So what should I buy?

Everything got to be a disaster for Piper! The aerostar, another great airplane also went west. It was the times more so than a particular model. They could not even keep the supercub going! Today a new Commanche would be well over 500 grand I would think. A very nice airplane to be sure. There is a nice one in beautiful shape where I fly. A real stunner kept in immaculate shape. It goes out of 2300 feet paved very handily on a warm day, two people. Back in the 80's a woman had one, a 400 , that she flew often between her home in Maryland and a home in Sarasota. It was a real performer. I recall she also flew it to South America once or twice. Super cub, a nice one back then was 50 grand tops. Today a decent one used, is over 100 grand which is just crazy. I'd rather have a 911 Carrera. JC
 
Last edited:
I really think it's time to recommend a Malibu. You just missed a really good one.
 
Is go with the RV-10. This one is on barnstormers for 199,900

de6ahebe.jpg
 
I've got a bunch of time in the SR22 and whiles is a nice X-country machine a short fold airplane it isn't.
 
get a comanche 180
i can get 4 ppl onboard
10 gph
160 mph
is a champ, no better airplane for the money, no many for sale tough :D
comanches have great followers group and great support on parts
just google webco.
 

Attachments

  • comanche.jpg
    comanche.jpg
    28.2 KB · Views: 26
  • lufkin.jpg
    lufkin.jpg
    64.3 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:
Henning beat me to the Katmai, my dream airplane. I don't understand the OP's exclusions of canards--not with this bird.
thats not a canard plane. Its a mini canard tacked onto a regular plane. Go try a velocity on a short strip.

Do people really operate Lances and A36's out of 2,000 foot runways?
yes all the time. At lighter weights they operate from short stripsas well as 2000ft ones.
 
Two bonanzas operate out of my field, 2300 feet paved with 50 ft. Trees at one end and a barn at the other. No problem. Just remember bonanzas are expensive to fly and maintain. They are very nice well built airplanes but have it clear in your mind that your going to spend some serious dough in not only buying a nice one but maintaining it. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the commanche at my home field is 250 or so horse power. Somewhere in this range. In any event , it takes off quickly. I know it's more than 180 . JC
 
Last edited:
Two bonanzas operate out of my field, 2300 feet paved with 50 ft. Trees at one end and a barn at the other. No problem. Just remember bonanzas are expensive to fly and maintain. They are very nice well built airplanes but have it clear in your mind that your going to spend some serious dough in not only buying a nice one but maintaining it.

Calling BS. Sorry, had to do it. I fly a 1961 museum piece Bonanza and there is nothing about it that makes it more expensive to fly than any other comparable plane.

HINT: You called it well built, then complained about the maintenance, which is it? And a damn good example of an N/P/S can be had for sub $70K.
 
A Comanche is not comparable to a bonanza which is what I personally am comparing. Neither in initial price or in daily use. JC
 
A Comanche is not comparable to a bonanza which is what I personally am comparing. Neither in initial price or in daily use. JC

After comparing the two, I too realized the Comanche would be more expensive to keep up than the Bonanza.
 
Calling BS. Sorry, had to do it. I fly a 1961 museum piece Bonanza and there is nothing about it that makes it more expensive to fly than any other comparable plane.

HINT: You called it well built, then complained about the maintenance, which is it? And a damn good example of an N/P/S can be had for sub $70K.



Museum piece? :rofl:

Now I'm calling BS. :yes:

;)
 
I am comparing a Comanche to a bonanza. Yes, a nice bonanza should run 70 grand or more.A nice Commanche around 50 grand. 20 grand, 30 grand is alot of money to me. I am certain the commanche in comparable condition is less expensive to maintain and fly. Always has been.
 
I am comparing a Comanche to a bonanza. Yes, a nice bonanza should run 70 grand or more.A nice Commanche around 50 grand. 20 grand, 30 grand is alot of money to me. I am certain the commanche in comparable condition is less expensive to maintain and fly. Always has been.

Bonanza's crack jugs, Comanche's eat cams.

Horn AD, Gear AD, an unsupported plane that hasn't been build in 40+ years.

Bo has the wing spar AD that's a few hours work every few annuals.

I talked it over with a few mechanics, none thought the Comanche would be cheaper. If you can get a part direct from Beech, the price tag usually gives you sticker shock, but.... you can get a part direct from Beech. Luckily, the Beech only big ticket items rarely go bad. I fought the Comanche vs Bo battle for a solid year before settling on a Bo.
 
