If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
Hello, Folks:
You may remember my posting of 3 Jan, titled "Resource for choosing a plane?" ]. I got quite a bit of help & pointers from this group (along with a few requisite wise-ass remarks!), for which I'm very grateful. Since then, I've done a bit of homework. I've bought & read Clarke's _The Illustrated Buyer's Guide to Used Airplanes_, 6th ed.; Ellis' _Buying and Owning Your Own Airplane_, 3rd ed.; and Wanttaja's _Airplane Ownership_. I've also been reading every GA magazine I can find, as well as print & online versions of "Trade-A-Plane," "Aero Trader," etc. Oh, yeah--been keeping up on this board, too. My conclusion? Well, still written in Jell-O--but, the best bang/$ model meeting my requirements appears to be...: Piper Comanche (PA-24-xxx) [deliberately holding off on engine for the moment]. So, once again, I'd like to solicit some thoughts from the group. Following are some of my thoughts--I'd love to have any opinions (especially difference-of-opinion), corrections, or additions you may have. - I ended up eliminating all fixed gear/fixed prop models I saw because few could meet my speed & useful load requirements, especially at my high altitude (Colorado Springs). The hardest one for me to get away from was the Grumman-American Tiger (AA-5B) [has the speed & load, but marginal climb and a narrow cabin discouraged me; I got my PP ticket in these and have a soft spot for 'em], followed closely by the Piper Cherokee 180 (PA-28-180/181) line [marginal speed, marginal climb--but certainly appears to be the "sweet spot" on the used market, and I have several hours in these, too]. Can anyone prove me wrong on these, especially on my climb-at-altitude concern? - Several fixed gear/cs prop models fit the bill. I like the numbers of the Piper Cherokee 235 (PA-28-235/236) line and the Piper Cherokee Six (PA-32-260/300/301) line. Ultimately, the bang/buck thing has me leaning to the Comanche. Comments on that position? - Other retracts caught my eye, besides the Comanche. I like the PA-28R "Arrow" line as much as the fixed-gear Cherokees, and the same goes for the PA-32R versions of the "Six" line. Bang/buck again. One extremely sexy (albeit somewhat pricier) retract alternative is the EADS/Socata Trinidad (TB-20)--if I can't find a Comanche (assuming that's my final target) for the right price, I may set my sights on a Trinidad. -- Many of the planes I eliminated in this category were due to cost, either acquisition or operating (typically both). I like the numbers of the Beech 33, 35, and 36 series, but serious bucks to buy and own (and, in my book, that throw-over control and backward configuration fall into the "weird" category I'm trying to avoid). What about the Beech 24 series? Couldn't find much on them.... -- Money also an issue on the Rockwell/Commanders and the Diamonds. -- One obvious contender I bypassed here is the Mooneys. I'm ready for contrary opinions here, but my reading seems to indicate that early models will be claustrophobic, at best; the "middle" models (the M20J) start getting better but have marginal useful loads; and the "later" models have all you could want but are big bucks.... -- Two other marques that have intrigued me are Meyers and Navion--but, I can't find any significant info on either one. Is that a sign that they're too rare for serious consideration (since I deliberately want to stay "mainstream" my first time out)? Opinions on these? So, Comanche is leading the pack. Reading my list above, I seem to be prejudiced in favor of Pipers--I don't know if that's a reflection of me or of how well those models seem to fit my needs & preferences. Do I have blinders on? Among the Comanches: after toying with the idea of the 400, I calmed down. The 180s seem like a steal, but the useful load is marginal and I worry about the climb-at-altitude. So, I'm down to the 250/260/260B/260C decision--but I'm holding off on that for the moment. Before I burn too many brain bytes or go too far down the rabbit hole, I'm hoping for either confirmation or contradiction of my thought processes here. If you've read this far, you must have at least SOME opinions to share...! Thanks for any help or advice you have to give. -- 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) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
Looks like one is available there right now...
