Cheapest way to build retract time

iamtheari said:
Al Mooney was 9’3” if he was a foot and he ran 650 lbs. He used to drive around in an ice cream truck covered in human skulls. His family crest is a picture of a barracuda eating Neal Armstrong. On Sundays, he would put on a white tie and tails and walk his pet cobra through the park on a leash. He named the cobra “Beverly”. He taught it how to fetch and dial a phone.
Click to expand...
He sounds a lot like Bill Brasky.
 
I bought a $12,000 sailplane, and logged almost a 1000 hours of retract time it. Average flight time about 4.5 hrs per flight. I figured tows, maintenance, and insurance cost me about $30/hr to fly it.

Brian
 
MIFlyer said:
I’ve always liked the looks of Comanches. How’s the short field behavior? I’m based in 5,000 ft paved but like to go to a couple that are 1,800 at sea level
Click to expand...
When my Mooney took an uncomfortably long distance to get out of 6Y9 (2600' grass, obstructed on both ends), I had EdFred take my family to KLNL in his Comanche. I'm not sure how well it'd do on 1800' at sea level (is it paved?) but if it's not obstructed I bet it'd work fine. The rather primitive performance charts from 1958 agree:
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-09-27 at 3.41.50 PM.png
    Screenshot 2024-09-27 at 3.41.50 PM.png
    916.3 KB · Views: 10
The POH numbers are usually best case scenario, I took off on a 2500’ grass strip once and I had to abort the takeoff and try again, on the second try, it was almost a close call. You need to know your airplane and personal limits. After that I said I would require longer runways for grass strips but given I have more experience now I would do it again. Ideally with less weight / fuel and ideal weather.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
When my Mooney took an uncomfortably long distance to get out of 6Y9 (2600' grass, obstructed on both ends), I had EdFred take my family to KLNL in his Comanche. I'm not sure how well it'd do on 1800' at sea level (is it paved?) but if it's not obstructed I bet it'd work fine. The rather primitive performance charts from 1958 agree:
Click to expand...
Thanks, looks like 750' takeoff roll at gross weight at sea level. Strip is AT sea level and paved, and there is normally a headwind
 
brcase said:
I bought a $12,000 sailplane, and logged almost a 1000 hours of retract time it. Average flight time about 4.5 hrs per flight. I figured tows, maintenance, and insurance cost me about $30/hr to fly it.

Brian
Click to expand...
thanks Brian, I think I need to stick with something that I can "get in and go" to try to build hours. Not too worried about the hourly costs, just want to keep the purchase price low
 
MIFlyer said:
thanks Brian, I think I need to stick with something that I can "get in and go" to try to build hours. Not too worried about the hourly costs, just want to keep the purchase price low
Click to expand...
That is a concern, while I typically put in 60-100hrs per year I do almost all of it between May thru August.
Plus of course it is just retract time, and not Complex time.

I just recently checked a guy out in one of these. Would be a great deal if the stars aligned, does pretty much require a hanger and a good wood/Franklin mechanic.
In his case was also not complex time, No controllable pitch propeller. Also can pump up one of your arm muscles if it still has the manual gear.

1727472943199.png
 
Last edited:
182RG. Will haul all of you, and have good resale most likely if and when you outgrow it. Wet tanks, very similar to the restart 182s with also Lyc 540 motivation. I think it uses dual mag set up, which is getting harder to service, but maybe there's a conversion. Landing gear needs good inspection should you choose to go that route, pivots/saddles are expensive and not necessarily available. Will go in and out of short strips, great low speed handling, big interior, and reasonable speed.

Early Bonanza could have hidden costs well beyond the purchase price. Also a bit harder to get parts for the E series engines if it's that degree of early. Rudervators of course, but you probably know about that.

Unless your family mission is routinely less than 200 nm, going 120 ktas or less is not that great.
 
oh, you'll love the arrow these days for a budget purchase! tee hee.

