A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Narrowing it down... Comanche?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #15  
Old February 22nd 06, 02:38 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Narrowing it down... Comanche?

"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! The *only* sense in which I am
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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.