Bonanza 35, SR22 or Comanche?

EdFred said:
Neither of which mention the stab horn being the failure point or cause.
I do see another failure here though.
Click to expand...

And where are all the post-cuff Bo's who's tail fell off?

Just for the record non-existent problems in Bonanzas are much better than the non-existent problems in Comanches.
 
bartmc said:
And where are all the post-cuff Bo's who's tail fell off?

Just for the record non-existent problems in Bonanzas are much better than the non-existent problems in Comanches.
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one that brought up Comanche tails. Then you posted links to non-tail problems. :dunno:

The difference is, there WAS in flight breakups due to the tail in Bo's - fixed by an AD.

There were never any any in flight break ups due to the tails in Comanches, but there was an AD issued anyway- which is easily eliminated.
 
dans2992 said:
How much more maintenance is the P210 over the 210? Some say a lot, some say hardly a difference.
Click to expand...

Price a rebuilt/repaired/overhauled pressurization controller and get back to us.

Also, the exhausts for any turbocharged 210 has gone up to something like $20k IRRC.
 
210s are great planes but check insurance rates first. Might not even be able to get coverage for a low time pilot, at least that's what I was told.

Seems there's a reason there are so many cheap examples available.....

BTW those kids will grow up REAL quick and if you don't have the room for them and their stuff then they absolutely won't want to go with you!
 
Kids! Stop fighting!

As it stands now, there is no meaningful flaw in the structure of either the Comanche, or the Bonanza. Further, there has never been any meaningful structural issue with either aircraft's wings.

The issues with the V-tail were not, per se, structural, in that the structure itself was deficient. Rather, when the V-tail assembly was made larger in the 50s, the chord was made larger and more of the surface was in front of the structural attachment to the fuselage. None of them failed when flown within the flight envelope, or (for that matter) quite a bit beyond, but eventually, as can happen with aircraft which is as "slippery" as the Bonanza is, it was discovered that when the aircraft is flown substantially in excess of Vne, it did cause flutter in the larger tail surfaces. It is this characteristic that the "cuff modification" took care of, and I am aware of no such modified aircraft which have had a tail failure since then. Note well: they never failed when they were flown within the defined flight envelope, or until a substantial excursion outside.

Each aircraft has its merits, and its flaws, but as they exist today, neither is inherently dangerous unless flown by an ill-prepared or imprudent pilot-and hasn't it always been thus?
 
Last edited:
SCCutler said:
Kids! Stop fighting!

As it stands now, there is no meaningful flaw in the structure of either the Comanche, or the Bonanza. Further, there is never been any meaningful structural issue with either aircraft's wings.

The issues with the V-tail were not, per se, structural, in that the structure itself was deficient. Rather, when the V-tail assembly was made larger in the 50s, the chord was made larger and more of the surface was in front of the structural attachment to the fuselage. None of them failed when flown within the flight envelope, or (for that matter) quite a bit beyond, but eventually, as can happen with aircraft which is as "slippery" as the Bonanza is, it was discovered that when the aircraft is flown substantially in excess of Vne, it did cause flutter in the larger tail surfaces. It is this characteristic that the "cuff modification" took care of, and I am aware of no such modified aircraft which have had a tail failure since then. Note well: they never failed when we were flown within the defined flight envelope, or a pretty significant excursion outside.

Each aircraft has its merits, and its flaws, but as they exist today, neither is inherently dangerous unless flown by an ill-prepared or imprudent pilot-and hasn't it always been thus?
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
They are all good planes so get the one with the most "coolness" factor: The bonanza :D
 
Falcon 7X had a pitch trim runaway a while back, AD's were issued worldwide grounding them and no "ferry" permits were being granted that I'm aware of. Since then the system was revised and they are flying. Do you think a potential buyer gives a hoot about it?

Yet in GA, the AD history of a model plagues it forever, even if the AD was a one time deal issued back in 1968. :goofy:


Start researching Bonanza carry thru spar cracking if you want something to argue over.
 
bnt83 said:
Also, the exhausts for any turbocharged 210 has gone up to something like $20k IRRC.
Click to expand...

