Used Avionics

I dont know anything about a 210 except they seem to be a family plane, by that I mean
can carry a good load. I did take a picture of one 2 weeks ago, I was surprised to see
that he never passed me, he was 1000ft below me going the same way, departed the same
airport right after me. On the climb departure told me the 210 had 20 kts on me and was
going to pass me. In cruise his ground speed was 157 kts, mine was 151 kts. Now I dont
know if he could have gone faster, I was at 65% power. but I had always thought that a
210 was alot faster then my little 200 HP turbo arrow.
Before someone asks how did I know his GS, it was because I was talking to him.

http://www.turboarrow3.com/newplane/clouds/image8.html
thats him down behind my wing.

Are you looking for something fast or carry a good load? Comanche's are both but are
older and usually have older avionics.
this guy added a turbo charger to a comanche 400 and claims to have got a TAS of 275 MPH
at 19,000 ft
http://www.comanchepilot.com/Tech_Ar..._comanche.html

only 148 comanche 400's were made and there is only like 101 left on the books. If and
when I upgrade to a faster plane, the 400 is the best bang for the buck. They go for
about 130k. But you have to find someone to insure it. I go through AOPA and they told
me they would not insure it for anyone and gave the HP as the reason.


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

OK. I added one to my list today. What about a Cessna 210 Centurion.
They seem to have a good cruise speed, a good range, and good lift
capacity. What do you think about them? -Sami

Jeff wrote:

comanche 260 , awsome plane, I saw one take off with full fuel, 90 degree's
outside and 4 adults. There were like 7 of us out there watching to see if it
would get off the ground, me, the fuel guy and several others, it didnt have any
problems. Comanche's are like mooney's in that they are very clean airplanes.

Mooney, dont know much about them except the cockpit looks awful small.

Arrow III, you may be a bit disappointed, I have flown the Normally Aspirated
Arrow III and I own a Turbo Arrow III. The normally aspirated Arrow is not a fast
airplane. About 130-135 kts. The Turbo Arrow is a 150 kt airplane and gives much
better performance then the normally aspirated one. The T-arrow will maintain its
200 HP all the way up to 12,000 ft DA. I have taken off from an airport with a DA
of 8800 ft, gross weight, no problems. The engine in the T-Arrow is different then
the normal arrow, the T-Arrow has a Cont. 6 cylinder fuel injected turbo charged
engine and is actually rated at either 210 or 215 HP cant remember which. The same
engine is used in some other planes at 210 HP.
The insurance on it is not bad either, was alot cheaper then the comanche 400 I
was originally looking at. Also the T-Arrow seems to perform its best at
8000-13,000 ft. The POH says at 17,000 it will do 172 kts. At 14,000 a few days
ago, I had a TAS of 165 kts and a GS of 183 kts. (of course going the other way I
was only getting like 140kts). With the turbo, you can choose higher altitudes to
take advantage of winds.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


"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

-Sami

Jeff wrote:


what kind of plane are you getting, if you dont mind...

jeff

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:



I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
$12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or a
GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical to
consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
(web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
in addition to names of places).

By the way, thanks for all the great help I have been getting on this
forum. It really helps me make some hard decisions about my first purchase.

-Sami

John, whats the TR stand for?
Turbo ?

Jeff

John Harper wrote:

A list that includes both the Arrow and the Centurion is a rather
odd list. The Centurion is very expensive to insure, and maybe
impossible unless you have 500 hrs and an instrument rating.
I'd have thought that a 182RG or a TR182 would be more in line
with the others in your list. I bought a TR182 a year ago and have
never regretted it. Figure around $130-140K for a decent one with OK
but elderly avionics.

John

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...
OK. I added one to my list today. What about a Cessna 210 Centurion.
They seem to have a good cruise speed, a good range, and good lift
capacity. What do you think about them? -Sami

Jeff wrote:

comanche 260 , awsome plane, I saw one take off with full fuel, 90
degree's
outside and 4 adults. There were like 7 of us out there watching to see
if it
would get off the ground, me, the fuel guy and several others, it didnt
have any
problems. Comanche's are like mooney's in that they are very clean
airplanes.

Mooney, dont know much about them except the cockpit looks awful small.

