Budget Retracts - Anyone own a Sierra or Comanche 180?

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

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

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

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

Good luck in your search.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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



If you fly over 100 hrs/year the savings in fuel costs with RG compared to a
FG with similar performance will more than offset the added costs for
maintenance and insurance.
I'd really like to see some number to support your conclusion. By my
estimates 100 hrs * 11 gals per hour = 1100 gal per year. RG decreases
fuel need by 5% or 55 gal * $3.50 = 192.50 per year in fuel savings.
From the numbers throw about by my aircraft owning buddies the delta in
ownership costs for a retract are much more then that.

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

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


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



If you fly over 100 hrs/year the savings in fuel costs with RG compared to a
FG with similar performance will more than offset the added costs for
maintenance and insurance.
I'd really like to see some number to support your conclusion. By my
estimates 100 hrs * 11 gals per hour = 1100 gal per year. RG decreases
fuel need by 5% or 55 gal * $3.50 = 192.50 per year in fuel savings.
From the numbers throw about by my aircraft owning buddies the delta in
ownership costs for a retract are much more then that.

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

I have been flying my '76 Sierra (B model) for about 16 years. Some
comments:
1. The porpoise phenomenon - true, it will. Fly it properly with attention
to airspeed and with the knowledge that it can run out of aileron authorith
and it will grease on like any other aircraft
2. Not a 'finger flyer'. It flies heavy. I like the feel, but it takes a
hand onthe yoke, not a couple of fingers.
3. Lots of doors. One on either side plus a large luggage door.
4. Annuals have averaged about $2200/year for the past 15 years
5. Insurance - about $1500 currently for two authorized pilots with similar
ratings and time
6. Speed - not real fast. Zero wind is probably about 115kts. But if I am
just out to make holes inthe sky I can crank it back to 17 inches of MP and
2000 rpm and burn 4gph at 90kts.
7. Built like a truck. If you want a sports car, this is not your plane
8. Great instrument platform - stable, fairly high wing loading
"RH" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm a PVT, IFR pilot, but fairly low time at 350 hours, mostly in
various fixed gear PA28's.

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

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

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

Thanks for sharing!

Rich

pgbnh wrote:

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


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