Used Avionics

[O. Sami Saydjari]

I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
$12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or a
GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical to
consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
(web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
in addition to names of places).

By the way, thanks for all the great help I have been getting on this
forum. It really helps me make some hard decisions about my first purchase.

-Sami

[Dave Butler]

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
> ...where might I get used avionics
> (web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
> in addition to names of places).

I bought a couple of used radios from http://www.avionix.com and I was happy
with the way I was treated. Actually, I initially bought some new KX-170B
slide-in replacements, but I was unhappy with them, and they took them back and
sold me some used KX-155s. They held my hand the whole way, provided good advice
and I came away happy. I don't own that plane any more, but the KX-155s are
still in it and working fine.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[[email protected]]

: consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
: (web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
: in addition to names of places).

If you're careful and savvy:

http://www.ebay.com


:)

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Kobra]

Just buy a portable unit like the 196 or 295 Garmin. Then sell it on ebay
when you trade up. If you put in a panel mounted unit (used or new) you
will not see much of your money back.

Kobra


"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
> expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
> does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
> $12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or a
> GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
> situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical to
> consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
> (web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
> in addition to names of places).
>
> By the way, thanks for all the great help I have been getting on this
> forum. It really helps me make some hard decisions about my first
purchase.
>
> -Sami
>

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
O. Sami Saydjari > wrote:
>I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
>expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
>does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
>$12-$15K

No, but you can probably find an airplane that's already so-equipped in
your price range. It's always cheaper to buy a plane that's configured
how you want.

Remember, used avionics cost just as much (maybe more!) to install,
and a large part of any avionics upgrade is the installation.

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

[Jeff]

This is not always true, when I sold my old cherokee 180, I had put a new
garmin stack in, 430,x-ponder, audio panel and some other stuff, I got back
90% of what I had into the plane, plus, it sold in 4 days.

I cant expect to get back 100% because I did fly it and use the equipment so I
was happy with what I got back from it.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


Kobra wrote:

> Just buy a portable unit like the 196 or 295 Garmin. Then sell it on ebay
> when you trade up. If you put in a panel mounted unit (used or new) you
> will not see much of your money back.
>
> Kobra

[Jeff]

Sami
It actually depends how much your paying for the plane (if you got a good deal
on the price) if you get your money back on the avionics you put into it.
I put 20K in new avionics in my plane, I may or may not get it back, but I dont
plan on selling my plane anytime soon. The avionics is something I wanted and
something I use is why I got them, if I got back 100% of their cost was not
something I considered, having my airplane the way I wanted it what mattered to
me.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
> expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
> does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
> $12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or a
> GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
> situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical to
> consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
> (web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
> in addition to names of places).
>
> By the way, thanks for all the great help I have been getting on this
> forum. It really helps me make some hard decisions about my first purchase.
>
> -Sami

[Jeff]

what kind of plane are you getting, if you dont mind...

jeff

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
> expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
> does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
> $12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or a
> GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
> situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical to
> consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
> (web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
> in addition to names of places).
>
> By the way, thanks for all the great help I have been getting on this
> forum. It really helps me make some hard decisions about my first purchase.
>
> -Sami

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> This is not always true, when I sold my old cherokee 180, I had put a new
> garmin stack in, 430,x-ponder, audio panel and some other stuff, I got
back
> 90% of what I had into the plane, plus, it sold in 4 days.
>

It must have been a good market then because that is quite extraordinary
(unless you're dealing with someone who has more money than buying savvy).

http://www.planedata.com/aircraft%20evaluation%20methods.htm

[Tom S.]

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
> expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
> does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
> $12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or a
> GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
> situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical to
> consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
> (web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
> in addition to names of places).

Many avionics shops have used gear that they replaced. Finding _current_
equipment is going to be tougher.

This place has refurbished equipment: http://www.psavionics.com/

The F33A I'm buying has a basic panel (dual KX-155's, ADF, DME, Loran,
Xpder...) which is what I want. I figure to remove the 2nd KX-155 and the
Loran and replace it with a Garmin GNS-530 ($13,150 installed)
http://www.pacific-coast-avionics.com/detail.asp?id=4448.

Also we'll replace the transponder and put in a Garmin GTX-327 and the Audio
Pnael with a PSEngineering audio panal (7000B) and intercom. Then it's a
TATurbo Whirlwind (Turbo Normalization) and an oxygen system.

All in all, it's looking to be about $78K, but I expect to have this plane
for at least five to seven years. It's also a 1992 model, so it's not like
having an antique bird that's over-equipped. Putting an elaborate panel into
an antique is just going to cost a lot of money that will never hold it's
value (or so I'm led to believe).

Like anything else, make the equipment suit the mission just as you'd build
a home that suits the neighborhood.

[Jeff]

It was march of this year.
Maybe he just knew a good deal when he saw it.
If you take care of your plane, it will take care of you.

His comments were that he was glad to finally look at a plane that wasnt trashed
out and had good avionics.

Jeff


"Tom S." wrote:

> "Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> > This is not always true, when I sold my old cherokee 180, I had put a new
> > garmin stack in, 430,x-ponder, audio panel and some other stuff, I got
> back
> > 90% of what I had into the plane, plus, it sold in 4 days.
> >
>
> It must have been a good market then because that is quite extraordinary
> (unless you're dealing with someone who has more money than buying savvy).
>
> http://www.planedata.com/aircraft%20evaluation%20methods.htm

[Jeff]

the KX155's are great radio's , it should be easy for you to sell the extra one
unless you keep it as a spare.

your getting a 1992 bonanza for 75k ?
thats one hell of a deal, I was looking around at them just a second ago and
found a 1993 for $200k, and some 1970's ones for 130-170k - if you get it for
75k its a plane you can make money back on by the looks of other F33A's.

I paid 85k for my 1978 Turbo Arrow III then an additional 20k for the new
avionics.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


"Tom S." wrote:

> "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
>
> > I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
> > expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
> > does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
> > $12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or a
> > GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
> > situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical to
> > consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
> > (web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
> > in addition to names of places).
>
> Many avionics shops have used gear that they replaced. Finding _current_
> equipment is going to be tougher.
>
> This place has refurbished equipment: http://www.psavionics.com/
>
> The F33A I'm buying has a basic panel (dual KX-155's, ADF, DME, Loran,
> Xpder...) which is what I want. I figure to remove the 2nd KX-155 and the
> Loran and replace it with a Garmin GNS-530 ($13,150 installed)
> http://www.pacific-coast-avionics.com/detail.asp?id=4448.
>
> Also we'll replace the transponder and put in a Garmin GTX-327 and the Audio
> Pnael with a PSEngineering audio panal (7000B) and intercom. Then it's a
> TATurbo Whirlwind (Turbo Normalization) and an oxygen system.
>
> All in all, it's looking to be about $78K, but I expect to have this plane
> for at least five to seven years. It's also a 1992 model, so it's not like
> having an antique bird that's over-equipped. Putting an elaborate panel into
> an antique is just going to cost a lot of money that will never hold it's
> value (or so I'm led to believe).
>
> Like anything else, make the equipment suit the mission just as you'd build
> a home that suits the neighborhood.

