Cheapest way to build retract time

The culver is really interesting but no wood as a hangar might not be possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Culver is fabric covered, usually with poly paint. It can stay on the ramp unless it rains a lot. In WA, might be too wet. For any wood plane, flying them regularly at altitude is the cure to any moisture issues. Aside from that if the Cadet won't work the next best retract is an early Bonanza. Cheap enough to buy, can take 87 oct autogas and if the throttle isn't mashed all the way in will fly 135Kts at 9GPH. All the other light single retracts are simply another attempt at a 'Bonanza killer' and they all failed in that regard. The Comanche 180 would come close, but it'll never be a Bonanza. Short body Mooney would work but I prefer the Bo.

Sunset Aviation, OK has one $59k.
 
The Culver is fabric covered, usually with poly paint. It can stay on the ramp unless it rains a lot. In WA, might be too wet. For any wood plane, flying them regularly at altitude is the cure to any moisture issues. Aside from that if the Cadet won't work the next best retract is an early Bonanza. Cheap enough to buy, can take 87 oct autogas and if the throttle isn't mashed all the way in will fly 135Kts at 9GPH. All the other light single retracts are simply another attempt at a 'Bonanza killer' and they all failed in that regard. The Comanche 180 would come close, but it'll never be a Bonanza. Short body Mooney would work but I prefer the Bo.

Sunset Aviation, OK has one $59k.

I keep coming back to an early bonanza for 50-70k


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I keep coming back to an early bonanza for 50-70k


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Walter and his wife made a plane for the ages. Cessna was selling the round engine, tail wheel, 195. Piper, Waco, Luscombe, Mooney, etc had nothing. It was 20 years ahead of everything in 1947. Features like all electric gear and electric prop control. Double tapered wing, flush riveting, Mag flight controls, 12 foot wide gear with big tires, and fully enclose retraction are just some of the great ideas on the Bo. Olive, his wife was prominent in design features of the cabin. Meaning, a throw over yoke, where the right seat wasn't affected by the control column. Recessed right side rudders that fold flat. Evaporative 'air conditioning' avail, and retracting entry step all came standard or options on every Bonanza.

Of course, it was a performance giant leap forward. In fact, by 1952-5, it was too much plane for the civilian population and - people started tearing them apart in the air. Ham-fisted pilots, flying full throttle and descending at red-line on the ASI began a series of in-flight failures due to over stress on the V tail, and also the wing. Eventually, Beech responded with a ruddervator cuff AD which resolved a weakness where the tail was mated to the fuselage. But - the damage was done, and the plane got a rep as the 'fork-tailed doctor killer'. Today, many other planes have similar flight characteristics, and all of the fleet have the cuffs mounted, so the mitigation of the problem was complete, but it left a stain on the marque which means that the early Bo are the value proposition today.

Downside to the early Bo: The E series engine lacks detailed support. The O-470 cylinders, pistons, rings, and bearings are interchangeable but the crankshaft, cases, and some accessories are unique to the E-185/225. Similar statement made with the Beech prop. However, there are constant speed props available at a price. The first 1487 SN were built with a steel 'bird cage' truss for the wing through spar attach. Many planes have been converted to the aluminum box truss, but the early planes with the steel truss need extra inspection each year. The V-tail will 'dance' or waddle in mild turbulence. Putting a foot on both rudders can damp it some, but it's going to sway a bit in rough weather. The elec Beech prop is controllable, but technically not a constant speed. However, there are constant speed rheostat controls that are common on many Beech props making it operate like a constant speed. The Hartzell CS prop is the alternative. Most older Bos have a TON of alterations. It's critical that during pre-buy every mod, every STC, every alteration is documented properly. And, there are a lot of potential mods for them.

Hire a Bo expert for any plane from 1947-56 up to the "35G" model. The performance is great, it's pretty comfy, and they look great sitting on the ramp. Don't gear up them, as the gear switch is a silver toggle, just the same as all the other toggles on the panel, including the flaps.
 
The culver is really interesting but no wood as a hangar might not be possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right on! I think the Culver would be ideal for the task outlined, but I hate to see ANY plane of ANY type of construction tied down in the weather! If you are forced to tie down something in the weather, at least do it with a plane that is not a pristine example.

BTW, I looked at the Culver ad in Barn Stormer that was mentioned and gave it a little thought. I have the money and the hangar space and I think it would be a hoot to have around. If it weren’t for me being in my Sunset years, wondering when the medical is going to come to an end, I think I would buy it.
 