I flew a Katmai conversion with a peterson engine upgrade and it flew 153 knots true, 12 gph, takes off and lands in 200'. I think it is as close to perfect as plane as I have ever flown or heard about.

Comanche 250 would be the lowest entry point for your needs but given your propensity for short distance landing I would go with the Katmai.



I own a rv-6a now but need more seats for the growing family.

Mission:
- 4 place (a true 4 place)
- 150knts +
- can usa a 2000' runway safely
- landing speed under 70knts
- prefer modern, but would be happy with a well maintained classic with some modern instruments.
- around $200k, but I am cheap so less is better
- 60 to 70 percent hamburger runs but some long cross countries

Planes I have started to look at:
- RV-10
- Columbia 300 or 350
- cirrus SR20 or 22
- Navion
- C180 or C182

Not sure that I want a certified because I like to tinker with the plane. Not just fix stuff, but change things too.

I need the rear seats to be usable and comfortable. So no rear facing seats like the sportsman or wheeler. The Lancair's are out either due to price or the rear seats are not comfortable.
Canards are out due to landing speed and runway usage.

So, what say you? What plane should I be looking for?
 
Unless youre just looking to burn money (in which case send me a PM).

A PA-24 comanche with a few minor speed mods will do it, dirt simple to maintain too.

300px-Pa24-N5760P-071126-01-16.jpg


A Bellanca Super Viking is a VERY good fit too

attachment.php
 
And priced accordingly.

All I know is I'm used to almost fitting in planes, I usually just need a little more headroom.

Having been in a super Viking, well it is the cabin folks claim mooneys have!
 
Super Viking is a little cozy inside though
The Viking has the fuel burn and speed of a Lance without the space and payload, with the interior space of a Mooney without the efficiency.

Few airplanes get as little speed out of 300hp, and none as small inside get as few knots per horsepower.
 
Funny, I did the same thing and got the opposite answer. You would think living in Wichita where Cessna 210 and Bonanza are built that local mechanics would greatly prefer one of them. They do not. I got 3 to 1 for the Comanche over either the Bo or the 210.

Don't really know who is right. I am sure they all have their maintenance and strengths. Webco being on my home field was a clinch for me.


Bonanza's crack jugs, Comanche's eat cams.

Horn AD, Gear AD, an unsupported plane that hasn't been build in 40+ years.

Bo has the wing spar AD that's a few hours work every few annuals.

I talked it over with a few mechanics, none thought the Comanche would be cheaper. If you can get a part direct from Beech, the price tag usually gives you sticker shock, but.... you can get a part direct from Beech. Luckily, the Beech only big ticket items rarely go bad. I fought the Comanche vs Bo battle for a solid year before settling on a Bo.
 
They are tight but also very sporty nice flying machines. I made the decision to get a HP Complex after flying in a friends Viking.

The Viking has the fuel burn and speed of a Lance without the space and payload, with the interior space of a Mooney without the efficiency.

Few airplanes get as little speed out of 300hp, and none as small inside get as few knots per horsepower.
 
The Viking has the fuel burn and speed of a Lance without the space and payload, with the interior space of a Mooney without the efficiency.

Few airplanes get as little speed out of 300hp, and none as small inside get as few knots per horsepower.

People say all airplanes are a compromise... Vikings are proof that they aren't.

I describe them as having a "good personality"
 
Funny, I did the same thing and got the opposite answer. You would think living in Wichita where Cessna 210 and Bonanza are built that local mechanics would greatly prefer one of them. They do not. I got 3 to 1 for the Comanche over either the Bo or the 210.

Don't really know who is right. I am sure they all have their maintenance and strengths. Webco being on my home field was a clinch for me.

The gear AD and being a Piper orphan is what got me. For a 4 banger, I like Lycoming, for a big bore 6 I like the Contisauruses. I bought the Bo, I don't lust for a Comanche.... I'm happy.
 
Henning beat me to the Katmai, my dream airplane. I don't understand the OP's exclusions of canards--not with this bird.

Do people really operate Lances and A36's out of 2,000 foot runways? I fly a 210 (no STOL mods due to FIKI), but 2,600 feet is about as short as I care to use.