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Jeff, I have "narrowed it down" to three planes:

1965 Piper Comanche PA-24-260
1978 Mooney "201" M20J
1977 Piper Arrow III

-Sami

Jeff wrote:

> what kind of plane are you getting, if you dont mind...
>
> jeff
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
>
>
>>I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
>>expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
>>does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
>>$12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or a
>>GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
>>situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical to
>>consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
>>(web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
>>in addition to names of places).
>>
>>By the way, thanks for all the great help I have been getting on this
>>forum. It really helps me make some hard decisions about my first purchase.
>>
>>-Sami
>>
>

[Jeff]

comanche 260 , awsome plane, I saw one take off with full fuel, 90 degree's
outside and 4 adults. There were like 7 of us out there watching to see if it
would get off the ground, me, the fuel guy and several others, it didnt have any
problems. Comanche's are like mooney's in that they are very clean airplanes.

Mooney, dont know much about them except the cockpit looks awful small.

Arrow III, you may be a bit disappointed, I have flown the Normally Aspirated
Arrow III and I own a Turbo Arrow III. The normally aspirated Arrow is not a fast
airplane. About 130-135 kts. The Turbo Arrow is a 150 kt airplane and gives much
better performance then the normally aspirated one. The T-arrow will maintain its
200 HP all the way up to 12,000 ft DA. I have taken off from an airport with a DA
of 8800 ft, gross weight, no problems. The engine in the T-Arrow is different then
the normal arrow, the T-Arrow has a Cont. 6 cylinder fuel injected turbo charged
engine and is actually rated at either 210 or 215 HP cant remember which. The same
engine is used in some other planes at 210 HP.
The insurance on it is not bad either, was alot cheaper then the comanche 400 I
was originally looking at. Also the T-Arrow seems to perform its best at
8000-13,000 ft. The POH says at 17,000 it will do 172 kts. At 14,000 a few days
ago, I had a TAS of 165 kts and a GS of 183 kts. (of course going the other way I
was only getting like 140kts). With the turbo, you can choose higher altitudes to
take advantage of winds.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> Jeff, I have "narrowed it down" to three planes:
>
> 1965 Piper Comanche PA-24-260
> 1978 Mooney "201" M20J
> 1977 Piper Arrow III
>
> -Sami
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > what kind of plane are you getting, if you dont mind...
> >
> > jeff
> >
> > "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
> >>expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
> >>does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
> >>$12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or a
> >>GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
> >>situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical to
> >>consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
> >>(web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
> >>in addition to names of places).
> >>
> >>By the way, thanks for all the great help I have been getting on this
> >>forum. It really helps me make some hard decisions about my first purchase.
> >>
> >>-Sami
> >>
> >

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> It was march of this year.
> Maybe he just knew a good deal when he saw it.
> If you take care of your plane, it will take care of you.
>
> His comments were that he was glad to finally look at a plane that wasnt
trashed
> out and had good avionics.
>

How soon after adding the upgrades did you sell it?

Adding avionics to a plane is like adding options to a used car; you seldom
get much back when you sell it. Like buying a car, it depreciates by about
2/3rds just driving it off the dealers lot.


> "Tom S." wrote:
>
> > "Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> > > This is not always true, when I sold my old cherokee 180, I had put a
new
> > > garmin stack in, 430,x-ponder, audio panel and some other stuff, I got
> > back
> > > 90% of what I had into the plane, plus, it sold in 4 days.
> > >
> >
> > It must have been a good market then because that is quite extraordinary
> > (unless you're dealing with someone who has more money than buying
savvy).
> >
> > http://www.planedata.com/aircraft%20evaluation%20methods.htm
>

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> the KX155's are great radio's , it should be easy for you to sell the
extra one
> unless you keep it as a spare.
>
> your getting a 1992 bonanza for 75k ?

No, I'm getting it for about $220K and adding about $75K in upgrades.

As I mentioned, I expect to have this plane for five to seven years. Also,
it's pretty much in pristine condition. That's why I have no problem with
adding turbo-normalizing, builtin oxygen system, a 530 and a couple other
goodies.

> thats one hell of a deal, I was looking around at them just a second ago
and
> found a 1993 for $200k, and some 1970's ones for 130-170k - if you get it
for
> 75k its a plane you can make money back on by the looks of other F33A's.
>
> I paid 85k for my 1978 Turbo Arrow III then an additional 20k for the new
> avionics.
>
> Jeff
> http://www.turboarrow3.com
>
>
> "Tom S." wrote:
>

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
O. Sami Saydjari > wrote:
>Jeff, I have "narrowed it down" to three planes:
>
>1965 Piper Comanche PA-24-260
>1978 Mooney "201" M20J
>1977 Piper Arrow III

The Arrow doesn't get as much advantage from being complex as the other
two planes. If you want something in the Cherokee series the 235s are
faster and carry more without the added maintenance costs of retractable
gear. They're popular with flight schools, though.

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

[O. Sami Saydjari]

OK. I added one to my list today. What about a Cessna 210 Centurion.
They seem to have a good cruise speed, a good range, and good lift
capacity. What do you think about them? -Sami

Jeff wrote:

