Narrowing it down... Comanche?

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
...
On 2006-02-21, Douglas Paterson wrote:


I considered M20s and flew an M20J (or was it a K) before buying a
Comanche. I'm 6'4" and there was enough legroom in the Mooney to make
up for the low seat, but just barely. I also fly the Comanche with
the seat all the way back (a guy down the hangar row from me is 6'5"
and had his seatrails drilled so he could move even farther back).
The Comanche gives you more opportunities to shift positions during
cruise flight, which is nice.

You've really got to sit in a plane to know for sure. For example,
I don't fit in an Apache. I could fly at cruise all day, but for
landing with my toes on the rudder and the throttle most of the way
back, there was no way to clear my knee with the yoke.


Agreed. Points on the adjustable seat well-taken, too. Thanks.

--
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)

"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)

Douglas Paterson wrote:
: "Knowledgeable" is a different story; I'm learning from the ground-up here.
: My small-airplane experience has been solely renting up to now, and a good
: 10 years out of date to boot. I'm taking care of the currency issue by
: starting to fly w/ the local aero club, but I won't become an overnight
: mechanic by doing that! Are you suggesting that a high level of A&P-ish
: knowledge is a prerequisite to owning an older airplane--or is the
: willingness to learn enough?

In many ways working on an airplane is a lot like working on an old car, only
simpler. Some things are definately in the "ignorance can hurt it" category, though.
Working with an A&P is a great way to save money, learn a lot, and be safer flying
because you understand the systems better and can more accurately troubleshoot and
repair problems.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

have you looked at the Turbo Arrow?
I had one for about 2 years, sold it about 6 months ago to get a twin. great
altitude plane, does about 150 ktas at 7000-12000 ft and at 14,000 ft I was
getting 168 ktas.

Jeff

Douglas Paterson wrote:

Hello, Folks:

You may remember my posting of 3 Jan, titled "Resource for choosing a
plane?" ]. I got quite a
bit of help & pointers from this group (along with a few requisite wise-ass
remarks!), for which I'm very grateful.

Since then, I've done a bit of homework. I've bought & read Clarke's _The
Illustrated Buyer's Guide to Used Airplanes_, 6th ed.; Ellis' _Buying and
Owning Your Own Airplane_, 3rd ed.; and Wanttaja's _Airplane Ownership_.
I've also been reading every GA magazine I can find, as well as print &
online versions of "Trade-A-Plane," "Aero Trader," etc. Oh, yeah--been
keeping up on this board, too.

My conclusion? Well, still written in Jell-O--but, the best bang/$ model
meeting my requirements appears to be...: Piper Comanche (PA-24-xxx)
[deliberately holding off on engine for the moment].

So, once again, I'd like to solicit some thoughts from the group. Following
are some of my thoughts--I'd love to have any opinions (especially
difference-of-opinion), corrections, or additions you may have.

- I ended up eliminating all fixed gear/fixed prop models I saw because few
could meet my speed & useful load requirements, especially at my high
altitude (Colorado Springs). The hardest one for me to get away from was
the Grumman-American Tiger (AA-5B) [has the speed & load, but marginal climb
and a narrow cabin discouraged me; I got my PP ticket in these and have a
soft spot for 'em], followed closely by the Piper Cherokee 180
(PA-28-180/181) line [marginal speed, marginal climb--but certainly appears
to be the "sweet spot" on the used market, and I have several hours in
these, too]. Can anyone prove me wrong on these, especially on my
climb-at-altitude concern?

- Several fixed gear/cs prop models fit the bill. I like the numbers of
the Piper Cherokee 235 (PA-28-235/236) line and the Piper Cherokee Six
(PA-32-260/300/301) line. Ultimately, the bang/buck thing has me leaning to
the Comanche. Comments on that position?