http://www.chooseyouritem.com/airpla...500/53705.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
".Blueskies." wrote in message
. com... Looks like one is available there right now... http://www.chooseyouritem.com/airpla...500/53705.html Thanks for the pointer. I've seen this one on some classified site or other. I may try to look at it as a tire-kicker, but I'm shying away from turbo-charging (baby-steps for the first-time buyer). On this as every aspect of my first plane, I'm happy to have opinions pro or con.... Looks like a beautiful airplane, though a bit above my self-imposed $100K range.... -- 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) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
Doug, Doug, Doug,
Why do you feel it necessary to make the "low wing" error? Don't you know that's giving in to the dark side? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
"skym" wrote in message oups.com... Doug, Doug, Doug, Why do you feel it necessary to make the "low wing" error? Don't you know that's giving in to the dark side? Heh. Call me Anakin, then--having flown both, I prefer the low wing. Handling primarily, visibility a close second, and just plain "looks like an airplane oughtta look"! I looked at the C185 and C210, but decided at the end of the day, I'd just prefer the low-wing..... (ducking & covering now--been around enough to know this is largely a religious choice!) -- 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) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
-- One obvious contender I bypassed here is the Mooneys. I'm ready for
contrary opinions here, but my reading seems to indicate that early models will be claustrophobic, at best; the "middle" models (the M20J) start getting better but have marginal useful loads; and the "later" models have all you could want but are big bucks.... What was your price point again ? I doubt you'll be claustrophobic in any Mooney. They all have tremendous legroom for front seat passengers and the cabin width is equal to or wider than any other single engine GA airplane (Cirrus not withstanding). A Mooney 231 if it fits your price point is worth a look and the 'E' model if a 231 is too much $$$. All Mooneys have +/- 1000 lb useful load. I am biased, flying a Bravo now and "C" model previously. --- Ken Reed N9124X |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
"Ken Reed" wrote in message
k.net... -- One obvious contender I bypassed here is the Mooneys. I'm ready for contrary opinions here, but my reading seems to indicate that early models will be claustrophobic, at best; the "middle" models (the M20J) start getting better but have marginal useful loads; and the "later" models have all you could want but are big bucks.... What was your price point again ? I doubt you'll be claustrophobic in any Mooney. They all have tremendous legroom for front seat passengers and the cabin width is equal to or wider than any other single engine GA airplane (Cirrus not withstanding). A Mooney 231 if it fits your price point is worth a look and the 'E' model if a 231 is too much $$$. All Mooneys have +/- 1000 lb useful load. I am biased, flying a Bravo now and "C" model previously. --- Ken Reed N9124X Ken: The legroom fits with what I've read--but, otherwise, you're the first source who *doesn't* say the Mooney is "a tight fit," "like getting into a sports car," "you wear it," etc. M20s have a 43" cabin width from what I've read--compare to 45" for the Comanche (and 50" for the Trinidad, part of what gets me drooling over that plane). Are my figures off?? I'm trying to get away with less than $100K--which will get me some of the lesser 201/J models from what I'm seeing, or any of the earlier models. The 1,000 useful load is a bit lower than what I want--I want to carry 4 real people and cruise for 4 hours @ 150 mph (600 sm) or better. That "requirement" isn't written in stone, but it's the mission on which I based my initial search. No worries on being "biased," opinions are what I want/need here! Thanks.... -- 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) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
On 2006-02-21, Douglas Paterson wrote:
The legroom fits with what I've read--but, otherwise, you're the first source who *doesn't* say the Mooney is "a tight fit," "like getting into a sports car," "you wear it," etc. M20s have a 43" cabin width from what I've read--compare to 45" for the Comanche (and 50" for the Trinidad, part of what gets me drooling over that plane). Are my figures off?? I considered M20s and flew an M20J (or was it a K) before buying a Comanche. I'm 6'4" and there was enough legroom in the Mooney to make up for the low seat, but just barely. I also fly the Comanche with the seat all the way back (a guy down the hangar row from me is 6'5" and had his seatrails drilled so he could move even farther back). The Comanche gives you more opportunities to shift positions during cruise flight, which is nice. You've really got to sit in a plane to know for sure. For example, I don't fit in an Apache. I could fly at cruise all day, but for landing with my toes on the rudder and the throttle most of the way back, there was no way to clear my knee with the yoke. -- Ben Jackson http://www.ben.com/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
... On 2006-02-21, Douglas Paterson wrote: I considered M20s and flew an M20J (or was it a K) before buying a Comanche. I'm 6'4" and there was enough legroom in the Mooney to make up for the low seat, but just barely. I also fly the Comanche with the seat all the way back (a guy down the hangar row from me is 6'5" and had his seatrails drilled so he could move even farther back). The Comanche gives you more opportunities to shift positions during cruise flight, which is nice. You've really got to sit in a plane to know for sure. For example, I don't fit in an Apache. I could fly at cruise all day, but for landing with my toes on the rudder and the throttle most of the way back, there was no way to clear my knee with the yoke. Agreed. Points on the adjustable seat well-taken, too. Thanks. -- 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) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
The legroom fits with what I've read--but, otherwise, you're the first
source who *doesn't* say the Mooney is "a tight fit," "like getting into a sports car," "you wear it," etc. M20s have a 43" cabin width from what I've read--compare to 45" for the Comanche. Are my figures off?? This from an AOPA article: "Although the measuring tape says the cabin is comparable to other four-place retractables, the perception is that the cockpit is not as large." The Mooney is 43.5"and the Comanche is 44", according to Plane & Pilot: http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont..._tse_1988.html http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont...rcomanche.html 0.5" difference doesn't get me too excited. I'm trying to get away with less than $100K--which will get me some of the lesser 201/J models from what I'm seeing, or any of the earlier models. The 1,000 useful load is a bit lower than what I want--I want to carry 4 real people and cruise for 4 hours @ 150 mph (600 sm) or better. That "requirement" isn't written in stone, but it's the mission on which I based my initial search. If you decide to look into Mooneys further, you may want to consider an 'F' model versus a 'J' (aka 201). The 'J' is a great airplane too, but it may be more than you need. Your 150 MPH cruise figure is slow for any Mooney; the 'F' will cruise at 145-150 kts and the 'J' will do 158-160 kts (real world numbers). If you are looking for 600sm range, in a Mooney you don't need four hours ;-) http://mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20F...on_Report.html http://mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20J...on_report.html Some other URLs for research: http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...ooney9209.html http://www.allamericanaircraft.com/o...ails.cfm?ID=78 --- Ken Reed N9124X Mooney M20M (TLS/Bravo) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Comanche accident averted last evening | [email protected] | Piloting | 23 | April 13th 05 10:02 AM |
Future Home of Comanche prototype #1 | Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh | Military Aviation | 1 | August 13th 04 05:37 AM |
Comanche Aircraft headed to museums | Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh | Military Aviation | 0 | June 11th 04 01:32 PM |
Comanche 260 - 1965 | Sami Saydjari | Owning | 5 | December 8th 03 12:24 AM |
RAH-66 Comanche helicopter could face budget cuts in 2005 | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 0 | November 19th 03 02:18 PM |