Walter and his wife made a plane for the ages. Cessna was selling the round engine, tail wheel, 195. Piper, Waco, Luscombe, Mooney, etc had nothing. It was 20 years ahead of everything in 1947. Features like all electric gear and electric prop control. Double tapered wing, flush riveting, Mag flight controls, 12 foot wide gear with big tires, and fully enclose retraction are just some of the great ideas on the Bo. Olive, his wife was prominent in design features of the cabin. Meaning, a throw over yoke, where the right seat wasn't affected by the control column. Recessed right side rudders that fold flat. Evaporative 'air conditioning' avail, and retracting entry step all came standard or options on every Bonanza.

Of course, it was a performance giant leap forward. In fact, by 1952-5, it was too much plane for the civilian population and - people started tearing them apart in the air. Ham-fisted pilots, flying full throttle and descending at red-line on the ASI began a series of in-flight failures due to over stress on the V tail, and also the wing. Eventually, Beech responded with a ruddervator cuff AD which resolved a weakness where the tail was mated to the fuselage. But - the damage was done, and the plane got a rep as the 'fork-tailed doctor killer'. Today, many other planes have similar flight characteristics, and all of the fleet have the cuffs mounted, so the mitigation of the problem was complete, but it left a stain on the marque which means that the early Bo are the value proposition today.

Downside to the early Bo: The E series engine lacks detailed support. The O-470 cylinders, pistons, rings, and bearings are interchangeable but the crankshaft, cases, and some accessories are unique to the E-185/225. Similar statement made with the Beech prop. However, there are constant speed props available at a price. The first 1487 SN were built with a steel 'bird cage' truss for the wing through spar attach. Many planes have been converted to the aluminum box truss, but the early planes with the steel truss need extra inspection each year. The V-tail will 'dance' or waddle in mild turbulence. Putting a foot on both rudders can damp it some, but it's going to sway a bit in rough weather. The elec Beech prop is controllable, but technically not a constant speed. However, there are constant speed rheostat controls that are common on many Beech props making it operate like a constant speed. The Hartzell CS prop is the alternative. Most older Bos have a TON of alterations. It's critical that during pre-buy every mod, every STC, every alteration is documented properly. And, there are a lot of potential mods for them.

Hire a Bo expert for any plane from 1947-56 up to the "35G" model. The performance is great, it's pretty comfy, and they look great sitting on the ramp. Don't gear up them, as the gear switch is a silver toggle, just the same as all the other toggles on the panel, including the flaps.
Bonanzas are great, but you seem to be forgetting that the OP is looking for an INEXPEN$IVE way to build retract time.
 
Let’s compare gear retracting between Cessna and a Mooney:

172RG:



Mooney:

 
Bonanzas are great, but you seem to be forgetting that the OP is looking for an INEXPEN$IVE way to build retract time.

To clarify, I need a low purchase price. No inexpensive capex= first year cost is what I need


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Bonanzas are great, but you seem to be forgetting that the OP is looking for an INEXPEN$IVE way to build retract time.
I provided a link to a plane that is under $60k, can burn auto fuel, and run at 9GPH. The Cadet is the cheapest, and the OP turned it down. So, if you are complaining, find something that compares. The short body Mooney competes, but as I stated, I prefer the Bo. There's an M20B for $70k on BS. Couple M20C or D around the same price. I just offered an alternative to the Mooney. What'ya got?
 
Last edited:
I provided a link to a plane that is under $60k, can burn auto fuel, and run at 9GPH. The Cadet is the cheapest, and the OP turned it down. So, if you are complaining, find something that compares. The short body Mooney competes, but as I stated, I prefer the Bo. There's an M20B for $70k on BS. Couple M20C or D around the same price. I just offered an alternative to the Mooney. What'ya got?

That D looks pretty good, thanks for sharing. There’s another nice D near me for about the same$. And a nice C on beechtalk for 45.

The Comanche 180 they have is nice too, but motor is past tbo so a bit of risk there.

I need to dig up some W&B sheets for these early ones to see if I can have two front seat adults (400 total) and 100lb kid in the back just as an option.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
And I assume quite thin. I fit in Mooneys just fine at 6'2" (and thin), in fact with the seat all the way back I can stretch my legs out and just barely touch the rudder pedals. Of course at that point there's no room in the rear seat, but what do I care about that? :D
It depends on where your height is. I'm 6'3" and was cramped in a Mooney that was part of the West Valley Flying club, at the Palo Alto, CA airport. Best to try them on before you get your hopes up.
 
It depends on where your height is. I'm 6'3" and was cramped in a Mooney that was part of the West Valley Flying club, at the Palo Alto, CA airport. Best to try them on before you get your hopes up.
Thanks, I'm 6'3" with a 35" inseam.
 
