I think about planes sooo much

Bill

Bill

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
15,105
Location
Southeast Tennessee
Display Name
Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
I think my head will explode.

Mission: three people, bags, 130kts min cruise speed, grass/short friendly, at least traditional IFR equipped, IFR GPS would be nice.

I've been thinking Mooney lately, but 6Y9 and other stuff like that interests me greatly. I'd really like to visit many of the grass fields. So maybe Mooney not so good.

Edit: also really like Tigers, but again the grass/short limits that choice.

Looking at the mission, it screams Skylane, but I also want other alternatives. I really REALLY like Greg's 195, so that is an option. I was also wondering about the 172XP, as that may have enough speed while using a more economical to run and re-build 4cyl. Edit: Oops, found out that one is a 6cyl, but still should burn less gas than a 182

Ok, so tell me all, what plane do I want to look for? (other than the obvious 182)

Edit: Henning, please take your best shot from left field!

Oh, definately <$100k, and $75k ish would be really cool.

Edit: Were any of the PA-28 225/235 horse planes hershey bar? Can they be had decent in this price range?
 
Last edited:
Commander 114. Carries about what a Skylane will, at about 150 knots it's about as fast as a Mooney 201 (though it takes 50 extra horsepower to do it), it's got adequate short field performance It's landing gear is incredibly rugged, the plane sits very high, and with the cruciform tail up even higher debris from rougher fields won't ding up your plane. Tailor made for those grass and rougher strips you say you want to be able to use. Bonuses, the cabin is massive and very comfortable, the visibility is very good, the plane is build very ruggedly throughout and corrosion proofed, and you get a "both" option on the fuel selector :)
 
Joe Williams said:
Commander 114. Carries about what a Skylane will, at about 150 knots it's about as fast as a Mooney 201 (though it takes 50 extra horsepower to do it), it's got adequate short field performance It's landing gear is incredibly rugged, the plane sits very high, and with the cruciform tail up even higher debris from rougher fields won't ding up your plane. Tailor made for those grass and rougher strips you say you want to be able to use. Bonuses, the cabin is massive and very comfortable, the visibility is very good, the plane is build very ruggedly throughout and corrosion proofed, and you get a "both" option on the fuel selector :)
Click to expand...

All good but for the <$100k requirement. I also worry somewhat about parts support.
 
Bill Jennings said:
All good but for the <$100k requirement. I also worry somewhat about parts support.
Click to expand...

I suppose they have gotten a bit pricey. Could look at the 112 or 112TC, but I don't know if their useful load or short field performance would work for you or not. Actually, if want to carry 3 plus bags it's pretty much a sure bet the 112 wouldn't work for you, I think.

The company under it's new owners is producing parts again, so hopefully parts support will not be an issue.
 
A Navion G or H would fit the bill. A very rugged plane with good parts support.

Bruce
 
Well, if the Commander won't work, how 'bout an Apache, then? I think they'll carry the load you want, can be had for well under $100k, work great on short and grass fields, and I think they may even hit 130 kts :)
 
Bill Jennings said:
Were any of the PA-28 225/235 horse planes hershey bar?
Click to expand...
Yes, PA-28-235 from 1963 through 1977. Earlier ones (up to 1972) had short cabin but better useful load. The very first ones were advertised to have a useful load greater than their own empty weight.

These -235s had the same wing as the Cherokee Six, with four-tank fuel system holding 84 gallons.

-- Pilawt
 
Bill Jennings said:
I think my head will explode.
Click to expand...
Well then, be sure to tape it and post it on YouTube. :p

Bill Jennings said:
Mission: three people, bags, 130kts min cruise speed, grass/short friendly, at least traditional IFR equipped, IFR GPS would be nice.
Click to expand...
Not counting the Tiger, sounds like you're looking at a retract if you're limiting the choices to 4-cylinder engines.

mikea said:
*Cough*
Click to expand...
Yeah but -235's have 2 extra cylinders.

Bill Jennings said:
I also worry somewhat about parts support.
Click to expand...
Time for a Doc Bruce "Sigh." Joe is correctomundo -- Commander Premier opened it's factory parts department last week! (PDF)


Joe Williams said:
Could look at the 112 or 112TC, but I don't know if their useful load or short field performance would work for you or not. Actually, if want to carry 3 plus bags it's pretty much a sure bet the 112 wouldn't work for you, I think.
Click to expand...
I'm sure Bill Suffa will chime in on the pros/cons of the TC, but a few years ago some pilot mag did a story on the 112TC and they flew it into Gaston's for the photo shoot, so there you go.

Ya know, if you like the Commander, this almost cries out for a 112 with the Hot Shot turbonormalizer. My 112A has a 879 lb useful load (which is on the high side for the fleet, I think avg. is about 830 or so). Subtract 3*170 and you have 369 lbs (61 gals) left over for fuel. The Hot Shot wouldn't even bat an eye at that.


