Can't be too many of those guys left, so take good care of them.

> SNF would be great, but some of us have to WORK.

I know the feeling, although our problem is more child-induced than
work-related. I wish Iowa City's Spring Break would line up with SNF!

It HAS been an awful winter for flying. This past weekend was the first
good one in a long while, and (incredibly -- I'm still pinching myself) we
had 4 days off. (See my post on St. Louis over in .piloting.) Hopefully
you'll get a good stretch of weather soon so that you can fly that architect
up (down?) to your land...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Margy]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Next weekend is African Americans in Aviation weekend, so if I pull the
>>same tough duty I did last year I'll spend the day escorting a few
>>Tuskeegee Airmen around and making sure they are in the right place at the
>>right time. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it :-).
>
>
> Cool! Can't be too many of those guys left, so take good care of them.
>
>
>>SNF would be great, but some of us have to WORK.
>
>
> I know the feeling, although our problem is more child-induced than
> work-related. I wish Iowa City's Spring Break would line up with SNF!
>
> It HAS been an awful winter for flying. This past weekend was the first
> good one in a long while, and (incredibly -- I'm still pinching myself) we
> had 4 days off. (See my post on St. Louis over in .piloting.) Hopefully
> you'll get a good stretch of weather soon so that you can fly that architect
> up (down?) to your land...
Down, my theory is every 20 years or so you should move a few hundred
miles south. This area of NC is 5 degrees warmer than DC in the winter
and only 1 degree warmer in the summer. Perfect!

[Jay Honeck]

> Down, my theory is every 20 years or so you should move a few hundred
> miles south. This area of NC is 5 degrees warmer than DC in the winter
> and only 1 degree warmer in the summer. Perfect!

Makes the commute a real bitch, though...

Unless you're like Mary, and can still telecommute to her old hospital job
in Wisconsin...

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

[Maule Driver]

Margy wrote:
> Down, my theory is every 20 years or so you should move a few hundred
> miles south. This area of NC is 5 degrees warmer than DC in the winter
> and only 1 degree warmer in the summer. Perfect!

Well, 1 the 1 degree may be accurate according to some faulty
intelligence but even if it's 5 degrees warmer, it feels better in NC.
Welcome to our current home state!

Long Island looks great. I've operated quite a bit out of Lake Norman
Airport a little down the lake. Great Lake! You'll love life on it.

We moved down from CT and built a Deck house and hangar about 8 years
ago at Lake Ridge Aeropark over in Durham. We love it.

Enjoy!!

[Montblack]

("Maule Driver" wrote)
> We moved down from CT and built a Deck house and hangar about 8 years ago
> at Lake Ridge Aeropark over in Durham. We love it.


What is a Deck house?


Montblack

[Margy]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Maule Driver" wrote)
>
>> We moved down from CT and built a Deck house and hangar about 8 years
>> ago at Lake Ridge Aeropark over in Durham. We love it.
>
>
>
> What is a Deck house?
>
>
> Montblack
>
If it's what I think it is it would be a really cool, modern, prefab
type. http://www.deckhouse.com/home.asp

Our covenants restrict pre-fab type stuff, but we have an architect
working from some plans I came up with for a FLW inspired dream house
and hangar.

Margy

[Margy]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Maule Driver" wrote)
>
>> We moved down from CT and built a Deck house and hangar about 8 years
>> ago at Lake Ridge Aeropark over in Durham. We love it.
>
>
>
> What is a Deck house?
>
>
> Montblack
>
Hmm, might only be the dwell houses that are more prefab. I've looked
at the dwell before, but not the deck.

Margy

[Douglas Paterson]

"Margy" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Carter wrote:
>>
>>
>> Personally I'm partial to the Navion, I secretly believe that
>> you can disassemble a 172 and carry it as baggage in the passenger
>> compartment -- those things are huge. (But man that Meyers/Interceptor
>> 400 is a sexy bird). Again however, it is not the plane for a pilot that
>> farms out all the maintenance and it is a bit of a classic so there
>> aren't that many (young) mechanics around that know them very well. On
>> the other hand, the American Navion Society has a good club and lots of
>> information. Kind of like the Cardinal Flyers, Cessna Pilots Assn,
>> American Bonanza Society, and on and on. If you're interested, stick
>> with something that's still fairly popular, and don't mind getting your
>> hands dirty, there's lots of help available -- just look at the
>> responses you got from this newsgroup.
>>
>> Blue skies...
>>
>>
> There are quite a few Navion mechanics around and they aren't that
> complicated, so once a mechanic who knows how to ask questions has worked
> on a few for a bit they get fairly good at it. If you can find a Navion
> with a new engine conversion (520 or 550) you have a really decent plane.
>
> Margy

"Bit of a classic"... "[not] many mechanics around that know them very
well"...

Both items that make me tend to shy away. No doubt that they're good
planes--and, they sparked my interest, making me ask--but, again, as a
first-timer, I feel like staying "mainstream" is a way of controlling
variables (to a degree), hopefully making for a smoother experience.

Thanks for the thoughts--exactly what I was hoping for!

Doug
--
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]

[my comments interspersed into Jay's excellent post]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:EtnKf.787927$_o.592992@attbi_s71...

[snip]

>
> However (there's ALWAYS a "however"), the age and complexity of the beast
> MUST be considered. It's been out of production for decades, and many of
> these airframes are getting VERY long in the tooth. Thus far obtaining
> parts has not been a problem, but this situation won't continue
> indefinitely. And finding A&Ps who are familiar with Comanches is not
> going to get any easier over time.
>

Well, sounds like you've described the bulk of the used GA fleet, no? :)
Not trying to be too much of a smartass, but in my price range & mission
needs, I'm looking at mid-60s to early-70s nearly exclusively.... This is
my first airplane; it may or may not be my last, but "indefinite" parts
availability is low on my priorities list right now.... Mistake?

> The later, stretch-bodied PA28-235s (like our Pathfinder) are superior to
> the Comanche 250 in some important ways. (All data obtained here:
> http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane405.shtml)
>
> 1. Useful load. We have a 1460 pound useful load -- the highest in class.
> The Comanche 250's is very good, at 1110 pounds -- but if you're
> interested in hauling four real people the Pathfinder wins.
>

OK, that argues against the 250 (though, the numbers I saw were 1,210#
useful--wonder why the difference?). However, the 260C (to use the other
extreme) shows a useful of 1,427# (same source as for the 250), close enough
for me to consider the same.

> 2. Range. We carry 84 gallons of fuel, which gives us an incredible
> range. The Comanche 250 carries 60 gallons, which gives it an okay range.
>

As another poster pointed out, there's a mod for 90 gallons--which,
apparently, virtually every PA-24 out there has had over the last 35+
years....

> 3. Maintenance. The Pathfinder wins here, hand's down. Both planes
> utilize the Lycoming O-540, but the Pathfinder's is de-tuned to 235
> horses. The Comanche's is pushed a bit harder, running at 250 horses.
> We burn a bit less fuel, and the engine (should, in a perfect world) last
> a bit longer.
>

Not sure I buy this--but I am NOT an expert on engines (and obviously still
learning airplanes). My thought is, the engine is "pushed" however far the
operator pushes it--if a Comanche 250 is only run at 94% of power (max) and
cruise at 70.5%, wouldn't that be the equivalent "pushing" and burn the same
gas as running the Pathfinder at 100% and 75%? Not that I'm suggesting that
technique would be used, just that it seems like it's more a case of having
more "available" power than a case of "pushing." Unless 235 is the max that
engine "should" be used for?

> Also, the fixed gear of the Pathfinder saves you $$$$ at annual each year.
> Several A&Ps told me to estimate an extra $1K per year in maintenance
> costs associated with the Comanche's retractable gear. Some years you
> won't spend that, others you'll spend way more. Over the lifetime of the
> plane, you could easily save yourself many thousands of dollars by
> sticking with straight legs.

This seems like an extremely valid point, one with which I've been
wrestling. In my original round on this board (long before I'd looked at
specific models), I addressed this question. One person who helped me
(Elliott Drucker, news:cDIvf.287$sa4.102@trnddc07) gave me some data that
seems to indicate that, on a 100/yr flying schedule, it's about a wash. I
know a Comanche will burn more gas (and likely cost more in mx) than
Elliott's Arrow, but the same logic applies. Do you have a different
experience or have you heard differing war stories?

>
> And, of course, the intangible costs of maintaining a plane that is long
> out of production come into play. Although the Pathfinder/Dakota series
> hasn't been made in 20 years, many of the parts are shared by the
> currently produced Archer. And the knowledge-base for working on the
> Cherokee line is so similar as to be considered identical in most
> important ways.
>

Excellent point. Is there any commonality between Comanche and other, more
current Piper products? As for knowledge-base for working on them, is the
Comanche so different as to erase Cherokee experience??

> Now let's talk about areas that the Comanche wins.
>
> 1. Speed. The Comanche does win in speed, of course. We cruise at 140
> knots, while the Comanche cruises at 157 knots. To put this in
> perspective, our flight to St. Louis this weekend took us 1:18. In the
> Comanche 250, it would have taken us 1:10.
>
> Now, of course, most Pathfinders aren't so quick (ours has been highly
> modified by previous owners), but the point is still this: You've got to
> go a VERY long ways for minor speed differences to matter.
>

Agreed. I look at this the same way as the engine discussion above,
though--it's a capability to be used (or not), as the mission or whim
dictates.

> 2. Looks. There is little doubt that the Comanche is a VERY handsome
> airplane. Our Pathfinder is as good as it gets for a Cherokee, but a
> Comanche looks heavy and authoritative by comparison. If "ramp appeal" is
> a priority, the Comanche wins.