Maybe for a new one but when do you actually need a new exhaust? Good shops can repair almost anything as long as you send them a hunk of metal remotely appearing to be a 210 exhaust.
 
dell30rb said:
Maybe for a new one but when do you actually need a new exhaust? Good shops can repair almost anything as long as you send them a hunk of metal remotely appearing to be a 210 exhaust.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like a new stainless exhaust is near $10k with complete overhauls near $5k. Easier to swallow than a new Inconel exhaust, but still.
 
SCCutler said:
Kids! Stop fighting!

As it stands now, there is no meaningful flaw in the structure of either the Comanche, or the Bonanza. Further, there has never been any meaningful structural issue with either aircraft's wings.

The issues with the V-tail were not, per se, structural, in that the structure itself was deficient. Rather, when the V-tail assembly was made larger in the 50s, the chord was made larger and more of the surface was in front of the structural attachment to the fuselage. None of them failed when flown within the flight envelope, or (for that matter) quite a bit beyond, but eventually, as can happen with aircraft which is as "slippery" as the Bonanza is, it was discovered that when the aircraft is flown substantially in excess of Vne, it did cause flutter in the larger tail surfaces. It is this characteristic that the "cuff modification" took care of, and I am aware of no such modified aircraft which have had a tail failure since then. Note well: they never failed when they were flown within the defined flight envelope, or until a substantial excursion outside.

Each aircraft has its merits, and its flaws, but as they exist today, neither is inherently dangerous unless flown by an ill-prepared or imprudent pilot-and hasn't it always been thus?
Click to expand...

Mostly I agree, except with the part about the only failures being when the aircraft was flown in the envelope. There was one, which was probably the trigger for the AD, where the ruddervator failed when the aircraft hit wake turbulence. Fortunately, the failure mode was that the leading edge of one or both of the ruddervators was bend down about 30 deg, and the spar did not break. The pilot was able to land, though with some difficulty. I believe that it was this accident that ended the argument that it was all the fault of the pilot.
 
wsuffa said:
"scratches head and says 'why do you say that?'"



My plane has been just fine at high DAs. No worse than a Bo.
Click to expand...


We looked at a Commander for our club out here in PHX to replace a Comanche. Running the runway requirement numbers for a summer takeoff at FLG or GCN was shocking.

Hot summer day at GCN, (100F), max gross weight, runway required to reach 50 ft (per the POH):

Comanche: 4600ft. (Runway is 9000, no problem)
Commander 114B: 9000 ft!!!!!

Yikes!
 
dans2992 said:
We looked at a Commander for our club out here in PHX to replace a Comanche. Running the runway requirement numbers for a summer takeoff at FLG or GCN was shocking.

Hot summer day at GCN, (100F), max gross weight, runway required to reach 50 ft (per the POH):

Comanche: 4600ft. (Runway is 9000, no problem)
Commander 114B: 9000 ft!!!!!

Yikes!
Click to expand...

I haven't run the 114B, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that with the older normally aspirated 112. I've taken my 112TC out of FLG, AEG and FNM on a hot day with no issue at all. A few others, too.

That said, I doubt you made a mistake with the numbers. I'd want a turbocharger (as I have) or lighter load when hot and high.
 
Last edited:
It was NA, yes. Club management was too scared of the turbo.
 
Kristin said:
The first was a twin, which has not had the issue with the horn, so it is inapplicable. The second was not the horn. It was pure spatial disorientation. The pilot was elderly and well known in the Comanche community. The horn was not the cause there.
Click to expand...

51 is elderly?

What was the pilots reputation in the community?
 
BillTIZ said:
And is slow for the fuel burn.
Click to expand...

Not with the tail plain angle of incidence mod applied, apparently that did the trick. The thing I like best about the Commander series is the trailing link gear coupled with being built strong as brick ****house.
 
Jaybird180 said:
51 is elderly?

What was the pilots reputation in the community?
Click to expand...

I checked again with a Comanche owner in SoCal, and it appears that I was misinformed on his age. The reputation seems to be as a "nice guy". I haven't talked to anyone who flew with him. However, the horn was still not an issue, and the tail was apparently only damaged when the outboard portion of the wing hit it.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
I have found two of the V series bonanza's that I think I would be willing to move on. Please give your opinions on the two.