Wells

I'll go 2500' in the 310. At the weights I fly at I'll either be well out of there (with 520hp, The plane is athletic especially when light), or I'll be low enough energy into the fence I'll walk away. I can get her stopped in 900' from touchdown if I have a good clearway in, 1200-1300 over a typical tree or power line. The Katmai will work off 400', and the best thing is the canard takes all the nose weight so the tail doesn't work as hard adding all that weight and drag. The 260hp one I flew cruised 145kts, I'm sure the 300hp will give him an extra 5+kts, I'd guess 152-155 cruise with an even steeper climb and shorter run. It's a plane I'd like to own for awhile, I wish someone would do a float STC for it.
 
A Comanche is not comparable to a bonanza which is what I personally am comparing. Neither in initial price or in daily use. JC
On the contrary they are as similar as it gets. Comanches cost a little more to keep going than a bo and that is reflected in a slightly lower purchase price. The market is pretty savvy that way. But big picture they are interchangeable.

after all that was piper's goal in creating the comanche, to make a plane as good as a bonanza but sell it cheaper. And it is as good as a bo and they did indeed sell them cheaper. The thing piper overlooked was that if you build a plane as good as a bo then it will cost as much to build as a bo. The comanche just about killed off piper and that led them to design a new plane with the opposite philosophy of a comanche or bonanza. The new plane had to be a cheap POS with a low parts count that could be slapped together in few hours with porcupine rivets sticking out everywhere. That was the genesis of the cherokee.
 
I am comparing a Comanche to a bonanza. Yes, a nice bonanza should run 70 grand or more.A nice Commanche around 50 grand. 20 grand, 30 grand is alot of money to me. I am certain the commanche in comparable condition is less expensive to maintain and fly. Always has been.

Have you priced nice Comanches? The Comanche costs a bit more than the Bo since it's slower per HP. As far as the planes maintenance goes, again the slight savings go to the Beech due to the larger fleet size and greater number of good salvage components. Lycomings and Continentals cost the same to maintain, and most of the rest toF the accessories, radios and instruments are common. You can get a Nice S-35 Bo for $70+k You can get a Nice 260C Comanche for $70+k. If you want glass panels the price goes up some. My buddy has an all glass twin G600-GNS 750/650 with an EMI engine panel, it took both a Lindy at OSH and Comanche Society Best Comanche award; after the paint and interior and new engine, he's got over 300k in the plane. There is no real difference in cost/price of having a HP plane between brands. Compare what you get in performance and equipment and all brands will prove out equal within a statistically acceptable margin of error.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    159.8 KB · Views: 22
Bonanza's crack jugs, Comanche's eat cams.

Horn AD, Gear AD, an unsupported plane that hasn't been build in 40+ years.

Bo has the wing spar AD that's a few hours work every few annuals.

I talked it over with a few mechanics, none thought the Comanche would be cheaper. If you can get a part direct from Beech, the price tag usually gives you sticker shock, but.... you can get a part direct from Beech. Luckily, the Beech only big ticket items rarely go bad. I fought the Comanche vs Bo battle for a solid year before settling on a Bo.

Ummmmmm....Oooook. I think you've been on the Kool-Aid. Gear AD. wow, every thousand hours, take a look. Such a killer AD. One. Thousand. Hours. Horn AD has been changed. No big deal now.

Mechanics suggesting to buy a plane. Hmmmm, I wonder which would bring them more business? Just a thought. Kinda like the competitor I had tell a customer today that a product I carried and they didn't was being discontinued, just so they could try and make a sale on the stuff they had. Yeah, that would never happen in aviation. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Have you priced nice Comanches? The Comanche costs a bit more than the Bo since it's slower per HP. As far as the planes maintenance goes, again the slight savings go to the Beech due to the larger fleet size and greater number of good salvage components. Lycomings and Continentals cost the same to maintain, and most of the rest toF the accessories, radios and instruments are common. You can get a Nice S-35 Bo for $70+k You can get a Nice 260C Comanche for $70+k. If you want glass panels the price goes up some. My buddy has an all glass twin G600-GNS 750/650 with an EMI engine panel, it took both a Lindy at OSH and Comanche Society Best Comanche award; after the paint and interior and new engine, he's got over 300k in the plane. There is no real difference in cost/price of having a HP plane between brands. Compare what you get in performance and equipment and all brands will prove out equal within a statistically acceptable margin of error.