Not really a factor. Ramp appeal is all well and good, but at the end of
the day, I'm paying for performance, not looks. Bottom of the priority
list. [However, if I end up with a Comanche, I'll be sure to send you a
photo embossed with "My Piper looks better than your Piper!," since you
mention it.... ;)]

>
> 3. Climb. You're in a high altitude area, and the Comanche's extra
> horses, lower fuel capacity and longer wing may make all the difference to
> you, since they give it a 1350 FPM rate of climb. We climb out at around
> 800 FPM with four of us and full fuel, and hit 1600 FPM with two of us and
> "only" 60 gallons on board.
>
> Of course, you can always leave 24 gallons of fuel on the ground and
> easily match the Comanche's climb rate, so I guess this is a tie,
> depending on how important range is to you.

Agreed (and, of course, apparently any Comanche I get will likely have 90
gal tanks anyway).

I've asked on the Comanche boards, but I'll repeat it here: anyone have
climbout figures for the Comanche (or other models for comparison) at
10,000' DA (a common DA in the summer here, I'm told)?

>
> 4. Altitude. The Pathfinder's stubby wing doesn't allow it to touch the
> Comanche's 20K ceiling. Of course, without oxygen, neither will you --
> and I've flown over the mountains in our Pathfinder -- so (to me, in Iowa,
> anyway) that's a moot point.

Capability again. While I don't anticipate a *lot* of time on O2, living
next door to the Rockies implies that having it will be a good idea. I've
got a little hill in my back yard that's 14,110' tall... what mountains are
you overflying in Iowa?? :)

>
> The guy who owned our Pathfinder before us upgraded to a Comanche 400,
> which is THE Comanche to own, IMHO. Of course, he put over $35K in engine
> maintenance alone into it in 2004, so that bird should be regarded as a
> "collector's item" in the real world. (Although he *does* fly the pants
> off of it, flying it to the Ozarks nearly every weekend...)
>
> Personally, if money were no object, I'd buy the Comanche in a heartbeat.

If money were no object, I'd by the 400 in a heartbeat! ;) Sounds like you
like the Comanche but made a dollars-and-cents call on the Pathfinder.

However, this is the heart of the matter: bang-for-the-buck. So long as
I'm not shelling out a lot of bucks on bang I don't need/want/use, I want to
maximize that (duh!). Look at it this way: from what I've read (and your
discussion), I can do everything in a 260C you can do in your 235, for about
the same operating cost--or, I can push it up and use those extra 25 horses
when called for (and pay for the privelege). Do I have that about right?

If so, that leaves acquisition cost. Seems like the 260C is running ~$15K
more than the 235 (VERY unscientific polling of classifieds, "average"
asking prices, etc.). That's money tied up in a capital investment, not
"spent," so as long as the payments don't bury me, I'm not overly concered
about that.

Thanks, Jay, for the thoughts & advice. This is *exactly* the sort of
discussion I was hoping for.

--
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)

[Jay Honeck]

>> 3. Maintenance. The Pathfinder wins here, hand's down. Both planes
>> utilize the Lycoming O-540, but the Pathfinder's is de-tuned to 235
>> horses. The Comanche's is pushed a bit harder, running at 250 horses.
>> We burn a bit less fuel, and the engine (should, in a perfect world) last
>> a bit longer.
>>
>
> Not sure I buy this--but I am NOT an expert on engines (and obviously
> still learning airplanes). My thought is, the engine is "pushed" however
> far the operator pushes it--if a Comanche 250 is only run at 94% of power
> (max) and cruise at 70.5%, wouldn't that be the equivalent "pushing" and
> burn the same gas as running the Pathfinder at 100% and 75%? Not that I'm
> suggesting that technique would be used, just that it seems like it's more
> a case of having more "available" power than a case of "pushing." Unless
> 235 is the max that engine "should" be used for?

Agreed, if you don't run at 100% this is a moot point. But, all things
being equal, a detuned engine *should* last longer than one that's running
hotter and harder.

> This seems like an extremely valid point, one with which I've been
> wrestling. In my original round on this board (long before I'd looked at
> specific models), I addressed this question. One person who helped me
> (Elliott Drucker, news:cDIvf.287$sa4.102@trnddc07) gave me some data that
> seems to indicate that, on a 100/yr flying schedule, it's about a wash.

How can retractable gear *ever* be "a wash" with fixed gear? There's just a
lot more "stuff" in there to be maintained.

> Excellent point. Is there any commonality between Comanche and other,
> more current Piper products?

I don't believe there are any common airframe parts, but I could be wrong.

> However, this is the heart of the matter: bang-for-the-buck. So long as
> I'm not shelling out a lot of bucks on bang I don't need/want/use, I want
> to maximize that (duh!). Look at it this way: from what I've read (and
> your discussion), I can do everything in a 260C you can do in your 235,
> for about the same operating cost--or, I can push it up and use those
> extra 25 horses when called for (and pay for the privelege). Do I have
> that about right?

Whoops -- forgot one more thing: Soft field capability. I know several
Comanche owners who won't fly into Amana's grass strip, which is an awful
shame. We fly in there -- and several other excellent grass strips -- all
the time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
>
> How can retractable gear *ever* be "a wash" with fixed gear? There's just a
> lot more "stuff" in there to be maintained.

It won't ever be a wash but $1000 a year is ridiculous for maintenence.
Even if you fly a Cessna RG. My Bo is in the shop now because I am
catching up on a few things while I don't need it. The gear springs are
being replaced($25 each) and new snow/ice covers are being installed($30
each). That'll be about it for a long time. If the gear motor needs to
be overhauled that's $500. Beech reccommends that every 4000 hours.



>
> Whoops -- forgot one more thing: Soft field capability. I know several
> Comanche owners who won't fly into Amana's grass strip, which is an awful
> shame. We fly in there -- and several other excellent grass strips -- all
> the time.

That's just pathetic. Not being able to go offroad would have been a
deal killer when I was looking at the Bonanza.

[Jay Honeck]

>> Whoops -- forgot one more thing: Soft field capability. I know several
>> Comanche owners who won't fly into Amana's grass strip, which is an awful
>> shame. We fly in there -- and several other excellent grass strips --
>> all the time.
>
> That's just pathetic. Not being able to go offroad would have been a deal
> killer when I was looking at the Bonanza.

I confess to not knowing enough about the Comanche's gear to comment. Is it
that they *can't* or that they *won't* fly into a soft field?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[ktbr]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> I confess to not knowing enough about the Comanche's gear to
comment. Is it
> that they *can't* or that they *won't* fly into a soft field?

There is nothing inherent about the Comanche landing gear that
would prevent it from using a turf runway. When you start talking
about a "soft" field... how soft? The "softness" of the field
would be of equal concern to any tri-cycle gear airplaine with
small wheels.

The hight of any grass or brush on the runway would be more
of a concern to a retract because of the gear doors hanging
down. I know that Mooneys are notorious for not being very
friendly to fields with vegitation because the doors are so
close to the ground when the gear is down.

[[email protected]]

Douglas Paterson > wrote:
: > 3. Maintenance. The Pathfinder wins here, hand's down. Both planes
: > utilize the Lycoming O-540, but the Pathfinder's is de-tuned to 235
: > horses. The Comanche's is pushed a bit harder, running at 250 horses.
: > We burn a bit less fuel, and the engine (should, in a perfect world) last
: > a bit longer.
: >

: Not sure I buy this--but I am NOT an expert on engines (and obviously still
: learning airplanes). My thought is, the engine is "pushed" however far the
: operator pushes it--if a Comanche 250 is only run at 94% of power (max) and
: cruise at 70.5%, wouldn't that be the equivalent "pushing" and burn the same
: gas as running the Pathfinder at 100% and 75%? Not that I'm suggesting that
: technique would be used, just that it seems like it's more a case of having
: more "available" power than a case of "pushing." Unless 235 is the max that
: engine "should" be used for?

The "detuning" of the PA28-235 Jay mentions is in the compression ratio. The
PA24-250 runs at 8.5:1, vs. 7.0:1 for the 235. That alone makes for hotter cylinders
and higher octane requirements. I don't know if autogas is in your decision-making
process, but the PA24 is definately out for that.

All that said, what you say is correct from my way of thinking. Just because
you have the horses doesn't mean you need to use them all the time. If you run a -250
at 55% rather than a -180 at 75%, it'll definately be happier for it. You don't even
lose a whole lot of speed and you often gain quite a few percentage points in fuel
economy.

: Excellent point. Is there any commonality between Comanche and other, more
: current Piper products? As for knowledge-base for working on them, is the
: Comanche so different as to erase Cherokee experience??

Tire size and the overhead crank for the elevator trim is about all I can
think of that might be common between the two. They're completely different
airframes.

: Agreed (and, of course, apparently any Comanche I get will likely have 90
: gal tanks anyway).

: I've asked on the Comanche boards, but I'll repeat it here: anyone have
: climbout figures for the Comanche (or other models for comparison) at
: 10,000' DA (a common DA in the summer here, I'm told)?

That issue right there limits your decision more than most of the other things
you mentioned. At least the Hershey-bar PA-28s tend to blow goats at high DA. The
taper-wings are allegedly a bet better. If you're not willing to sacrifice
significant load or runway flexibility, the PA-24-180 is definately out, as would be
any PA-28 less than 235 that isn't turbocharged. I seem to recall climb rate in a
friend's PA24-250 that was mid-range loaded (40 gallons on-board, 2-people, and 50 lbs
baggage) was about 400fpm at 12k. Only one datapoint I know, but a *takeoff* at such
DA's would burn up a helluvalotta runway loaded.