- Other retracts caught my eye, besides the Comanche. I like the PA-28R
"Arrow" line as much as the fixed-gear Cherokees, and the same goes for the
PA-32R versions of the "Six" line. Bang/buck again. One extremely sexy
(albeit somewhat pricier) retract alternative is the EADS/Socata Trinidad
(TB-20)--if I can't find a Comanche (assuming that's my final target) for
the right price, I may set my sights on a Trinidad.
-- Many of the planes I eliminated in this category were due to cost,
either acquisition or operating (typically both). I like the numbers of the
Beech 33, 35, and 36 series, but serious bucks to buy and own (and, in my
book, that throw-over control and backward configuration fall into the
"weird" category I'm trying to avoid). What about the Beech 24 series?
Couldn't find much on them....
-- Money also an issue on the Rockwell/Commanders and the Diamonds.
-- One obvious contender I bypassed here is the Mooneys. I'm ready for
contrary opinions here, but my reading seems to indicate that early models
will be claustrophobic, at best; the "middle" models (the M20J) start
getting better but have marginal useful loads; and the "later" models have
all you could want but are big bucks....
-- Two other marques that have intrigued me are Meyers and Navion--but,
I can't find any significant info on either one. Is that a sign that
they're too rare for serious consideration (since I deliberately want to
stay "mainstream" my first time out)? Opinions on these?

So, Comanche is leading the pack. Reading my list above, I seem to be
prejudiced in favor of Pipers--I don't know if that's a reflection of me or
of how well those models seem to fit my needs & preferences. Do I have
blinders on?

Among the Comanches: after toying with the idea of the 400, I calmed down.
The 180s seem like a steal, but the useful load is marginal and I worry
about the climb-at-altitude. So, I'm down to the 250/260/260B/260C
decision--but I'm holding off on that for the moment.

Before I burn too many brain bytes or go too far down the rabbit hole, I'm
hoping for either confirmation or contradiction of my thought processes
here. If you've read this far, you must have at least SOME opinions to
share...! Thanks for any help or advice you have to give.
--
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)

The legroom fits with what I've read--but, otherwise, you're the first
source who *doesn't* say the Mooney is "a tight fit," "like getting into a
sports car," "you wear it," etc. M20s have a 43" cabin width from what I've
read--compare to 45" for the Comanche. Are my figures off??

This from an AOPA article:
"Although the measuring tape says the cabin is comparable to other
four-place retractables, the perception is that the cockpit is not as
large."

The Mooney is 43.5"and the Comanche is 44", according to Plane & Pilot:

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont..._tse_1988.html

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont...rcomanche.html

0.5" difference doesn't get me too excited.

I'm trying to get away with less than $100K--which will get me some of the
lesser 201/J models from what I'm seeing, or any of the earlier models. The
1,000 useful load is a bit lower than what I want--I want to carry 4 real
people and cruise for 4 hours @ 150 mph (600 sm) or better. That
"requirement" isn't written in stone, but it's the mission on which I based
my initial search.

If you decide to look into Mooneys further, you may want to consider an
'F' model versus a 'J' (aka 201). The 'J' is a great airplane too, but
it may be more than you need. Your 150 MPH cruise figure is slow for any
Mooney; the 'F' will cruise at 145-150 kts and the 'J' will do 158-160
kts (real world numbers). If you are looking for 600sm range, in a
Mooney you don't need four hours ;-)

http://mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20F...on_Report.html

http://mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20J...on_report.html

Some other URLs for research:

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...ooney9209.html

http://www.allamericanaircraft.com/o...ails.cfm?ID=78
---
Ken Reed
N9124X
Mooney M20M (TLS/Bravo)

wrote in message
...

Working with an A&P is a great way to save money, learn a lot, and be
safer flying
because you understand the systems better and can more accurately
troubleshoot and
repair problems.


Exactly what I thought, and exactly the tack I intend to take. Thanks.

--
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)

"Ken Reed" wrote in message
nk.net...
The legroom fits with what I've read--but, otherwise, you're the first
source who *doesn't* say the Mooney is "a tight fit," "like getting into
a sports car," "you wear it," etc. M20s have a 43" cabin width from what
I've read--compare to 45" for the Comanche. Are my figures off??