89K http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...ston/1966/Beechcraft/V35+Bonanza/1644306.html

67K http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...ton/1967/Beechcraft/V35A+Bonanza/1760134.html
Click to expand...

I prefer a 550 to a 520, but prefer a 470 to either. You won't see much difference in cruise speed for the extra HP, but you do see a decent effect in rate of climb that since I operate mostly at light weights, I prefer the lower operating costs and higher reliability of the 470 series. IMO the 470 is the best engine that Continental made.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
I have found two of the V series bonanza's that I think I would be willing to move on. Please give your opinions on the two.

89K http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...ston/1966/Beechcraft/V35+Bonanza/1644306.html

67K http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...ton/1967/Beechcraft/V35A+Bonanza/1760134.html
Click to expand...

As with any 35 model I would suggest checking the W&B before getting serious about either one. Ask the owner what the empty weight CG is. Most probably won't know off the top of their head but will look it up and let you know...that's been my experience shopping for 35s, anyway. To me It's enough of an issue with the 35s (especially if you plan to put much weight in the back seats and cargo area) to run the numbers with several loading scenarios that you might use in real life. The tip tanks are nice for range and will add 200lb or so to the MGW but the loading envelope gets pretty narrow with fuel in the tanks...again, run the weight and balance with fuel in the tips.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
I took the wife up for the first time a few weeks ago to Shreveport so we could have a mini vacation. I chose the destination because it was close (1hr flight) and she loves to gamble.

The flight to KDTN was slightly choppy and she sure felt every bit of turbulence. I did my best to calm her down, I even explained how it took me 40-50 hours to get comfortable with what she was dealing with. She seemed calmed somewhat by my assurance the plane wants to fly, she trusts ME not the plane and that’s fine because I trust the plane. She really didn’t consider my flying as a true interest for me, as I do jump around from hobby to hobby. But when she saw how serious I took the flight, prep and everything else related to the trip she realized that I am, and I’ll quote "a real pilot." Hearing those words really meant a lot to me because she is scared to death of heights and swimming.

The flight home was nicer in terms of turbulence as hardly any was felt, but she handled them better than the first time and I told her that it would continue to get better the more she fly’s. We had clouds at 3700ft so we had to fly under them, and we had a decent headwind so it was slower but more enjoyable, the trip was awesome. Something that was very funny to me was heard on the radio, there was a guy flying a commander and he announced that he was a "turbo commander" I chuckled at that and had to keep myself from telling approach I was a 235hp Cherokee..... lol

When we landed me and the wife basically did a debrief on the flight and how the clouds could of grounded us and just the general topic of my plane. She explained that she would welcome a newer plane with all the upgrades (she doesn’t know specifics but I told her about GPS, IFR, Auto Pilots and all the comfort features that we could have).


So to the point, I am almost a 100hr low time pilot. All my time has been in the overpowered Cherokee of which I do have my HP rating, but no complex time. So here are what i've considered as my options:


1. SR22 (2000-2004 year model 150K $) This model will take me the longest to acquire as I’ll need to save up a bit to purchase this plane, it’s my favorite choice in terms of comfort and safety. But I won’t be able to afford the complete glass panel version and it will have to be a mid-time engine. The fuel burn is high (16-18gallons per hour) but the gear is fixed which helps with MX.

Insurance on a composite frame will be the most expensive of the three, a quick quote was something like 5K a year, so that puts me at 1500$ a month, just owning the plane minus any flying or hanger. I anticipate a average of 10 hours a month which puts my total monthly budget for the SR22 @ around 2500$ a month or 30K (+5K for annual and Maintenance) Which I kind of suck my teeth about....

2. Bonanza 35 (P,S or V model 90K $) This model makes the most sense to me because of the value I will get for the purchase price, I'm looking at several models that start at 70K through 90K and I can get them nicely equipped with less than mid time on the engine. The speed and fuel burn are attractive and so is the idea of owning a bo.

