Bonanza 35, SR22 or Comanche?

Jhernandez04

Jhernandez04

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
955
Location
Arlington
Display Name
Display name:
TheHulk
I took the wife up for the first time a few weeks ago to Shreveport so we could have a mini vacation. I chose the destination because it was close (1hr flight) and she loves to gamble.

The flight to KDTN was slightly choppy and she sure felt every bit of turbulence. I did my best to calm her down, I even explained how it took me 40-50 hours to get comfortable with what she was dealing with. She seemed calmed somewhat by my assurance the plane wants to fly, she trusts ME not the plane and that’s fine because I trust the plane. She really didn’t consider my flying as a true interest for me, as I do jump around from hobby to hobby. But when she saw how serious I took the flight, prep and everything else related to the trip she realized that I am, and I’ll quote "a real pilot." Hearing those words really meant a lot to me because she is scared to death of heights and swimming.

The flight home was nicer in terms of turbulence as hardly any was felt, but she handled them better than the first time and I told her that it would continue to get better the more she fly’s. We had clouds at 3700ft so we had to fly under them, and we had a decent headwind so it was slower but more enjoyable, the trip was awesome. Something that was very funny to me was heard on the radio, there was a guy flying a commander and he announced that he was a "turbo commander" I chuckled at that and had to keep myself from telling approach I was a 235hp Cherokee..... lol

When we landed me and the wife basically did a debrief on the flight and how the clouds could of grounded us and just the general topic of my plane. She explained that she would welcome a newer plane with all the upgrades (she doesn’t know specifics but I told her about GPS, IFR, Auto Pilots and all the comfort features that we could have).


So to the point, I am almost a 100hr low time pilot. All my time has been in the overpowered Cherokee of which I do have my HP rating, but no complex time. So here are what i've considered as my options:


1. SR22 (2000-2004 year model 150K $) This model will take me the longest to acquire as I’ll need to save up a bit to purchase this plane, it’s my favorite choice in terms of comfort and safety. But I won’t be able to afford the complete glass panel version and it will have to be a mid-time engine. The fuel burn is high (16-18gallons per hour) but the gear is fixed which helps with MX.

Insurance on a composite frame will be the most expensive of the three, a quick quote was something like 5K a year, so that puts me at 1500$ a month, just owning the plane minus any flying or hanger. I anticipate a average of 10 hours a month which puts my total monthly budget for the SR22 @ around 2500$ a month or 30K (+5K for annual and Maintenance) Which I kind of suck my teeth about....

2. Bonanza 35 (P,S or V model 90K $) This model makes the most sense to me because of the value I will get for the purchase price, I'm looking at several models that start at 70K through 90K and I can get them nicely equipped with less than mid time on the engine. The speed and fuel burn are attractive and so is the idea of owning a bo.

Insurance on this airplane was quoted at 2500$ with a 75K hull value. It decreases to 2100$ with an IFR cert, which I plan to get soon but I may wait till I get my new plane so I can get trained in it, which is my big concern with this plane is the performance gain and complex rating.

Montly Cost (est) 1600$ per month w/10 hours of flight time.

3. Comanche (250 or 260 model 90K$) I like this plane because I read its similar to the Cherokee in handling and landing. It’s also cheaper then the two above to purchase, but I’ve been told it’s a bit costly to maintain and the insurance, believe it or not is higher than the Bonanza at around 3,000$. The fuel burn is a wash with the bo but the speed is less then the bo. It only has 4 seats compared to 5 or 6 on the Bo, which I really will only use 4 seats anyways but the extra room would be nice. I can get these nicely equipped for under 80K as well.

Montly cost (est) 1500$ per month w/10 hours of flight time.

Honorable mentions: Commander 114, RV10, 182RG


I've been back and forth with the upgrading process for a while now, but with the wife actually excited about flying with me and the need for an IFR plane I need to make a choice in the next few months, as I do not want to sink money into the 235 I have.
Thoughts?! Thanks for any help, and please be positive. I do understand it’s a step up and am willing to train as needed to be safe!
 
Last edited:
A Bonanza would be my choice from that list -- but don't expect any 35-series Bo to carry more than four in any practical fashion. The fifth and sixth seats were optional beginning with the S35, but were hardly worthwhile.

The 260 hp IO-470-N in the P35 is a smooth, economical engine that gives decent performance.

Comanches are roomy and comfortable, but my wife and I prefer the airiness and visibility in a Bonanza cabin.

The R182 is good, but if I were buying a 182 I'd stick with fixed gear. Just my preference.

I haven't flown a Cirrus or a Commander, so I'll defer to others on those.

To learn more about the Bonanza line:

1. Get a copy of Larry A. Ball’s Those Incomparable Bonanzas. It has interesting stories about the development of the design, and charts the changes in each model, year-by-year, up through the 1972 models. The sequel volume, They Called Me ‘Mr. Bonanza', continues the list of changes from 1972 up to the early ’90s.

2. Get Flying the Beech Bonanza by John C. Eckalbar. Excellent summary of handling and performance of the various Bonanza models, including performance parameters not covered in the POH. A must-read for any Bonanza pilot.

3. Join American Bonanza Society, probably the best owners group on the planet. A wealth of maintenance, parts and operational resources are at your fingertips.
 
Last edited:
Go with the Bo ,more room ,easier flying and landing ,parts more available than the piper. Of course if you have the money the sr 22 is one fine airplane.
 
The SR22 operating costs you mention might be too high.

The IO550 burns only about 12.5 GPH when operated lean of peak, which the fuel injection makes possible. In the SR22 airframe, you will cruise approx 166 knots true at that fuel rate. LOP operation is very popular among Cirrus pilots.

Insurance with $300k smooth liability cost me less than 2% of hull value each year when I was new to the model with an instrument rating. The rate you mention is >3% hull, and I think you can do better, if you get the IR, which you will want anyway for cross country trips east of the Rockies.

The six-pack version will save on the purchase cost, as you mention. You can add Aspen later, if you wish.

Partnering can help with the cost.

Jhernandez04 said:
1. SR22 (2000-2004 year model 150K $)This model will take me the longest to acquire as I’ll need to save up a bit to purchase this plane, it’s my favorite choice in terms of comfort and safety. But I won’t be able to afford the complete glass panel version and it will have to be a mid-time engine. The fuel burn is high (16-18gallons per hour) but the gear is fixed which helps with MX.

Insurance on a composite frame will be the most expensive of the three, a quick quote was something like 5K a year, so that puts me at 1500$ a month
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Get the S-35 Bonanza, IMO it's the best of breed and best value.
 
i really like the cirrus never flown one just like it but i would want full glass if I'm spending that much,
 
I agree that the 35 is the smart choice.

I am not interested in partnerships because I fly my plane to work 2 weeks out of the month.

I wouldn't really use the 5th/6th seat, it's just that is extra space that could be used. And I do have 3 children that could fit in there without much weight.
 
Comanches are the biggest piece of **** airplane ever made. Just ask anyone on the board. Get the Bonanza and join the Beech circle jerk. Just make sure you get a reach around.


For the record Comanches handle or land nothing like a Cherokee. Which is why they are nothing but big steaming piles.
 
EdFred - You're not serious are you? Or did you sell the comanche and those are your true feelings?
 
Avoid the Bo if you wife doesn't decide that she loves turbulence. The wagging tail of the Bo's modestly annoying in the front seat, but really can torture the rear seat passengers. A nice flying plane otherwise, though quirky cockpit layout.

Of those three, the Comanche has the most reliable engine and is structurally the strongest. The Comanche was originally designed and tested to ultimate failure of 7.5G's, not the 5.7G's that the FAA sets as a minimum.

The parachute of the Cirrus is a good selling point for safety which is especially effective with the non-flying spouse.

The Commander is the most comfortable of the three, though support is uncertain.
 
gov98 said:
EdFred - You're not serious are you? Or did you sell the comanche and those are your true feelings?
Click to expand...

Like I said, ask the board, they will tell you.
 
S-35 Bonanza for the win, but I am biased as a former Beechcrafter. An S-35 with Yaw Damp will cover the Dutch Roll, plus they are longer than the original V-tails anyway making them more stable.

Haven't flown the Comanche but have heard nothing but good about them, particularly the 260 and 400, great looking plane, good performance - so long as you can find parts and support it would be a solid contender.

I have close to 100 in the A-36 Bo and if you can find a solid one in your price range it is a real 6 seater (limited fuel and baggage like that but 4 plus bags and gas is good), should have the standard T instrument layout, 2 yokes, etc. Not as much panache as the V-tails but a great plane.

My dream Bo is an S-35 with tip tanks, Speed Slope windshield and a Tornado Alley Turbo kit - still a ways off but a great performer.

Good luck whatever you decide.

'Gimp
 
With 3 kids and 150k a budget possibility, get an A36.
 
The A-36 has merit with kids. I have about 1200 hours in the series 36. When they went to a standard panel in '84, it removed a lot of the quirks. I have flown all the V-tails from the C35 to the V-35B. They all shake their tail in turbulence. A yaw damper helps, but does not eliminate. Even the conventional tail Bo's have a bit of a dutch roll characteristic, but is manageable.

If you want to find out anything about Comanches, this is the place:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/comanches/start
 
You can buy a good Comanche 250/260 for much less than the $90k that you've budgeted. The Comanche will definitely be the best value out of the bunch as far as initial purchase price. I think they are fun to fly and comfortable.

If you can spend up to $150k and want to, I would skip the 35 Bonanzas entirely and go for an A36 with a 550. The '84 or newer is a very nice plane. Flies well, and popular with passengers in the back.

I'm not a Cirrus fan at all, and as such would skip it.

I think the A36 would be the best plane for you, anyway. They can also be had with a radar pod, TKS, turbo normalizing, and other features. They're really quite capable for a single.

