Narrowing it down... Comanche?

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
. com...

Something I hadn't thought about until just now is how long you intend
to keep the bird. If you would be keeping it long enough to use it for
lots of instrument work, then you might want to re-consider the turbo
aspect. For example, I think the MEAs west of you get quite high for a
normally aspirated bird, isn't Monarch around 16K?

I know you can go north or south to get around the high country, but
that lengthens your time enroute and probably negates any speed
advantage you might have with the Comanche. (Am I making a good enough
case for a 400 here?)



"How long" is probably the biggest variable in the whole equation for me,
and I simply don't have any way to answer it. "Until I want a
new/different/more capable plane or I'm unable to fly it," I guess. As for
how much instrument traveling, again, that's a bit of an open
question--however, I think the lengthening of any trips due to going around
will be small enough as to be a lesser consideration. Still there, of
course, but not the primary decision point.

Heh--I'd love a 400. Bit out of my league, though, I'm afraid....

--
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:



If you live in Kansas, turbocharging is going to be a waste; if it's the
Rocky Mountain west, it's damn near a necessity.



Well, Rocky Mountain West it is. I'm not *in* the mountains like you, but
any westerly course from here will involve mountains, and I have high field
elevations and even higher DAs to deal with.

You don't need a turbo unless you do IFR and you shouldn't be IFR in the
mountains in a single. I've had a 182 and now a Bonanza and they are
well suited to mountain VFR flight. I wouldn't hesitate to go anywhere
, in or out of the mountains, in either plane.

"Douglas Paterson" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Douglas Paterson wrote:
: Note, I'm not knocking turbo--it's just not for me, not this time....

... then you need lots of engine.


No doubt. I know that was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment, but it does
point to a serious question I've had brewing:

How big is "lots of" (i.e., "enough") engine?
..
Enough to generate sufficient rate-of-climb given your normal load factor.

Is the 250/260 hp of the Comanche's "big enough"?

Depends on which way you're going.

"Douglas Paterson" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Douglas Paterson" wrote in message

Note, I'm not knocking turbo--it's just not for me, not this time....

Couple questions:

Where do you live/fly our of?

Live/will be flying out of Colorado Springs, CO--looks like we're
practically neighbors!

Yeah...175 miles apart, separated by twenty some 14000 foot peaks :~)


What is your "mission profile"?


I'm a bit vague on this point still. Plenty of $100 hamburgers, no doubt,
but also several cross countries a year.

Going to...? (East or West)

My benchmark trip I used to try to develop my requirements was a weekend
run to Las Vegas. 600sm-ish, forces me to consider high terrain, and it's
a trip I would be very likely to actually make once I have my own wings!


How many hours do you have? How many with a constant speed prop?

~4,200 hours, most of it in heavy jets; ~130 in small, GA-type airplanes,
~5 of that with a c/s prop (Seneca I got my ATP in, also the only GA twin
I've flown).

Okay...you've been around the pattern a few times...:~) (You sounded
hesitant...)



If you live in Kansas, turbocharging is going to be a waste; if it's the
Rocky Mountain west, it's damn near a necessity.


Well, Rocky Mountain West it is. I'm not *in* the mountains like you, but
any westerly course from here will involve mountains, and I have high
field elevations and even higher DAs to deal with. "Damn near" a
necessity still leaves some wiggle room .... Seriously, do you have an
opinion or experiences to share on some tc vs non-tc performance in this
area? As I say, I'm zeroing in on Comanche as the right model for
me--but, if I can't get it off the ground, I'll obviously have to
re-evaluate that position....

Big point is if your "missions" are going to be personal or business and
whether your business can be delayed very often.

My flying habits and equipment requirements took a very drastic turn when I
started using airplanes to run my business. A delay or postponement once in
a while isn't that big of a deal but much of my work is _rather_ time
critical. It's also spread across half a million square miles.

Being on the Western Slope, I needed the ability to get to 16-17K feet or
better with regularity (the vst majority of my work is the midwest/plains).
Going westbound is a lot easier with lower peaks and more open country. You
might not need to for your purposes. (My biggest problem is avoiding TS
buildups in the afternoon on my way home (When I have to go East, I'm
usually "wheels up" right at sunrise). I even considered moving to the
Eastern slope :~(

Finally, there are a lot of people who fly normally aspriated aircraft,
including many here in town, but not to many that _have_ to go east or to do
it on a schedule. My preference, though, is going OVER mountains, not around
or under them.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..

You don't need a turbo unless you do IFR and you shouldn't be IFR in the
mountains in a single.

Yes and no.

Certainly not _hard_ IFR and not in something that you chintzed on
maintenance/equipment.

I've had a 182 and now a Bonanza and they are well suited to mountain VFR
flight. I wouldn't hesitate to go anywhere , in or out of the mountains,
in either plane.

Even a NA Bonanza still has reserves of power -- I'm not sure a Comanche 250
does.

In the Rocky Mountains, if there is IMC, there is almost always ice.
Also, the MEA's are frequently in the oxygen required levels. It really
isn't IFR territory for GA aircraft. Stay VFR is the rule here. The Fed
Ex Caravan crashed due to ice on approach into Steamboat, and he was
turbine and de-iced.

Turbo in the mountains really isn't needed, but you DO need more
horsepower than on the flats. A normally aspirated 182 is the the
standard issue Rocky Mountain airplane. Something with a little more
omph than a 150 horse Cessna or Piper is adequate. People DO fly low
power airplanes, but youi have to pick a perfect day and it is as much
soaring as it is powered flying......