: However, this is the heart of the matter: bang-for-the-buck. So long as
: I'm not shelling out a lot of bucks on bang I don't need/want/use, I want to
: maximize that (duh!). Look at it this way: from what I've read (and your
: discussion), I can do everything in a 260C you can do in your 235, for about
: the same operating cost--or, I can push it up and use those extra 25 horses
: when called for (and pay for the privelege). Do I have that about right?

... so long as you're willing to do a lot of the work on the PA24, you may
have comparible operating costs. The annuals are a fair bit more involved on them, as
are some of the recurring AD's

-Cory



--

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

[xyzzy]

Margy wrote:
> Montblack wrote:
> > ("Maule Driver" wrote)
> >
> >> We moved down from CT and built a Deck house and hangar about 8 years
> >> ago at Lake Ridge Aeropark over in Durham. We love it.
> >
> >
> >
> > What is a Deck house?
> >
> >
> > Montblack
> >
> Hmm, might only be the dwell houses that are more prefab. I've looked
> at the dwell before, but not the deck.

The prototype dwell house was built near me. It was open for a tour a
year or so ago, total mob scene, all the Chapel Hill hipsters came, and
the house wasn't even finished after over a year of work (and it's
modular!) and, well, its industrial style wasn't for me.

The house was supposedly designed to make good design affordable to
more people -- but the designers got too caught up in the hype, and
they recently put it on the market for $650,000. (they took the price
off the webpage, but you can find it easily by googling)
http://wieler.com/wielerhouse/

Deck houses are great, the model used to be near me in Cary, NC (now
it's a doctor's office).

Another type to consider if you're into that, is Lindal Cedar homes.
My house is based on a Lindal design.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Whoops -- forgot one more thing: Soft field capability. I know several
>>>Comanche owners who won't fly into Amana's grass strip, which is an awful
>>>shame. We fly in there -- and several other excellent grass strips --
>>>all the time.
>>
>>That's just pathetic. Not being able to go offroad would have been a deal
>>killer when I was looking at the Bonanza.
>
>
> I confess to not knowing enough about the Comanche's gear to comment. Is it
> that they *can't* or that they *won't* fly into a soft field?


They all can land off pavement. Look when they were designed. Most GA
planes landed on grass/dirt a significant number of times. And it's not
necessarily soft field that concerned me. I wouldn't land my 182 in a
mud hole. The West is a desert, therfore very dry. What's more
important is rough field. Most strips I land on are just plowed with a
road grader and maybe cut a couple times a year to keep the grass less
than 6 inches. They can be pretty bumpy.

[[email protected]]

On 21-Feb-2006, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> How can retractable gear *ever* be "a wash" with fixed gear? There's just
> a
> lot more "stuff" in there to be maintained.


My earlier post simply noted that the fuel savings over some number of hours
of flight will offset the higher maintenance and insurance bills. My Arrow
and your pathfinder cruise at about the same speed, but your engine has to
burn about 3 to 4 extra gallons per hour to make that happen. Yes, I know
YOU burn cheaper mogas, but most owners will not go to the trouble and
expense of building their own fuel truck. In any event, mogas is almost
never available at airports along the way. So, conservatively, the fuel
cost savings for retractable gear in airplanes of our performance class (200
HP retractables and 235 HP FG) at today's fuel prices is somewhere between
$10 and $15 per hour. Over a modest 100 hr/year utilization, that comes to
between $1000 and $1500 per year, which is most likely much more than the
extra costs for maintenance and insurance.

Put another way, it takes a lot of extra power to drag that landing gear
around at 140 kts.

Put yet another way, comparing performance of your Pathfinder with a
hypothetical Comanche, the power you don't use to drag the gear through the
air translates to higher speed, climb, and ceiling.

As to the issues posed by the OP: The O-540 powered Comanches have a
reputation as strong climbers, particularly when lightly loaded. However,
if I was based at Colorado Springs and had many westbound missions I would
probably want a turbocharged airplane. Have you considered a Turbo Arrow?

[Maule Driver]

Margy's link is it. It's now called Deck/Acorn homes or something as
the result of a merger a few years ago. It's far from what most would
consider a 'pre-fab home' though.

While you can select a design out of their portfolio, most are built to
custom plans. What they have is a 'look' achieved through the use of a
certain set of construction methods and materials. Now they have a
variety of looks thru mergers with other similar home builders.

Post and Beam construction, mahaghony framed windows, wood decked
ceilings (where the name comes from), cedar siding, etc give the homes a
certain general look but they are built for entirely custom floorplans
and elevations. I call ours "60s contemporary".

Though they look like anything other than pre-fab, they in fact are.
They make a kit for your plans, posts, beams, trusses, stud walls, etc.
The house kit is trucked from MA to your site and built by your local
builder. It's a kit that's assembled like an RV - 51% rule more than
fully adhered. Helps to have a Deck experienced builder.

You should have seen the faces on the community board when they saw what
it was after word got out that we were erecting a 'manufactured home' or
'double wide'.

We love ours and couldn't be happier. Hangar is an entirely separate
metal building.

Margy or anyone interested in stopping by and taking a look, let me know
privately.

Bill

Margy wrote:
> Montblack wrote:
>> ("Maule Driver" wrote)
>>> We moved down from CT and built a Deck house and hangar about 8 years
>>> ago at Lake Ridge Aeropark over in Durham. We love it.
>> What is a Deck house?
> Hmm, might only be the dwell houses that are more prefab. I've looked
> at the dwell before, but not the deck.
> Margy

[Ben Jackson]

On 2006-02-21, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> Whoops -- forgot one more thing: Soft field capability. I know several
> Comanche owners who won't fly into Amana's grass strip,

So? I know C172 owners who won't fly into a grass strip. It's not
an airplane limitation! If there's any restriction to flying a PA24
into a grass strip it's that the plane is a bit unwieldy at the low
airspeeds you'd want for a max performance landing. Aileron gap seals
are reported to help that. The gear is strong and ground clearance is
good.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Margy]

Douglas Paterson wrote:
> "Margy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jim Carter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Personally I'm partial to the Navion, I secretly believe that
>>>you can disassemble a 172 and carry it as baggage in the passenger
>>>compartment -- those things are huge. (But man that Meyers/Interceptor
>>>400 is a sexy bird). Again however, it is not the plane for a pilot that
>>>farms out all the maintenance and it is a bit of a classic so there
>>>aren't that many (young) mechanics around that know them very well. On
>>>the other hand, the American Navion Society has a good club and lots of
>>>information. Kind of like the Cardinal Flyers, Cessna Pilots Assn,
>>>American Bonanza Society, and on and on. If you're interested, stick
>>>with something that's still fairly popular, and don't mind getting your
>>>hands dirty, there's lots of help available -- just look at the
>>>responses you got from this newsgroup.
>>>
>>>Blue skies...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>There are quite a few Navion mechanics around and they aren't that
>>complicated, so once a mechanic who knows how to ask questions has worked
>>on a few for a bit they get fairly good at it. If you can find a Navion
>>with a new engine conversion (520 or 550) you have a really decent plane.
>>
>>Margy
>
>
> "Bit of a classic"... "[not] many mechanics around that know them very
> well"...
>
> Both items that make me tend to shy away. No doubt that they're good
> planes--and, they sparked my interest, making me ask--but, again, as a
> first-timer, I feel like staying "mainstream" is a way of controlling
> variables (to a degree), hopefully making for a smoother experience.
>
> Thanks for the thoughts--exactly what I was hoping for!
>
> Doug
We bought a Navion as our first.

Margy

[Douglas Paterson]

"Margy" > wrote in message
...

> We bought a Navion as our first.
>
> Margy

I offer no criticism of that--but, it's not for me. Big deal? Probably
not--you apparently had no problems. However, I'll err on the side of
caution here (if that phrase applies). If I decide down the road that the
Navion would've been a better choice, I can start this process all over
again--a litter wiser & better-prepared, I would hope.

Thanks for the input.
--
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]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:KkEKf.789422$_o.284954@attbi_s71...
>
> How can retractable gear *ever* be "a wash" with fixed gear? There's just
> a lot more "stuff" in there to be maintained.
>

Elliott answered this pretty thoroughly in another post, in the same vein as
the earlier thread. So, obviously, the actual maintenance will be more on
swing-gear vs fixed--but, the "wash" in question refers to the balance saved
in gas (or, as may be the choice, the extra performance to be had). Sorry
if I was unclear.

>
> Whoops -- forgot one more thing: Soft field capability. I know several
> Comanche owners who won't fly into Amana's grass strip, which is an awful
> shame. We fly in there -- and several other excellent grass strips -- all
> the time.

I think the argument "probably" (keep in mind I'm the newb here) applies to
*all* retracts vs fixed of comparable construction. All things being equal,
fixed gear are (will always be) more stout than their retractable
counterparts, no? I assume it's this issue that those owners fear (whether
justified or not). As other posters have pointed out, there are plenty of
fixed-gear drivers who won't touch grass. I'm forced to admit that I'm one
of them--exactly zero of my rental agencies have permitted off-pavement
operations. Will I land on grass once I have my own wings? Maybe--if the
airplane I ultimately buy is suitable, if it's not a huge insurance issue,
and if I can find a suitably experienced instructor (CFI or otherwise) to
teach me the finer points... then, sure, if I've somewhere to go that's
grass, why not? The capability to do so is reasonably important--you make a
good point. I'll defer to other posters' opinions that the Comanche is
well-enough suited. As for how often I'll actually *do* so, that's an open
question....

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]

> wrote in message
news:guIKf.12759$p13.2805@trnddc08...
>
> On 21-Feb-2006, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> How can retractable gear *ever* be "a wash" with fixed gear? There's
>> just
>> a
>> lot more "stuff" in there to be maintained.
>
>
> My earlier post simply noted [...]

What he said! :) Thanks again....