It depends on where your height is. I'm 6'3" and was cramped in a Mooney that was part of the West Valley Flying club, at the Palo Alto, CA airport. Best to try them on before you get your hopes up.

Cramped in which dimension?
 
Interesting, but the extra length on a long body is not "just due to the size of the engine". Cabin is longer on the long bodies as well.
Yes, compared to the short bodies, the F, G and J have an additional five inches in the backseat and another five in the cargo hold. The front seats go back the same, and the front seats move back so ridiculously far that I wouldn’t be surprised if Michael Jordan fit in it lengthwise with seat moved all the way back. I would be surprised if a long legged, 6’3” person could not reach the rudder pedals if the seat is moved back all the way. If they could it would be because the rudder pedal extensions are in place.
 
It depends on where your height is. I'm 6'3" and was cramped in a Mooney that was part of the West Valley Flying club, at the Palo Alto, CA airport. Best to try them on before you get your hopes up.
Either the rudder pedal extensions were in place and/or the seat was not moved rearward enough. A Mooney measures virtually the same width as a 172.

In the short bodied versions, yes, with seats all the way rearward, there is no legroom. Mid and long bodies, no problem.
 
Either the rudder pedal extensions were in place and/or the seat was not moved rearward enough. A Mooney measures virtually the same width as a 172.

In the short bodied versions, yes, with seats all the way rearward, there is no legroom FOR THE REAR SEATS. Mid and long bodies, no problem.
Rudder pedal extensions are 1.4 or 3 inches.

FTFY :)

I can't imagine the leg length to be able to reach the rudder pedals with the seat all the way back.
 
But the mid body K is a little longer than the J because of the engine (ditto for missle version). Maybe he got confused?
Ah. Could be.
Yes, compared to the short bodies, the F, G and J have an additional five inches in the backseat and another five in the cargo hold. The front seats go back the same, and the front seats move back so ridiculously far that I wouldn’t be surprised if Michael Jordan fit in it lengthwise with seat moved all the way back. I would be surprised if a long legged, 6’3” person could not reach the rudder pedals if the seat is moved back all the way. If they could it would be because the rudder pedal extensions are in place.
At 6'4" and roughly proportional - ie, I don't have my height concentrated in legs or torso, but evenly split - I put mine not on the far back, nor the next one that is significantly forward, but a notch ahead of that. Having the seat all the way back in a Mooney is kinda like Hightower in Police Academy removing the front seat of the car and driving it from the back.
Either the rudder pedal extensions were in place and/or the seat was not moved rearward enough. A Mooney measures virtually the same width as a 172.
Wider, in fact...
In the short bodied versions, yes, with seats all the way rearward, there is no legroom. Mid and long bodies, no problem.
In the rear seats, that is.

It's doable but not great even in the long bodies. I have taken 4 adults from WI to Houston, TX but it's probably not the most comfortable thing in the world to sit behind me!

I can see how someone could not fit in a Mooney, though - If they were really tall and had short legs and all their height was torso/neck/head, I can see it being a little short of headroom. However, the same would be true of darn near any GA airplane. I don't have an excess of headroom in anything sort of a Hawker or King Air.
 
The auto fuel STC does NOT allow fuel with ethanol.
Yeah, I just wrote "auto fuel" in my post and didn't notice the question 'with ethanol'. Sorry, all of those planes and engines in the list do support "auto fuel" and of course, none of them support "with ethanol". I would think that everyone in the av community knows that none of the legacy engines/airframes support ethanol. But, I missed that qualifier.
 
Yeah, I just wrote "auto fuel" in my post and didn't notice the question 'with ethanol'. Sorry, all of those planes and engines in the list do support "auto fuel" and of course, none of them support "with ethanol". I would think that everyone in the av community knows that none of the legacy engines/airframes support ethanol. But, I missed that qualifier.
THank you. Researching and ordered Larry Ball's book. Hard not to talk yourself into an S35 for better CG and a 520, but then again, you're back at 90 grand or more instead of staying at ~50k ish.
 
Under $120k S35 is going to be a project plane. However, a C35 just hit BS for under $30k. You should send the guy a deposit on it. I deliver if you want it moved up there. That's a steal for a plane with uprated 225 engine, and a Beech elec prop. The parts are worth far more than $30k. Need to check the flight skins for corrosion, that may be the only costly issue, but if the skins are decent, it's a steal.
 
