Newps wrote:



Douglas Paterson wrote:

"Don Tuite" wrote in message
...

At least with the 235/182 comparison, it's apples/apples. I think the
Comanche is better compared to The Trinidad or Newp's new Bo.

Don



This is exactly the sort of opinion/comparison I'm after. May I ask
*why* you think the Comanche is better than the Trinidad (or the
Bonanza for that matter, though I'm not really looking at those--no
offense, Newps! )


But don't rule it out. Get all the facts/numbers. For example the
beauty of Bonanza landing gear is the design. Once it's properly set,
and this is not difficult, it is incredibly reliable. It's like having
a fixed gear in terms of cost and it's much, much stronger than the gear
of say a 182 RG. I wouldn't want a Cessna RG unless someone else was
paying for maintenence. Not counting the gear, which doesn't add hardly
anything anyways, the Bo hasn't cost me any more than the 182 did
maintenence wise. Insurance is higher but coming down every year, but
it will always be higher than the 182. However it was less than the
same hull value 206 I was looking at, figure that one out.
The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts. Nobody
has them in stock, everything always has to be ordered. That takes time
and expense. Plus they aren't very fast for what you're going to pay.

If only Beech made a high-wing Bo. :-)

The more I fly the Arrow the more I wish for my 182. Not being able to
look down is a real pain many a time. Yes, I know the advantage of
seeing the runway when in the pattern, but I spend a lot less time in
the pattern than I do flying cross country and if you fly a normal
rectangular pattern losing sight of the runway for a few seconds in the
turns is simply not an issue.



Matt