> comanche 260 , awsome plane, I saw one take off with full fuel, 90 degree's
> outside and 4 adults. There were like 7 of us out there watching to see if it
> would get off the ground, me, the fuel guy and several others, it didnt have any
> problems. Comanche's are like mooney's in that they are very clean airplanes.
>
> Mooney, dont know much about them except the cockpit looks awful small.
>
> Arrow III, you may be a bit disappointed, I have flown the Normally Aspirated
> Arrow III and I own a Turbo Arrow III. The normally aspirated Arrow is not a fast
> airplane. About 130-135 kts. The Turbo Arrow is a 150 kt airplane and gives much
> better performance then the normally aspirated one. The T-arrow will maintain its
> 200 HP all the way up to 12,000 ft DA. I have taken off from an airport with a DA
> of 8800 ft, gross weight, no problems. The engine in the T-Arrow is different then
> the normal arrow, the T-Arrow has a Cont. 6 cylinder fuel injected turbo charged
> engine and is actually rated at either 210 or 215 HP cant remember which. The same
> engine is used in some other planes at 210 HP.
> The insurance on it is not bad either, was alot cheaper then the comanche 400 I
> was originally looking at. Also the T-Arrow seems to perform its best at
> 8000-13,000 ft. The POH says at 17,000 it will do 172 kts. At 14,000 a few days
> ago, I had a TAS of 165 kts and a GS of 183 kts. (of course going the other way I
> was only getting like 140kts). With the turbo, you can choose higher altitudes to
> take advantage of winds.
>
> Jeff
> http://www.turboarrow3.com
>
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
>
>
>>Jeff, I have "narrowed it down" to three planes:
>>
>>1965 Piper Comanche PA-24-260
>>1978 Mooney "201" M20J
>>1977 Piper Arrow III
>>
>>-Sami
>>
>>Jeff wrote:
>>
>>
>>>what kind of plane are you getting, if you dont mind...
>>>
>>>jeff
>>>
>>>"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
>>>>expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
>>>>does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
>>>>$12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or a
>>>>GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
>>>>situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical to
>>>>consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
>>>>(web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
>>>>in addition to names of places).
>>>>
>>>>By the way, thanks for all the great help I have been getting on this
>>>>forum. It really helps me make some hard decisions about my first purchase.
>>>>
>>>>-Sami
>>>>
>>>>
>

[John Harper]

A list that includes both the Arrow and the Centurion is a rather
odd list. The Centurion is very expensive to insure, and maybe
impossible unless you have 500 hrs and an instrument rating.
I'd have thought that a 182RG or a TR182 would be more in line
with the others in your list. I bought a TR182 a year ago and have
never regretted it. Figure around $130-140K for a decent one with OK
but elderly avionics.

John

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> OK. I added one to my list today. What about a Cessna 210 Centurion.
> They seem to have a good cruise speed, a good range, and good lift
> capacity. What do you think about them? -Sami
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > comanche 260 , awsome plane, I saw one take off with full fuel, 90
degree's
> > outside and 4 adults. There were like 7 of us out there watching to see
if it
> > would get off the ground, me, the fuel guy and several others, it didnt
have any
> > problems. Comanche's are like mooney's in that they are very clean
airplanes.
> >
> > Mooney, dont know much about them except the cockpit looks awful small.
> >
> > Arrow III, you may be a bit disappointed, I have flown the Normally
Aspirated
> > Arrow III and I own a Turbo Arrow III. The normally aspirated Arrow is
not a fast
> > airplane. About 130-135 kts. The Turbo Arrow is a 150 kt airplane and
gives much
> > better performance then the normally aspirated one. The T-arrow will
maintain its
> > 200 HP all the way up to 12,000 ft DA. I have taken off from an airport
with a DA
> > of 8800 ft, gross weight, no problems. The engine in the T-Arrow is
different then
> > the normal arrow, the T-Arrow has a Cont. 6 cylinder fuel injected turbo
charged
> > engine and is actually rated at either 210 or 215 HP cant remember
which. The same
> > engine is used in some other planes at 210 HP.
> > The insurance on it is not bad either, was alot cheaper then the
comanche 400 I
> > was originally looking at. Also the T-Arrow seems to perform its best at
> > 8000-13,000 ft. The POH says at 17,000 it will do 172 kts. At 14,000 a
few days
> > ago, I had a TAS of 165 kts and a GS of 183 kts. (of course going the
other way I
> > was only getting like 140kts). With the turbo, you can choose higher
altitudes to
> > take advantage of winds.
> >
> > Jeff
> > http://www.turboarrow3.com
> >
> >
> > "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Jeff, I have "narrowed it down" to three planes:
> >>
> >>1965 Piper Comanche PA-24-260
> >>1978 Mooney "201" M20J
> >>1977 Piper Arrow III
> >>
> >>-Sami
> >>
> >>Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>what kind of plane are you getting, if you dont mind...
> >>>
> >>>jeff
> >>>
> >>>"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
> >>>>expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
> >>>>does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
> >>>>$12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or a
> >>>>GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
> >>>>situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical to
> >>>>consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
> >>>>(web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
> >>>>in addition to names of places).
> >>>>
> >>>>By the way, thanks for all the great help I have been getting on this
> >>>>forum. It really helps me make some hard decisions about my first
purchase.
> >>>>
> >>>>-Sami
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
>

[Jeff]

I sold it about 8 months after I added the options.

See the thing was, the guy had been looking for a decent plane all over,
everyone he said he looked at was ragged out, rusted out or something.
He Said he was tired of looking and since my plane wasnt not ragged out, rusted
out and had good avionics he took it. A CFI I know who was building time ferried
it to his airport for him. The guy who bought it was a pilot for an airline. I
picked him up at the vegas airport when he flew in took him to see the plane
then had to hurry him back for his return flight.
You may be surprised at some of the planes being sold and prices people ask for
them. I looked at alot of planes before settling on the turbo arrow I got.

"Tom S." wrote:

> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It was march of this year.
> > Maybe he just knew a good deal when he saw it.
> > If you take care of your plane, it will take care of you.
> >
> > His comments were that he was glad to finally look at a plane that wasnt
> trashed
> > out and had good avionics.
> >
>
> How soon after adding the upgrades did you sell it?
>
> Adding avionics to a plane is like adding options to a used car; you seldom
> get much back when you sell it. Like buying a car, it depreciates by about
> 2/3rds just driving it off the dealers lot.
>
> > "Tom S." wrote:
> >
> > > "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > > This is not always true, when I sold my old cherokee 180, I had put a
> new
> > > > garmin stack in, 430,x-ponder, audio panel and some other stuff, I got
> > > back
> > > > 90% of what I had into the plane, plus, it sold in 4 days.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It must have been a good market then because that is quite extraordinary
> > > (unless you're dealing with someone who has more money than buying
> savvy).
> > >
> > > http://www.planedata.com/aircraft%20evaluation%20methods.htm
> >

[Jeff]

I dont know anything about a 210 except they seem to be a family plane, by that I mean
can carry a good load. I did take a picture of one 2 weeks ago, I was surprised to see
that he never passed me, he was 1000ft below me going the same way, departed the same
airport right after me. On the climb departure told me the 210 had 20 kts on me and was
going to pass me. In cruise his ground speed was 157 kts, mine was 151 kts. Now I dont
know if he could have gone faster, I was at 65% power. but I had always thought that a
210 was alot faster then my little 200 HP turbo arrow.
Before someone asks how did I know his GS, it was because I was talking to him.

http://www.turboarrow3.com/newplane/clouds/image8.html
thats him down behind my wing.