Av has waaaaaaaay more into it that 300k. Way.
 
Even a 260hp RV 10 will outperform all of the parameters the OP is looking for. A 300+hp will be all the better. I have a couple of friend's with RV10s, one 260 and the other has a Lycon IO540 putting out around 325hp. The 260 cruises 160kts the other 180+kts. It is also a cleaner, lighter airframe than the 260. Both will operate out of a 2000' strip with no problems. Don

Where are you finding 'cheap parts' for a Lycoming engine? Chevy yes, although the Chevy I would build wouldn't be cheaper than a Lycoming, it would be more powerful and efficient.
 
Av has waaaaaaaay more into it that 300k. Way.

Not "way", I'm within 10% or so with that figure. He got really good deals from his avionics guy on the upgrades. Remember that the insurance paid for the rebuild after it was crashed. Oh yeah, Comanches don't take on rough fields well lol. Bonanzas however are the preferred bush planes in Australia.
 
The gear AD and being a Piper orphan is what got me. For a 4 banger, I like Lycoming, for a big bore 6 I like the Contisauruses. I bought the Bo, I don't lust for a Comanche.... I'm happy.

Sounds like your bo is the right plane for you. Had I crossed a great for me Bo or 210 I might well have bought one of them as I had my antenna up for all three to be honest.

Piper orphan- Not so much. Piper still sells Comanche parts they just do not build Comanches. The recent AD horn issue is an example. You can get the horns from Piper, but an Australian company built a better horn cheaper so many owners opted that way. Then Piper made a better effort to keep horns in stock when they had competition for them. Companies like Webco with a bunch of PMA's also make a good living supplying the Comanche tribe.

One advantage for the Comanche over even Bonanza is that all twinkies, 180hp, 250hp, 260hp have the exact fuselage, wings and other parts so there are nearly 10,000 out in the wild. This makes supplying parts profitable. Where as some Bonanzas have been abandoned by Beechcraft such as the E185 and E225 models and a few other Beechcraft parts are hard to find and when you do find them they give you a nose bleed.

For a while fuel selectors were expensive like $2-3k but I guess that issue resolved itself as well.

I hear that you cannot get certain parts for some bonanza's because beechcraft chose not to support some bonanzas. So it is all a matter of perception rather than fact.

You mentioned the landing gear AD, it is 10 years and 1000 hrs so it might not be much different than what Beechcraft recommends on Bonanza they just have a service bulletin rather than an AD but I suspect that it is not advisable to not have your landing gear inspection done within 10 years or 1000 hrs anyway no matter which retract system you have. I hear the complete rebuild can be $2000 or a few hundred depending no parts you need. I suspect a complete rebuild or overhauled landing gear on a Bo might cost a bit more than that.

So that is why I say we are pretty much all in the same flying boat so to speak. Just happy I can afford to fly such a great plane, as I am sure you are.
 
Last edited:
As far as the older Bonanza's the 'mfg' support for them is very limited. Of course, that means that the 60 year old planes no longer are supported. From 1957 and on, most everything is avail without too much hassle. While it may be impossible to buy a pre-formed wing leading edge skin from Raytheon, or whomever has the ownership now, it's not that hard to find one in the bone yards around the country. If one wanted a brand new leading edge skin, it could be formed by someone with good Al skills.

Some things on Bos are going to continue to be a problem. Nose bowls, and nose gear doors are a good example. So many planes have been on their belly that the skins for the center section are remade by aftermarket shops, but the nose doors and the formed nose bowl is iffy. Door parts for the old planes are getting iffy too as the door tends to fly away in a gust and get damaged.

All flight controls from SN #6 forward are available and being remade including the formers and stringers inside. All cables, swagings, bearings, seals, shafts, and the like are avail but the nose gear oleo strut is becoming scarce. Since it's so overbuilt, they generally last > 10k hours and landings but if it gets scratched, the best solution is to have it metal sprayed then polished out. Retract bushings and bearings are no problem, and the only hassle on the gear is the sector gear and motor drive gear. Some owners don't keep them lubed well and they can get sloppy, or be damaged on landing if the gear is not locked.

The E series engines are orphans, and they will not be resurrected. The jugs are the same as a O-470J or R and are readily available. Most by now have been welded between the fins of the head, it's very common. Pistons and rings are no issue, but the cam, and cam drive gears are a problem. Undersize bearings are no problem, but some of the acc case stuff can be an issue.

