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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
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.... |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
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.... |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
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) |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
"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) |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Narrowing it down... Comanche?
"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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Narrowing it down... Comanche? | Douglas Paterson | Owning | 18 | February 26th 06 12:51 AM |
Comanche accident averted last evening | [email protected] | Piloting | 23 | April 13th 05 10:02 AM |
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 |
comanche 250 | Tom Jackson | Owning | 5 | July 28th 03 01:02 AM |