Are you looking for something fast or carry a good load? Comanche's are both but are
older and usually have older avionics.
this guy added a turbo charger to a comanche 400 and claims to have got a TAS of 275 MPH
at 19,000 ft
http://www.comanchepilot.com/Tech_Articles/FLIGHT_OPS/A_300MPH_COMANCHE/a_300mph_comanche.html

only 148 comanche 400's were made and there is only like 101 left on the books. If and
when I upgrade to a faster plane, the 400 is the best bang for the buck. They go for
about 130k. But you have to find someone to insure it. I go through AOPA and they told
me they would not insure it for anyone and gave the HP as the reason.


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> OK. I added one to my list today. What about a Cessna 210 Centurion.
> They seem to have a good cruise speed, a good range, and good lift
> capacity. What do you think about them? -Sami
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > comanche 260 , awsome plane, I saw one take off with full fuel, 90 degree's
> > outside and 4 adults. There were like 7 of us out there watching to see if it
> > would get off the ground, me, the fuel guy and several others, it didnt have any
> > problems. Comanche's are like mooney's in that they are very clean airplanes.
> >
> > Mooney, dont know much about them except the cockpit looks awful small.
> >
> > Arrow III, you may be a bit disappointed, I have flown the Normally Aspirated
> > Arrow III and I own a Turbo Arrow III. The normally aspirated Arrow is not a fast
> > airplane. About 130-135 kts. The Turbo Arrow is a 150 kt airplane and gives much
> > better performance then the normally aspirated one. The T-arrow will maintain its
> > 200 HP all the way up to 12,000 ft DA. I have taken off from an airport with a DA
> > of 8800 ft, gross weight, no problems. The engine in the T-Arrow is different then
> > the normal arrow, the T-Arrow has a Cont. 6 cylinder fuel injected turbo charged
> > engine and is actually rated at either 210 or 215 HP cant remember which. The same
> > engine is used in some other planes at 210 HP.
> > The insurance on it is not bad either, was alot cheaper then the comanche 400 I
> > was originally looking at. Also the T-Arrow seems to perform its best at
> > 8000-13,000 ft. The POH says at 17,000 it will do 172 kts. At 14,000 a few days
> > ago, I had a TAS of 165 kts and a GS of 183 kts. (of course going the other way I
> > was only getting like 140kts). With the turbo, you can choose higher altitudes to
> > take advantage of winds.
> >
> > Jeff
> > http://www.turboarrow3.com
> >
> >
> > "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Jeff, I have "narrowed it down" to three planes:
> >>
> >>1965 Piper Comanche PA-24-260
> >>1978 Mooney "201" M20J
> >>1977 Piper Arrow III
> >>
> >>-Sami
> >>
> >>Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>what kind of plane are you getting, if you dont mind...
> >>>
> >>>jeff
> >>>
> >>>"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
> >>>>expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
> >>>>does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
> >>>>$12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or a
> >>>>GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
> >>>>situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical to
> >>>>consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
> >>>>(web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
> >>>>in addition to names of places).
> >>>>
> >>>>By the way, thanks for all the great help I have been getting on this
> >>>>forum. It really helps me make some hard decisions about my first purchase.
> >>>>
> >>>>-Sami
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >

[Jeff]

John, whats the TR stand for?
Turbo ?

Jeff

John Harper wrote:

> A list that includes both the Arrow and the Centurion is a rather
> odd list. The Centurion is very expensive to insure, and maybe
> impossible unless you have 500 hrs and an instrument rating.
> I'd have thought that a 182RG or a TR182 would be more in line
> with the others in your list. I bought a TR182 a year ago and have
> never regretted it. Figure around $130-140K for a decent one with OK
> but elderly avionics.
>
> John
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> ...
> > OK. I added one to my list today. What about a Cessna 210 Centurion.
> > They seem to have a good cruise speed, a good range, and good lift
> > capacity. What do you think about them? -Sami
> >
> > Jeff wrote:
> >
> > > comanche 260 , awsome plane, I saw one take off with full fuel, 90
> degree's
> > > outside and 4 adults. There were like 7 of us out there watching to see
> if it
> > > would get off the ground, me, the fuel guy and several others, it didnt
> have any
> > > problems. Comanche's are like mooney's in that they are very clean
> airplanes.
> > >
> > > Mooney, dont know much about them except the cockpit looks awful small.
> > >
> > > Arrow III, you may be a bit disappointed, I have flown the Normally
> Aspirated
> > > Arrow III and I own a Turbo Arrow III. The normally aspirated Arrow is
> not a fast
> > > airplane. About 130-135 kts. The Turbo Arrow is a 150 kt airplane and
> gives much
> > > better performance then the normally aspirated one. The T-arrow will
> maintain its
> > > 200 HP all the way up to 12,000 ft DA. I have taken off from an airport
> with a DA
> > > of 8800 ft, gross weight, no problems. The engine in the T-Arrow is
> different then
> > > the normal arrow, the T-Arrow has a Cont. 6 cylinder fuel injected turbo
> charged
> > > engine and is actually rated at either 210 or 215 HP cant remember
> which. The same
> > > engine is used in some other planes at 210 HP.
> > > The insurance on it is not bad either, was alot cheaper then the
> comanche 400 I
> > > was originally looking at. Also the T-Arrow seems to perform its best at
> > > 8000-13,000 ft. The POH says at 17,000 it will do 172 kts. At 14,000 a
> few days
> > > ago, I had a TAS of 165 kts and a GS of 183 kts. (of course going the
> other way I
> > > was only getting like 140kts). With the turbo, you can choose higher
> altitudes to
> > > take advantage of winds.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > > http://www.turboarrow3.com
> > >
> > >
> > > "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Jeff, I have "narrowed it down" to three planes:
> > >>
> > >>1965 Piper Comanche PA-24-260
> > >>1978 Mooney "201" M20J
> > >>1977 Piper Arrow III
> > >>
> > >>-Sami
> > >>
> > >>Jeff wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>what kind of plane are you getting, if you dont mind...
> > >>>
> > >>>jeff
> > >>>
> > >>>"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
> > >>>>expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
> > >>>>does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
> > >>>>$12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or a
> > >>>>GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
> > >>>>situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical to
> > >>>>consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
> > >>>>(web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
> > >>>>in addition to names of places).
> > >>>>
> > >>>>By the way, thanks for all the great help I have been getting on this
> > >>>>forum. It really helps me make some hard decisions about my first
> purchase.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>-Sami
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >
> >

[Jeff]

Yes I think the retractable gear does help alot, at 150 kts, with only 200
HP, is pretty good. You cant put a turbo arrow with the normally aspirated
ones. Their performance is alot different.

the cherokee 235 is a 235 hp plane, is slower then a Turbo Arrow, but about
the same as a normally aspirated Arrow and has a lower ceiling then a Turbo
Arrow.
you can see some performance specs for a bunch of planes here
http://www.ferryflight.info/perfs.html
they have speed and range for most planes by the look of it.

