Complex Aircraft to build time?

MSPAviator said:
Mooney's are great, but if the guy is looking to build time, then you need something slow like a Piper Arrow. :lol:

And unfortunately I'll admit the average Piper Arrow has a better standard panel for IFR flying.
Click to expand...

Good point about the panel. OP will definitely want the standard layout.
 
No problem Ron,

An arrow is a more docile trainer and great at that. Easier to land too.

But if buying a $25k Comanche 180, about half of what a reasonable Arrow costs, doesn't save enough to pay a bit more maintenance then I do not know what does.

Still I think the parts issue is past history. At least I do not see evidence of it, neither do I see reference to it on the forums for International Comanche Society :)

Ron Levy said:
Tony, I'm sorry if we kicked your puppy, but your love for your plane will not change the reality facing someone who wants what the OP says he wants. There are better choices than a Comanche for that.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
shyampatel94 said:
35 is the V-Tail right? What do those fly like?
Click to expand...

My step dad had 3 Bonanza's.

V-tails cause a vasolation of the tail in a circular or side to side motion called the Bonanza Boggy.

Most pilots get used to it. You have to hit the right and left tail rudder ever few seconds to tame the beast.

Most passengers hate sitting the back seats and you will have to carry barf bags when you take pax with you, especially if they ride in the back seat.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
My step dad had 3 Bonanza's.

V-tails cause a vasolation of the tail in a circular or side to side motion called the Bonanza Boggy.

Most pilots get used to it. You have to hit the right and left tail rudder ever few seconds to tame the beast.

Most passengers hate sitting the back seats and you will have to carry barf bags when you take pax with you, especially if they ride in the back seat.
Click to expand...

If you put your feet on the pedals rather than the floor, that goes away, especially when you use the pedals to correct for turbulence rather than the yoke.
 
Henning said:
If you put your feet on the pedals rather than the floor, that goes away, especially when you use the pedals to correct for turbulence rather than the yoke.
Click to expand...

I take exception with your term "goes away" I think it minimizes it but it does not go away. My step dad had thousands of hours so I assume he knew how to fly but I would get sick as a dog when put in the back of that airplane from Elk City, OK to Wichita, KS.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I take exception with your term "goes away" I think it minimizes it but it does not go away. My step dad had thousands of hours so I assume he knew how to fly but I would get sick as a dog when put in the back of that airplane from Elk City, OK to Wichita, KS.
Click to expand...

I know plenty of pilots with thousands of hours who fly with their feet flat on the deck.
 
mcoflyer said:
It's obvious that everyone has a different preference. At least I hope the OP got some good advice and he'll just have to make up his own opinion.
Click to expand...
Mine is based on having given training for CP and IR in the various types mentioned. Not sure what others' opinions are based on.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
No problem Ron,

An arrow is a more docile trainer and great at that. Easier to land too.
Click to expand...
...and the mission here is training.

But if buying a $25k Comanche 180, about half of what a reasonable Arrow costs, doesn't save enough to pay a bit more maintenance then I do not know what does.
Click to expand...
But you get less back when you sell it later, too, so that part balances out. There are good reasons why you see lots of Arrows, Cutlasses, and Sierras at flight schools for CP/IR training, but I've never seen a Comanche used in that role (at least, not for very long).
 
Go with the arrow.comfortable ,easy to fly,not bad on fuel,can do a reasonable cross country VFR. Simple maintenance.
 
My understanding is that the OP doesn't want to equip a flight school but rather that he is planning to purchase a plane for his IR, commercial and time building.
For 60k, he can get a somewhat ratty high-time Arrow, a nicely equipped B33 Debonair or two Comanches.
 
warthog1984 said:
182RG or Beech F33. Reasons: Good flying, relatively affordable to buy/keep, and covers HP and complex.
Click to expand...


Maybe I'm paranoid but the 172RG and the 182RG give me the willies with the pivot cracks and lack of parts...
 
weilke said:
My understanding is that the OP doesn't want to equip a flight school but rather that he is planning to purchase a plane for his IR, commercial and time building.
Click to expand...
Actually, given that mission, he is equipping a flight school, albeit one with only one student.
For 60k, he can get a somewhat ratty high-time Arrow, a nicely equipped B33 Debonair or two Comanches.
Click to expand...
Since it's not a keeper, purchase price isn't really important because he'll get it back when he sells it after completing training.
 
I was almost not going to bring it up, but after hearing that the Arrow/Sierra option would be the cheapest...I have to say it.