This from an AOPA article:
"Although the measuring tape says the cabin is comparable to other
four-place retractables, the perception is that the cockpit is not as
large."

The Mooney is 43.5"and the Comanche is 44", according to Plane & Pilot:

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont..._tse_1988.html

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont...rcomanche.html

0.5" difference doesn't get me too excited.

Nor me. (Though, I should note, the P&P site lists the Comanche at the 45"
I'd seen, on both links for a 250; the specs for the 180 show 44"--I thought
they used the same airframe??) I wonder if the difference is related to
shape? Is the Mooney more rounded, perhaps, leading to less shoulder room
than the 43.5" would otherwise indicate? In any case, I've yet to sit in a
Comanche, and it's been many years since I've been in a Mooney (and, at the
time, I was used to flying the AA-5, so I doubt I would've complained then!)
Either way, that "perception" the AOPA article mentions leads me to think
there's something to it....


..

If you decide to look into Mooneys further, you may want to consider an
'F' model versus a 'J' (aka 201). The 'J' is a great airplane too, but it
may be more than you need. Your 150 MPH cruise figure is slow for any
Mooney; the 'F' will cruise at 145-150 kts and the 'J' will do 158-160 kts
(real world numbers). If you are looking for 600sm range, in a Mooney you
don't need four hours ;-)


Oh, absolutely! Of course, 150 mph is slow for the Comanche, too--those
were minimum figures. The M20F's number seem to be comparable to the
PA-24-2xx's (and the J is faster). Factor in the intangibles, though, and
the Mooneys stay on the back burner for now--great airplanes that will meet
my needs, but not (in my impression) the best choice for my needs/wants
right now....

(FYI, before I "discovered" the Comanches in my research, Mooney was leading
the pack....)

Thanks for the advice!

--
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)

On 2006-02-23, Ken Reed wrote:
The legroom fits with what I've read--but, otherwise, you're the first
source who *doesn't* say the Mooney is "a tight fit," "like getting into a
sports car," "you wear it," etc. M20s have a 43" cabin width from what I've
read--compare to 45" for the Comanche. Are my figures off??

This from an AOPA article:
"Although the measuring tape says the cabin is comparable to other
four-place retractables, the perception is that the cockpit is not as
large."

I think a lot of that is that the Mooney has tank slit visibility, so it
feels very enclosed compared to a Comanche or a Grumman Tiger or a Beech
Bonanza. I'm just a shade under six foot tall, but because I have
relatively long legs and a relatively short body, I feel like I'm
permanently IFR in a Mooney (new ones or old ones, it doesn't seem to
matter). I seem to see about ten times as much out of a Bonanza by
comparison. (That's also what I've got against the bigger Cherokees too,
they seem to have enormously long noses and my Cessna 140 had better
visibility for taxiing than a Piper Lance!)

The thing is, if you put a cushion in the Mooney to sit on so you can
see where you're going, then your head bangs on the roof!

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...

I think a lot of that is that the Mooney has tank slit visibility, so it
feels very enclosed compared to a Comanche or a Grumman Tiger or a Beech
Bonanza. I'm just a shade under six foot tall, but because I have
relatively long legs and a relatively short body, I feel like I'm
permanently IFR in a Mooney (new ones or old ones, it doesn't seem to
matter). I seem to see about ten times as much out of a Bonanza by
comparison. (That's also what I've got against the bigger Cherokees too,
they seem to have enormously long noses and my Cessna 140 had better
visibility for taxiing than a Piper Lance!)

The thing is, if you put a cushion in the Mooney to sit on so you can
see where you're going, then your head bangs on the roof!


Now, I think we're really getting to the heart of the "roominess" issue of
Mooneys as it applies to me. Dylan, I'm the opposite of you: about the
same height, but all trunk and short legs. If "head bangs of the roof" is
an issue, with or without a cushion, I will almost certainly have issues. I
see it all the time in small cars--I love my friend's BMW Z3, but I can't
ride in it unless the top is down, or I literally have to ride hunched
over....

--
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)