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!

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.

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

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

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

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

wrote:
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.

Old Bonanzas are retro, and, as you say can be had for about the same
price as the Comanche 250. But when you compare the cost and availability
of parts, the Continental Vs. the Lycoming O-540, another 5knots in cruise
as well as maintenance items the PA24 has the edge.

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 *
************************************************** ***********************

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.

"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.