Piper Commanche vs Money 201

I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.

(1) Is there anyone out there that has flown both airplanes extensively
and can give me pros and cons of each from their perspective?

(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
($75K-$100K) that I should consider?

(3) I heard Mooney is teetering on bankruptcy. Is this a real big
downside? Has anyone experienced owning a plane with a manufacturer
went bankrupt. Do parts become impossible to find?

-Sami
(remove the "_REMOVE_THIS" from the email address to respond directly)

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:23:27 -0600, "O. Sami Saydjari"
wrote:

I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.

(1) Is there anyone out there that has flown both airplanes extensively
and can give me pros and cons of each from their perspective?

(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
($75K-$100K) that I should consider?

(3) I heard Mooney is teetering on bankruptcy. Is this a real big
downside? Has anyone experienced owning a plane with a manufacturer
went bankrupt. Do parts become impossible to find?

-Sami

1. Bonanza - there is no substitute.

2. Those speeds are vaporware, you'll never see them from either
machine.

3. Mooney seems to be emerging from their financial troubles, and
believe it or not, may own Beechcraft soon. Comanche parts are
becoming a bit difficult to find and added to the fact that the
aircraft is no being produced worries me. Also, a good Comanche
mechanic is a must if you want to keep the aircraft in the air. Good
luck.

Stu Gotts wrote:

2. Those speeds are vaporware, you'll never see them from either
machine.

160kts in a cleaned up Comanche isn't vapor -- that's only about 185MPH.
It's not even uncommon. I see speeds like that all the time in my
slightly-cleaned-up (Lopresti and Knots2U) 250 -- speeds that I'm
confident in because we were positively anal about evaluating each mod
that went on (and in some case, subsequently came off) the airframe.

3. Mooney seems to be emerging from their financial troubles, and
believe it or not, may own Beechcraft soon. Comanche parts are
becoming a bit difficult to find and added to the fact that the
aircraft is no being produced worries me. Also, a good Comanche
mechanic is a must if you want to keep the aircraft in the air. Good
luck.

I've yet to find a Comanche part that wasn't available or couldn't be
fabricated by Webco or Johnston. That includes every bit and piece of
the gear system, stabilator trim tabs (had to replace one when
installing the Vne kit), aileron skins (an L-39 got dropped on one of
mine while my aircraft was undergoing a year-long refit), fuel cells and
other random bits-and-pieces. While it might take someone with
particular Comanche mojo to keep a 400 in the air, I've had no issues
with a 250 with a combination of doing my homework and otherwise
competent mechanics.

Go for the Comanche. They have good backing. (ie. ISC, webco ect) Parts
are very easy to get Webco has just about every thing. Parts are not
that much (compared to the Bonanza). I have flown a pa24-250 and trued
out to right around 180 mph. They are a good plane for the money. altho
the Bonanza will have a higher resale price. But if you sell the plane
in a few years I think you will get your money back and then some. Best
of luck
TONY
www.comancheflyer.com (has some comanche info)

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

I know a guy with a comanche 260, really nice plane, fast, good useful load.
his will do 160 kts.
Heck my 200 HP Turbo Arrow III typically does 150-155 kts.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


Stu Gotts wrote:

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:23:27 -0600, "O. Sami Saydjari"
wrote:

I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.

(1) Is there anyone out there that has flown both airplanes extensively
and can give me pros and cons of each from their perspective?

(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
($75K-$100K) that I should consider?

(3) I heard Mooney is teetering on bankruptcy. Is this a real big
downside? Has anyone experienced owning a plane with a manufacturer
went bankrupt. Do parts become impossible to find?

-Sami

1. Bonanza - there is no substitute.

2. Those speeds are vaporware, you'll never see them from either
machine.

3. Mooney seems to be emerging from their financial troubles, and
believe it or not, may own Beechcraft soon. Comanche parts are
becoming a bit difficult to find and added to the fact that the
aircraft is no being produced worries me. Also, a good Comanche
mechanic is a must if you want to keep the aircraft in the air. Good
luck.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:16:33 -0800, Jeff wrote:

I know a guy with a comanche 260, really nice plane, fast, good useful load.
his will do 160 kts.
Heck my 200 HP Turbo Arrow III typically does 150-155 kts.

I guess these claims are correct. I was referring to a no tail wind
situation!!!


Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


Stu Gotts wrote:

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:23:27 -0600, "O. Sami Saydjari"
wrote:

I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.

(1) Is there anyone out there that has flown both airplanes extensively
and can give me pros and cons of each from their perspective?

(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
($75K-$100K) that I should consider?

