What to buy, $50-60k?

Tony_Scarpelli said:
Since there are about 25 models from E185's through A36, which models specifically would you recommend that fall into the $50-60k range? And what kind of recurrning AD's might they have?
Click to expand...

A N or P model might work well for you. The airframe is the same, but the P has an updated panel. Both are IO-470 260hp powered and probably just a few knots faster than the Comanche...but maybe not as good a payload. S model Bonanzas have a kind of cult following, and are priced accordingly, but they are a little faster yet, and the cabin is 19 inches longer than the earlier Bos. Piper rides better in turbulence, but the Beech flies nicer and has the best owners association (ABS).
 
And Comanche owners have prettier girlfriends while those of Bo owners have better personalities.:wink2:

j1b3h0 said:
A N or P model might work well for you. The airframe is the same, but the P has an updated panel. Both are IO-470 260hp powered and probably just a few knots faster than the Comanche...but maybe not as good a payload. S model Bonanzas have a kind of cult following, and are priced accordingly, but they are a little faster yet, and the cabin is 19 inches longer than the earlier Bos. Piper rides better in turbulence, but the Beech flies nicer and has the best owners association (ABS).
Click to expand...
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
Since there are about 25 models from E185's through A36, which models specifically would you recommend that fall into the $50-60k range? And what kind of recurrning AD's might they have?
Click to expand...

M, N, P35, or the middle grouping. Spar web AD is inspection is repetitive. There is an allowance for planes even ones with small cracks in the spar carry-through. There is also a doubler plate remediation kit for those that want to never worry about it again.

The Bo goes faster, and hauls more than the comparable 250/260HP Comanche(non-turbo). Comfort levels are similar, build quality is generally better on the Beech, despite the spar web AD. Much more robust electric gear.

But - we've had this discussion before old friend!

http://www.lvaircraft.com/cgi-bin/w...=BDSShowListing&C=0000000000JT&L=000000008ML5

62 BONANZA P-35 • $55,000 • NEW PRICE! • Must sell. 320 hours TTE SCMOH 320 on new Prop. 80 Gal. long range tanks, 3 Nav/comm w/in-dashGPS. Fresh $10,000 annual by ABS clinic instructor to be complete 12/1/2012. Absolutley all ADs complied with and MANY new parts. Should provide many hours of trouble and expense free flying. • Contact Bill J. Walker - NW OLYMPIC REAL ESTATE, Owner - located Anthem, AZ USA • Telephone: 360 775-6633 . 360 680-9920 . 3607756633 • Fax: 360 6809920 • Posted November 25, 2012

Bargain of the century, but needs paint:

M 35 BEECHCRAFT BONANZA • $39,995 • CHECK THIS OUT • TTAF 4652, SMOH 485 (Custom Airmotive), SPOH 1009 (Byam Propeller), Annual Due 7/13, IFR Cert. Due 5/14, STEC 50 Auto Pilot W Alt Hold, King KX-155 W Glide Slope, King KY-97 Com, Garmin 195 GPS, Narco AT-50A Transponder, Flightcom 403 Intercom, Davtron Digital OAT, PAI Vertical Card Compass, NuLite Instrument Lighting, Speed Slope Windshield, Rosen Visors, Cleveland Brakes, InterAv Alternator, Large Rams Horn Control Yoke, Bracket Air Filter, Garwin Air-Oil Separator, Wet Vacuum Pump, Paint Condition 4 (Showing Wear), Interior Condition 9 (Nice Leather, Done in 2003), $39,900 • VISIT OUR WEBSITE • Contact Eric Miguez, Broker - located Addison, TX USA • Telephone: 972-503-0200 . • Fax: 972-354-7877 • Posted November 16, 2012
 
The thing I haven't seen addressed in this thread is the resale ability. It sounds like the OP wants a plane to build some experience in for a couple of years before moving up. While the Mooney, C182 and Comanche are all good choices for the current mission, the C182 should be MUCH easier to sell than the others... So that's where I'd go. In addition, every A&P out there has seen and worked on C182's before, so if there is a mx issue away from home, it won't be hard to get it fixed right.
 
Simplicity appeals, given a limited holding period. I'm wary of getting something older, and having it soak up so much cash I can't move on to the next goal. I was on the verge of buying a Deb, and it was the age that gave me pause.

Really helpful to hash this out here, btw. Thx to all for the input.

I have not heard much in favor of the Tiger, which seems likes a decent fit and relatively simple as well? It strikes me as the Miata of the group: not a ton of power but it makes good use of what it has. Efficient, simple. And you can drive it around as a convertible. ;-).