Jest aside, don't do [any of] it, legacy retract spam land is a minefield of old timey nostalgia and the hard truth of loss of support in the 21st century.

The question is moot anyways. Retract time won't materially help you with insurability on a twin anyways; weekend warrior types are always gonna get hit with yuge premiums when ab initio. Insurance treats the lawnmower space more like make/model time in type, as if these things required type ratings (what a joke). I have over 4500 hours in all wonky variations of USAF jets: one engine, two engines, heck even 8 engines; boat prop driven, turbofan driven, even literal dual flame-out-the-back driven zero bypass true scotsman 'jet'. Add another odd thousand in spam cans. One more type I get a set of steak knives and an honorary Test pilot aeronautical rating lol. None meant a hill of beans to them when I went passively looking at smallish twins (and thank god they disabused me of that idea) because tYmE mAkE uhN mOdEl potato.

Just go straight to the twin after renting for your ratings. The only material thing spam can retract ownership will do for ya is limber you up for the even greater nonsense of fac built twins cost structure per [hour of fun] capita. If you're gonna waste annual cost of living equivalent money for the working class like you're throwing pennies out the window at the fast food drive thru, might as well do it in what you want to do anyways (twins, or whatever floats yer boat). Good luck.
 
Steamflyer said:
182RG. Will haul all of you, and have good resale most likely if and when you outgrow it. Wet tanks, very similar to the restart 182s with also Lyc 540 motivation. I think it uses dual mag set up, which is getting harder to service, but maybe there's a conversion. Landing gear needs good inspection should you choose to go that route, pivots/saddles are expensive and not necessarily available. Will go in and out of short strips, great low speed handling, big interior, and reasonable speed.

Early Bonanza could have hidden costs well beyond the purchase price. Also a bit harder to get parts for the E series engines if it's that degree of early. Rudervators of course, but you probably know about that.

Unless your family mission is routinely less than 200 nm, going 120 ktas or less is not that great.
Click to expand...
Thanks Steam, I think that's quite a bit too much capital for me on purchase, though they do have a lot going for them.
 
hindsight2020 said:
oh, you'll love the arrow these days for a budget purchase! tee hee.

Jest aside, don't do [any of] it, legacy retract spam land is a minefield of old timey nostalgia and the hard truth of loss of support in the 21st century.

The question is moot anyways. Retract time won't materially help you with insurability on a twin anyways; weekend warrior types are always gonna get hit with yuge premiums when ab initio. Insurance treats the lawnmower space more like make/model time in type, as if these things required type ratings (what a joke). I have over 4500 hours in all wonky variations of USAF jets: one engine, two engines, heck even 8 engines; boat prop driven, turbofan driven, even literal dual flame-out-the-back driven zero bypass true scotsman 'jet'. Add another odd thousand in spam cans. One more type I get a set of steak knives and an honorary Test pilot aeronautical rating lol. None meant a hill of beans to them when I went passively looking at smallish twins (and thank god they disabused me of that idea) because tYmE mAkE uhN mOdEl potato.

Just go straight to the twin after renting for your ratings. The only material thing spam can retract ownership will do for ya is limber you up for the even greater nonsense of fac built twins cost structure per [hour of fun] capita. If you're gonna waste annual cost of living equivalent money for the working class like you're throwing pennies out the window at the fast food drive thru, might as well do it in what you want to do anyways (twins, or whatever floats yer boat). Good luck.
Click to expand...
Thanks hindsight. I do think that getting >100 hours retract will make me much likely to be insurable at all, let alone at a premium I want to pay on the twin, I also think that realistically, with the amount of flying I can fit in, I don't want a twin at this point as I can't stay as proficient as I'd like to and can't swing the purchase that I want. At almost 250 hours, they told me I'd be a lot more insurable at 500 TT and with some retract and twin time. I plan to get some TiT when I get close to purchase on the twin.
 
Our club used to have an Arrow. 1969 PA-28R-200. I gave up flying it when I got tired of my knees giving out after 3 hours. I'm not sure what the problem was, but after about 3 hours it was all I could do to crawl out of that plane. We sold it a number of years ago and now have a pair of 172s and a 182.
 