>
> As to the issues posed by the OP: The O-540 powered Comanches have a
> reputation as strong climbers, particularly when lightly loaded. However,
> if I was based at Colorado Springs and had many westbound missions I would
> probably want a turbocharged airplane. Have you considered a Turbo Arrow?

Considered, yes (among other tc models). Frankly, I'm scared of turbo--it
seems like for every story of increased capability at altitude, there are
three stories of huge maintenance bills, overhauls well short of TBO, etc.
The Comanches have a 20K ceiling and a reputation as good climbers (though
I'm still looking for hard numbers in the above-8K'-DA regime), and bring a
lot of versatility to the table. Bang-for-the-buck again....

Am I being overly (unjustifiably) cautious here?

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]

> wrote in message
...
> Douglas Paterson > wrote:

[snip great engine info]

>
> All that said, what you say is correct from my way of thinking. Just
> because
> you have the horses doesn't mean you need to use them all the time. If
> you run a -250
> at 55% rather than a -180 at 75%, it'll definately be happier for it. You
> don't even
> lose a whole lot of speed and you often gain quite a few percentage points
> in fuel
> economy.
>

That's the point I was trying to make--thanks for making it better than I
did.... ;)

> Tire size and the overhead crank for the elevator trim is about all I can
> think of that might be common between the two. They're completely
> different
> airframes.
>

OK, parts are not in common. However, if I'm an A&P, well-versed in working
on Cherokees, would I really be out of my element on Comanches? No doubt
there are sneaky problems that a Comanche specialist might catch (one of
many arguments to get a specialist in your type, I think), but for
run-of-the-mill inspections and repairs?

> : I've asked on the Comanche boards, but I'll repeat it here: anyone have
> : climbout figures for the Comanche (or other models for comparison) at
> : 10,000' DA (a common DA in the summer here, I'm told)?
>
> That issue right there limits your decision more than most of the other
> things
> you mentioned. At least the Hershey-bar PA-28s tend to blow goats at high
> DA. The
> taper-wings are allegedly a bet better. If you're not willing to
> sacrifice
> significant load or runway flexibility, the PA-24-180 is definately out,
> as would be
> any PA-28 less than 235 that isn't turbocharged. I seem to recall climb
> rate in a
> friend's PA24-250 that was mid-range loaded (40 gallons on-board,
> 2-people, and 50 lbs
> baggage) was about 400fpm at 12k. Only one datapoint I know, but a
> *takeoff* at such
> DA's would burn up a helluvalotta runway loaded.

I couldn't agree more about the importance of the climb issue. No doubt, on
the hottest, most humid day of July, I *will* have to sacrifice load and/or
runway flexibility, no mater what airplane I get--that's part of my
reasoning of *not* compromising on "book" S/L numbers. A strong climber
with large loads at S/L will, in general, outclimb an airplane that is a
mediocre climber with medium loads at S/L, for any given altitude--no? My
desire is 600 sm range in 4 hours or less, with fuel on board plus
reserves--that's around 60 gallons at 75% in a Comanche, according to the
numbers I'm finding. Leave 30 gallons on the ramp, that's one more person I
can take, or keep as an additional performance benefit, as dictated by the
day's mission. I know there will always be trade-offs--that's why I want to
start with "extra" capability, so as not to lose the basics just because of
my location.

Thanks for the pointers!
--
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]]

: Considered, yes (among other tc models). Frankly, I'm scared of turbo--it
: seems like for every story of increased capability at altitude, there are
: three stories of huge maintenance bills, overhauls well short of TBO, etc.
: The Comanches have a 20K ceiling and a reputation as good climbers (though
: I'm still looking for hard numbers in the above-8K'-DA regime), and bring a
: lot of versatility to the table. Bang-for-the-buck again....

: Am I being overly (unjustifiably) cautious here?

I don't know of any *specific* examples of comparing maintenance of one turbo
system vs. another. I do know that I would never consider running an air-cooled
aircraft engine under full-time turbo. My mechanic owns a turbo-arrow with a 200hp
TSIO-360 continental 6-cyl that's known to eat jugs for breakfast.

Now, I *would* consider a turbo aircraft to circumvent the problems that
you're likely to have at high DA's. A turbo-*NORMALIZED* engine isn't inherently much
harder on the engine. You're limited to sea-level manifold pressure, but you can make
it at higher altitudes. About the only way that it's harder on the engine is
decreased cooling due to thinner airflow, and increased intake air temperature due to
the turbo. The former you're kinda stuck with, the latter can be helped with an
intercooler. Both of which become more important the higher you go, but for
relatively small increases (say, to decrease the effective DA from 12000 to 6000), it
wouldn't be hard on the engine much at all.

I like the fact that a turbo-normalizer:
- Does not have to lower the compression ratio of the engine
- Usually has a stone-cold simple control.... just another throttle to twist when you
run out of MP
- Is not required at all times to make full, rated HP (at sea-level).

I don't know what aircraft are often found with them, but I suspect they're
somewhat scarce and impractical to add yourself.

*sigh*

-Cory


--

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

[[email protected]]

Douglas Paterson > wrote:
: OK, parts are not in common. However, if I'm an A&P, well-versed in working
: on Cherokees, would I really be out of my element on Comanches? No doubt
: there are sneaky problems that a Comanche specialist might catch (one of
: many arguments to get a specialist in your type, I think), but for
: run-of-the-mill inspections and repairs?

In most cases, airplanes are airplanes. P-brand vs. C-brand doesn't matter
too much, except that P-brand tends to just "bolt on" extra stuff and call it another
airplane. I've worked on both aircraft (Lots on my own Cherokee, some avionics and
engine-hanging wrenching on a Comanche). The main difference between the two is that
the Comanche has an internal sub-floor where all the control cables, plumbing, wiring,
etc go. The Cherokee has the cabin floor skin play double-duty as exterior skin as
well. All the control cables are routed through the center floor column. Kinda
disturbing to be sitting on a beer-can sometimes... :) Other goofy things are the
Comanche's control yokes. It's a menagerie of cables, pulleys, and bearings behind
the panel, whereas a Cherokee has a nice, simple chain/sprocket T-bar. The gear on
the Comanches (at least the older one I'm familiar with) is stone-cold simple, too.
Electro-mechanical worm gear and a "Johnson-bar" emergency gear extension. Just plain
simple. (There's a repetitive AD on landing gear bungee cord springs IIRC).


: I couldn't agree more about the importance of the climb issue. No doubt, on
: the hottest, most humid day of July, I *will* have to sacrifice load and/or
: runway flexibility, no mater what airplane I get--that's part of my
: reasoning of *not* compromising on "book" S/L numbers. A strong climber
: with large loads at S/L will, in general, outclimb an airplane that is a
: mediocre climber with medium loads at S/L, for any given altitude--no? My
: desire is 600 sm range in 4 hours or less, with fuel on board plus
: reserves--that's around 60 gallons at 75% in a Comanche, according to the
: numbers I'm finding. Leave 30 gallons on the ramp, that's one more person I
: can take, or keep as an additional performance benefit, as dictated by the
: day's mission. I know there will always be trade-offs--that's why I want to
: start with "extra" capability, so as not to lose the basics just because of
: my location.

Again... a turbo-normalizer would be good for this.

-Cory

--

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

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Now, I *would* consider a turbo aircraft to circumvent the problems that
> you're likely to have at high DA's. A turbo-*NORMALIZED* engine isn't
> inherently much
> harder on the engine. You're limited to sea-level manifold pressure, but
> you can make
> it at higher altitudes. About the only way that it's harder on the engine
> is
> decreased cooling due to thinner airflow, and increased intake air
> temperature due to
> the turbo. The former you're kinda stuck with, the latter can be helped
> with an
> intercooler. Both of which become more important the higher you go, but
> for
> relatively small increases (say, to decrease the effective DA from 12000
> to 6000), it
> wouldn't be hard on the engine much at all.

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/bonanza/turbo_primer.html

> I like the fact that a turbo-normalizer:
> - Does not have to lower the compression ratio of the engine
> - Usually has a stone-cold simple control.... just another throttle to
> twist when you
> run out of MP
> - Is not required at all times to make full, rated HP (at sea-level).
>
> I don't know what aircraft are often found with them, but I suspect
> they're
> somewhat scarce and impractical to add yourself.

Bonanzas primarily. One really nice thing is a TN makes lower altitudes
practical; no need to go to 12-15K feet

Beryl d'Shannon (sp) and TurboAlley are the two biggies with STC's.

I've had a TN IO-550 for just under 1700 hours now and it's been nothing
short of amazing. So far, none of the "horror stories" that Doug Paterson is
worried about. Thing is, a TN unit will run about $30K up to $45K installed.



Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Jay Honeck]

>> How can retractable gear *ever* be "a wash" with fixed gear? There's
>> just
>> a
>> lot more "stuff" in there to be maintained.

<Good stuff snipped>

Good points -- thanks for clarifying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow > wrote:
: Bonanzas primarily. One really nice thing is a TN makes lower altitudes
: practical; no need to go to 12-15K feet

: Beryl d'Shannon (sp) and TurboAlley are the two biggies with STC's.

: I've had a TN IO-550 for just under 1700 hours now and it's been nothing
: short of amazing. So far, none of the "horror stories" that Doug Paterson is
: worried about. Thing is, a TN unit will run about $30K up to $45K installed.

Like I said, impractical to add yourself. Question though... a buddy of mine
used to have a Cessna 310 Riley Rocket. In addition to the speed mods on the airframe
(bondo-buggy as he called it), it had *manual* wastegates. I would think that those
would be preferable, unless the wastegate controller on the aftermarket ones are
clever. From the looks of the ones on TurboAlley, it sounds like they are "hands-off"
turbo... Are they the same as the stock, suck-dick Piper turbo Arrow setup? In other
words, controlling the wastgate to always making maximum boost and then throttling
with the throttle plate?