-Rich
 
rpadula said:
Ya know, if you like the Commander, this almost cries out for a 112 with the Hot Shot turbonormalizer. My 112A has a 879 lb useful load (which is on the high side for the fleet, I think avg. is about 830 or so). Subtract 3*170 and you have 369 lbs (61 gals) left over for fuel. The Hot Shot wouldn't even bat an eye at that.
Click to expand...

How is the factory TC vs the Hot Shot? I know the HS has gotten lots of good press and word of mouth.
 
rpadula said:
I'm sure Bill Suffa will chime in on the pros/cons of the TC, but a few years ago some pilot mag did a story on the 112TC and they flew it into Gaston's for the photo shoot, so there you go.
Click to expand...

If Gastons is the shortest strip you are going to be going into, you really dont need an airplane designed for short fields. crikey its like 3300 feet long isnt it?
 
Richard, what is your avatar? It looks like a guy standing near a tent making the shush shush gesture with his hand. either that or a thumb's up. and I can't tell what he is holding - a clock?
 
woodstock said:
Richard, what is your avatar? It looks like a guy standing near a tent making the shush shush gesture with his hand. either that or a thumb's up. and I can't tell what he is holding - a clock?
Click to expand...

Beth, I want a drink of your Kool-Aid!
 
Ken Ibold said:
Hmmm, maybe a Beech Sierra ...
Click to expand...

Hmmm, hadn't thought about the baby Beech planes lately. I know an early 60's Bo/Deb falls in the purchase price range, but I think MX would cause spontaneous divorce. :(
 
hahahaha]/b]
You are NOT going to be flying a Beech Sierra into a short field. Here is the low down on the Sierra.

It is a complex airplane with a 200 hp engine. If you are really lucky you *MIGHT* get 130 knots. It takes up a **** ton of runway on takeoff and sort of limps into the sky. It handles like a large brick.

When you decide it's time to land have fun. Just POINT it down at the runway where you want to go and keep the power up. Once you get a few feet just JERK that yoke into your chest as fast as you can and it'll sort of flare as it touches down.

If you'd like another opinion on the Sierra...ask EdFred.
 
bah jesse just had bad (girl, engine) experiences associated with his Sierra flying :)

ive never flown a sierra, just debonair, which really doesnt compare.
 
You could probably find a decently equiped older Bo to fit that range.
 
An older Apache would definetly fit all of your requirements as put forth. The only issue that you had not addressed is operatoing cost. The twin would be a lot more than the single.
 
smigaldi said:
An older Apache would definetly fit all of your requirements as put forth. The only issue that you had not addressed is operatoing cost. The twin would be a lot more than the single.
Click to expand...

I thought about that, but then got to wondering if an Apache would really cost all that much more to operate.

With twin O-320s, total fuel burn would be 16-18 gph vs 14 or 15 for something like a Skylane or Cherokee 235. You've got two engines to overhaul but, relatively speaking of course, the cost to overhaul two O-320s isn't all that much more than the cost to overhaul an O-540. Two props to take care of instead of one, no way around that. Unlike a lot of twins, not all Apaches have twice the systems to maintain like vacuum, hydraulic, and electrical systems. You lose some of the redundancy that you buy a twin for, but you do still have that second engine turning out there, in an easy to fly twin that can sometimes keep going on that one.

Biggest increase in cost I could see would be insurance, and I don't how much that would be for a light light twin like an Apache.

With both engines turning, you've got 320 horsepower to get you out of those short fields. In a worst case situation like losing an engine going out of a short field, you are no worse off than you would be in a single, assuming you've made up your mind beforehand to shut 'em both down in the event of an engine loss. You've got a nice, roomy cabin, and you can actually see out of it pretty good, unlike some twins. And they can be had awfully cheap. For $100K, you should be able to find a decent one, or one that can be made decent.
 
woodstock said:
Richard, what is your avatar? It looks like a guy standing near a tent making the shush shush gesture with his hand. either that or a thumb's up. and I can't tell what he is holding - a clock?
Click to expand...
Well, the guy is a park ranger, and he is holding an alarm clock. Whattaya think is going on in the tent?

Perhaps the park service's counterpart to Flavor Flav, I don't know.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Beth, I want a drink of your Kool-Aid!
Click to expand...


get your own glass!!

seriously, I cannot see it very well. then again the monitor at work (shhhhhhhh) sucks.
 
AirBaker said:
You could probably find a decently equiped older Bo to fit that range.
Click to expand...

IF, note big if, I were to look at Bo/Deb, I'd want a '62 or newer for the non-piano key T-panel, and that only gives you a narrow range before your busting $100k. I worry more about Beech MX :yes:
 
alaskaflyer said:
Well, the guy is a park ranger, and he is holding an alarm clock. Whattaya think is going on in the tent?

Perhaps the park service's counterpart to Flavor Flav, I don't know.
Click to expand...

someone overslept and he's about to open a can of whuppass?
 
woodstock said:
someone overslept and he's about to open a can of whuppass?
Click to expand...
Fight the Power (and please be quiet while you are doing it!) But heck yeah!
 
