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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Budget Retracts - Anyone own a Sierra or Comanche 180?
How about an early Bonanza? I paid $27,000 for my 54 E35 in 1996 and
it is worth about $45,000 today. I go a good 10 knt faster than my friend's Arrow at lower fuel flow. I flight plan 145 knt @ 10.5 gph, and it true out at 150 on most days. Parts are more expensive but you don't need them as often. It is harder to find A/P who knows about Conti E225 engines but they are out there. Whatever you buy, do a prepurchase by an A/P who knows the type. If you need to pay more for a "specialist" to do prebuy, it is still worth it! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Budget Retracts - Anyone own a Sierra or Comanche 180?
A Lieberman wrote: On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 22:40:26 GMT, B A R R Y wrote: I have not found Sundowner parts to be crazy, as many wear items like rod bushings and Lycoming engine parts are common to all brands. There are unique parts like gear cushion donuts, but members of the Beech Aero Club are pretty good about banding together and finding approved aftermarket deals. I'd buy the plane again... I second what Barry says for the Sundowner. Trailing link gear on the Sundowner cushions even the hardest of hard landings. This statement has my head spinning. This the opposite of what I have read in every review of these planes. Or maybe these types aren't as similar as I thought. Does the Sundowner have the hard rubber shock mounts (instead of oleos) in the trailing link gear that the Sport and Musketeer have, which are reputed to reflect bounce energy right back and magnify any bounces, instead of cushion them like trailing link gear is supposed to do? I would be interested to know if this is not the case, because the two doors and roomy cabin make it otherwise look very attractive (the lack of a driver's door was my biggest complaint when I flew Warriors, which are otherwise great planes IMO), but I know my limitations and know I can't regularly fly a plane that requires perfect or near-perfect landing technique every time. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Budget Retracts - Anyone own a Sierra or Comanche 180?
On 4 Feb 2006 21:02:30 -0800, xyzzy wrote:
This statement has my head spinning. This the opposite of what I have read in every review of these planes. Or maybe these types aren't as similar as I thought. Does the Sundowner have the hard rubber shock mounts (instead of oleos) in the trailing link gear that the Sport and Musketeer have, which are reputed to reflect bounce energy right back and magnify any bounces, instead of cushion them like trailing link gear is supposed to do? The landing reputation of the Sundowner is the porpoising tendencies. It is extremely forward CG and you basically need a lot of weight in the back to reduce the porposing tendency. I have 50 pounds in the cargo area when I fly by myself with full tanks to keep it in the CG envelope. If I take a passenger, I throw in another 25 pounds (or passenger luggage) in the luggage compartment to keep the W&B in the CG envelope. The W&B envelope is very, very narrow. The mains have the donuts which act wonderfully as shock absorbers. I would be interested to know if this is not the case, because the two doors and roomy cabin make it otherwise look very attractive (the lack of a driver's door was my biggest complaint when I flew Warriors, which are otherwise great planes IMO), but I know my limitations and know I can't regularly fly a plane that requires perfect or near-perfect landing technique every time. My experiences (4 years and counting) is that if you keep your airspeed on final by the POH book (68 knot final with full flaps) and bleed the speed off over the numbers, you will grease the landing. Come in hot, you will skip like a rock, and because of the forward CG, if you don't maintain back pressure, your nose will come down first, thus the first step to a porpoised landing. Come in slow, and you drop like a rock. So, compared to Cessnas that I have flown, you do have to pay closer attention to your speed on final. I like the trim wheel placement between the seats, and for every landing, you can set the trim exactly the same spot every time so that you know the plane is trimmed the same way every time. FOR ME, compared to a Cessna, between the trailing link gear and ground effect, the Sundowner is a lot easier on my landing ego. I have not flown any other type of plane. I have made three trips from MS to OH in the past year and because of the cabin room, it really was a comfortable ride for me. Allen |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Budget Retracts - Anyone own a Sierra or Comanche 180?
The Comanche line started with the 180, so the whole aircraft was
designed with the 180 hp engine in mind. A year or so later, the 250 came into existence. But the Lycoming O-540 is quite a bit heavier than the O-320, so the 250 seems a little heavier in pitch, especially in the landing flare. The 250 is really quite good, it is just that the 180 is almost perfect. I have only flown a 180 twice, but I could discern the difference from my 250 that I have owned for over 20 years. The difference is slight, but it is there. The 180 is cheaper to own (lower initial cost, less gas, cheaper engine overhaul), but you give up some payload and speed to save the money. You will have to decide the relative worth yourself. I went for the 250, but I think the 180 has very slightly better handling. It all depends on your mission profile. Ask this question on the Delphi Forum and I am certain you will get a number of differing viewpoints. Hank Henry A. Spellman Comanche N5903P RH wrote: The Comanche 180 is probably the sweetest flying of the family, but the Comanche 250 is the quintessential version. That's an interesting comment. Can you elaborate on what it is you like about the 180 over the other Comanches? Most of what I have read so far online about the 180 says "go for the 250..." So any comments specific to the 180 from someone who has flown one are greatly appreciated! Rich |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Budget Retracts - Anyone own a Sierra or Comanche 180?