Is it so unique that I would have trouble getting good service? (I'm 120 miles from Tulsa, maybe 300 from Wichita; it's Aviation Central down in this neck of the woods.)

But I'm taking a hard look at the 182's also. I don't like hi wings, as I'm tall and I have to peer down under them on turns. But i do acknowledge the 182 fits the mission profile.
 
I'd veto a 182 on speed alone. Those trips will get awfully slow. Plus the retract time will be good experience towards the future upgrades.
 
Indy Tim, Do you have a subscription to Aviation Consumer? They do a nice job of reviewing aircraft, I see they reviewed the Grumen Tiger in 2010. Subscription is cheap and lots of airplane info, one of my favorite magazine I get and websites I go to.

In the end it going to come down to what you like best and can afford. In todays market the buyer is in the drivers seat and its alot of fun, won't be so much fun when you go to sell it more than likely no matter what you buy. That would lead me to buy a little more capability first off and add money to it if needed as you go. Anyway if you don't have a subscription to Aviation Consumer it would be money well spent. I am not affiliated with them in any way.

Kevin
 
My vote is,


PA-28 235 (decent speed, big hauler and good range)

Cessna 210 (fast and can haul)
 
That's not necessarily true, Tony. I owned a FIKI T-210 for 19 yeaars. Maintenance of the de-ice system was a non-event. The only recurring chore was rubbing the boots with the special cleaner and conditioner a couple of times a year, which required about an hour of light rubbing. I changed the dry vacuum pumps on a preemptive basis because I knew they weren't worth a shlt to start with and the demands of the de-ice system worked them even harder, but would have done so with or without deice.

The electric windshield strip was starting to craze when I sold it, but worked perfectly for almost 20 years while I owned it with nary a hiccup. Tim is in our part of the country where ice isn't a big deal on an ongoing basis. But during the icing months it's nice to know you can pop or melt it off and continue on the days when you pick up a little during climb or descent, and without undue worry about the FAR issues regarding forecast icing conditions.

Since you don't fly in IFR conditions, your fears about the need for highly advanced skills is misplaced. The required skills aren't any different and the forecasts aren't any different whether or not the plane is de-iced. With the skew-T charts and other new technology, ice forecasts are far more accurate than when I was flying every week, and even then it wasn't all that tough back then. For a guy who needs to go almost every week, a de-ice system is nice to have. BTDT.

Tony_Scarpelli said:
BUDGET BUSTER!

IMO-Doesn't make sense for a new/ low time new pilot to even consider FIKI....talk about your doctor killers.

While you can take extra CFI time to get up to speed on a Hi performance plane you cannot quickly or easily develop the go/no go skills of that level of IFR FIKI.

Then their is the cost....You may have to sacrifice some other things to get the FIKI and maintenance will be higher.
Click to expand...
 
I'd also add that my de-ice MX has been relatively uneventful, although more eventful than Wayne's. Not surprising given the fact that he was talking about a shiny new plane and I was talking about an old beater.

I bought the Aztec with 225 hours total time, with FIKI and radar on board. As Wayne says, most icing isn't so bad to deal with, and these days if you don't know you've at least got a chance of getting some, you aren't doing a good weather check. Did I blast off into ice and storms with it day 1? Nope, got some decent training and tested the waters. The Aztec was particularly nice in this regard because it carries ice like one would not believe and is also a very forgiving airplane to fly.
 
I'll tell you there is a pretty nice Comanche 250 for sale, in your price range, on this board.
 
Agflyboy said:
:thumbsup: on the Comanche. Good payload, descent speed, I run my C model lop at 2350 squared burns about 10.7. Lot of plane for the money.
Click to expand...

Here is a very nice Comanche for sale in Maine. Sadly, its owner and one of our EAA members recently succumbed to a lengthy illness. For more information, email or IM me.

I flew(in the back seat)in it the day I took this picture. The widow is not a pilot and the plane is for sale.

HR
 

Attachments

  • DSC08184.JPG
    DSC08184.JPG
    10.8 MB · Views: 59
AdamZ said:
I'll tell you there is a pretty nice Comanche 250 for sale, in your price range, on this board.
Click to expand...

If this is Ed's airplane, that can be a good deal... Especially since he once said was willing to conduct the transition and insurance required training as part of the sale.
 
From the back seat, same day as above photos:
 

Attachments

  • DSC08109.JPG
    7.8 MB · Views: 43
IndyTim said:
I have not heard much in favor of the Tiger, which seems likes a decent fit and relatively simple as well? It strikes me as the Miata of the group: not a ton of power but it makes good use of what it has. Efficient, simple. And you can drive it around as a convertible. ;-).
Click to expand...