Lancair 360 :) My last 3 annuals have run $700-900, with almost all the maintenance items being firewall forward on the O-360 A1A (same as a Warrior). Speed doesn't matter if it's for training, but if you want training where you cover a lot more ground (and hence, more exposure to changing weather, potentially), then this has some advantages. The disadvantages are obvious, though, your typical instructor won't have a clue how to fly it, you'lll have to do 5-10 hours of transition work (conservatively) and finding a mechanic to do the condition inspection isn't fun, but simple work between condition inspections hasn't been a problem.

Not saying it's a slam dunk, but it gets 23mpg at 230mph and I suspect it's cheaper than any other complex out there to maintain.

I'm not advocating hard for it, just fleshing out the candidates.
 
If he was just going to fly the plane for himself, the Lancair would be a nifty option, but 1500 hrs of flying is a big bill to foot. The problem with an experimental is that the instruction/rental waiver is very limited in scope so the chance that he's going to get a lot of people to foot the bill by giving instruction is remote.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since it's not a keeper, purchase price isn't really important because he'll get it back when he sells it after completing training.
Click to expand...

Now you sound like the goverment. Unless he pays for the plane with loose change he finds in his desk drawer, purchase price is important, even for a short holding period like a year. It affects both financing cost and insurance premium.

The reason not to buy a cheap old complex aircraft is that they are hard to sell. The advantage goes to a cheap Arrow or 172RG as here as there is allways some demand from flight schools.
 
weilke said:
Now you sound like the goverment. Unless he pays for the plane with loose change he finds in his desk drawer,
Click to expand...
If you've been reading the OP's posts, money doesn't seem to be a big issue.
The reason not to buy a cheap old complex aircraft is that they are hard to sell. The advantage goes to a cheap Arrow or 172RG as here as there is allways some demand from flight schools.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Often when I write an analysis for someone I put a list of assumptions at the top similar to making a spread sheet with the changeable options at the top which filters through the spread sheet. This helps the viewer to discover whether the assumptions are correct or not for the situation he is trying to gain knowledge about.

Not all that much unlike the Socratic method where two sides argue a 3rd party can see the strengths and weaknesses of each and make the best decision for himself.

This is a situation where the op needs to see the agreements and disagreements between knowledgeable people and learn from that process. Ultimately he should fly in as many models as is available to him before dropping a large sum of money to buy an airplane.
 
Why are there only older Piper Arrows? I haven't seen but one Piper Arrow that is 2000 and up?
 
shyampatel94 said:
Why are there only older Piper Arrows? I haven't seen but one Piper Arrow that is 2000 and up?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone buy one? What would be the advantage of paying $430,000 for one unless you were making so much money you needed something to depreciate? They are flight school airplanes, I don't know too many flight schools in that position. Even if you want a glass panel airplane, you can take an older Arrow with new paint and interior, put 2 G-500s with a full GNS 750/650 stack in it and have a better setup than a G-1000 and hang a brand new engine and prop with a glass instrument deck on it and be in it for less than half the cost of a new one. You could even put an IO-390 on it and gain even more power.

The places that do buy new ones know that the best return on their investment is going to be to work it until it dies. Now consider that there are still plenty of 1970s vintage Arrows flying out there, that tells you something about how long they last.
 
Last edited:
shyampatel94 said:
Why are there only older Piper Arrows? I haven't seen but one Piper Arrow that is 2000 and up?
Click to expand...

Because Piper hasn't made one for civilian sale in years. Last year they made and sold 2, typically those are part of fleet contracts with university flight schools.
They have an obsolete product and do a really poor job at selling it.
 
So Turbo or no Turbo? I am guessing no turbo. But I was wondering the reason?
 
shyampatel94 said:
So Turbo or no Turbo? I am guessing no turbo. But I was wondering the reason?
Click to expand...

Where do you live and where do you intend to fly? The Turbo Arrow has a Continental TSIO-360 rather than a Lycoming IO-360, so 6 cylinders and a not quite complete waste gate set up that requires some attention when advancing the throttle, but nothing particularly wrong with it. If you live out west I would have it rather than a non turbo for performance in the mountains.
 
Henning said:
Where do you live and where do you intend to fly? The Turbo Arrow has a Continental TSIO-360 rather than a Lycoming IO-360, so 6 cylinders and a not quite complete waste gate set up that requires some attention when advancing the throttle, but nothing particularly wrong with it. If you live out west I would have it rather than a non turbo for performance in the mountains.
Click to expand...

Well I live in Lubbock Texas. No mountains or anything. So I would guess that a non turbo would be better where I live.
 