Insurance on this airplane was quoted at 2500$ with a 75K hull value. It decreases to 2100$ with an IFR cert, which I plan to get soon but I may wait till I get my new plane so I can get trained in it, which is my big concern with this plane is the performance gain and complex rating.

Montly Cost (est) 1600$ per month w/10 hours of flight time.

3. Comanche (250 or 260 model 90K$) I like this plane because I read its similar to the Cherokee in handling and landing. It’s also cheaper then the two above to purchase, but I’ve been told it’s a bit costly to maintain and the insurance, believe it or not is higher than the Bonanza at around 3,000$. The fuel burn is a wash with the bo but the speed is less then the bo. It only has 4 seats compared to 5 or 6 on the Bo, which I really will only use 4 seats anyways but the extra room would be nice. I can get these nicely equipped for under 80K as well.

Montly cost (est) 1500$ per month w/10 hours of flight time.

Honorable mentions: Commander 114, RV10, 182RG


I've been back and forth with the upgrading process for a while now, but with the wife actually excited about flying with me and the need for an IFR plane I need to make a choice in the next few months, as I do not want to sink money into the 235 I have.
Thoughts?! Thanks for any help, and please be positive. I do understand it’s a step up and am willing to train as needed to be safe!
Click to expand...

Sink the Comanche. Limit your choices to aircraft that are still being produced.:goofy:
 
EdFred said:
Comanches are the biggest piece of **** airplane ever made. Just ask anyone on the board. Get the Bonanza and join the Beech circle jerk. Just make sure you get a reach around.


For the record Comanches handle or land nothing like a Cherokee. Which is why they are nothing but big steaming piles.
Click to expand...

Not exactly instilling confidence over here Ed ;-P
 
sarcasmometer.gif
 
Mine rhymes with thermometer.

sar-caz-mom-itter
 
If you choose Bo - I know a Bo only shop in SoCal - they will come to you for pre-buy with the right amount of money. They'll even find you one, pre-buy it for you, and then maintain it -

I will say that there are many who do not like the V-tail 'waggle' . . . . so maybe you need to be looking at a straight tail Bo. F or A. But a good one is not ever going to be under $100k. Except a really old one - which means you need a really good annual before you buy one. Corrosion becomes an issue as others have said - but with a Comanche that is not an issue generally.

Don't stress the parts - Bo and Comanche parts are readily available - I will say that the Comanche parts stream is probably much cheaper than the Bo parts stream but there tend to be more choices - engine parts are pretty standard and available everywhere . . . .

Moving on to the SR22 - its gonna cost. Higher insurance. Less payload than either of the other 2 - if you have a growing family its not gonna work long term. You will constantly be juggling range and payload. . . . thats a pita. Bonanza's are known for having a challenging weight and balance when all the seats are full - they require some juggling with fuel and bags and many Bo drivers carry around a few gallons of water or a case of oil in the baggage hold . . ..

I own a Comanche 260C - and will tell you my reality. If you can put it in the seats or the cargo hold it will generally fit and meet the W&B requirements - which are really wide and generous. The Comanche shines between 7500 and 10500'. Best mix of power and true airspeed. I see 160ktas at those altitudes at about 70% power. Fuel flow is about 14 gph - 13 a little higher up and speeds drop to 157 or so. Not much of loss - the slipperiness of the airframe helps offset the lost power.

Total all in operating cost without any financing is about $150 an hour. My insurance, $1M smooth, is $1600 a year with 90,000 hull. Obviously IFR with several hundred hours in type. I have a hangar that I use to store other stuff too - so those fixed costs in Los Angeles are higher probably than they are in Texas. My annuals run about $3k a year - basic stuff in a complex airplane.

Ok - moving on to payload. Gross in a 260C is 3200#. empty weight in my airplane is about 1950#. Useful load is 1250#. Full main fuel is 56 gallons. 4 hours - 336#. The Comanche often has aux tanks - 30 gallons usable. 180#. That is 5 HOURS of fuel with a full hour reserve at 14gph plus a little. Mains only fuel leaves you about 910# of payload - thats pretty serious payload at 160 knots for 3 hours - you can go a long way. You get 730# of payload with a full 5 HOURS of fuel - thats 800nm down the airway with 4 adults and their bags in a comfortable cabin. As kids grow it becomes darn easy to go a long way, or just 300-400nm in less than 3 hours.

