Used Avionics

In article ,
O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
Jeff, I have "narrowed it down" to three planes:

1965 Piper Comanche PA-24-260
1978 Mooney "201" M20J
1977 Piper Arrow III

The Arrow doesn't get as much advantage from being complex as the other
two planes. If you want something in the Cherokee series the 235s are
faster and carry more without the added maintenance costs of retractable
gear. They're popular with flight schools, though.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

Yes I think the retractable gear does help alot, at 150 kts, with only 200
HP, is pretty good. You cant put a turbo arrow with the normally aspirated
ones. Their performance is alot different.

the cherokee 235 is a 235 hp plane, is slower then a Turbo Arrow, but about
the same as a normally aspirated Arrow and has a lower ceiling then a Turbo
Arrow.
you can see some performance specs for a bunch of planes here
http://www.ferryflight.info/perfs.html
they have speed and range for most planes by the look of it.

Jeff

Ben Jackson wrote:


The Arrow doesn't get as much advantage from being complex as the other
two planes. If you want something in the Cherokee series the 235s are
faster and carry more without the added maintenance costs of retractable
gear. They're popular with flight schools, though.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

In article ,
Jeff wrote:
Yes I think the retractable gear does help alot, at 150 kts, with only 200
HP, is pretty good. You cant put a turbo arrow with the normally aspirated
ones.

He didn't say Turbo Arrow III, did he? Or did all Arrow IIIs come with
TIO-360s? If he's talking turbo that makes some sense, since the numbers
are similar to the Comanche and the M20J. The big difference will be
that the optimal altitudes will be higher in the turbo. That's a win if
you're in Colorado but probably a lose on the coasts or in the midwest.
The Comanche peaks at ~160KTAS @ 7000' @ 75%, like all non-turbos it
can't hold 75% beyond that, dropping back to ~155KTAS @ 10000 @ 65%.
The Turbo Arrow probably doesn't even hit its peak until the low teens,
but I don't have a chart for it.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

I had mentioned turbo arrow, he mentioned arrow, Alot of people confuse the
two, putting them in the same catagory not knowing there is a difference.

My personal opinion is that a comanche is still the best plane for the money
for useful load and speed. the only problems with them is the avionics are
usually outdated, avionics are so expensive alot of people dont upgrade them.
My wife only let me upgrade to our current plane if I promised to get one with
airconditioning, so the comanche was out for us. Also the turbo arrows I looked
at all seemed to have more options in them then most other planes in the same
catagory., ie, storm scope, airconditioning, HSI, auto pilot.

The main problem with a turbo arrow for me, is the rate of climb. you only use
max horse power for take off, then at about 1000 ft you reduce power to cruise
climb which is 75% power. and 75% power at 104 kts only gets you about 500 FPM.
Its kinda a trade off, turbo's are good if you consistantly fly higher, if you
like lower then no need to really get it, unless you want the extra speed it
has, and for the price, its a pretty good deal. At 10,000-12,000 ft your
hanging with bigger/faster planes like the bonanza.



Ben Jackson wrote:


He didn't say Turbo Arrow III, did he? Or did all Arrow IIIs come with
TIO-360s? If he's talking turbo that makes some sense, since the numbers
are similar to the Comanche and the M20J. The big difference will be
that the optimal altitudes will be higher in the turbo. That's a win if
you're in Colorado but probably a lose on the coasts or in the midwest.
The Comanche peaks at ~160KTAS @ 7000' @ 75%, like all non-turbos it
can't hold 75% beyond that, dropping back to ~155KTAS @ 10000 @ 65%.
The Turbo Arrow probably doesn't even hit its peak until the low teens,
but I don't have a chart for it.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

I love my turbo. It is of course a waste of time/money/etc at lowish
altitudes, say below 8000'. But the freedom to climb at keep on climbing,
not to mention high-performance take-off without having to worry
about density altitude (well, not so much anyway) is enormous.
I can climb to FL200 at a steady 500 fpm - the plane would probably
go quite a lot higher although it is not certificated to do so and I haven't
tried it. On long journeys going up high is a real bonus, especially over
unfriendly terrain.

John

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
I had mentioned turbo arrow, he mentioned arrow, Alot of people confuse
the
two, putting them in the same catagory not knowing there is a difference.

My personal opinion is that a comanche is still the best plane for the
money
for useful load and speed. the only problems with them is the avionics are
usually outdated, avionics are so expensive alot of people dont upgrade
them.
My wife only let me upgrade to our current plane if I promised to get one
with
airconditioning, so the comanche was out for us. Also the turbo arrows I
looked
at all seemed to have more options in them then most other planes in the
same
catagory., ie, storm scope, airconditioning, HSI, auto pilot.

The main problem with a turbo arrow for me, is the rate of climb. you only
use
max horse power for take off, then at about 1000 ft you reduce power to
cruise
climb which is 75% power. and 75% power at 104 kts only gets you about 500
FPM.
Its kinda a trade off, turbo's are good if you consistantly fly higher, if
you
like lower then no need to really get it, unless you want the extra speed
it
has, and for the price, its a pretty good deal. At 10,000-12,000 ft your
hanging with bigger/faster planes like the bonanza.