OK, I talked to the seller of the C35 in LA. If no one else buys it, I'm going to go buy it myself. This is a SCREAMING deal. Some features that are important: Beech 88" electric prop(hi efficiency), uprated 225HP engine, disk brakes, new tires/tubes, speed slope 1 piece windscreen, P35 wing tip extensions, 10gal aux fuel tank(50 gal total), small back window, hat shelf.

Int is old, and panel is old, but that's ok for someone who is looking to refresh it. Can make a center stack with G430. Only thing I would add is shoulder harnesses and new fabric interior from Airtex.
 
Yeah, I just wrote "auto fuel" in my post and didn't notice the question 'with ethanol'. Sorry, all of those planes and engines in the list do support "auto fuel" and of course, none of them support "with ethanol". I would think that everyone in the av community knows that none of the legacy engines/airframes support ethanol. But, I missed that qualifier.
It's a matter of availability. Non-ethanol fuel can be difficult to find, more expensive than standard auto fuel, and impossible to source in some areas.
 
OK, I talked to the seller of the C35 in LA. If no one else buys it, I'm going to go buy it myself. This is a SCREAMING deal. Some features that are important: Beech 88" electric prop(hi efficiency), uprated 225HP engine, disk brakes, new tires/tubes, speed slope 1 piece windscreen, P35 wing tip extensions, 10gal aux fuel tank(50 gal total), small back window, hat shelf.

Int is old, and panel is old, but that's ok for someone who is looking to refresh it. Can make a center stack with G430. Only thing I would add is shoulder harnesses and new fabric interior from Airtex.
Thank you, I just reached out to you via private message.
 
OK, I talked to the seller of the C35 in LA. If no one else buys it, I'm going to go buy it myself. This is a SCREAMING deal. Some features that are important: Beech 88" electric prop(hi efficiency), uprated 225HP engine, disk brakes, new tires/tubes, speed slope 1 piece windscreen, P35 wing tip extensions, 10gal aux fuel tank(50 gal total), small back window, hat shelf.

Int is old, and panel is old, but that's ok for someone who is looking to refresh it. Can make a center stack with G430. Only thing I would add is shoulder harnesses and new fabric interior from Airtex.

All those features are great, but that is not the most important consideration when buying a used vehicle of any kind. The top three most important criteria are:

1. condition

2. Condition

3. CONDITION

If the aircraft is better equipped than any other of its type in the world, that is nothing if it is in poor condition. Nothing is more expen$ive than a cheap airplane.
 
All those features are great, but that is not the most important consideration when buying a used vehicle of any kind. The top three most important criteria are:

1. condition

2. Condition

3. CONDITION

If the aircraft is better equipped than any other of its type in the world, that is nothing if it is in poor condition. Nothing is more expen$ive than a cheap airplane.
So, what do you think we're doing now? Just gonna write the check and fly it away? There's a specialist from ABS on the way to that plane as we speak.

Sheesh, you certainly have a low opinion of me, and we haven't but barely communicated. Maybe just step off and let me do what I do?
 
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

Can a motor glider (folding prop) be complex? I guess it could easily be TAA…. Hmmm….

Haven’t read all the posts in this thread yet, but did anyone mention the planes with a gear handle, checklists that support them, but fixed gear? Best I can tell they count for retract time. But maybe not for insurance?

I have 10,000 retract in jets… and TEN in light civil planes. I can get insured in about anything. Honestly, they scare me to death! In terms of just screwing up…. Having cut my teeth on a Piet that doesn’t have electrical or mixture, took me a while to even get used to a mixture knob…

My first “solo” in a turboprop jump plane I tried to taxi with the prop feathered! Thought my brakes were stuck…. EMBARRASSING!
 
So, what do you think we're doing now? Just gonna write the check and fly it away? There's a specialist from ABS on the way to that plane as we speak.

Sheesh, you certainly have a low opinion of me, and we haven't but barely communicated. Maybe just step off and let me do what I do?
Barrett is correct here. We are doing our due diligence and I'm very grateful for the tips and pointers he's shared with me to date.
 
Long body Mooneys have a 1ft longer wingspan that the short bodies. He’s wrong.

All long bodies came with winglets which increased the wingspan. Many mid bodies have them too (either retrofitted like mine or they were options at some point).
 
All long bodies came with winglets which increased the wingspan. Many mid bodies have them too (either retrofitted like mine or they were options at some point).
Comparing to short bodies only. Wingspan of my O3 is 36 ft 1 inch. Short bodies are 35
 
All long bodies came with winglets which increased the wingspan. Many mid bodies have them too (either retrofitted like mine or they were options at some point).
Not winglets (the pointy up ends of the wings), but sculpted wing TIPS. Not sure when they became standard, but my 1986 252 had them from the factory.
 
Back
Top