Ghery said:
Our club used to have an Arrow. 1969 PA-28R-200. I gave up flying it when I got tired of my knees giving out after 3 hours. I'm not sure what the problem was, but after about 3 hours it was all I could do to crawl out of that plane. We sold it a number of years ago and now have a pair of 172s and a 182.
Click to expand...
Interesting Ghery, I haven't been in a PA 28, so I'm not sure how the cockpit would feel, good to be on the lookout for that.
 
Steamflyer said:
182RG. Will haul all of you, and have good resale most likely if and when you outgrow it. Wet tanks, very similar to the restart 182s with also Lyc 540 motivation. I think it uses dual mag set up, which is getting harder to service, but maybe there's a conversion. Landing gear needs good inspection should you choose to go that route, pivots/saddles are expensive and not necessarily available.
Click to expand...
The 1978s (roughly) still have bladders, though it wasn't a clean break from year to year so if you care about wet wings vs bladders, look up the serial number where they switched. 79ish-86 were wet wings.

On the flip side, the 78s had steel gear pivots and the 79-86 had the problematic aluminum ones. Same thing, there was a particular serial number for the cutover on this, and there are some late 78/early 79 models that have fuel bladders and aluminum pivots.

Luckily, there's a company in Oregon that has gotten approval for a repair process for the gear pivots and can fix them. Takes about 6 weeks and $4,000. First symptom you'll need it is a brake going soft as the fluid leaks out the crack.

Other than that the R182 is about as close to a "do it all" airplane as there is. Haul a load, go into short unimproved strips, and still top out around 150 KTAS. It's not going to be the most efficient thing in the world, but it'll pretty much do whatever you ask of it.

MIFlyer said:
Thanks hindsight. I do think that getting >100 hours retract will make me much likely to be insurable at all, let alone at a premium I want to pay on the twin, I also think that realistically, with the amount of flying I can fit in, I don't want a twin at this point as I can't stay as proficient as I'd like to and can't swing the purchase that I want. At almost 250 hours, they told me I'd be a lot more insurable at 500 TT and with some retract and twin time. I plan to get some TiT when I get close to purchase on the twin.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you have a particular twin in mind - What is that? You may get some level of credit for lots of time in the equivalent single. For example, Bo->Baron, Lance->Seneca, Comanche->Twin Comanche, Diamond Star->TwinStar etc.

No such luck with the Cessna 310 though. They did make a prototype C620 with four engines, but they never made a C155 with one.

undefined
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The 1978s (roughly) still have bladders, though it wasn't a clean break from year to year so if you care about wet wings vs bladders, look up the serial number where they switched. 79ish-86 were wet wings.

On the flip side, the 78s had steel gear pivots and the 79-86 had the problematic aluminum ones. Same thing, there was a particular serial number for the cutover on this, and there are some late 78/early 79 models that have fuel bladders and aluminum pivots.

Luckily, there's a company in Oregon that has gotten approval for a repair process for the gear pivots and can fix them. Takes about 6 weeks and $4,000. First symptom you'll need it is a brake going soft as the fluid leaks out the crack.

Other than that the R182 is about as close to a "do it all" airplane as there is. Haul a load, go into short unimproved strips, and still top out around 150 KTAS. It's not going to be the most efficient thing in the world, but it'll pretty much do whatever you ask of it.


It sounds like you have a particular twin in mind - What is that? You may get some level of credit for lots of time in the equivalent single. For example, Bo->Baron, Lance->Seneca, Comanche->Twin Comanche, Diamond Star->TwinStar etc.

No such luck with the Cessna 310 though. They did make a prototype C620 with four engines, but they never made a C155 with one.

undefined
Click to expand...
Likely a Twin bonanza, but possibly an Aztec. I have a little time in Travelair (twin training), but otherwise just 172/182 time.