Jeff

Ben Jackson wrote:

>
> The Arrow doesn't get as much advantage from being complex as the other
> two planes. If you want something in the Cherokee series the 235s are
> faster and carry more without the added maintenance costs of retractable
> gear. They're popular with flight schools, though.
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

[John Harper]

Affirmative.


"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> John, whats the TR stand for?
> Turbo ?
>
> Jeff
>
> John Harper wrote:
>
> > A list that includes both the Arrow and the Centurion is a rather
> > odd list. The Centurion is very expensive to insure, and maybe
> > impossible unless you have 500 hrs and an instrument rating.
> > I'd have thought that a 182RG or a TR182 would be more in line
> > with the others in your list. I bought a TR182 a year ago and have
> > never regretted it. Figure around $130-140K for a decent one with OK
> > but elderly avionics.
> >
> > John
> >
> > "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > OK. I added one to my list today. What about a Cessna 210 Centurion.
> > > They seem to have a good cruise speed, a good range, and good lift
> > > capacity. What do you think about them? -Sami
> > >
> > > Jeff wrote:
> > >
> > > > comanche 260 , awsome plane, I saw one take off with full fuel, 90
> > degree's
> > > > outside and 4 adults. There were like 7 of us out there watching to
see
> > if it
> > > > would get off the ground, me, the fuel guy and several others, it
didnt
> > have any
> > > > problems. Comanche's are like mooney's in that they are very clean
> > airplanes.
> > > >
> > > > Mooney, dont know much about them except the cockpit looks awful
small.
> > > >
> > > > Arrow III, you may be a bit disappointed, I have flown the Normally
> > Aspirated
> > > > Arrow III and I own a Turbo Arrow III. The normally aspirated Arrow
is
> > not a fast
> > > > airplane. About 130-135 kts. The Turbo Arrow is a 150 kt airplane
and
> > gives much
> > > > better performance then the normally aspirated one. The T-arrow will
> > maintain its
> > > > 200 HP all the way up to 12,000 ft DA. I have taken off from an
airport
> > with a DA
> > > > of 8800 ft, gross weight, no problems. The engine in the T-Arrow is
> > different then
> > > > the normal arrow, the T-Arrow has a Cont. 6 cylinder fuel injected
turbo
> > charged
> > > > engine and is actually rated at either 210 or 215 HP cant remember
> > which. The same
> > > > engine is used in some other planes at 210 HP.
> > > > The insurance on it is not bad either, was alot cheaper then the
> > comanche 400 I
> > > > was originally looking at. Also the T-Arrow seems to perform its
best at
> > > > 8000-13,000 ft. The POH says at 17,000 it will do 172 kts. At 14,000
a
> > few days
> > > > ago, I had a TAS of 165 kts and a GS of 183 kts. (of course going
the
> > other way I
> > > > was only getting like 140kts). With the turbo, you can choose higher
> > altitudes to
> > > > take advantage of winds.
> > > >
> > > > Jeff
> > > > http://www.turboarrow3.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Jeff, I have "narrowed it down" to three planes:
> > > >>
> > > >>1965 Piper Comanche PA-24-260
> > > >>1978 Mooney "201" M20J
> > > >>1977 Piper Arrow III
> > > >>
> > > >>-Sami
> > > >>
> > > >>Jeff wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>what kind of plane are you getting, if you dont mind...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>jeff
> > > >>>
> > > >>>"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years.
I
> > > >>>>expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price,
it
> > > >>>>does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the
tune of
> > > >>>>$12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or
a
> > > >>>>GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
> > > >>>>situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical
to
> > > >>>>consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used
avionics
> > > >>>>(web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be
helpful
> > > >>>>in addition to names of places).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>By the way, thanks for all the great help I have been getting on
this
> > > >>>>forum. It really helps me make some hard decisions about my first
> > purchase.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>-Sami
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >
> > >
>

[Craig Prouse]

"John Harper" wrote:

> Affirmative.
>
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John, whats the TR stand for?
>> Turbo ?
>>
>> Jeff

R182 is retractable
T182 is turbocharged
TR182 is both turbocharged and retractable

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Jeff > wrote:
>Yes I think the retractable gear does help alot, at 150 kts, with only 200
>HP, is pretty good. You cant put a turbo arrow with the normally aspirated
>ones.

He didn't say Turbo Arrow III, did he? Or did all Arrow IIIs come with
TIO-360s? If he's talking turbo that makes some sense, since the numbers
are similar to the Comanche and the M20J. The big difference will be
that the optimal altitudes will be higher in the turbo. That's a win if
you're in Colorado but probably a lose on the coasts or in the midwest.
The Comanche peaks at ~160KTAS @ 7000' @ 75%, like all non-turbos it
can't hold 75% beyond that, dropping back to ~155KTAS @ 10000 @ 65%.
The Turbo Arrow probably doesn't even hit its peak until the low teens,
but I don't have a chart for it.

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

[Jeff]

I had mentioned turbo arrow, he mentioned arrow, Alot of people confuse the
two, putting them in the same catagory not knowing there is a difference.

My personal opinion is that a comanche is still the best plane for the money
for useful load and speed. the only problems with them is the avionics are
usually outdated, avionics are so expensive alot of people dont upgrade them.
My wife only let me upgrade to our current plane if I promised to get one with
airconditioning, so the comanche was out for us. Also the turbo arrows I looked
at all seemed to have more options in them then most other planes in the same
catagory., ie, storm scope, airconditioning, HSI, auto pilot.

The main problem with a turbo arrow for me, is the rate of climb. you only use
max horse power for take off, then at about 1000 ft you reduce power to cruise
climb which is 75% power. and 75% power at 104 kts only gets you about 500 FPM.
Its kinda a trade off, turbo's are good if you consistantly fly higher, if you
like lower then no need to really get it, unless you want the extra speed it
has, and for the price, its a pretty good deal. At 10,000-12,000 ft your
hanging with bigger/faster planes like the bonanza.