The orig Beech elec prop was a thing of beauty. Flawless in operation, smooth and easy to manage. Sadly, it too has reached it's end of life. There are hoarders out there that keep pitch change bearings and motors for them, and also the blade hub bearings which are quite valuable. I have a pitch bearing that is worth about $3k sitting in my cabinet. The Hartzell CS MV prop is the way to go, but it's quite pricey.

As for the more modern Bonanza, from the M35 onward there's no lack of parts support anywhere. The main issue with the M and later is to have the spar box inspected in detail to manage the spar web cracking issue. Any competent A&P who has seen a Bo before can download the inspection instructions and follow it carefully.

For around $80-100k, I don't think there's anything that one could buy that would beat a S35, or maybe a V35A or B, or even the TC that gets up in the FL numbers and really goes. A 300HP V35-TC will cruise right around 200Kts all day long, or at least for 3-4 hours depending on tanks avail.
 
I would prefer an S-35 (or A-36 if he wanted the back doors) with a TAT turbo-normalizer to a V-35TC.
 
Where are you finding 'cheap parts' for a Lycoming engine? Chevy yes, although the Chevy I would build wouldn't be cheaper than a Lycoming, it would be more powerful and efficient.

No cheap Lyco parts but "less expensive" with Superior and ECI. Same exact parts as they make for certified engines just without the certified paperwork for a lot less money. Vans has a deal with Lycoming for new engines that are about 2/3 the cost of certified. Also I can take my alternator or starter down to my local auto electric shop if there are any problems.
Automotive conversions almost always end up costing more than a Lycoming/Cont and end up heavier and never put out the horsepower claimed by the conversion manufacturer. There are a few that work pretty well but still require a lot more work to keep it running right. Don
 
...Automotive conversions almost always end up costing more than a Lycoming/Cont and end up heavier and never put out the horsepower claimed by the conversion manufacturer. There are a few that work pretty well but still require a lot more work to keep it running right. Don
there is one exception to your post. The corvair conversions work out very well. Of course that might not count because it actually started out to be a helicopter engine, not a car engine. The features that made it a poor car engine, are the same ones that make it a reasonable airplane engine.
 
there is one exception to your post. The corvair conversions work out very well. Of course that might not count because it actually started out to be a helicopter engine, not a car engine. The features that made it a poor car engine, are the same ones that make it a reasonable airplane engine.

I'd qualify that rather carefully. The Corvair aircraft engine suffers from weak crankshaft issues. There have been a lot of attempts at mitigation, but the facts show a very high failure mode for broken cranks. Nitriding, journal radius, 5th bearing, welding, etc. If the engine is limited to around 85HP it could be made to work but I think there are harmonics involved in the crank creating a phugoid short coupled mode during pitch changes that the crank just can't deal with. I think if I were to do a Corvair engine I'd use a PSRU and run the engine up to around 3100 then take the loads off the crank and put them on the PSRU turning around 2000. But, that's just me, I don't like broken cranks.
 
I'd qualify that rather carefully. The Corvair aircraft engine suffers from weak crankshaft issues. There have been a lot of attempts at mitigation, but the facts show a very high failure mode for broken cranks. Nitriding, journal radius, 5th bearing, welding, etc. If the engine is limited to around 85HP it could be made to work but I think there are harmonics involved in the crank creating a phugoid short coupled mode during pitch changes that the crank just can't deal with. I think if I were to do a Corvair engine I'd use a PSRU and run the engine up to around 3100 then take the loads off the crank and put them on the PSRU turning around 2000. But, that's just me, I don't like broken cranks.
yes there is already a front bearing add-on, no gear reduction necessary.
 
That is a nice -10, just slightly over priced in my opinion. But I am sure they will get that price if they wait. Only a few months back -10's were going for $150k.

Here is a Lancair ES in great condition for the right price. Asking $169k
http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/LANCAIR-ES/2009-LANCAIR-ES/1287923.htm
img.axd

img.axd


And all this talk of "Bo is bad" or "piper is bad" is putting me off of certified. Experimental seems much easier.
Why should I chose a certified over an experimental?



Is go with the RV-10. This one is on barnstormers for 199,900

de6ahebe.jpg
 
Back
Top