I just need to get to insurable, and then competent. As hard as the market is, I might have a tough time getting insured in a retract single with hull only! That's why I'm looking at biting the bullet now and getting the single time with the extra lever so that I have a better case when I go to insure the twin. The difference is, I can't swing a high purchase price right now, so I'm looking for a way in that lets me build some of those hours and have some fun while I'm waiting to be in a position (both $$ wise and experience wise) to intelligently have the twin.
 
MIFlyer said:
Likely a Twin bonanza, but possibly an Aztec. I have a little time in Travelair (twin training), but otherwise just 172/182 time.

I just need to get to insurable, and then competent. As hard as the market is, I might have a tough time getting insured in a retract single with hull only! That's why I'm looking at biting the bullet now and getting the single time with the extra lever so that I have a better case when I go to insure the twin. The difference is, I can't swing a high purchase price right now, so I'm looking for a way in that lets me build some of those hours and have some fun while I'm waiting to be in a position (both $$ wise and experience wise) to intelligently have the twin.
Click to expand...
Wow! Yeah, I doubt you'll get into a T-Bone without any retract time. Might not even get into it without any twin time!

I think it's likely worth considering either getting a smaller/cheaper twin like a Twin Comanche, either right away if possible or as an intermediate step. It's worth having a conversation with insurance now to see what they would want for a T-Bone in terms of total, complex, and multi time, and whether you're insurable in something like a Twin Comanche now. That's not to say that things won't change, but it should help give you a road map.
 
Twin Bonanza's are built tough. But it's Achilles heal are the engines.
 
T-Bones are definitely not a cheap way to build retract time. Also I'm jealous.
 
Mr Haney.jpeg
Have I got a deal for you!
Sometimes, it gets busy on final, and you miss a checklist item (or three). And who can think with that horn blaring?
belly.jpg
But here at Haney's Used Flying Machines I have the perfect solution!
A genuine pre-loved . . .
lancer.jpg
Champion 402 Lancer . . .
Replacing belly skin, props, and the required tearing down of engines will be things of the past!
How do I do it?
Well, you have your green light, your red light, and your switch . . .
But no motors, cables, or jackstands at annual!
Just flip the switch up . . . red light. Switch it down . . . green light.
Retractable made easy!
So come on down to Haney's Used Flying Machines . . .
haney 2.jpg
Wrong sign . . . must be on the other side.
 
Rene said:
View attachment 133979
Have I got a deal for you!
Sometimes, it gets busy on final, and you miss a checklist item (or three). And who can think with that horn blaring?
View attachment 133980
But here at Haney's Used Flying Machines I have the perfect solution!
A genuine pre-loved . . .
View attachment 133981
Champion 402 Lancer . . .
Replacing belly skin, props, and the required tearing down of engines will be things of the past!
How do I do it?
Well, you have your green light, your red light, and your switch . . .
But no motors, cables, or jackstands at annual!
Just flip the switch up . . . red light. Switch it down . . . green light.
Retractable made easy!
So come on down to Haney's Used Flying Machines . . .
View attachment 133982
Wrong sign . . . must be on the other side.
Click to expand...

That airplane has all of the advantages of a twin, like high maintenance costs and fuel burn, without the downsides, speed and comfort.

:biggrin:
 
Rene said:
View attachment 133979
Have I got a deal for you!
Sometimes, it gets busy on final, and you miss a checklist item (or three). And who can think with that horn blaring?
View attachment 133980
But here at Haney's Used Flying Machines I have the perfect solution!
A genuine pre-loved . . .
View attachment 133981
Champion 402 Lancer . . .
Replacing belly skin, props, and the required tearing down of engines will be things of the past!
How do I do it?
Well, you have your green light, your red light, and your switch . . .
But no motors, cables, or jackstands at annual!
Just flip the switch up . . . red light. Switch it down . . . green light.
Retractable made easy!
So come on down to Haney's Used Flying Machines . . .
View attachment 133982
Wrong sign . . . must be on the other side.
Click to expand...
Haney sold Pipers like that to one school that I know of.
 
