Budget Retracts - Anyone own a Sierra or Comanche 180?

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

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

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

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

Thanks for sharing!

Rich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hank
Henry A. Spellman
Comanche N5903P

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

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

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

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

Thanks for sharing!

Rich

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

Rich

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

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

Rich

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

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

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

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

Hank
Henry A. Spellman
Comanche N5903P


RH wrote:
The Comanche 180 is probably the sweetest flying of the family, but the

Comanche 250 is the quintessential version.

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

Rich

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

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

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

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

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

-Cory


--

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

wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

Hank
Henry A. Spellman
Comanche N5903P

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

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

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

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

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

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



"RH" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm a PVT, IFR pilot, but fairly low time at 350 hours, mostly in
various fixed gear PA28's.

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

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

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

Thanks for sharing!

Rich

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

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