Narrowing it down... Comanche?

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

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

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.

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.

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....

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....

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.

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)

"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)

"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)