Ben Jackson wrote:

>
> He didn't say Turbo Arrow III, did he? Or did all Arrow IIIs come with
> TIO-360s? If he's talking turbo that makes some sense, since the numbers
> are similar to the Comanche and the M20J. The big difference will be
> that the optimal altitudes will be higher in the turbo. That's a win if
> you're in Colorado but probably a lose on the coasts or in the midwest.
> The Comanche peaks at ~160KTAS @ 7000' @ 75%, like all non-turbos it
> can't hold 75% beyond that, dropping back to ~155KTAS @ 10000 @ 65%.
> The Turbo Arrow probably doesn't even hit its peak until the low teens,
> but I don't have a chart for it.
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

[John Harper]

However the 182T is neither. This can be confusing. OTOH
the T182T is turbocharged. (I flew a 182T for a while).

John

"Craig Prouse" > wrote in message
...
> "John Harper" wrote:
>
> > Affirmative.
> >
> >
> > "Jeff" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> John, whats the TR stand for?
> >> Turbo ?
> >>
> >> Jeff
>
> R182 is retractable
> T182 is turbocharged
> TR182 is both turbocharged and retractable
>

[John Harper]

I love my turbo. It is of course a waste of time/money/etc at lowish
altitudes, say below 8000'. But the freedom to climb at keep on climbing,
not to mention high-performance take-off without having to worry
about density altitude (well, not so much anyway) is enormous.
I can climb to FL200 at a steady 500 fpm - the plane would probably
go quite a lot higher although it is not certificated to do so and I haven't
tried it. On long journeys going up high is a real bonus, especially over
unfriendly terrain.

John

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> I had mentioned turbo arrow, he mentioned arrow, Alot of people confuse
the
> two, putting them in the same catagory not knowing there is a difference.
>
> My personal opinion is that a comanche is still the best plane for the
money
> for useful load and speed. the only problems with them is the avionics are
> usually outdated, avionics are so expensive alot of people dont upgrade
them.
> My wife only let me upgrade to our current plane if I promised to get one
with
> airconditioning, so the comanche was out for us. Also the turbo arrows I
looked
> at all seemed to have more options in them then most other planes in the
same
> catagory., ie, storm scope, airconditioning, HSI, auto pilot.
>
> The main problem with a turbo arrow for me, is the rate of climb. you only
use
> max horse power for take off, then at about 1000 ft you reduce power to
cruise
> climb which is 75% power. and 75% power at 104 kts only gets you about 500
FPM.
> Its kinda a trade off, turbo's are good if you consistantly fly higher, if
you
> like lower then no need to really get it, unless you want the extra speed
it
> has, and for the price, its a pretty good deal. At 10,000-12,000 ft your
> hanging with bigger/faster planes like the bonanza.
>
>
>
> Ben Jackson wrote:
>
> >
> > He didn't say Turbo Arrow III, did he? Or did all Arrow IIIs come with
> > TIO-360s? If he's talking turbo that makes some sense, since the
numbers
> > are similar to the Comanche and the M20J. The big difference will be
> > that the optimal altitudes will be higher in the turbo. That's a win if
> > you're in Colorado but probably a lose on the coasts or in the midwest.
> > The Comanche peaks at ~160KTAS @ 7000' @ 75%, like all non-turbos it
> > can't hold 75% beyond that, dropping back to ~155KTAS @ 10000 @ 65%.
> > The Turbo Arrow probably doesn't even hit its peak until the low teens,
> > but I don't have a chart for it.
> >
> > --
> > Ben Jackson
> > >
> > http://www.ben.com/
>

[Jeff]

John
what kind of plane do you have?

Jeff

John Harper wrote:

> I love my turbo. It is of course a waste of time/money/etc at lowish
> altitudes, say below 8000'. But the freedom to climb at keep on climbing,
> not to mention high-performance take-off without having to worry
> about density altitude (well, not so much anyway) is enormous.
> I can climb to FL200 at a steady 500 fpm - the plane would probably
> go quite a lot higher although it is not certificated to do so and I haven't
> tried it. On long journeys going up high is a real bonus, especially over
> unfriendly terrain.
>
> John

[John Harper]

A 1980 TR182 (turbo, retractable) - useful load ~1150 lbs,
carries four adults and baggage plus enough fuel for 3.5hrs
with reserves, or two people with fuel for 5.5hrs with reserves.
Cruise at 160 at 10k, 170 in the low FLs. Rock solid flying.
14 gph at cruise.

And if you practice plenty of landings, those big biceps will
look great on the beach. (About the only, very minor, drawback
of the plane is that it takes quite a lot of heft for pitch control.
Trim is most definitely your friend).

John

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> John
> what kind of plane do you have?
>
> Jeff
>
> John Harper wrote:
>
> > I love my turbo. It is of course a waste of time/money/etc at lowish
> > altitudes, say below 8000'. But the freedom to climb at keep on
climbing,
> > not to mention high-performance take-off without having to worry
> > about density altitude (well, not so much anyway) is enormous.
> > I can climb to FL200 at a steady 500 fpm - the plane would probably
> > go quite a lot higher although it is not certificated to do so and I
haven't
> > tried it. On long journeys going up high is a real bonus, especially
over
> > unfriendly terrain.
> >
> > John
>

[Tom S.]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> OK. I added one to my list today. What about a Cessna 210 Centurion.
> They seem to have a good cruise speed, a good range, and good lift
> capacity. What do you think about them? -Sami

FWIH, they're maintenance hogs...moreso than others of similar complexity
and performance (approaching the cost of a light twin, I've heard). On the
upsude, they're spacious, comforable, good handling and performance.

Our company has one (an '81 T210) for shorter flights (300 miles or less),
but it spends a lot of downtime for fixing. The managing partners have been
trying to unload it for over a year now.

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> I sold it about 8 months after I added the options.
>
> See the thing was, the guy had been looking for a decent plane all over,
> everyone he said he looked at was ragged out, rusted out or something.
> He Said he was tired of looking and since my plane wasnt not ragged out,
rusted
> out and had good avionics he took it. A CFI I know who was building time
ferried
> it to his airport for him. The guy who bought it was a pilot for an
airline. I
> picked him up at the vegas airport when he flew in took him to see the
plane
> then had to hurry him back for his return flight.
> You may be surprised at some of the planes being sold and prices people
ask for
> them. I looked at alot of planes before settling on the turbo arrow I got.

