![]() |
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John" wrote in message
... Doug, Make sure your cost estimates are carefully considered. I don't know much about the Comaches, but have owned a 1978 Arrow, 1984 Bonanza and a 1968 C-172. Vintage retracts can cost a lot in maintenance, even if the initial price is low. Everyone who has bought an old twin sees this. Did you consider a Cessna 182? It's probably more initially, but insurance and maintenance will likely be less. Appreciation may possibly be greater with a 182, so that's where you need to sharpen your pencil. As an investor, I'd rather take my chances on a C-182 than a Comanche. Also, if you pay $20k more for a C-182, yet $800 less in insurance and $1000 less in annual maintenance, isn't that a better deal? Even if you get different numbers, don't contaminate the initial cost estimate, which you likely get back upon resale, with the operating cost, which you never see back again. From a pure dollars-and-cents analysis, you're undoubtedly right. Of course, from a pure dollars-and-cents perspective, I'd give up the idea of ownership and go buy a nice mutual fund! ![]() considering this impending purchase as an "investment" is that the money will not be *spent*, it will merely be *tied up*. I expect to get most/all/a bit more back out eventually, but not to turn a profit. If I do end up making money--cool!, but, that's not the goal nor am I holding my breath.... I've got nothing against the 182. That & the 210 were leading contenders before I decided to go low-wing. Ultimately, my experience in high-wings (C-172/T-41A and C-152) left me satisfied--but not excited; my low-wing experience (wider variety, but mostly AA-5 and PA-28) gave me both. Personal preference, pure and simple. You seem tilted toward a low-wing, which is easier to land in gusty crosswinds, but a heavier high-wing, like the 182, isn't that bad. Panel lighting on the Cessnas is generally primitive, but that can be fixed. Also, two doors are great. No doubt on the two doors--especially if hiding under the wing in a rainshower! Thanks for the comments.... -- 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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |