Bonanza 35, SR22 or Comanche?

Jhernandez04 said:
What's the annual like on a A36? Operating costs?
Click to expand...

Has the same systems as a V-tail Bo and when you compare 70s models the same engine. Compared with a V-tail, the only differences are the higher entry price for a comparable A36, slightly higher insurance (higher hull value, more seats) and slightly lower speed for comparable fuel burn.

The annual itself will be more than a Cherokee 235, you have a required gear-swing and there are a couple of extra parts.

Long term, you will also have additional expenses over a cherokee:
- Conti engine with its gear driven alternator and starter-clutch that require occasional overhauls
- Electric flaps with flap motor, conduits and jack-screw actuators rather than your current Armstrong bar
- Landing gear with a motor that requires overhauls, gearbox and various
bushings that can wear out.
- Fuel bladders that age and eventually need replacement.

Iirc you are a bigger guy and you mention that you have wife and 3 kids. With the A36, you just load up everyone into the back and you take the front row. Otoh, for your solo work related trips, an A36 is not too much plane to fly and ground-handle alone.

You mentioned an early SR22 as a possibility. Your speeds in the A36 are going to be comparable to a normally aspirated SR22. You wont have seats for everyone in the SR22 (the 3-seat bench only came out 2 years ago). Until you get your IR, the benefits from the chute are going to be modest at best. The only time I would really like to have it is in the dark over the Appalachians or while flying over an area of fog.
 
I haven't flown any of the 3, so....

Your wife will probably love the SR-22 just because of the cosmetics of a newer composite airplane. If you are a looking forward to a long relationship with personal planes and not subject to the somewhat irrational prejudice many of us have against the plane, I suggest going for it if you can swing it. I'm a bit old school so I don't like the chute or the plane's image but I think it's the best choice.

A Bo' is always a good choice and may well be the right one for you. Try http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/ for information about Bo's (and SR22s for that matter).

I built and fly an RV10. It was right for my wife and I but that's an entirely different path.

The best treatment I've found for people unsure about turbulence the willingness of little planes to fly, is to let them handle the controls a bit in some light turbulence. For some it's a revelation.
 
Bill Watson said:
I haven't flown any of the 3, so....

Your wife will probably love the SR-22 just because of the cosmetics of a newer composite airplane. If you are a looking forward to a long relationship with personal planes and not subject to the somewhat irrational prejudice many of us have against the plane, I suggest going for it if you can swing it. I'm a bit old school so I don't like the chute or the plane's image but I think it's the best choice.

A Bo' is always a good choice and may well be the right one for you. Try http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/ for information about Bo's (and SR22s for that matter).

I built and fly an RV10. It was right for my wife and I but that's an entirely different path.

The best treatment I've found for people unsure about turbulence the willingness of little planes to fly, is to let them handle the controls a bit in some light turbulence. For some it's a revelation.
Click to expand...



I tried getting her to hold the controls to get a feel, she promptly declined and said she wasn't ready for all that. Lol.


I think the S/V bonanza's are my best bang for the buck. But the A36 if I can find one priced right might be a good fit.
 
JHW said:
V35 with a 550 is about as fast as anything out there.

However if you have 3 kids you can stop looking at any of these and concentrate on A36's and PA32's, with the latter taking a hit on mpg for your solo work trips.
Click to expand...



My 3 kids are 6 years old, 2.5 and 1.5 years old. I wouldn't need an A36 for another 10 years. But like I said, if it's equipped and priced right, I won't say no :)
 
I don't like the parts cost (Bo) and parts sourcing (comanche) potentialities involved in Bo/Comanche ownership. A bit too 'antiquing' for my taste (fly reliably off-station and replacing broken things not be a big goose egg hunt/ransom payment). Plus the idea of tolerating an airplane with a predisposition for falling out of CG with nominal loading and/or making your non-pilot pax puke their eyeballs out by default, kind of a false economy.

My vote? Mooney 20J or Piper Lance NA Straight tail. Maybe the Cirrus, if you must pick from your own list (since I don't recommend conti engines to people I consider friends :D)

good luck!
 
Why not look at Saratogas if an a36 is on the table?

There are some really nice examples out there.
 
Don't underestimate the value of having a wife who likes to fly. It will open up a lotos nice cross country trips. Be sure you get her opinion before you give yours. Otherwise she might say what she thinks you want to hear.

All planes are good choices. The Cirrus will have the best ingress and egress and the best ride. I say that having ridden in a BE35 on the same day as an SR22 and over the same route (several times). The BE35 will be better on unimproved fields.

Buy what you can afford to fly. Make sure you can afford to properly maintain the plane and enjoy the trips rather than stressing over the expense.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I don't like the parts cost (Bo) and parts sourcing (comanche) potentialities involved in Bo/Comanche ownership. A bit too 'antiquing' for my taste (fly reliably off-station and replacing broken things not be a big goose egg hunt/ransom payment). Plus the idea of tolerating an airplane with a predisposition for falling out of CG with nominal loading and/or making your non-pilot pax puke their eyeballs out by default, kind of a false economy.

My vote? Mooney 20J or Piper Lance NA Straight tail. Maybe the Cirrus, if you must pick from your own list (since I don't recommend conti engines to people I consider friends :D)

good luck!
Click to expand...

lol.. :rofl:
 
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...

I like the Commander. Didn't know about the restart ..... Hmmm.
 
J-

Looked at Bonanzas, Debs and Comanches. Sat in a SR22 and it was the most comfortable GA plane I ever sat in. People who fly them love them. I am looking into getting one.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
My 3 kids are 6 years old, 2.5 and 1.5 years old. I wouldn't need an A36 for another 10 years. But like I said, if it's equipped and priced right, I won't say no :)
Click to expand...

Kids that age tend to travel with a lot of 'stuff'. Car-seats, favorite pillows, diaper supplies etc. Installing a car-seat in a A36 while standing outside the aircraft and leaning in through the barn-doors is a lot easier than doing the same crawling into the back of a V-tail or Deb.
 
What about a C210? anyone up to date with operating costs?
 
cocolos said:
What about a C210? anyone up to date with operating costs?
Click to expand...


I was told to stay away from a 210, big MX hogs. Of course I have no real data to support that claim, just a guy I trust told me that.

And I like low wings :dunno:
 
Jhernandez04 said:
I was told to stay away from a 210, big MX hogs. Of course I have no real data to support that claim, just a guy I trust told me that.

And I like low wings :dunno:
Click to expand...


Yea low-wing airplanes give you more cool points!
 
RotorAndWing said:
I owned a 1966 Cessna 210. Operating cost are on par with a Bonanza or Commanche.
Click to expand...

How much more maintenance is the P210 over the 210? Some say a lot, some say hardly a difference.
 
docmirror said:
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.
Click to expand...

I said tested, not certified. If you have ever compared the inflight break up record between the Bo's and the Comanche and looked at the wing structural configuration of the two, you would have no doubt that I am correct.
 
Kristin said:
I said tested, not certified. If you have ever compared the inflight break up record between the Bo's and the Comanche and looked at the wing structural configuration of the two, you would have no doubt that I am correct.
Click to expand...
No you're pretty far out in left field on this one.

The comanche and its contemporary beechcraft equivalents are virtually intechangeable. After all, that was the whole purpose of the comanche, to try and match the bonanza.

Both types have strengths and weaknesses but your wing structure contention is just silly. If anything the weakness of each of them is in the tail in different forms.
 
People have ripped the wings off comanches just like they have broken up bonanzas.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
My 3 kids are 6 years old, 2.5 and 1.5 years old. I wouldn't need an A36 for another 10 years. But like I said, if it's equipped and priced right, I won't say no :)
Click to expand...
actually it's the other way around. In 10 years the kids won't want to go with you. You are right in prime travelling years now and I'm sorry to tell you, but you absolutely need a 6-seater with that crew.

However you don't need a slow truck which is what the PA32 is, that will get old in a hurry when you are doing your solo trips. So really your choices are A36 or 210.
 
I love the Beech way, but have to acknowledge that the 210 is a damned fine aircraft. If properly maintained, it should cost no more than an equivalent Bo or Comanche to own.

The T210 will cost more to maintain (as will any turbocharged aircraft), but you need only look to the sales prices to see how the market values 210s.
 
Kristin said:
I said tested, not certified. If you have ever compared the inflight break up record between the Bo's and the Comanche and looked at the wing structural configuration of the two, you would have no doubt that I am correct.
Click to expand...

I see, you think the in-flight breakup record of the Bonanza is due in any part to the plane itself, and not the pilot.

oooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk :lol::lol:

Trust me, I've been intimately involved in the Bonanza wing spar carry through, and I've seen plenty of the same on the Comanche. I'll take the Bo...
 
Yeah, with absolutely no bias, whatsoever.

You Beech Bums are getting as bad as the RVers.
 
JHW said:
No you're pretty far out in left field on this one.

The comanche and its contemporary beechcraft equivalents are virtually intechangeable. After all, that was the whole purpose of the comanche, to try and match the bonanza.

Both types have strengths and weaknesses but your wing structure contention is just silly. If anything the weakness of each of them is in the tail in different forms.
Click to expand...

The chief engineer on the Comanche project was quoted in a flying magazine article in 1958 as saying that Piper had tested the Comanche wing to 7.5G's. Do you have any evidence that the Bonanza wing was tested to that level?

The Comanche wings are strapped together and then the fuselage is attached to the wings. The Bo wings are held on with four bolts, only two of which are in tension at any one time.

As for the tail, we know that the Bo V-tail was structural deficient and required a "fix" to keep them from falling off.

Silly facts, but facts is facts.
 
weilke said:
People have ripped the wings off comanches just like they have broken up bonanzas.
Click to expand...

Pilots can break anything, but the rate of failure of the Bo's is higher, in large part because of breaking V-tails.
 
docmirror said:
I see, you think the in-flight breakup record of the Bonanza is due in any part to the plane itself, and not the pilot.

oooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk :lol::lol:

Trust me, I've been intimately involved in the Bonanza wing spar carry through, and I've seen plenty of the same on the Comanche. I'll take the Bo...
Click to expand...

In part! And we haven't even gotten to discussing corrosion yet. Not an issue on Comanches due to the fact that the structural components were sprayed with zinc chromate before being riveted together. On the Bo, there are issues.
 
Kristin said:
Pilots can break anything, but the rate of failure of the Bo's is higher, in large part because of breaking V-tails.
Click to expand...

The cuff that fixes the problem has been an AD for 20 years and virtually every plane has them installed now.

You want to talk about stabilator horns now? :D
 
bartmc said:
The cuff that fixes the problem has been an AD for 20 years and virtually every plane has them installed now.

You want to talk about stabilator horns now? :D
Click to expand...

Sure.

Inflight control failures: Zero.
The AD is no longer applicable to my plane. 1/2 day of labor, and $1400 eliminated it forever.
 
Neither of which mention the stab horn being the failure point or cause.
I do see another failure here though.
 
bartmc said:
The cuff that fixes the problem has been an AD for 20 years and virtually every plane has them installed now.

You want to talk about stabilator horns now? :D
Click to expand...

The AD is almost 30 years old. I ferried aircraft into Mike Smith Aero for their fix back in 1984, before the AD came out. I saw the bend tails. I saw the engineering behind the fix and I read the articles. I installed a couple of the Beech kits later on. If you go back to the Aviation Consumer articles in the '83/'84 time frame, you will see the numbers. Something like 250 or so V-tails had broken up in flight at that point. I haven't researched to know whether the AD cured the problem. Having taken the tails off the Bo's, I am familiar with the issues and the structure.

Ditto the Comanche horn. There is no known crash attributable to the Comanche horn. It appears to have been a manufacturing defect caused by bolts being over-tightened at the factory. Is there anything else you would like to know about the horn?:D

I like the straight tailed Bo's. If I could get a post-'84 model for what I could get a comparably equipped Comanche for, I would consider it. I have more time in those than I have in Comanches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top