Those are the kinds of "simple," yet horribly stupid design choices that lead
to premature engine/turbo wear. No point in pumping/heating 12000' air to 31" if
you're only going to run 23 squared. Anyone know?

-Cory


--

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

[Newps]

> > wrote in message

>>I don't know what aircraft are often found with them,

All turbo 182's are turbo normalized.

but I suspect
>>they're
>>somewhat scarce and impractical to add yourself.

Yes.

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
> : Bonanzas primarily. One really nice thing is a TN makes lower altitudes
> : practical; no need to go to 12-15K feet
>
> : Beryl d'Shannon (sp) and TurboAlley are the two biggies with STC's.
>
> : I've had a TN IO-550 for just under 1700 hours now and it's been nothing
> : short of amazing. So far, none of the "horror stories" that Doug
> Paterson is
> : worried about. Thing is, a TN unit will run about $30K up to $45K
> installed.
>
> Like I said, impractical to add yourself. Question though... a buddy of
> mine
> used to have a Cessna 310 Riley Rocket. In addition to the speed mods on
> the airframe
> (bondo-buggy as he called it), it had *manual* wastegates.

ICK!!!!

>I would think that those
> would be preferable, unless the wastegate controller on the aftermarket
> ones are
> clever. From the looks of the ones on TurboAlley, it sounds like they are
> "hands-off"
> turbo...

Yup...a popoff valve will release at about 30.0-31.5" MP. Nothing to control
or worry about...just fly.
No chance to overboost.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html (Those Firebreathing
Turbo's - part 1) Read all six...really good diagrams and illustrations.

> Are they the same as the stock, suck-dick Piper turbo Arrow setup? In
> other
> words, controlling the wastgate to always making maximum boost and then
> throttling
> with the throttle plate?
>
> Those are the kinds of "simple," yet horribly stupid design choices that
> lead
> to premature engine/turbo wear. No point in pumping/heating 12000' air to
> 31" if
> you're only going to run 23 squared. Anyone know?

Or if you're seldom going over 8-10000 feet.

I take it Doug is in Colorado Springs (6100-6800). He's worse than me
(5600'), but I have 14000 foot mountains to the East, and 10-12000 footers
West of me and we're down in a valley (a REALLY BIG one, but a valley
nonetheless).

It can certainly be done without a turbo, but the Springs during
June/July/August is going to be a thrill.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-02-20, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> 1. Speed. The Comanche does win in speed, of course. We cruise at 140
> knots, while the Comanche cruises at 157 knots. To put this in
> perspective, our flight to St. Louis this weekend took us 1:18. In the
> Comanche 250, it would have taken us 1:10.

To pick nits (this is USENET!) the difference is quite a bit more than 8
minutes (unless you fly the entire flight in ground effect). The
Comanche 250 climbs quite a bit quicker, and will also have a higher
speed cruise descent. The climb speed is probably a bit higher in the
Comanche too, so you'll be climbing at a higher rate and a faster
airspeed.

--
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

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow > wrote:
: > (bondo-buggy as he called it), it had *manual* wastegates.

: ICK!!!!

I *like* simple. Less crap to break, and *YOU* get to choose if you want to
use the turbo or not. If you run out of MP in a climb, just crank in a bit more on
throttle #2.

: Yup...a popoff valve will release at about 30.0-31.5" MP. Nothing to control
: or worry about...just fly.
: No chance to overboost.

Exactly... likely done like the flagrantly stupid design like Piper used. The
wastgate control "controlled" the inlet to the throttle at some arbitrary pressure.
No matter what throttle setting you use, you guarantee the maximum possible inlet
air temperature, turbo temperature, and power loss due to increased backpressure on
the engine. The *correct* way would be to leave the turbo off until the throttle
plate is wide open. THEN, bring up the boost if you want more MP. It could be done
with linkages with little failure liability.

If the aftermarkets work this way, I apologize, otherwise, the "flagrantly
stupid design" comment still holds IMO.

-Cory


--

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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-02-21, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I confess to not knowing enough about the Comanche's gear to comment. Is it
> that they *can't* or that they *won't* fly into a soft field?

Won't, I wager. I know a friend who takes his twin Comanche into a
(fairly rough - really, graded cow pasture) airfield. The single
Comanche has proportionately much stouter gear than the twin (same gear,
but the twin is heavier). The real issue with the twin Comanche is the
prop tips go green in modestly long grass because there's very little
prop clearance.

But for small retract gear planes with rough field capabilities, I don't
think anything beats the Bonanza. Very stout gear and decent sized
wheels, and reasonable prop clearance.

--
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]

On 2006-02-22, Douglas Paterson > wrote:
> The Comanches have a 20K ceiling and a reputation as good climbers (though
> I'm still looking for hard numbers in the above-8K'-DA regime), and bring a
> lot of versatility to the table. Bang-for-the-buck again....

I've only flown a Comanche a couple of times so take this for what it's
worth. When I did it, it was a long cross country to Denver.

I don't remember the specifics of the climb rate, however, it seemed
acceptable climbing out of Denver with 4 people on board and at gross
weight. The flight was in the warmer part of the year (I'll have to look
at the log book to find exactly when). Climb rate above 10,000' MSL was
pretty slow though - I think between 10K and 12K MSL we were climbing at
around 250-300fpm. I don't think we could have made 20,000' if we tried.
This was a Comanche 250.

--
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

[ktbr]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-02-20, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>>1. Speed. The Comanche does win in speed, of course. We cruise at 140
>>knots, while the Comanche cruises at 157 knots. To put this in
>>perspective, our flight to St. Louis this weekend took us 1:18. In the
>>Comanche 250, it would have taken us 1:10.
>
>
> To pick nits (this is USENET!) the difference is quite a bit more than 8
> minutes (unless you fly the entire flight in ground effect). The
> Comanche 250 climbs quite a bit quicker, and will also have a higher
> speed cruise descent. The climb speed is probably a bit higher in the
> Comanche too, so you'll be climbing at a higher rate and a faster
> airspeed.
>
Good point, I should have caught that one also. The fastest part of
any flight for me is the cruise descent where, if I can choose my
descent profile, my true airspeed is in the neighborhood of 200Mph.
Push the nose of a Comanche over just a bit and you get a lot more
speed; its not as easy to slow down as the fat winged Cherokees either.

[Newps]

Dylan Smith wrote:

>
> But for small retract gear planes with rough field capabilities, I don't
> think anything beats the Bonanza. Very stout gear and decent sized
> wheels, and reasonable prop clearance.

I have more prop clearance with my Bo than my 182 had with the big
tires. And when you look at where the nose gear attaches on the two
planes the Bo comes out even farther ahead, there's no way a Bo can
wheelbarrow up on the nose wheel like a 182. The mains on my Bo are
7.00x6, bigger than most single engine planes.

[Jeff]

don't be scared of the turbo arrow, when people talk bad about it, ask them if
they have one or if its a friends and its something they heard.
if you fly the plane right, it will be fine, I flew mine at 65% power, watched
the cylinder temps and had no engine problems. At 65% power I usually got 159
ktas. I flew out of winslow Az one hot afternoon, density altitude was 8800 ft,
plane at gross and I had no problems going up to 12,500 ft.

Jeff


> Considered, yes (among other tc models). Frankly, I'm scared of turbo--it
> seems like for every story of increased capability at altitude, there are
> three stories of huge maintenance bills, overhauls well short of TBO, etc.
> The Comanches have a 20K ceiling and a reputation as good climbers (though
> I'm still looking for hard numbers in the above-8K'-DA regime), and bring a
> lot of versatility to the table. Bang-for-the-buck again....

[Newps]

If you don't have to have a turbo for high altitude cruise flight it
would be silly to buy one of those vs my Bonanza. I get 175 kts TAS on
about 14 gph. My takeoff distance and rate of climb will be far better
than a turbo Arrow, the density altitude has to be pretty high for me to
be left with 200 HP. I did have a friend who had a turbo Arrow. You
have to operate it with kid gloves. Overheating the engine is a
nonfactor. I have a hard time keeping the temps above 300 in the
winter. Mine is a six seater although 4+2 is more like it with a killer
baggage area. High parts prices is turning out to be a myth, it's about
like the 182 I recently sold.

Jeff wrote:
> don't be scared of the turbo arrow, when people talk bad about it, ask them if
> they have one or if its a friends and its something they heard.
> if you fly the plane right, it will be fine, I flew mine at 65% power, watched
> the cylinder temps and had no engine problems. At 65% power I usually got 159
> ktas. I flew out of winslow Az one hot afternoon, density altitude was 8800 ft,
> plane at gross and I had no problems going up to 12,500 ft.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>> Considered, yes (among other tc models). Frankly, I'm scared of turbo--it
>>seems like for every story of increased capability at altitude, there are
>>three stories of huge maintenance bills, overhauls well short of TBO, etc.
>>The Comanches have a 20K ceiling and a reputation as good climbers (though
>>I'm still looking for hard numbers in the above-8K'-DA regime), and bring a
>>lot of versatility to the table. Bang-for-the-buck again....
>
>

[Jeff]

comparing a bonanza and an arrow is not even close.
A arrow is only 200 HP to begin with, plus your bonanza will use allot more fuel, the
insurance will be higher and the plane is more expensive to buy.

that being said, for a 200 HP plane, it performs much better then other 200 HP
planes, it does have to be flown with kid gloves, you can't just get in and not pay
attention to your power setting or your temps. the turbo arrow is a plane you have to
fly correctly, unlike allot of other planes.