I found a local-ish partnership in a Comanche 250 that's all gussied up, but I'm not sure if partnership will work for me. They want 40k for 1/4th of it. The plane is about an hour away though and I worry that the drive time, plus member scheduling would ruin the "hey it's nice, I should go fly an hour".
 
kaiser said:
T-Bones are definitely not a cheap way to build retract time. Also I'm jealous.
Click to expand...
remember, that's not my NEXT one, that's a hopefully in a few years. I think I'll have to get to ~500 hours to get insured in the Tbone unless that insurance market changes a lot. That's why I want to fly a bunch of retract between now and then (I'm around 250hours now, but only 5 hours of retract/twin).
 
MIFlyer said:
I found a local-ish partnership in a Comanche 250 that's all gussied up, but I'm not sure if partnership will work for me. They want 40k for 1/4th of it. The plane is about an hour away though and I worry that the drive time, plus member scheduling would ruin the "hey it's nice, I should go fly an hour".
Click to expand...
My guess from experience is that it will be faster, cheaper, and easier to acquire the retract you want and then get the combination of instruction and mentored time the insurance company will require. Suspect it will be on the order of 25 hours and then you'll be cut loose, possibly with another bucket of time before carrying pax.
 
Retracts - not a fan for my version / flavor of GA flying. Your mileage may vary.

Our club has a 182 RG. 5 years ago spent $40k for used saddles. And now it's off line for 6 months, because the nose collapsed on landing. $100,000 or there abouts - mostly covered by now more expensive insurance. But not all. Seems like there was a service bulletin sent 30 years ago to the previous / previous / previous owner who never did anything about it, and since no AD was issued, it was missed by the current owners (the club).

Yes, it goes faster than our straight leg 182. When it's not getting an IRAN, new prop, etc.
 
WDD said:
Retracts - not a fan for my version / flavor of GA flying. Your mileage may vary.

Our club has a 182 RG. 5 years ago spent $40k for used saddles. And now it's off line for 6 months, because the nose collapsed on landing. $100,000 or there abouts - mostly covered by now more expensive insurance. But not all. Seems like there was a service bulletin sent 30 years ago to the previous / previous / previous owner who never did anything about it, and since no AD was issued, it was missed by the current owners (the club).

Yes, it goes faster than our straight leg 182. When it's not getting an IRAN, new prop, etc.
Click to expand...
I'd tend to agree for most, though, this is just to increase my insurability in a future twin, not to necessarily go faster today. Though getting into a 150kt plane opens up more mid range travel than 110kts does
 
Steamflyer said:
My guess from experience is that it will be faster, cheaper, and easier to acquire the retract you want and then get the combination of instruction and mentored time the insurance company will require. Suspect it will be on the order of 25 hours and then you'll be cut loose, possibly with another bucket of time before carrying pax.
Click to expand...
Thanks Steam, I had a sense this likely wouldn't be that great of situation for me and hadn't even inquired as to hourly/monthly costs and how their partnership works. if it was closer, I might have. I'm hoping I can get hull on something cheap and have a reasonably low amount of dual required so I can start burning off hours.

To be clear, I love the chance to fly with an instructor but their schedule+my schedule+weather means it's a SLOW way to build hours for me
 
MIFlyer said:
Though getting into a 150kt plane opens up more mid range travel than 110kts does
Click to expand...

Apples to apples, a straight leg 182 will give you 130-135 kts. Is a 182RG vs 182 faster? Yea. Does it make that much difference in travel options? Eh….
 
WDD said:
Apples to apples, a straight leg 182 will give you 130-135 kts. Is a 182RG vs 182 faster? Yea. Does it make that much difference in travel options? Eh….
Click to expand...

Sure… I wouldn’t get a Cessna retract and even the non retract are a rip off for what they are. A decent 182 is 120k and you can get a much better plane for that kind of money.