(3) I heard Mooney is teetering on bankruptcy. Is this a real big
downside? Has anyone experienced owning a plane with a manufacturer
went bankrupt. Do parts become impossible to find?

-Sami

1. Bonanza - there is no substitute.

2. Those speeds are vaporware, you'll never see them from either
machine.

3. Mooney seems to be emerging from their financial troubles, and
believe it or not, may own Beechcraft soon. Comanche parts are
becoming a bit difficult to find and added to the fact that the
aircraft is no being produced worries me. Also, a good Comanche
mechanic is a must if you want to keep the aircraft in the air. Good
luck.

In article , Stu Gotts
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:16:33 -0800, Jeff wrote:

I know a guy with a comanche 260, really nice plane, fast, good useful
load.
his will do 160 kts.
Heck my 200 HP Turbo Arrow III typically does 150-155 kts.

I guess these claims are correct. I was referring to a no tail wind
situation!!!

well, if we can talk about tailwinds, then my cherokee 140 is
a 155kt bird.

--
Bob Noel

Stu Gotts wrote:


I guess these claims are correct. I was referring to a no tail wind
situation!!!

So are we. Actually, to be precise in my case, the average speed seen
by flying reciprocal courses to factor wind out of the equation I don't
see any reason to hang an after market mod on the airframe if it doesn't
demonstrate a performance improvement, so if something goes on and
doesn't deliver it comes off again (rudder gap seals come to mind).

It's perfectly possible to make a PA24-250/260 cruise at or above
200MPH, but doing so requires tossing the factory cowl and demands the
Vne stabilator mod that most people haven't bothered to perform.

I am referring to no tail wind also.
My t-arrow gets 150-155 KTAS - Not ground speed, and this is at 65% power. 3 days
ago, at 14,000 ft, I had a TAS of 160 kts and a GS of 183 kts.

Everyone I know who flies a t-arrow flight plans at least 150 kts.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


Stu Gotts wrote:

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:16:33 -0800, Jeff wrote:

I know a guy with a comanche 260, really nice plane, fast, good useful load.
his will do 160 kts.
Heck my 200 HP Turbo Arrow III typically does 150-155 kts.

I guess these claims are correct. I was referring to a no tail wind
situation!!!

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


Stu Gotts wrote:

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:23:27 -0600, "O. Sami Saydjari"
wrote:

I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.

(1) Is there anyone out there that has flown both airplanes extensively
and can give me pros and cons of each from their perspective?

(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
($75K-$100K) that I should consider?

(3) I heard Mooney is teetering on bankruptcy. Is this a real big
downside? Has anyone experienced owning a plane with a manufacturer
went bankrupt. Do parts become impossible to find?

-Sami

1. Bonanza - there is no substitute.

2. Those speeds are vaporware, you'll never see them from either
machine.

3. Mooney seems to be emerging from their financial troubles, and
believe it or not, may own Beechcraft soon. Comanche parts are
becoming a bit difficult to find and added to the fact that the
aircraft is no being produced worries me. Also, a good Comanche
mechanic is a must if you want to keep the aircraft in the air. Good
luck.

Okay, I certainly believe you! ;-)

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:22:40 -0800, Jeff wrote:

I am referring to no tail wind also.
My t-arrow gets 150-155 KTAS - Not ground speed, and this is at 65% power. 3 days
ago, at 14,000 ft, I had a TAS of 160 kts and a GS of 183 kts.

Everyone I know who flies a t-arrow flight plans at least 150 kts.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


Stu Gotts wrote:

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:16:33 -0800, Jeff wrote:

I know a guy with a comanche 260, really nice plane, fast, good useful load.
his will do 160 kts.
Heck my 200 HP Turbo Arrow III typically does 150-155 kts.

I guess these claims are correct. I was referring to a no tail wind
situation!!!

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


Stu Gotts wrote:

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:23:27 -0600, "O. Sami Saydjari"
wrote:

I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.

(1) Is there anyone out there that has flown both airplanes extensively
and can give me pros and cons of each from their perspective?

(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
($75K-$100K) that I should consider?

(3) I heard Mooney is teetering on bankruptcy. Is this a real big
downside? Has anyone experienced owning a plane with a manufacturer
went bankrupt. Do parts become impossible to find?

-Sami

1. Bonanza - there is no substitute.

2. Those speeds are vaporware, you'll never see them from either
machine.

3. Mooney seems to be emerging from their financial troubles, and
believe it or not, may own Beechcraft soon. Comanche parts are
becoming a bit difficult to find and added to the fact that the
aircraft is no being produced worries me. Also, a good Comanche
mechanic is a must if you want to keep the aircraft in the air. Good
luck.