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


You don't need a turbo unless you do IFR and you shouldn't be IFR in the
mountains in a single. I've had a 182 and now a Bonanza and they are well
suited to mountain VFR flight. I wouldn't hesitate to go anywhere , in or
out of the mountains, in either plane.



Thanks for the words. Kind of backs up my thoughts, but I'm asking these
questions for the very reason that I don't really know. My previous
mountain flying experience has consisted of "climb to FL350 on course"....


--
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)

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


Live/will be flying out of Colorado Springs, CO--looks like we're
practically neighbors!

Yeah...175 miles apart, separated by twenty some 14000 foot peaks :~)


Well, one of the folks helping me on this board has a .sig indicating he's
in the UK--so, yes, we're "neighbors"!

What is your "mission profile"?


I'm a bit vague on this point still. Plenty of $100 hamburgers, no
doubt, but also several cross countries a year.

Going to...? (East or West)


Yes. Meaning, I'll be going both ways, depending on the trip in
question. One fantastic result of 15 years (and counting) in the Air Force
is I have friends in just about every corner of the country. Plus, as I
indicated on my "benchmark" Las Vegas trip, I'm a gambler who has a flying
problem, so I need the ability to make it to Southern Nevada....


My benchmark trip I used to try to develop my requirements was a weekend
run to Las Vegas. 600sm-ish, forces me to consider high terrain, and it's
a trip I would be very likely to actually make once I have my own wings!


How many hours do you have? How many with a constant speed prop?

~4,200 hours, most of it in heavy jets; ~130 in small, GA-type airplanes,
~5 of that with a c/s prop (Seneca I got my ATP in, also the only GA twin
I've flown).

Okay...you've been around the pattern a few times...:~) (You sounded
hesitant...)


Absolutely--you're quite correct about my hesitancy, even if you misjudged
its source. I have three things giving me pause (hesitancy) he

1) My GA experience (all whopping ~130 hours of it) is about 10 years out
of date

2) I have zero experience in GA at high altitude ops--the highest field
I've flown a small plane in or out of has been in the 2,500' FE range; the
FEs around here are at altitudes I've previously cruised at! Zero mountain
flying, either.

3) I have zero experience with owning--it's all rental flying and
theoretical "owning" up to now.

Put those together, and I have no doubt that I've got lots to learn--as I
have been doing during this discussion, thank to the help of everyone's kind
input!


Big point is if your "missions" are going to be personal or business and
whether your business can be delayed very often.


That's a big difference, then, between you and me. My anticipated use is
purely personal. At least for the foreseeable future, any "business use" I
manage to come up with will be of the "unreimbursed employee business
expense" variety, and definitely not a purely business activity....


Finally, there are a lot of people who fly normally aspriated aircraft,
including many here in town, but not to many that _have_ to go east or to
do it on a schedule. My preference, though, is going OVER mountains, not
around or under them.


That clears up the discussion a lot for me. Any time I _have_ to be
somewhere by airplane, I'll grit my teeth and buy an airline ticket.
Otherwise, I'll be flying 95% for the hell of it and 5% to get there....
In the mean time, I can live with going around the mountains. Should I
change my opinion of that with a little experience under my belt, I can
always call a "do over"....

Thanks again for the help.

--
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 2006-02-26, Matt Barrow wrote:
I've had a 182 and now a Bonanza and they are well suited to mountain VFR
flight. I wouldn't hesitate to go anywhere , in or out of the mountains,
in either plane.

Even a NA Bonanza still has reserves of power -- I'm not sure a Comanche 250
does.

Depends how heavy you are. With 4 people and at max gross, the Comanche
struggles (in my direct experience) and has a very slow climb rate above
10,000 feet in the warmer part of the year, but I bet if flown solo (or
well below gross) it's adequate.

--
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

On 2006-02-25, Jay Honeck wrote:
Well, I just dialed the two planes into Destination Direct, and came up with
the 8 minute difference between the aircraft. Supposedly the program is set
up to take climb and descent into account, but I haven't checked the numbers
with a whiz wheel.

Oh, and while we are on the subject - your example is (I expect) based
on zero wind. As the headwind component increases, the faster plane has
a greater percentage advantage. Consider:

A 450nm trip (let's ignore time to climb)
Pathfinder: 140kts
Comanche: 157kts
S-35 Bonanza: 165kts

With no wind, the Pathfinder is looking at 3.2 hours. The Comanche is
looking at 2.9 hours and the Bonanza is looking at 2.7 hours.

Now let's have a reasonably windy day - 30 knots at any reasonable
altitude you're going to want to fly at (which in my experience, isn't
that unusual).

This makes the Pathfinder take 4.1 hours, the Comanche take 3.5 hours
and the Bonanza take 3.3 hours. The Comanche's speed advantage has gone
up from a rather measily 0.3 hours to 0.6 hours. If this is an IFR trip,
the Comanche's speed advantage may jump even further if he can eliminate
a fuel stop (and the extra speed gives the Comanche a whole lot of
extra legal alternates). The difference of course is more dramatic
with the Bonanza, he arrives almost an hour before the Pathfinder. For
reference, the S-35 Bonanza we had in the club burned 14gph at 165 ktas.

That's not to mention that when the Bonanza lands, he'd have burned
about 12 gallons less fuel. I was really glad that I was in the club's
Bonanza and not the 182 when I was facing a 50 knot headwind over
Louisiana! (If we take the less usual 50 knot headwind, you're looking
at a 5 hour trip in a Pathfinder and 3.9 hours in the Bonanza).

The conclusion: if you're flying long legs, even 15 knots extra speed
can make quite a difference.

--
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