The Tiger's biggest advantage is simplicity: Fixed-pitch prop, fixed gear.

I think it'll probably also be the most difficult to sell of the airplanes mentioned here.

Finally, for all the promise it has and all the glowing reviews I've heard from owners, I flew one once and was really unimpressed. :dunno:

Ted DuPuis said:
I'd veto a 182 on speed alone. Those trips will get awfully slow. Plus the retract time will be good experience towards the future upgrades.
Click to expand...

The 182 does fit the desired speed profile, and does so probably better than the Tiger. The Mooney and Comanche would get there the fastest, but the Mooney would do it on less fuel.

However, they'll all arrive within a few minutes of each other, so speed is probably not the most important consideration here. Resaleability sounds like it's quite important in this case, and budget as well - I would guess that between the 182, Comanche, and Mooney that whichever one can be found with the best equipment for the best price will do the job equally well.

If a higher-performance retract is desired in the future, though, it wouldn't hurt to start building that time now.
 
Lawreston said:
From the back seat, same day as above photos:
Click to expand...

Is that manifold pressure gauge correct?

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Manifold1.jpg
    Manifold1.jpg
    6.8 KB · Views: 232
flyingcheesehead said:
The 182 does fit the desired speed profile, and does so probably better than the Tiger. The Mooney and Comanche would get there the fastest, but the Mooney would do it on less fuel.

However, they'll all arrive within a few minutes of each other, so speed is probably not the most important consideration here. Resaleability sounds like it's quite important in this case, and budget as well - I would guess that between the 182, Comanche, and Mooney that whichever one can be found with the best equipment for the best price will do the job equally well.

If a higher-performance retract is desired in the future, though, it wouldn't hurt to start building that time now.
Click to expand...

The 182 will add about 30-45 minutes each way for his profile, so 1-1.5 hours round trip. That makes a big difference in feel when you're talking about doing it every week. As someone who's done longer trips than this weekly, I'd caution that purchasing something on the slower end will get old, very fast.

The insurance difference won't be that great anyway, and a Comanche 250 is a pretty easy plane to fly. Most of the difference will be the first year. When he realizes he wants a twin (there, I said it ;)) the retract time will help a great deal with insurance.
 
182... Might as well get a Chevy truck.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The insurance difference won't be that great anyway, and a Comanche 250 is a pretty easy plane to fly. Most of the difference will be the first year. When he realizes he wants a twin (there, I said it ;)) the retract time will help a great deal with insurance.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Yeah, I think Ed's plane would be a great one for the OP... Just maybe not as easy to sell as he'd like.

Of course, when he wants that twin, he could have an easy transition to a Twin Comanche having flown all those hours in the single-engine version!
 
alaskaflyer said:
Did you mean that in a good way, or in a bad way?
Click to expand...

I suppose if it is your desire to have an aircraft that looks and flies like a cheap truck, it could be a good thing. :eek:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
:rofl:

Yeah, I think Ed's plane would be a great one for the OP... Just maybe not as easy to sell as he'd like.

Of course, when he wants that twin, he could have an easy transition to a Twin Comanche having flown all those hours in the single-engine version!
Click to expand...

I knew you'd see it my way! :D
 
Maybe that's why Cessna has never been able to sell them.

docmirror said:
I suppose if it is your desire to have an aircraft that looks and flies like a cheap truck, it could be a good thing. :eek:
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
That's not necessarily true, Tony. I owned a FIKI T-210 for 19 yeaars. Maintenance of the de-ice system was a non-event. The only recurring chore was rubbing the boots with the special cleaner and conditioner a couple of times a year, which required about an hour of light rubbing. I changed the dry vacuum pumps on a preemptive basis because I knew they weren't worth a shlt to start with and the demands of the de-ice system worked them even harder, but would have done so with or without deice.

The electric windshield strip was starting to craze when I sold it, but worked perfectly for almost 20 years while I owned it with nary a hiccup. Tim is in our part of the country where ice isn't a big deal on an ongoing basis. But during the icing months it's nice to know you can pop or melt it off and continue on the days when you pick up a little during climb or descent, and without undue worry about the FAR issues regarding forecast icing conditions.

Since you don't fly in IFR conditions, your fears about the need for highly advanced skills is misplaced. The required skills aren't any different and the forecasts aren't any different whether or not the plane is de-iced. With the skew-T charts and other new technology, ice forecasts are far more accurate than when I was flying every week, and even then it wasn't all that tough back then. For a guy who needs to go almost every week, a de-ice system is nice to have. BTDT.
Click to expand...


Thanks Wayne, Ted, I keep learning... The idea of FIKI Scares the crap out of me....
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
Thanks Wayne, Ted, I keep learning... The idea of FIKI Scares the crap out of me....
Click to expand...