Ben Jackson wrote:


He didn't say Turbo Arrow III, did he? Or did all Arrow IIIs come with
TIO-360s? If he's talking turbo that makes some sense, since the
numbers
are similar to the Comanche and the M20J. The big difference will be
that the optimal altitudes will be higher in the turbo. That's a win if
you're in Colorado but probably a lose on the coasts or in the midwest.
The Comanche peaks at ~160KTAS @ 7000' @ 75%, like all non-turbos it
can't hold 75% beyond that, dropping back to ~155KTAS @ 10000 @ 65%.
The Turbo Arrow probably doesn't even hit its peak until the low teens,
but I don't have a chart for it.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

John
what kind of plane do you have?

Jeff

John Harper wrote:

I love my turbo. It is of course a waste of time/money/etc at lowish
altitudes, say below 8000'. But the freedom to climb at keep on climbing,
not to mention high-performance take-off without having to worry
about density altitude (well, not so much anyway) is enormous.
I can climb to FL200 at a steady 500 fpm - the plane would probably
go quite a lot higher although it is not certificated to do so and I haven't
tried it. On long journeys going up high is a real bonus, especially over
unfriendly terrain.

John

A 1980 TR182 (turbo, retractable) - useful load ~1150 lbs,
carries four adults and baggage plus enough fuel for 3.5hrs
with reserves, or two people with fuel for 5.5hrs with reserves.
Cruise at 160 at 10k, 170 in the low FLs. Rock solid flying.
14 gph at cruise.

And if you practice plenty of landings, those big biceps will
look great on the beach. (About the only, very minor, drawback
of the plane is that it takes quite a lot of heft for pitch control.
Trim is most definitely your friend).

John

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
John
what kind of plane do you have?

Jeff

John Harper wrote:

I love my turbo. It is of course a waste of time/money/etc at lowish
altitudes, say below 8000'. But the freedom to climb at keep on
climbing,
not to mention high-performance take-off without having to worry
about density altitude (well, not so much anyway) is enormous.
I can climb to FL200 at a steady 500 fpm - the plane would probably
go quite a lot higher although it is not certificated to do so and I
haven't
tried it. On long journeys going up high is a real bonus, especially
over
unfriendly terrain.

John

John Harper wrote:
: I love my turbo. It is of course a waste of time/money/etc at lowish
: altitudes, say below 8000'. But the freedom to climb at keep on climbing,
: not to mention high-performance take-off without having to worry
: about density altitude (well, not so much anyway) is enormous.
: I can climb to FL200 at a steady 500 fpm - the plane would probably
: go quite a lot higher although it is not certificated to do so and I haven't
: tried it. On long journeys going up high is a real bonus, especially over
: unfriendly terrain.

A non-turbo Comanche-260 will pretty much hold 500 fpm up to
higher than you can fly without oxygen. Unless you go full-tilt into high
altitude with O2, etc, a Comanche-260 seems to outperform a turbo Arrow in
just about every respect. It also doesn't have the drawback of the
extremely abused TIO-360 Continental in the mid 70's Turbo Arrow. My
mechanic just bought one of those, and all I can say is that he's
comfortable with the twitchiness of that engine. Something to be said for
simplicity... either normally-aspirated, big-bore, or at most a
turbo-normalized engine.

YMMV...

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote in
:

A non-turbo Comanche-260 will pretty much hold 500 fpm up to
higher than you can fly without oxygen. Unless you go full-tilt into
high altitude with O2, etc, a Comanche-260 seems to outperform a turbo
Arrow in just about every respect. It also doesn't have the drawback
of the extremely abused TIO-360 Continental in the mid 70's Turbo
Arrow. My mechanic just bought one of those, and all I can say is
that he's comfortable with the twitchiness of that engine. Something
to be said for simplicity... either normally-aspirated, big-bore, or
at most a turbo-normalized engine.

A friend of mine used to have a partnership in a Comanche 260. And
yes... I fly a turbo-Arrow III. One a number of trips we would wind up
chasing each other (both coming back from the same meeting, but couldn't
plane-pool up there; or I would take him up to pick up his plane when
another partner had left it somewhere due to weather or repairs). It
was always a fascinating exercise in flight planning to see which plane
would chase which.

The Comanche clearly was faster at low altitude. Down around 8K or less
the turbo Arrow flies pretty much like a straight Arrow - figure 145
knots or so. And initially the Comanche has more "get up and go" climb
performance from sea level.

OTOH, at high altitudes (low flight levels) my Arrow will true out
around 175 knots (it has the Merlyn wastegate) and burn a LOT less fuel
(GAMIjectors). Also, at those high altitudes, my ability to get more
direct routing is a lot better. [BTW, both the GAMI and the Merlyn
greatly reduce both the "abuse" and the "twichiness" of the turbo
Arrow.]

Objectively, it was about half and half who one. Long trips,
particularly with a tailwind, and I would virtually always win. Short
hops of 150 nm or so and the Comanche would always win. Fun...

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------