Narrowing it down... Comanche?

Douglas Paterson wrote:
: Note, I'm not knocking turbo--it's just not for me, not this time....

... then you need lots of engine.

-Cory

--

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

"Douglas Paterson" wrote in message
...
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....

Couple questions:

Where do you live/fly our of?

What is your "mission profile"?

How many hours do you have? How many with a constant speed prop?

If you live in Kansas, turbocharging is going to be a waste; if it's the
Rocky Mountain west, it's damn near a necessity.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Douglas Paterson" wrote in message
...


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).

I'm going to sell my Bonanza this spring and I'll probably make about
$40-50K over what I bought it for in 2000, allowing for the engine exchange
and TN package I had installed. They really hold their value.

Bonanza parts are NOT a problem. Before my Bo I had a T210...parts were
always available, and the 210 ate them like snacks.

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/$....


Good luck whichever way you go!

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Paterson ]
Posted At: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:25 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
Conversation: Narrowing it down... Comanche?
Subject: Narrowing it down... Comanche?

...clipped for brevity...

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)


[Jim Carter] Doug,
Something I hadn't thought about until just now is how long you intend
to keep the bird. If you would be keeping it long enough to use it for
lots of instrument work, then you might want to re-consider the turbo
aspect. For example, I think the MEAs west of you get quite high for a
normally aspirated bird, isn't Monarch around 16K?

I know you can go north or south to get around the high country, but
that lengthens your time enroute and probably negates any speed
advantage you might have with the Comanche. (Am I making a good enough
case for a 400 here?)

I don't remember seeing this small point discussed in your thread so
far, but then I missed your comments about the Cherokee 235 too.

Jeff wrote:
comparing a bonanza and an arrow is not even close.

No it's not. The initial purchase price will be very similar. I paid
$88K for my Bo last August. What's the typical Turbo Arrow going for?


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.

I will burn 14 gph to go 175 kts. To get your 150 kts I am closer to 10
gph. Insurance more than anything will vary with pilot qualifications.
Assuming similar pilots the insurance tab will be very close if not
more for the Arrow because you have a turbo.



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.

Having owned three planes now I would much rather have one where I have
no worries about power settings and burning up cylinders if I'm not careful.

Newps wrote:
snip
Insurance more than anything will vary with pilot qualifications.
Assuming similar pilots the insurance tab will be very close if not
more for the Arrow because you have a turbo.
snip

I haven't done an A/B comparison of the insurance costs, but I thought the
insurance premium for a 6-seater was in general much higher than a 4-seater.
I've never heard of extra premium for a turbo.

Dave Butler wrote:
Newps wrote:
snip

Insurance more than anything will vary with pilot qualifications.
Assuming similar pilots the insurance tab will be very close if not
more for the Arrow because you have a turbo.

snip

I haven't done an A/B comparison of the insurance costs, but I thought
the insurance premium for a 6-seater was in general much higher than a
4-seater. I've never heard of extra premium for a turbo.

And sometimes it just won't make any sense. For example about a year
ago, while I had my 182, I called my agent for a quote on a P206,
limited to four seats. No turbo. They wanted $1800 on a $90K hull.
When I bought my Bonanza I had zero retract time in my 1100 hours. The
insurance will be $1500. That's a six seat RG. I completely forgot to
ask them the cost if limited to four seats, I will do that at renewall
to see if it matters for this model. A turbo will always cost more than
a non turbo of the same model for insurance. I suppose some models the
difference is greater. A 210 vs a T210 is a big difference. Maybe the
Arrow has such limited performance that the insurance company doesn't
worry so much that you will be in the flight levels screwing up.

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.

Well, I just dialed the two planes into Destination Direct, and came up with
the 8 minute difference between the aircraft. Supposedly the program is set
up to take climb and descent into account, but I haven't checked the numbers
with a whiz wheel.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

wrote in message
...
Douglas Paterson wrote:
: Note, I'm not knocking turbo--it's just not for me, not this time....

... then you need lots of engine.


No doubt. I know that was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment, but it does
point to a serious question I've had brewing:

How big is "lots of" (i.e., "enough") engine? Is the 250/260 hp of the
Comanche's "big enough"?

--
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)

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Douglas Paterson" wrote in message

Note, I'm not knocking turbo--it's just not for me, not this time....

Couple questions:

Where do you live/fly our of?

Live/will be flying out of Colorado Springs, CO--looks like we're
practically neighbors!


What is your "mission profile"?


I'm a bit vague on this point still. Plenty of $100 hamburgers, no doubt,
but also several cross countries a year. My benchmark trip I used to try to
develop my requirements was a weekend run to Las Vegas. 600sm-ish, forces
me to consider high terrain, and it's a trip I would be very likely to
actually make once I have my own wings!

How many hours do you have? How many with a constant speed prop?

~4,200 hours, most of it in heavy jets; ~130 in small, GA-type airplanes, ~5
of that with a c/s prop (Seneca I got my ATP in, also the only GA twin I've
flown).


If you live in Kansas, turbocharging is going to be a waste; if it's the
Rocky Mountain west, it's damn near a necessity.


Well, Rocky Mountain West it is. I'm not *in* the mountains like you, but
any westerly course from here will involve mountains, and I have high field
elevations and even higher DAs to deal with. "Damn near" a necessity still
leaves some wiggle room .... Seriously, do you have an opinion or
experiences to share on some tc vs non-tc performance in this area? As I
say, I'm zeroing in on Comanche as the right model for me--but, if I can't
get it off the ground, I'll obviously have to re-evaluate that position....

--
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)