Compare a Comanche, Bo or Mooney and see what you’ll get for what a straight leg 182 is worth.

You keep going on about staying fixed gear, but that doesn’t move me towards a twin, as they’re all retract


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
AvNavCom said:
View attachment 133995

Not all of 'em! You just need to think bigger.
Click to expand...
Hah! Or smaller (Champion Lancer).

But there are several fixed-gear twins:

Champion Lancer
Partenavia P.68
Britten-Norman Islander
Britten-Norman Trislander
Cessna 336 Skymaster (the 337 had retracts)
Cessna SkyCourier (pictured)

And I'm sure there are others...
 
The cheapest retract overall cost would be a Culver Cadet. Also designed by Al Mooney, before the Mooney Mite. There is one for sale on BS right now for $30k in excellent condition. It burns 3-4GPH and flies about 130MPH. Learn to hand prop before buying. Keith will provide TW instruction upon sale.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Al Mooney was 6'5", and presumably he flew it at least once.

I'd say to find an owner and sit in one, but they're not particularly common. I haven't seen one out and about in around 20 years. That said, there are still 95 of them on the registry.

If you're looking for the best bang for your purchase buck, it's pretty hard to beat a Piper Comanche. If you want to haul 4 people I'd recommend a 250.

There is some truth to the saying, "There's nothing more expensive than a cheap airplane." But, if you keep emotions out of it, do your due diligence including an extensive pre-buy (annual) inspection, you can do OK
Click to expand...

In spite of the smart Alec comments by some in this thread, ANY Mooney M20 will accommodate very tall people in the front seat. I am 6’1” and can get the seat back so far that I can’t dream of reaching the rudder pedals from there and they are as wide as most single engine Cessna/Pipers. The people who gritch about the fit in a Mooney come in two categories, first, they’ve never even been in one and second they find the seating position much different from the bar stool seat and the panel so far forward that they need binoculars. In contrast, in a Mooney your legs are straight out in front like a sports car and the panel is right up close where you can read it easier. The feet in front of you makes for a lower cabin height which decreases frontal area. Deceased frontal area decreases drag.

Add super strong airframes, steel safety cage around the cabin, laminar flow wings, simple and rugged landing gear, pushrods instead of cable and pulley for very precise controls and other features and it makes a wonderful plane for those open minded enough not to be swayed by the common Mooney myths. Of course, there’s been the same guy at the factory since 1955 putting all the tails on backwards, but nothing is perfect.

If you find a Mooney not to be for you, fine, but don’t make that decision without actually getting in one and flying it and making your mind up for yourself.
 
Yes, the Culver’s were the fore runner to the Mooney’s. Their wartime predecessor was really well thought of.
 
MBDiagMan said:
In spite of the smart Alec comments by some in this thread, ANY Mooney M20 will accommodate very tall people in the front seat. I am 6’1” and can get the seat back so far that I can’t dream of reaching the rudder pedals from there and they are as wide as most single engine Cessna/Pipers. The people who gritch about the fit in a Mooney come in two categories, first, they’ve never even been in one and second they find the seating position much different from the bar stool seat and the panel so far forward that they need binoculars. In contrast, in a Mooney your legs are straight out in front like a sports car and the panel is right up close where you can read it easier. The feet in front of you makes for a lower cabin height which decreases frontal area. Deceased frontal area decreases drag.

Add super strong airframes, steel safety cage around the cabin, laminar flow wings, simple and rugged landing gear, pushrods instead of cable and pulley for very precise controls and other features and it makes a wonderful plane for those open minded enough not to be swayed by the common Mooney myths. Of course, there’s been the same guy at the factory since 1955 putting all the tails on backwards, but nothing is perfect.

If you find a Mooney not to be for you, fine, but don’t make that decision without actually getting in one and flying it and making your mind up for yourself.
Click to expand...
This... This is an excellent synopsis of Mooneys and some of the myths about them. Your experiences mirror mine. I *love* the panel being up close. IMO, it's just right. Everything is available without leaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top