A Comanche is not a plane I would want to take into ice, with or without de-icing equipment. So your fear is well-placed! :yes:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
When he realizes he wants a twin (there, I said it ;)) the retract time will help a great deal with insurance.
Click to expand...

I already know I'd love a twin. Have thought that a combination of Mooney and a twin like a PA-39 or B55 Baron makes all the sense in the world. Great for economy commuting, great for taking 3 peeps and gear. Just not for a while.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Is that manifold pressure gauge correct?

attachment.php
Click to expand...
I have no idea. It was too blasted windy for me to fly my Skyhawk, so I hitched a ride in the Comanche with Morris. From my back seat, that's the divided highway between Bath and Brunswick. Through the plexi, and it was bumpy. Every time I was ready to shoot we'd hit a bump that jumped my camera.

HR
 

Attachments

  • DSC08100(2 TEST).JPG
    DSC08100(2 TEST).JPG
    5.5 MB · Views: 14
flyingcheesehead said:
The Tiger's biggest advantage is simplicity: Fixed-pitch prop, fixed gear.
I think it'll probably also be the most difficult to sell of the airplanes mentioned here.

The 182 does fit the desired speed profile, and does so probably better than the Tiger. The Mooney and Comanche would get there the fastest, but the Mooney would do it on less fuel.

However, they'll all arrive within a few minutes of each other, so speed is probably not the most important consideration here. Resaleability sounds like it's quite important in this case, and budget as well - I would guess that between the 182, Comanche, and Mooney that whichever one can be found with the best equipment for the best price will do the job equally well.

If a higher-performance retract is desired in the future, though, it wouldn't hurt to start building that time now.
Click to expand...

So i've got some good ideas. I wasn't that excited about 182s, but I'll keep a more open mind. Also, I didn't fully appreciate what a great plane the Comanche is, so I'll go get a look at a few. The Mooneys have always been on my short list, but I was stuck on a J which is out of budget, for now. The Debs are still on the list, also.

I agree that the right approach is to get out, look for some great planes, and be slightly opportunistic about it.

Thanks again for the input!
 
IndyTim said:
I already know I'd love a twin. Have thought that a combination of Mooney and a twin like a PA-39 or B55 Baron makes all the sense in the world. Great for economy commuting, great for taking 3 peeps and gear. Just not for a while.
Click to expand...

A twin costs about 30% more than its equivalent single to operate per mile. So if you compare a Twinkie to a Comanche 250, it's about 30% more per mile.

The catch is that most twins are bigger than most singles and have more systems, so it's hard to find an equivalent. A 55 Baron or a 310 is a relatively economical twin as far as $/mile, and I love the 310. Lance loves his 55 Baron (which is a wonderful plane), and Dave loves (loved?) his P-Baron (also a wonderful plane). The de-ice I've not found to demand much maintenance, but boots are expensive when they go out. Similar for radar. The Aztec didn't have any issues with the radar in 4 years and 1,000 hours of flying. The 310 had its radar pulled prior to the time we acquired it, so we ended up having to buy a used KWX56 ($5k) plus install ($3k). If the plane comes with it, you don't have purchase cost, but you do get to pay for when something goes out in it.

Comparing the 310 vs. a Comanche 250, cost is probably almost 2x per mile. But, you've got a lot more capability.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Is that manifold pressure gauge correct?

attachment.php
Click to expand...

I think that reading would be possible if the pic was taken at the same moment the pilot pulled the power back to idle after being at wide open throttle... think about it.. large displacement motor, trying to draw air through a shut throttle plane...
 
Last edited:
Does anybody actually make a de-ice kit for a Comanche single? If so, I've never seen one.

Ted DuPuis said:
A Comanche is not a plane I would want to take into ice, with or without de-icing equipment. So your fear is well-placed! :yes:
Click to expand...
 
My GMC truck and my 182 suit me just fine.

Neither does anything perfectly, but they both do more than I usually need.
 
N801BH said:
I think that reading would be possible of the pic was taken at the same moment the pilot pulled the power back to idle after being at wide open throttle... think about it.. large displacement motor, trying to draw air through a shut throttle plane...
Click to expand...

For continuity, here is my shot which immediately preceded the image being questioned. On Final, and consider that I was sitting in back and to the right of the pilot; hence not looking to be on the center line. It was about the only time the flight wasn't pretty bumpy after the April 01 snow storm.

HR
 

Attachments

  • DSC08108.JPG
    12 MB · Views: 32
The Grummans are a good bang for the buck, if you are open to experimentals you will have MANY more options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top