Arrow III, you may be a bit disappointed, I have flown the Normally
Aspirated
Arrow III and I own a Turbo Arrow III. The normally aspirated Arrow is
not a fast
airplane. About 130-135 kts. The Turbo Arrow is a 150 kt airplane and
gives much
better performance then the normally aspirated one. The T-arrow will
maintain its
200 HP all the way up to 12,000 ft DA. I have taken off from an airport
with a DA
of 8800 ft, gross weight, no problems. The engine in the T-Arrow is
different then
the normal arrow, the T-Arrow has a Cont. 6 cylinder fuel injected turbo
charged
engine and is actually rated at either 210 or 215 HP cant remember
which. The same
engine is used in some other planes at 210 HP.
The insurance on it is not bad either, was alot cheaper then the
comanche 400 I
was originally looking at. Also the T-Arrow seems to perform its best at
8000-13,000 ft. The POH says at 17,000 it will do 172 kts. At 14,000 a
few days
ago, I had a TAS of 165 kts and a GS of 183 kts. (of course going the
other way I
was only getting like 140kts). With the turbo, you can choose higher
altitudes to
take advantage of winds.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


"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

-Sami

Jeff wrote:


what kind of plane are you getting, if you dont mind...

jeff

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:



I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years. I
expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price, it
does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the tune of
$12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or a
GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical to
consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used avionics
(web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be helpful
in addition to names of places).

By the way, thanks for all the great help I have been getting on this
forum. It really helps me make some hard decisions about my first
purchase.

-Sami

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/

Affirmative.


"Jeff" wrote in message
...
John, whats the TR stand for?
Turbo ?

Jeff

John Harper wrote:

A list that includes both the Arrow and the Centurion is a rather
odd list. The Centurion is very expensive to insure, and maybe
impossible unless you have 500 hrs and an instrument rating.
I'd have thought that a 182RG or a TR182 would be more in line
with the others in your list. I bought a TR182 a year ago and have
never regretted it. Figure around $130-140K for a decent one with OK
but elderly avionics.

John

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...
OK. I added one to my list today. What about a Cessna 210 Centurion.
They seem to have a good cruise speed, a good range, and good lift
capacity. What do you think about them? -Sami

Jeff wrote:

comanche 260 , awsome plane, I saw one take off with full fuel, 90
degree's
outside and 4 adults. There were like 7 of us out there watching to
see
if it
would get off the ground, me, the fuel guy and several others, it
didnt
have any
problems. Comanche's are like mooney's in that they are very clean
airplanes.

Mooney, dont know much about them except the cockpit looks awful
small.

Arrow III, you may be a bit disappointed, I have flown the Normally
Aspirated
Arrow III and I own a Turbo Arrow III. The normally aspirated Arrow
is
not a fast
airplane. About 130-135 kts. The Turbo Arrow is a 150 kt airplane
and
gives much
better performance then the normally aspirated one. The T-arrow will
maintain its
200 HP all the way up to 12,000 ft DA. I have taken off from an
airport
with a DA
of 8800 ft, gross weight, no problems. The engine in the T-Arrow is
different then
the normal arrow, the T-Arrow has a Cont. 6 cylinder fuel injected
turbo
charged
engine and is actually rated at either 210 or 215 HP cant remember
which. The same
engine is used in some other planes at 210 HP.
The insurance on it is not bad either, was alot cheaper then the
comanche 400 I
was originally looking at. Also the T-Arrow seems to perform its
best at
8000-13,000 ft. The POH says at 17,000 it will do 172 kts. At 14,000
a
few days
ago, I had a TAS of 165 kts and a GS of 183 kts. (of course going
the
other way I
was only getting like 140kts). With the turbo, you can choose higher
altitudes to
take advantage of winds.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


"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

-Sami

Jeff wrote:


what kind of plane are you getting, if you dont mind...

jeff

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:



I plan to buy my first airplane and "trade-up" in about 3-4 years.
I
expect my initial investment will be around $75K. At that price,
it
does not seem to be worth putting in brand new avionics to the
tune of
$12-$15K (thinking specifically about a Garmin 430/MX-20 combo, or
a
GX-50/MX-20 combo). At the sametime, I really would like the
situational awareness benefits of such avionics. Is it practical
to
consider buying used avionics? If so, where might I get used
avionics
(web site pointers, phone numbers, or email addresses would be
helpful
in addition to names of places).

By the way, thanks for all the great help I have been getting on
this
forum. It really helps me make some hard decisions about my first
purchase.

-Sami

"John Harper" wrote:

Affirmative.


"Jeff" wrote in message
...
John, whats the TR stand for?
Turbo ?

Jeff

R182 is retractable
T182 is turbocharged
TR182 is both turbocharged and retractable

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/

However the 182T is neither. This can be confusing. OTOH
the T182T is turbocharged. (I flew a 182T for a while).

John

"Craig Prouse" wrote in message
...
"John Harper" wrote:

Affirmative.


"Jeff" wrote in message
...
John, whats the TR stand for?
Turbo ?

Jeff

R182 is retractable
T182 is turbocharged
TR182 is both turbocharged and retractable

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