I second what Barry says for the Sundowner. Trailing link gear on the
Sundowner cushions even the hardest of hard landings. This statement has my head spinning. This the opposite of what I have read in every review of these planes That's what I have read too. Maybe this trait just gets exaggerated after hearing it over & over. I cant believe the Sundowner/Sierra would require superman pilot skills. Is it just that it is intolerant of those *really* bad landings, ie: those that should have ended in a go around? With new rubber shocks, would the bouncing be minimized? Or is it the other way around - with old rubber shocks, is the gear "softer"? Rich |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Budget Retracts - Anyone own a Sierra or Comanche 180?
The landing reputation of the Sundowner is the porpoising tendencies. It
is extremely forward CG and you basically need a lot of weight in the back to reduce the porposing tendency. I guess this tendency would be even worse with the Sierra, given its higher engine weight? I have made three trips from MS to OH in the past year and because of the cabin room, it really was a comfortable ride for me. That's the biggest attraction for me. My wife, a non pilot, does not really like flying but she tolerates it because she likes going from A to B in a fraction of the time it takes to drive. That and she prefers GA travel to the airlines because of all the hassles involved with commercial air travel nowadays. So keeping her comfortable in the cabin is really important to me. The two doors are a BIG plus. One thing she does not like about the Cherokee, is that she has to wait for me to finish preflighting and then get in the plane last . I really cant think of a single GA airplane in this price range that is more passenger friendly than the Sierra. The rear baggage door is huge too. Real easy to load that baby stroller in and out! Rich |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Budget Retracts - Anyone own a Sierra or Comanche 180?
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Budget Retracts - Anyone own a Sierra or Comanche 180?
Henry A. Spellman wrote:
: The Comanche line started with the 180, so the whole aircraft was : designed with the 180 hp engine in mind. A year or so later, the 250 : came into existence. But the Lycoming O-540 is quite a bit heavier than : the O-320, so the 250 seems a little heavier in pitch, especially in the : landing flare. The 250 is really quite good, it is just that the 180 is : almost perfect. : I have only flown a 180 twice, but I could discern the difference from : my 250 that I have owned for over 20 years. The difference is slight, : but it is there. Hrm... having flown a 250 a couple of times with a friend that owns one, I can say it sure is sweet. Granted the retract and CS prop would help, but 180hp on a PA24 seems like it would be awfully marginal... my PA28-180 hardly has power to spare. The airframe on the PA24 is about 400lbs heavier than my PA28 IIRC, with only 150lbs more gross. Sounds like a 3-place retract. The 250 on the other hand climbs great no matter what the load it seems. There is such a thing as a "resonant design" for aircraft. On the PA28, I'd argue it's 180hp. For the PA24, it's 250. For a 172, probably 180hp as well. As far as fuel flow goes, just because you have a bigger engine doesn't mean you need to cruise with it. With only 60 gallons on a stock PA24 though, it'd be a little bit short on range. -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Budget Retracts - Anyone own a Sierra or Comanche 180?
You will be paying a big price for retract, in initial cost,
maintenance and insurance. Extra speed for 1 to 2 hour trips doesn't amount to much. If the wife wants 2 doors, you should probably get two doors. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Budget Retracts - Anyone own a Sierra or Comanche 180?
"xyzzy" wrote in message oups.com... This statement has my head spinning. This the opposite of what I have read in every review of these planes. Or maybe these types aren't as similar as I thought. Does the Sundowner have the hard rubber shock mounts (instead of oleos) in the trailing link gear that the Sport and Musketeer have, which are reputed to reflect bounce energy right back and magnify any bounces, instead of cushion them like trailing link gear is supposed to do? I would be interested to know if this is not the case, because the two doors and roomy cabin make it otherwise look very attractive (the lack of a driver's door was my biggest complaint when I flew Warriors, which are otherwise great planes IMO), but I know my limitations and know I can't regularly fly a plane that requires perfect or near-perfect landing technique every time. Wow, that's news to me - I flew a Beech Sport for a while. The only problem I has with landings was that I had a hard time getting the hang of the flap thingies (I was too used to slipping in with no flaps in a Cessna 120). Don't recall any problem with bouncing once I got it to the runway. Perhaps I just didn't know that it was supposed to be hard? Or perhaps, the reputation exceeds the reality. -- Geoff the sea hawk at wow way d0t com remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Comanche accident averted last evening | [email protected] | Piloting | 23 | April 13th 05 10:02 AM |
REAL BUDGET BUSTER | Cribsheet | Piloting | 2 | December 18th 04 10:02 PM |
Commanche alternatives? | John Cook | Military Aviation | 99 | March 24th 04 03:22 AM |
Commanche alternatives? | Kevin Brooks | Naval Aviation | 23 | March 24th 04 03:22 AM |
RAH-66 Comanche helicopter could face budget cuts in 2005 | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 0 | November 19th 03 02:18 PM |