The general rule is to get more horsepower first. Turbo only after there is no more horsepower to be had. Turbos add heat, heat causes damage.

You would be better off with a 285 hp normally aspirated engine rather than a 200hp Turbo Arrow. I would not get a Turbo Arrow. If the NA Arrow is not fast enough then get something else. While the Turbo Arrow might still fly docile, it is a complex mechanic machine that will be expensive to maintain.


shyampatel94 said:
So Turbo or no Turbo? I am guessing no turbo. But I was wondering the reason?
Click to expand...
 
shyampatel94 said:
Well I live in Lubbock Texas. No mountains or anything. So I would guess that a non turbo would be better where I live.
Click to expand...

Why would you get an Arrow vs. a Bonanza? Don't discount the effects of density altitude in Lubbock.
 
shyampatel94 said:
So Turbo or no Turbo? I am guessing no turbo. But I was wondering the reason?
Click to expand...

Is that in regard to the Arrow ?

They stopped making Turbo Arrows at some point. It is a very different aircraft from the regular Arrow in that it uses a 6 cylinder Continental engine instead of a 4 cylinder Lycoming.
 
Henning said:
Why would you get an Arrow vs. a Bonanza? Don't discount the effects of density altitude in Lubbock.
Click to expand...

What would be a good bonanza? Aren't they a little more pricey and more maintenance costs?
 
shyampatel94 said:
What would be a good bonanza? Aren't they a little more pricey and more maintenance costs?
Click to expand...

J-M35. Will cost more than a Arrow to keep running, but if you pull the power back, and lean it, the fuel burn is close to the same as Arrow.
 
shyampatel94 said:
What would be a good bonanza? Aren't they a little more pricey and more maintenance costs?
Click to expand...

Not any more, prices on Bonanzas are pretty low even for the S-35 which is the best of the breed IMO. Maintenance costs are more dependent on condition of the aircraft than anything else, and since most Arrows were flight school beaters while most Bonanzas were loved more than their owners children, the chances of picking up a good Bonanza are much higher than picking up a good Arrow. The Bonanza is also a considerably more rugged aircraft and the O/IO-470 the best engine in GA. In Australia the Bonanza is the preferred bush plane.
 
Boys, boys! There's an airplane for every size and taste. I love my Mooney. If someone else doesn't, WGAS?
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
Really? Which mooney model do you think is spacious and not sitting on the ground like a go-cart?
Click to expand...

40 percent of pilots don't fit in a Mooney? Really? Where did you pull that stat from? Never mind I know...if you are going to spread misinformation someone here is going to correct you. I'm 5'10 and 240 pounds and my buddy is 6'5 and 270 and we both fit in the Mooney fine an routinely do 4+ hours nonstop trips. I find the sitting position very comfortable. You may not like it but your generalization is obviously based on stuff you heard, not on fact.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
If you are willing, next time I come to Florida you can show me in your plane. :) Then I will show you why I need something bigger.

Perezhr said:
40 percent of pilots don't fit in a Mooney? Really? Where did you pull that stat from? Never mind I know...if you are going to spread misinformation someone here is going to correct you. I'm 5'10 and 240 pounds and my buddy is 6'5 and 270 and we both fit in the Mooney fine an routinely do 4+ hours nonstop trips. I find the sitting position very comfortable. You may not like it but your generalization is obviously based on stuff you heard, not on fact.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...
 
Perezhr said:
40 percent of pilots don't fit in a Mooney? Really? Where did you pull that stat from? Never mind I know...if you are going to spread misinformation someone here is going to correct you. I'm 5'10 and 240 pounds and my buddy is 6'5 and 270 and we both fit in the Mooney fine an routinely do 4+ hours nonstop trips. I find the sitting position very comfortable. You may not like it but your generalization is obviously based on stuff you heard, not on fact.
Click to expand...

I guess I am part of Tonys 40%. 6'3" 205lbs and flying safety pilot for my buddy is torture. Flat on the floor with the uncomfortable mooney seats makes my legs fall asleep. No room to move your legs.
 
It comes down to 'are you more comfortable in an MG or an Eldorado. Both will fit a wide variety of sizes.
 
Cabin Width Cabin Height
Mooney 201
43.5 44.5
Beechcraft V35 Bonanza
42.0. 50.0
Cessna 182
42.0. 48.0
Piper Arrow
41.0. 45.0


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Last edited:
I'm more of a sports car guy so the flat Mooney seating layout suits me perfectly.

It's like sitting in a 911 vs. a F-150.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top