Last edited:
tonycondon said:
If Gastons is the shortest strip you are going to be going into, you really dont need an airplane designed for short fields. crikey its like 3300 feet long isnt it?
Click to expand...

What about stuff like 6Y9? Or Moontown near Huntsville, its 2200 grass. Or Skyranch near Knoxville, neat airport, did my aerobatics in the Citabria there, 2100 grass. Guys in Bo's do that airport no sweat.

I really need something like Mooney for family travel, and a 7GCAA for gentlemans aerobatics and grass fields flying. Only I wish. :dunno:
 
alaskaflyer said:
Richard
PP-SEL, IR
Occasional dope on a rope
1955 C-170B N3477C
Click to expand...

Actually, an IFR equipped 170 with the XP mods 210HP motor would be one really nice way to go, but you'd have to look for a good while, and anyone who has done that mod is going to want some ca$h for his bird.

Food for thought, though, because I love the look of the 170. If they weren't all in Alaska, I'd think about looking for an IFR 180.
 
poadeleted3 said:
I thought about that, but then got to wondering if an Apache would really cost all that much more to operate.
Click to expand...

For what I want to spend, I could get into an early short nose Aztruck.

http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_view.jsp?aircraft_id=97248&return_url=/i.aso3/search.jspyyyyyiaso3sid=1xxxxxtypeid=2xxxxxsearchid=1193728xxxxxregionid=-1xxxxxmode=xxxxxtypeid=2xxxxxmmgid=14xxxxxmodelgroup=truexxxxxsearchid=1193728xxxxxregionid=-1

But, for my first ownership experience, I think stepping up to a twin is just waaaay to much to bite off.

I'm still on the fence wrt simple vs complex single!
 
poadeleted3 said:
Commander 114. Carries about what a Skylane will, at about 150 knots it's about as fast as a Mooney 201 (though it takes 50 extra horsepower to do it), it's got adequate short field performance It's landing gear is incredibly rugged, the plane sits very high, and with the cruciform tail up even higher debris from rougher fields won't ding up your plane. Tailor made for those grass and rougher strips you say you want to be able to use. Bonuses, the cabin is massive and very comfortable, the visibility is very good, the plane is build very ruggedly throughout and corrosion proofed, and you get a "both" option on the fuel selector :)
Click to expand...

Oops. Joe crossed a line. Recommended a Commander 114 and got his account deleted!!

Joseph Wayne Williams, shame on you!! (I must have missed some other thread... anybody know why Joe's gone? If it was something in Spin Zone [I don't read that forum, though I posted something there today], isn't that forum a little more liberal about what's allowed?)
 
bah go all out bill. i just saw someone mentioned gastons and wasnt sure how short a strip you wanted to be able to handle. ive always thought a 170 would be a good plane too, they really have respectable performance (cruise and takeoff) for their horsepower.
 
Troy Whistman said:
Joseph Wayne Williams, shame on you!! (I must have missed some other thread... anybody know why Joe's gone? If it was something in Spin Zone [I don't read that forum, though I posted something there today], isn't that forum a little more liberal about what's allowed?)
Click to expand...

I don't read the crap in Spin Zone either. This is a forum for pilots about aviation and perhaps general life stuff. It's not a place to act like a six year old and personally attack people over stupid political opinions when everyone knows that no one is going to change their mind.

So I had to search to see what all went down..and this is the thread.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8883&page=3

Anyways. Back on topic.
 
Last edited:
Bill Jennings said:
Actually, an IFR equipped 170 with the XP mods 210HP motor would be one really nice way to go, but you'd have to look for a good while, and anyone who has done that mod is going to want some ca$h for his bird.

Food for thought, though, because I love the look of the 170. If they weren't all in Alaska, I'd think about looking for an IFR 180.
Click to expand...
There are no gross weight increases available for any of the HP mods for the 170. OTW, I would agree with you. Though I imagine there are plenty of people flying the 180hp or 210 hp 170's overgross, both up here and elsewhere. If you want to be legal, three persons and baggage is really pushing the envelope, you'd really have to be careful on fuel/range. I love my 170 but I appreciate its limitations. Especially after a short strip minor booboo while loaded near gross.

Not sure why everyone is down on the Maule (other than insurance for low-time pilots, sigh.) It really does fit your requirements, maybe you were just looking for something with a bit more fit and finish?
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
It really does fit your requirements, maybe you were just looking for something with a bit more fit and finish?
Click to expand...

It does, but a lot of people seem to be down on them, claim they have bad corrosion problems, etc. If (no, when) I drop $80k on a plane, I want to have something decent. Maybe I need to get out and look at some, maybe beg rides???
 
Troy Whistman said:
Oops. Joe crossed a line. Recommended a Commander 114 and got his account deleted!!
Click to expand...

Whether self imposed exile, or put into timeout, I hope Joe comes back to talk about aviation after a sufficient chill out period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top