Newps wrote:

> If you don't have to have a turbo for high altitude cruise flight it
> would be silly to buy one of those vs my Bonanza. I get 175 kts TAS on
> about 14 gph. My takeoff distance and rate of climb will be far better
> than a turbo Arrow, the density altitude has to be pretty high for me to
> be left with 200 HP. I did have a friend who had a turbo Arrow. You
> have to operate it with kid gloves. Overheating the engine is a
> nonfactor. I have a hard time keeping the temps above 300 in the
> winter. Mine is a six seater although 4+2 is more like it with a killer
> baggage area. High parts prices is turning out to be a myth, it's about
> like the 182 I recently sold.
>

[Douglas Paterson]

> wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow > wrote:

[snipped a good discussion between Cory & Matt on the virtues of
turbocharging]

Good info all around--thanks. However, it's cemented for me that I do NOT
want turbo charging, at least not the first time out.

Note, I'm not knocking turbo--it's just not for me, not this time....

--
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]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-02-22, Douglas Paterson > wrote:
>> The Comanches have a 20K ceiling and a reputation as good climbers
>> (though
>> I'm still looking for hard numbers in the above-8K'-DA regime), and bring
>> a
>> lot of versatility to the table. Bang-for-the-buck again....
>
> I've only flown a Comanche a couple of times so take this for what it's
> worth. When I did it, it was a long cross country to Denver.
>
> I don't remember the specifics of the climb rate, however, it seemed
> acceptable climbing out of Denver with 4 people on board and at gross
> weight. The flight was in the warmer part of the year (I'll have to look
> at the log book to find exactly when). Climb rate above 10,000' MSL was
> pretty slow though - I think between 10K and 12K MSL we were climbing at
> around 250-300fpm. I don't think we could have made 20,000' if we tried.
> This was a Comanche 250.
>

Thanks for the data point. Yeah, I put service ceiling in the same "grain
of salt" category as other "book" numbers. However, a "book" ceiling of
20,000' probably indicates a better real number than a "book" ceiling of
14,000'.

--
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]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> If you don't have to have a turbo for high altitude cruise flight it would
> be silly to buy one of those vs my Bonanza. I get 175 kts TAS on about 14
> gph. My takeoff distance and rate of climb will be far better than a
> turbo Arrow, the density altitude has to be pretty high for me to be left
> with 200 HP. I did have a friend who had a turbo Arrow. You have to
> operate it with kid gloves. Overheating the engine is a nonfactor. I
> have a hard time keeping the temps above 300 in the winter. Mine is a six
> seater although 4+2 is more like it with a killer baggage area. High
> parts prices is turning out to be a myth, it's about like the 182 I
> recently sold.
>
> Jeff wrote:
>> don't be scared of the turbo arrow, when people talk bad about it, ask
>> them if
>> they have one or if its a friends and its something they heard.
>> if you fly the plane right, it will be fine, I flew mine at 65% power,
>> watched
>> the cylinder temps and had no engine problems. At 65% power I usually got
>> 159
>> ktas. I flew out of winslow Az one hot afternoon, density altitude was
>> 8800 ft,
>> plane at gross and I had no problems going up to 12,500 ft.
>>
>> Jeff

Thanks for the input. Turbo's out for me, at least for my first foray into
airplane ownership. As for the Bonanza, I certainly DO like the numbers.
What I DON'T like is the weird controls and the higher price (acquisition,
if not parts, as Newps says).

So: turbo's out; non-turbo Arrow just doesn't have quite the capability I'm
looking for (though it's doubtless a great plane); and Bonanza's on the
back-burner--I still see the Comanche as better bang/$....

--
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]]

Douglas Paterson > wrote:
: Note, I'm not knocking turbo--it's just not for me, not this time....

... then you need lots of engine. :)

-Cory

--

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Douglas Paterson" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> [snipped a good discussion between Cory & Matt on the virtues of
> turbocharging]
>
> Good info all around--thanks. However, it's cemented for me that I do NOT
> want turbo charging, at least not the first time out.
>
> Note, I'm not knocking turbo--it's just not for me, not this time....
>
Couple questions:

Where do you live/fly our of?

What is your "mission profile"?

How many hours do you have? How many with a constant speed prop?

If you live in Kansas, turbocharging is going to be a waste; if it's the
Rocky Mountain west, it's damn near a necessity.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Douglas Paterson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Thanks for the input. Turbo's out for me, at least for my first foray
> into airplane ownership. As for the Bonanza, I certainly DO like the
> numbers. What I DON'T like is the weird controls and the higher price
> (acquisition, if not parts, as Newps says).

I'm going to sell my Bonanza this spring and I'll probably make about
$40-50K over what I bought it for in 2000, allowing for the engine exchange
and TN package I had installed. They really hold their value.

Bonanza parts are NOT a problem. Before my Bo I had a T210...parts were
always available, and the 210 ate them like snacks.

> So: turbo's out; non-turbo Arrow just doesn't have quite the capability
> I'm looking for (though it's doubtless a great plane); and Bonanza's on
> the back-burner--I still see the Comanche as better bang/$....
>

Good luck whichever way you go!

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Jim Carter]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas Paterson ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:25 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: Narrowing it down... Comanche?
> Subject: Re: Narrowing it down... Comanche?
>
> ...clipped for brevity...
>
> Thanks for the data point. Yeah, I put service ceiling in the same
"grain
> of salt" category as other "book" numbers. However, a "book" ceiling
of
> 20,000' probably indicates a better real number than a "book" ceiling
of
> 14,000'.
>
> --
> 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)
>

[Jim Carter] Doug,
Something I hadn't thought about until just now is how long you intend
to keep the bird. If you would be keeping it long enough to use it for
lots of instrument work, then you might want to re-consider the turbo
aspect. For example, I think the MEAs west of you get quite high for a
normally aspirated bird, isn't Monarch around 16K?

I know you can go north or south to get around the high country, but
that lengthens your time enroute and probably negates any speed
advantage you might have with the Comanche. (Am I making a good enough
case for a 400 here?)

I don't remember seeing this small point discussed in your thread so
far, but then I missed your comments about the Cherokee 235 too.

[Newps]

Jeff wrote:
> comparing a bonanza and an arrow is not even close.

No it's not. The initial purchase price will be very similar. I paid
$88K for my Bo last August. What's the typical Turbo Arrow going for?


> A arrow is only 200 HP to begin with, plus your bonanza will use allot more fuel, the
> insurance will be higher and the plane is more expensive to buy.

I will burn 14 gph to go 175 kts. To get your 150 kts I am closer to 10
gph. Insurance more than anything will vary with pilot qualifications.
Assuming similar pilots the insurance tab will be very close if not
more for the Arrow because you have a turbo.


>
> that being said, for a 200 HP plane, it performs much better then other 200 HP
> planes, it does have to be flown with kid gloves, you can't just get in and not pay
> attention to your power setting or your temps. the turbo arrow is a plane you have to
> fly correctly, unlike allot of other planes.

Having owned three planes now I would much rather have one where I have
no worries about power settings and burning up cylinders if I'm not careful.

[Dave Butler]

Newps wrote:
<snip>
> Insurance more than anything will vary with pilot qualifications.
> Assuming similar pilots the insurance tab will be very close if not
> more for the Arrow because you have a turbo.
<snip>

I haven't done an A/B comparison of the insurance costs, but I thought the
insurance premium for a 6-seater was in general much higher than a 4-seater.
I've never heard of extra premium for a turbo.

[Newps]

Dave Butler wrote:
> Newps wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Insurance more than anything will vary with pilot qualifications.
>> Assuming similar pilots the insurance tab will be very close if not
>> more for the Arrow because you have a turbo.
>
> <snip>
>
> I haven't done an A/B comparison of the insurance costs, but I thought
> the insurance premium for a 6-seater was in general much higher than a
> 4-seater. I've never heard of extra premium for a turbo.

And sometimes it just won't make any sense. For example about a year
ago, while I had my 182, I called my agent for a quote on a P206,
limited to four seats. No turbo. They wanted $1800 on a $90K hull.
When I bought my Bonanza I had zero retract time in my 1100 hours. The
insurance will be $1500. That's a six seat RG. I completely forgot to
ask them the cost if limited to four seats, I will do that at renewall
to see if it matters for this model. A turbo will always cost more than
a non turbo of the same model for insurance. I suppose some models the
difference is greater. A 210 vs a T210 is a big difference. Maybe the
Arrow has such limited performance that the insurance company doesn't
worry so much that you will be in the flight levels screwing up.

[Jay Honeck]

>> To pick nits (this is USENET!) the difference is quite a bit more than 8
>> minutes (unless you fly the entire flight in ground effect). The
>> Comanche 250 climbs quite a bit quicker, and will also have a higher
>> speed cruise descent. The climb speed is probably a bit higher in the
>> Comanche too, so you'll be climbing at a higher rate and a faster
>> airspeed.

Well, I just dialed the two planes into Destination Direct, and came up with
the 8 minute difference between the aircraft. Supposedly the program is set
up to take climb and descent into account, but I haven't checked the numbers
with a whiz wheel.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Douglas Paterson]

> wrote in message
...
> Douglas Paterson > wrote:
> : Note, I'm not knocking turbo--it's just not for me, not this time....
>
> ... then you need lots of engine. :)
>

No doubt. I know that was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment, but it does
point to a serious question I've had brewing:

How big is "lots of" (i.e., "enough") engine? Is the 250/260 hp of the
Comanche's "big enough"?

--
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]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Douglas Paterson" > wrote in message
>>
>> Note, I'm not knocking turbo--it's just not for me, not this time....
>>
> Couple questions:
>
> Where do you live/fly our of?