Just like buying cars! :~)

I really wanted to avoid a dealer when I started my search back in
September, but after two dozen calls to people whose sense of "value" was
greatly different than mine, I went with a company that has an affilation
with an A&P (not that I trust that particular A&P, but...). I also like your
idea of getting someone to ferry the plane. The one I'm most interested in
is based in upstate New York...about 1500nm's away.

[Jeff]

really close to what the Turbo Arrow does, with full fuel I can fly 6 hours,
I havnt flown 6 hours straight yet, farthest leg was 680 NM (louisville Ky -
Oklahoma City) and I had about 90 minutes of fuel left when I arrived. But
with full fuel (72 gallons) I can only carry about 630 lbs.


John Harper wrote:

> A 1980 TR182 (turbo, retractable) - useful load ~1150 lbs,
> carries four adults and baggage plus enough fuel for 3.5hrs
> with reserves, or two people with fuel for 5.5hrs with reserves.
> Cruise at 160 at 10k, 170 in the low FLs. Rock solid flying.
> 14 gph at cruise.
>
> And if you practice plenty of landings, those big biceps will
> look great on the beach. (About the only, very minor, drawback
> of the plane is that it takes quite a lot of heft for pitch control.
> Trim is most definitely your friend).
>
> John
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > John
> > what kind of plane do you have?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > John Harper wrote:
> >
> > > I love my turbo. It is of course a waste of time/money/etc at lowish
> > > altitudes, say below 8000'. But the freedom to climb at keep on
> climbing,
> > > not to mention high-performance take-off without having to worry
> > > about density altitude (well, not so much anyway) is enormous.
> > > I can climb to FL200 at a steady 500 fpm - the plane would probably
> > > go quite a lot higher although it is not certificated to do so and I
> haven't
> > > tried it. On long journeys going up high is a real bonus, especially
> over
> > > unfriendly terrain.
> > >
> > > John
> >

[Jeff]

with the weather they are getting on the east coast, you may have to wait untill
summer to get that plane :)

Jeff

"Tom S." wrote:. The one I'm most interested in

> is based in upstate New York...about 1500nm's away.

[[email protected]]

John Harper > wrote:
: I love my turbo. It is of course a waste of time/money/etc at lowish
: altitudes, say below 8000'. But the freedom to climb at keep on climbing,
: not to mention high-performance take-off without having to worry
: about density altitude (well, not so much anyway) is enormous.
: I can climb to FL200 at a steady 500 fpm - the plane would probably
: go quite a lot higher although it is not certificated to do so and I haven't
: tried it. On long journeys going up high is a real bonus, especially over
: unfriendly terrain.

A non-turbo Comanche-260 will pretty much hold >500 fpm up to
higher than you can fly without oxygen. Unless you go full-tilt into high
altitude with O2, etc, a Comanche-260 seems to outperform a turbo Arrow in
just about every respect. It also doesn't have the drawback of the
extremely abused TIO-360 Continental in the mid 70's Turbo Arrow. My
mechanic just bought one of those, and all I can say is that he's
comfortable with the twitchiness of that engine. Something to be said for
simplicity... either normally-aspirated, big-bore, or at most a
turbo-normalized engine.

YMMV... :)

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Mark Astley]

Sami,

I've had a bit of success acquiring used avionics on e-bay. If you'd rather
not mess with it, you might try www.avionix.com (as someone else suggested),
which has just about everything. For GPS units in particular, you should
also take a look at www.avionicsgps.com aka Joliet Avionics (JA). These
guys regularly sell direct and on e-bay. My avionics guy told me that JA
regularly buys up all the reconditioned units coming out of Garmin. As a
result, they usually have a good selection.

Our needs are probably different, but my PA28-140 had a pretty pathetic
avionics stack when I bought it (all Narco radios, an original piper "audio
panel", and a no-name Loran, about the only thing I recognized was the
PM-1000 intercom). My number one goal was to get more reliable but cheap
(read: older) radios into the plane. For this purpose, e-bay worked fine.
I picked up a KX-175B, indicator, KMA-20 audio and KR86 with antenna all for
about $1500. These avionics are cheap enough that I felt it was worth the
risk of possibly getting a bum unit. However, if you're going this route,
make sure everything has a RECENT yellow tag and make sure you understand
e-bay's feedback system. Also, unless you have some hidden backchannel,
installation is going to be a major expense and is not terribly dependent on
the age of the avionics (unless you get something really old or strange).
That's something else to consider when thinking about installing older and
cheaper stuff.

Someone else mentioned buying a handheld GPS and reselling it when you
decide to upgrade. That's actually worked out great for me. Several months
ago I purchased a Garmin 196 for $1000. For various reasons, I'm now
installing a Garmin GNC-300XL in the plane and I've already sold the 196 on
e-bay for $930. So I paid about $70 to "rent" the unit for about 6 months.
Not a bad deal.

best of luck,
mark

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
> expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
> does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
> $12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or a
> GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
> situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical to
> consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
> (web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
> in addition to names of places).
>
> By the way, thanks for all the great help I have been getting on this
> forum. It really helps me make some hard decisions about my first
purchase.
>
> -Sami
>

[James M. Knox]

wrote in
:

> A non-turbo Comanche-260 will pretty much hold >500 fpm up to
> higher than you can fly without oxygen. Unless you go full-tilt into
> high altitude with O2, etc, a Comanche-260 seems to outperform a turbo
> Arrow in just about every respect. It also doesn't have the drawback
> of the extremely abused TIO-360 Continental in the mid 70's Turbo
> Arrow. My mechanic just bought one of those, and all I can say is
> that he's comfortable with the twitchiness of that engine. Something
> to be said for simplicity... either normally-aspirated, big-bore, or
> at most a turbo-normalized engine.

A friend of mine used to have a partnership in a Comanche 260. And
yes... I fly a turbo-Arrow III. One a number of trips we would wind up
chasing each other (both coming back from the same meeting, but couldn't
plane-pool up there; or I would take him up to pick up his plane when
another partner had left it somewhere due to weather or repairs). It
was always a fascinating exercise in flight planning to see which plane
would chase which.

The Comanche clearly was faster at low altitude. Down around 8K or less
the turbo Arrow flies pretty much like a straight Arrow - figure 145
knots or so. And initially the Comanche has more "get up and go" climb
performance from sea level.

OTOH, at high altitudes (low flight levels) my Arrow will true out
around 175 knots (it has the Merlyn wastegate) and burn a LOT less fuel
(GAMIjectors). Also, at those high altitudes, my ability to get more
direct routing is a lot better. [BTW, both the GAMI and the Merlyn
greatly reduce both the "abuse" and the "twichiness" of the turbo
Arrow.]