Or you could buy a twin and become a real pilot. :D
 
EdFred said:
Comanches are the biggest piece of **** airplane ever made. Just ask anyone on the board. Get the Bonanza and join the Beech circle jerk. Just make sure you get a reach around.


For the record Comanches handle or land nothing like a Cherokee. Which is why they are nothing but big steaming piles.
Click to expand...

I saw a Comanche yesterday that was reasonable and for sale. Asked my wife if she minded if I bought it. She said no! I said why not they are cheap fast good planes. Her reply was, we already had one.:dunno:
 
The BE35 definitely gets my vote. Bonanzas (real Bonanzas...the 35s ;)) are all fine machines no matter which year model but for me the best model, in terms of value and performance, is the V (1966 & 67). The S model made the switch from the io470 to the io520, which was a plus, but has a MGW of 3300lb vs the 3400lb MGW of the V. That's approximately 100 more lbs of useful load which will definitely come in handy. For me the only negative aspect of t he Bo is the aft CG that many of them have. And with leading edge fuel tanks the CG goes further aft as fuel is burned off. With 4 people and some bags in the back a guy could take off within The CG envelope and land with the CG aft of the envelope. Look for a Bo with as forward of an empty weight CG as possible.
 
Kristin said:
Of those three, the Comanche has the most reliable engine and is structurally the strongest. The Comanche was originally designed and tested to ultimate failure of 7.5G's, not the 5.7G's that the FAA sets as a minimum.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, don't recall seeing an aerobatic version of the Comanche - like is found with the Bonanza.

Was there a version of the Comanche that was ever certified anything but 'Normal' category? I don't think they even got to Utility, much less aerobatic? I'm sure they are strong planes, but "the strongest"? fuggeddabouuddit.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
What's the annual like on a A36? Operating costs?
Click to expand...
About the same as the 250/260 Comanche, maybe a bit less because parts are more readily available, maybe a bit more because Beech parts always seem to be more expensive. Either way, it's close enough that if you can afford either, you can afford both, so you can let other considerations drive your decision.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
Something that was very funny to me was heard on the radio, there was a guy flying a commander and he announced that he was a "turbo commander" I chuckled at that and had to keep myself from telling approach I was a 235hp Cherokee..... lol
Click to expand...

Turbo Commander is the correct designation.
TC690BII-11544.jpg



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 
None of the above.

Twin comanche or Aerostar.

Fly at night, cut down on the turb, and make the wife happy along with the redundancy of a second engine.... :yes:
 
Last edited:
txflyer said:
None of the above.

Twin comanche or Aerostar.

Fly at night, cut down on the turb, and make the wife happy with the redundancy of a second engine.... :yes:
Click to expand...

Insurance way too high on a twin. I want to get some time under my belt before considering moving to a twin.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
Insurance way too high on a twin. I want to get some time under my belt before considering moving to a twin.
Click to expand...


Sound logic.

I think if I ever get my Aerostar, since I'm relatively low time, and VFR, I'll just forgo hull and carry liability.

I figure if I crack it, I won't be around to care, and I have bookoo life insurance.... :dunno:
 
Take a look at the later Commander 114-B. The plane fits your mission, is very comfortable, has two doors which my wife loves, averages 13 gph and very reasonable maintenance costs. The company is reopening in Norman, OK and parts are not an issue.

The Commander has great ramp appeal - but I may be a bit bias ;-)

Jim
 
Commanders are nice, but not for high DA operations.
 
I have a Comanche 260 and regularly carry 5 and bags. It's tight, but do-able. Yesterday I took six on a day-trip.
 
Einstein376 said:
Take a look at the later Commander 114-B. The plane fits your mission, is very comfortable, has two doors which my wife loves, averages 13 gph and very reasonable maintenance costs. The company is reopening in Norman, OK and parts are not an issue.

The Commander has great ramp appeal - but I may be a bit bias ;-)

Jim
Click to expand...

And is slow for the fuel burn.
 
I would go with the Bo, V-35B or early A36.
The C182 is a non player if you are already flying a Piper -235, same capability.
You can take most of the cloud problems out of the picture by getting that instrument rating.

The Sr20 or 22 is expensive plastic and having to run lean of peak for lower fuel flow requires the gami and other engine instruments to be accurate and maintained.
 
Comanche is good - and you can find some real dandies, too! Just watch out (this really applies to any plane) for ill-maintained "bargains." They can eat you right up.
 
BillTIZ said:
The Sr20 or 22 is expensive plastic and having to run lean of peak for lower fuel flow requires the gami and other engine instruments to be accurate and maintained.
Click to expand...

These are not of significance.

Almost all Cirri are equipped with the required engine monitor. It requires little maintenance - typically just an occasional loose connector on a CHT probe for certain model years, and that doesn't affect LOP operation anyway as LOP relies on EGT probes.

The factory fuel injectors are generally good enough for lean of peak operation. Replacing with GAMI usually is not needed, and is not costly if it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top