Live/will be flying out of Colorado Springs, CO--looks like we're
practically neighbors! :)

>
> What is your "mission profile"?
>

I'm a bit vague on this point still. Plenty of $100 hamburgers, no doubt,
but also several cross countries a year. My benchmark trip I used to try to
develop my requirements was a weekend run to Las Vegas. 600sm-ish, forces
me to consider high terrain, and it's a trip I would be very likely to
actually make once I have my own wings! :)

> How many hours do you have? How many with a constant speed prop?

~4,200 hours, most of it in heavy jets; ~130 in small, GA-type airplanes, ~5
of that with a c/s prop (Seneca I got my ATP in, also the only GA twin I've
flown).

>
> If you live in Kansas, turbocharging is going to be a waste; if it's the
> Rocky Mountain west, it's damn near a necessity.
>

Well, Rocky Mountain West it is. I'm not *in* the mountains like you, but
any westerly course from here will involve mountains, and I have high field
elevations and even higher DAs to deal with. "Damn near" a necessity still
leaves some wiggle room :).... Seriously, do you have an opinion or
experiences to share on some tc vs non-tc performance in this area? As I
say, I'm zeroing in on Comanche as the right model for me--but, if I can't
get it off the ground, I'll obviously have to re-evaluate that position....

--
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]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> Something I hadn't thought about until just now is how long you intend
> to keep the bird. If you would be keeping it long enough to use it for
> lots of instrument work, then you might want to re-consider the turbo
> aspect. For example, I think the MEAs west of you get quite high for a
> normally aspirated bird, isn't Monarch around 16K?
>
> I know you can go north or south to get around the high country, but
> that lengthens your time enroute and probably negates any speed
> advantage you might have with the Comanche. (Am I making a good enough
> case for a 400 here?)
>


"How long" is probably the biggest variable in the whole equation for me,
and I simply don't have any way to answer it. "Until I want a
new/different/more capable plane or I'm unable to fly it," I guess. As for
how much instrument traveling, again, that's a bit of an open
question--however, I think the lengthening of any trips due to going around
will be small enough as to be a lesser consideration. Still there, of
course, but not the primary decision point.

Heh--I'd love a 400. Bit out of my league, though, I'm afraid.... ;)

--
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)

[Newps]

Douglas Paterson wrote:


>
>>If you live in Kansas, turbocharging is going to be a waste; if it's the
>>Rocky Mountain west, it's damn near a necessity.
>>
>
>
> Well, Rocky Mountain West it is. I'm not *in* the mountains like you, but
> any westerly course from here will involve mountains, and I have high field
> elevations and even higher DAs to deal with.

You don't need a turbo unless you do IFR and you shouldn't be IFR in the
mountains in a single. I've had a 182 and now a Bonanza and they are
well suited to mountain VFR flight. I wouldn't hesitate to go anywhere
, in or out of the mountains, in either plane.

[Matt Barrow]

"Douglas Paterson" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Douglas Paterson > wrote:
>> : Note, I'm not knocking turbo--it's just not for me, not this time....
>>
>> ... then you need lots of engine. :)
>>
>
> No doubt. I know that was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment, but it does
> point to a serious question I've had brewing:
>
> How big is "lots of" (i.e., "enough") engine?
..
Enough to generate sufficient rate-of-climb given your normal load factor.

> Is the 250/260 hp of the Comanche's "big enough"?

Depends on which way you're going.

[Matt Barrow]

"Douglas Paterson" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Douglas Paterson" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> Note, I'm not knocking turbo--it's just not for me, not this time....
>>>
>> Couple questions:
>>
>> Where do you live/fly our of?
>
> Live/will be flying out of Colorado Springs, CO--looks like we're
> practically neighbors! :)

Yeah...175 miles apart, separated by twenty some 14000 foot peaks :~)
>
>>
>> What is your "mission profile"?
>>
>
> I'm a bit vague on this point still. Plenty of $100 hamburgers, no doubt,
> but also several cross countries a year.

Going to...? (East or West)

>My benchmark trip I used to try to develop my requirements was a weekend
>run to Las Vegas. 600sm-ish, forces me to consider high terrain, and it's
>a trip I would be very likely to actually make once I have my own wings!
>:)
>
>> How many hours do you have? How many with a constant speed prop?
>
> ~4,200 hours, most of it in heavy jets; ~130 in small, GA-type airplanes,
> ~5 of that with a c/s prop (Seneca I got my ATP in, also the only GA twin
> I've flown).

Okay...you've been around the pattern a few times...:~) (You sounded
hesitant...)

>
>>
>> If you live in Kansas, turbocharging is going to be a waste; if it's the
>> Rocky Mountain west, it's damn near a necessity.
>>
>
> Well, Rocky Mountain West it is. I'm not *in* the mountains like you, but
> any westerly course from here will involve mountains, and I have high
> field elevations and even higher DAs to deal with. "Damn near" a
> necessity still leaves some wiggle room :).... Seriously, do you have an
> opinion or experiences to share on some tc vs non-tc performance in this
> area? As I say, I'm zeroing in on Comanche as the right model for
> me--but, if I can't get it off the ground, I'll obviously have to
> re-evaluate that position....

Big point is if your "missions" are going to be personal or business and
whether your business can be delayed very often.

My flying habits and equipment requirements took a very drastic turn when I
started using airplanes to run my business. A delay or postponement once in
a while isn't that big of a deal but much of my work is _rather_ time
critical. It's also spread across half a million square miles.

Being on the Western Slope, I needed the ability to get to 16-17K feet or
better with regularity (the vst majority of my work is the midwest/plains).
Going westbound is a lot easier with lower peaks and more open country. You
might not need to for your purposes. (My biggest problem is avoiding TS
buildups in the afternoon on my way home (When I have to go East, I'm
usually "wheels up" right at sunrise). I even considered moving to the
Eastern slope :~(

Finally, there are a lot of people who fly normally aspriated aircraft,
including many here in town, but not to many that _have_ to go east or to do
it on a schedule. My preference, though, is going OVER mountains, not around
or under them.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> You don't need a turbo unless you do IFR and you shouldn't be IFR in the
> mountains in a single.

Yes and no.

Certainly not _hard_ IFR and not in something that you chintzed on
maintenance/equipment.

> I've had a 182 and now a Bonanza and they are well suited to mountain VFR
> flight. I wouldn't hesitate to go anywhere , in or out of the mountains,
> in either plane.

Even a NA Bonanza still has reserves of power -- I'm not sure a Comanche 250
does.

[Doug]

In the Rocky Mountains, if there is IMC, there is almost always ice.
Also, the MEA's are frequently in the oxygen required levels. It really
isn't IFR territory for GA aircraft. Stay VFR is the rule here. The Fed
Ex Caravan crashed due to ice on approach into Steamboat, and he was
turbine and de-iced.

Turbo in the mountains really isn't needed, but you DO need more
horsepower than on the flats. A normally aspirated 182 is the the
standard issue Rocky Mountain airplane. Something with a little more
omph than a 150 horse Cessna or Piper is adequate. People DO fly low
power airplanes, but youi have to pick a perfect day and it is as much
soaring as it is powered flying......

[Douglas Paterson]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> You don't need a turbo unless you do IFR and you shouldn't be IFR in the
> mountains in a single. I've had a 182 and now a Bonanza and they are well
> suited to mountain VFR flight. I wouldn't hesitate to go anywhere , in or
> out of the mountains, in either plane.
>
>

Thanks for the words. Kind of backs up my thoughts, but I'm asking these
questions for the very reason that I don't really know. My previous
mountain flying experience has consisted of "climb to FL350 on course"....
:)

--
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]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> Live/will be flying out of Colorado Springs, CO--looks like we're
>> practically neighbors! :)
>
> Yeah...175 miles apart, separated by twenty some 14000 foot peaks :~)
>>

Well, one of the folks helping me on this board has a .sig indicating he's
in the UK--so, yes, we're "neighbors"! :)

>>> What is your "mission profile"?
>>>
>>
>> I'm a bit vague on this point still. Plenty of $100 hamburgers, no
>> doubt, but also several cross countries a year.
>
> Going to...? (East or West)
>

Yes. :) Meaning, I'll be going both ways, depending on the trip in
question. One fantastic result of 15 years (and counting) in the Air Force
is I have friends in just about every corner of the country. Plus, as I
indicated on my "benchmark" Las Vegas trip, I'm a gambler who has a flying
problem, so I need the ability to make it to Southern Nevada.... :D


>>My benchmark trip I used to try to develop my requirements was a weekend
>>run to Las Vegas. 600sm-ish, forces me to consider high terrain, and it's
>>a trip I would be very likely to actually make once I have my own wings!
>>:)
>>
>>> How many hours do you have? How many with a constant speed prop?
>>
>> ~4,200 hours, most of it in heavy jets; ~130 in small, GA-type airplanes,
>> ~5 of that with a c/s prop (Seneca I got my ATP in, also the only GA twin
>> I've flown).
>
> Okay...you've been around the pattern a few times...:~) (You sounded
> hesitant...)
>

Absolutely--you're quite correct about my hesitancy, even if you misjudged
its source. I have three things giving me pause (hesitancy) here:

1) My GA experience (all whopping ~130 hours of it) is about 10 years out
of date

2) I have zero experience in GA at high altitude ops--the highest field
I've flown a small plane in or out of has been in the 2,500' FE range; the
FEs around here are at altitudes I've previously cruised at! Zero mountain
flying, either.

3) I have zero experience with owning--it's all rental flying and
theoretical "owning" up to now.

Put those together, and I have no doubt that I've got lots to learn--as I
have been doing during this discussion, thank to the help of everyone's kind
input!