Objectively, it was about half and half who one. Long trips,
particularly with a tailwind, and I would virtually always win. Short
hops of 150 nm or so and the Comanche would always win. Fun...

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[[email protected]]

James M. Knox > wrote:
: The Comanche clearly was faster at low altitude. Down around 8K or less
: the turbo Arrow flies pretty much like a straight Arrow - figure 145
: knots or so. And initially the Comanche has more "get up and go" climb
: performance from sea level.

: OTOH, at high altitudes (low flight levels) my Arrow will true out
: around 175 knots (it has the Merlyn wastegate) and burn a LOT less fuel
: (GAMIjectors). Also, at those high altitudes, my ability to get more
: direct routing is a lot better. [BTW, both the GAMI and the Merlyn
: greatly reduce both the "abuse" and the "twichiness" of the turbo
: Arrow.]

: Objectively, it was about half and half who one. Long trips,
: particularly with a tailwind, and I would virtually always win. Short
: hops of 150 nm or so and the Comanche would always win. Fun...
:

Yeah, that's about the way I figure it. Having never flown a
turbo'd plane, I haven't gotten used to the notion of much above 12kft.
Flying east is great, but my plane's slow enough that the speed gain from
altitude doesn't come close to making up for the headwind hit. Flying
west I'll usually cruise 2000' AGL and argue with the bumps and slightly
faster groundspeed.

Question though... my mechanic recently did the the wastegate
upgrade, but it seems like it didn't do a whole lot for it. Stock setup
was atrocious (make boost all the time and regulate MP with throttle
only). It was almost rotation speed before he was able to look up from
the MP and tach on takeoff, because it wanted to overboost so much. Even
with the new one, it seems flakey and prone to overboost. True? Any way
to add an intercooler to the setup too?

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Dave Butler]

Jeff wrote:

> Mooney, dont know much about them except the cockpit looks awful small.

I have to chime in here with my standard response to this frequent comment...

It's not as small as it looks, but it's not as big as some claim. There is a
claim floating around that it's as wide as a Bo, or something like that. I
haven't measured, but it doesn't feel all that wide. The space between the
shoulders of the occupants of the front seat is limited.

Your seating position is more like a sports car, with your legs straight out in
front of you. There is *plenty* of leg room and head room. I'm 6 ft. tall and I
adjust the seat to the second-from-full-forward position. I was skeptical about
this seating position, but I find that I can fly for longer periods of time
without back pain than I used to be able to in my Archer.

The rear seat legroom is even quite good, once the front seat pax get in and
slide the seats forward (they'll slide the seats back for ingress/egress, but
the seats have a lot of travel).

The windscreen looks like a tank-slit from the outside, so you might think
visibility is compromised. In fact, the seating position is quite close to the
windscreen so your angle of vision is quite good.

The Mooney's speed with the relatively low horsepower and low fuel flow was
achieved to some extent by making the cabin a little smaller. Everything's a
compromise. It's a compromise I happen to like. Try it on before you decide. The
combination of speed and economy is addictive.

The crashworthiness of the Mooney, with steel tubing construction like a "roll
cage" is legendary.

Used Mooneys frequently have very well equipped panels. People who fly Mooneys
choose them because they want to go somewhere, not just to fly around the patch.

The most annoying thing to me about the cabin size is trying to maneuver my
oversize flight bag between the front seat headrests to put it on the back seat.
Otherwise, I'm OK with it.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
Dave

[James M. Knox]

wrote in
:

> Flying east is great, but my plane's slow enough that the
> speed gain from altitude doesn't come close to making up for the
> headwind hit. Flying west I'll usually cruise 2000' AGL and argue
> with the bumps and slightly faster groundspeed.

The higher you go, the more likely the winds are out of the west - as
you say. In the summer they may "drift around" a bit, but in the winter
you can almost count on it. On shorter flights, or against the
headwinds, I will usually try to stay fairly low - probably below 10K
(although sometimes in the summer I *have* decided that 1+30 in cool
smooth air was better than 1+00 in thermals and with the OAT reading
over 100 F.

Longer flights will *usually* make it worth it to climb into higher
altitudes. I'll usually break even, even with a headwind, and get
better conditions, less traffic, and better routing if IFR.

WITH the wind... well, coming back from El Paso one winter day after
dropping off an Angel Flight patient, I was throttled back to 55% in the
low flight levels, sipping about 8.5 gph, and watching the groundspeed
vary between 250 and 275 knots!!!! [Of course, a *significant* part of
that was tailwind! <G>]

> Question though... my mechanic recently did the the wastegate
> upgrade, but it seems like it didn't do a whole lot for it. Stock
> setup was atrocious (make boost all the time and regulate MP with
> throttle only). It was almost rotation speed before he was able to
> look up from the MP and tach on takeoff, because it wanted to
> overboost so much. Even with the new one, it seems flakey and prone
> to overboost. True? Any way to add an intercooler to the setup too?

The stock wastegate setup used by Piper (and by Mooney) on many models
is 14 karat CHEAP! It's a bolt screwed into a hole in a pipe, period.
No matter how you set it up, at sea level you are providing boost (and
heat) when you least need it. And at higher altitudes you are dumping
half your boost overboard. About the ONLY thing that could be said good
for it is that it's cheap, and well, it can hardly break.

The other downside, as you noticed, is that it makes bootstrapping a
significant issue in setting the throttle. Add throttle and the MP will
continue to rise (substantially) after you stop moving the throttle.
Reduce the throttle, and you will often find yourself having to add some
back in.

With practice it is not as bad as it sounds. You get used to it... and
throttle movement becomes somewhat automatic -- just the "automatic"
part is in your head rather than in the controls. <G> Still, it is NOT
really a good thing for a plane on the leaseback or flight training line
- precisely where many of them are used. This is been a major reason
that many turbo Arrows have gotten a bad reputation for short engine
life.

Something like the Merlyn automatic helps a lot. At sea level and
cruise power the wastegate is fully open - you are running essentially
unboosted. Temperatures stay low. Climbing high the wastegate
completely closes and adds almost 6K feet to your critical altitude -
that REALLY helps with the climb. Bootstrapping is still there - but
it's much better. Not nearly as sensitive until you get up into the
flight levels (where, with the wastegate fully closed, you are back to
being the same as before in terms of bootstrapping sensitivity).

There is an aftermarket intercooler mod. I know another pilot here in
Austin that has one on his turbo Arrow and he likes it. I don't have
one on mine, and haven't really ever had significant temperature
problems. There is a "cooling kit" that basically adds some more vents
to the cowling - most have had this added, and it is very recommended.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------