>
> Big point is if your "missions" are going to be personal or business and
> whether your business can be delayed very often.
>

That's a big difference, then, between you and me. My anticipated use is
purely personal. At least for the foreseeable future, any "business use" I
manage to come up with will be of the "unreimbursed employee business
expense" variety, and definitely not a purely business activity....

>
> Finally, there are a lot of people who fly normally aspriated aircraft,
> including many here in town, but not to many that _have_ to go east or to
> do it on a schedule. My preference, though, is going OVER mountains, not
> around or under them.
>

That clears up the discussion a lot for me. Any time I _have_ to be
somewhere by airplane, I'll grit my teeth and buy an airline ticket.
Otherwise, I'll be flying 95% for the hell of it and 5% to get there.... :)
In the mean time, I can live with going around the mountains. Should I
change my opinion of that with a little experience under my belt, I can
always call a "do over".... ;)

Thanks again for the 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)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-02-26, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>> I've had a 182 and now a Bonanza and they are well suited to mountain VFR
>> flight. I wouldn't hesitate to go anywhere , in or out of the mountains,
>> in either plane.
>
> Even a NA Bonanza still has reserves of power -- I'm not sure a Comanche 250
> does.

Depends how heavy you are. With 4 people and at max gross, the Comanche
struggles (in my direct experience) and has a very slow climb rate above
10,000 feet in the warmer part of the year, but I bet if flown solo (or
well below gross) it's adequate.

--
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]

On 2006-02-25, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Well, I just dialed the two planes into Destination Direct, and came up with
> the 8 minute difference between the aircraft. Supposedly the program is set
> up to take climb and descent into account, but I haven't checked the numbers
> with a whiz wheel.

Oh, and while we are on the subject - your example is (I expect) based
on zero wind. As the headwind component increases, the faster plane has
a greater percentage advantage. Consider:

A 450nm trip (let's ignore time to climb)
Pathfinder: 140kts
Comanche: 157kts
S-35 Bonanza: 165kts

With no wind, the Pathfinder is looking at 3.2 hours. The Comanche is
looking at 2.9 hours and the Bonanza is looking at 2.7 hours.

Now let's have a reasonably windy day - 30 knots at any reasonable
altitude you're going to want to fly at (which in my experience, isn't
that unusual).

This makes the Pathfinder take 4.1 hours, the Comanche take 3.5 hours
and the Bonanza take 3.3 hours. The Comanche's speed advantage has gone
up from a rather measily 0.3 hours to 0.6 hours. If this is an IFR trip,
the Comanche's speed advantage may jump even further if he can eliminate
a fuel stop (and the extra speed gives the Comanche a whole lot of
extra legal alternates). The difference of course is more dramatic
with the Bonanza, he arrives almost an hour before the Pathfinder. For
reference, the S-35 Bonanza we had in the club burned 14gph at 165 ktas.

That's not to mention that when the Bonanza lands, he'd have burned
about 12 gallons less fuel. I was really glad that I was in the club's
Bonanza and not the 182 when I was facing a 50 knot headwind over
Louisiana! (If we take the less usual 50 knot headwind, you're looking
at a 5 hour trip in a Pathfinder and 3.9 hours in the Bonanza).

The conclusion: if you're flying long legs, even 15 knots extra speed
can make quite a difference.

--
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

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-02-26, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>> I've had a 182 and now a Bonanza and they are well suited to mountain
>>> VFR
>>> flight. I wouldn't hesitate to go anywhere , in or out of the
>>> mountains,
>>> in either plane.
>>
>> Even a NA Bonanza still has reserves of power -- I'm not sure a Comanche
>> 250
>> does.
>
> Depends how heavy you are. With 4 people and at max gross, the Comanche
> struggles (in my direct experience) and has a very slow climb rate above
> 10,000 feet in the warmer part of the year, but I bet if flown solo (or
> well below gross) it's adequate.
>
A Bonanza will always outclimb a Comanche.

Out here in the Rockies, I want something that climbs like a homesick angel.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Newps]

Dylan Smith wrote:

>
> A 450nm trip (let's ignore time to climb)

Then the S35 gets 175 kts.

> Pathfinder: 140kts
> Comanche: 157kts
> S-35 Bonanza: 165kts

[kontiki]

After the novelty wears off, long trips suck in a slow airplane.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-02-27, Newps > wrote:
>
>
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> A 450nm trip (let's ignore time to climb)
>
> Then the S35 gets 175 kts.

Ours got 165 ktas, but on the other hand I was probably flying it at 65%
power for longer legs and less fuel burn (it's been 5 years since I flew
it so my numbers might not be exact).

--
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]

On 2006-02-27, kontiki > wrote:
> After the novelty wears off, long trips suck in a slow airplane.

The novelty never wore off for me. I flew a Cessna 140 coast to coast
(in the United States). It took me two months and 100 flight hours, but
I'd have never missed it for the world (and I'd have never done that
particular trip in anything faster, either!)

--
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

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-02-27, kontiki > wrote:
>> After the novelty wears off, long trips suck in a slow airplane.
>
> The novelty never wore off for me. I flew a Cessna 140 coast to coast
> (in the United States). It took me two months and 100 flight hours, but
> I'd have never missed it for the world (and I'd have never done that
> particular trip in anything faster, either!)

Weren't on a schedule, were ya? :~)

[Peter R.]

Doug > wrote:

> In the Rocky Mountains, if there is IMC, there is almost always ice.
> Also, the MEA's are frequently in the oxygen required levels. It really
> isn't IFR territory for GA aircraft. Stay VFR is the rule here. The Fed
> Ex Caravan crashed due to ice on approach into Steamboat, and he was
> turbine and de-iced.

Based on my understanding, a Caravan icing accident is not a fair
demonstration of your point. There have been a relative high number of
Caravan accidents due to ice over the last ten or so years, including two
on the same night within minutes of each other out of Plattsburgh, NY,
which has an elevation of somewhere around 300 feet MSL.

Isn't the FAA taking a very close look at the Caravan's known ice
certification these days?



--
Peter

[Jeff]

you paid 88k for a 6 seat bonanza? A36 ?
must be a very old one.
you still cannot compare an old airplane with a newer one.

Newps wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
> > comparing a bonanza and an arrow is not even close.
>
> No it's not. The initial purchase price will be very similar. I paid
> $88K for my Bo last August. What's the typical Turbo Arrow going for?
>
> > A arrow is only 200 HP to begin with, plus your bonanza will use allot more fuel, the
> > insurance will be higher and the plane is more expensive to buy.
>
> I will burn 14 gph to go 175 kts. To get your 150 kts I am closer to 10
> gph. Insurance more than anything will vary with pilot qualifications.
> Assuming similar pilots the insurance tab will be very close if not
> more for the Arrow because you have a turbo.
>
> >
> > that being said, for a 200 HP plane, it performs much better then other 200 HP
> > planes, it does have to be flown with kid gloves, you can't just get in and not pay
> > attention to your power setting or your temps. the turbo arrow is a plane you have to
> > fly correctly, unlike allot of other planes.
>
> Having owned three planes now I would much rather have one where I have
> no worries about power settings and burning up cylinders if I'm not careful.

[Jeff]

I flew my arrow from vegas to louisville ky, took about 9-10 hours and 2
fuel stops
in a car it would have taken 3 days to do the trip. I had a blast, I think
I prefer flying over the midwest and southern states then the desert SW.
lots more to see there then here.

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2006-02-27, kontiki > wrote:
> > After the novelty wears off, long trips suck in a slow airplane.
>
> The novelty never wore off for me. I flew a Cessna 140 coast to coast
> (in the United States). It took me two months and 100 flight hours, but
> I'd have never missed it for the world (and I'd have never done that
> particular trip in anything faster, either!)
>
> --
> 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

[Jay Honeck]

>> > After the novelty wears off, long trips suck in a slow airplane.
>I flew my arrow from vegas to louisville ky, took about 9-10 hours and 2
> fuel stops
> in a car it would have taken 3 days to do the trip. I had a blast, I think

I love flying long x-country in GA planes. We've criss-crossed the country
in a 150 hp Warrior (not real fun in high density altitudes), our 235 hp
Pathfinder, and -- just last week -- in the right seat of a 500 hp Aztec
(250 hp x 2 engines).

None of these planes is particularly fast, but they're still light years
ahead of driving -- and the sights we've seen! It's a wondrous -- albeit
unreliable -- way to travel, and we simply love the feeling of being 1000
miles from home at a small GA airport. Flying commercial just plain sucks.

> I prefer flying over the midwest and southern states then the desert SW.
> lots more to see there then here.

The Midwest is beautiful, but I find flying over mountain and canyon country
to be fantastic. Stark, and kinda scary -- but gorgeous and alluring.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
>
> The Midwest is beautiful, but I find flying over mountain and canyon country
> to be fantastic. Stark, and kinda scary -- but gorgeous and alluring.

So when are you going to join us for the annual work party at Schafer
Meadows? More party than work and I guarantee you've never been any
place as beautiful as this. It's always the third week of July so this
year it will be the 14-16th. We usually fly in on Thursday so we have
the place to ourselves for a day. I've sent you a couple of pictures to
your hotels email.

[skym]

OK, Newps...this is at 4855' MSL, and in the middle of July! 3200' x
60' "turf" runway with "gopher holes in runway" according to the
Montana Airport Directory, and "for experienced pilots only." Not to
mention the "frequent horses, deer, moose and bear frequently on
runway." You may consider this sport; but a flatlander? Hell, even I'm
intimidated by this, and I fly this altitude routinely, like you. Oh
yeah, the one way runway, also. One look at the Montana Aeronautics
Division map or the sectional, and you better warn him to bring extra
underware. ;) BTW, when I flew this on MSFlite Sim 2002, I barely
made it out the first time in a C182.
That said, can my wife and I do it in my 172/180????