Except for the extra cost of maintenance of the landing gear and 2 extra cylinders, the Comanche @ 160kts costs the same in fuel and direct operating expense for almost any trip as a Cherokee 180@ 120kts.

Bonanzas are little faster - a little bigger - a little taller - and generally more money than an equivalently equipped Comanche. If you want a basic IFR steam gauge radio Bo - sure - you can find them cheaper - but then a Comanche 260 or -B with the same steam era radios will be sub $70k in this market.

I like my Comanche. I have not sold it for a Bonanza. It is reliable, easy to maintain on a decent budget and flies nicely - they attract attention on the ramp like a Bo does not also. If that is important to you. . ..

Anyway good luck, either airplane is a great choice, as is the $150-200k Cirrus . . . but look very closely at the Cirrus payload options . . .
 
Last edited:
Comanche tails are over wrought . . . you pull the horn, you replace the horn [the part is $150 or so - its just a cast piece of aluminum] and you replace it. You check the horn you have for cracks - if there are no cracks - you now have a spare. If there are cracks, they want you to send it to Piper. Or maybe Denny or Hans.

Anyway - the problems with the Comanche tail feathers is flutter. And you fix that by keeping the trim winding properly tightened - and remove ALL play in system. My tail is tight- there is no play in the system at all - its a pretty simple exercise for any qualified A&P . . . .
 
comanchepilot said:
If you choose Bo - I know a Bo only shop in SoCal - they will come to you for pre-buy with the right amount of money. They'll even find you one, pre-buy it for you, and then maintain it -

I will say that there are many who do not like the V-tail 'waggle' . . . . so maybe you need to be looking at a straight tail Bo. F or A. But a good one is not ever going to be under $100k. Except a really old one - which means you need a really good annual before you buy one. Corrosion becomes an issue as others have said - but with a Comanche that is not an issue generally.

Don't stress the parts - Bo and Comanche parts are readily available - I will say that the Comanche parts stream is probably much cheaper than the Bo parts stream but there tend to be more choices - engine parts are pretty standard and available everywhere . . . .

Moving on to the SR22 - its gonna cost. Higher insurance. Less payload than either of the other 2 - if you have a growing family its not gonna work long term. You will constantly be juggling range and payload. . . . thats a pita. Bonanza's are known for having a challenging weight and balance when all the seats are full - they require some juggling with fuel and bags and many Bo drivers carry around a few gallons of water or a case of oil in the baggage hold . . ..

I own a Comanche 260C - and will tell you my reality. If you can put it in the seats or the cargo hold it will generally fit and meet the W&B requirements - which are really wide and generous. The Comanche shines between 7500 and 10500'. Best mix of power and true airspeed. I see 160ktas at those altitudes at about 70% power. Fuel flow is about 14 gph - 13 a little higher up and speeds drop to 157 or so. Not much of loss - the slipperiness of the airframe helps offset the lost power.

Total all in operating cost without any financing is about $150 an hour. My insurance, $1M smooth, is $1600 a year with 90,000 hull. Obviously IFR with several hundred hours in type. I have a hangar that I use to store other stuff too - so those fixed costs in Los Angeles are higher probably than they are in Texas. My annuals run about $3k a year - basic stuff in a complex airplane.

Ok - moving on to payload. Gross in a 260C is 3200#. empty weight in my airplane is about 1950#. Useful load is 1250#. Full main fuel is 56 gallons. 4 hours - 336#. The Comanche often has aux tanks - 30 gallons usable. 180#. That is 5 HOURS of fuel with a full hour reserve at 14gph plus a little. Mains only fuel leaves you about 910# of payload - thats pretty serious payload at 160 knots for 3 hours - you can go a long way. You get 730# of payload with a full 5 HOURS of fuel - thats 800nm down the airway with 4 adults and their bags in a comfortable cabin. As kids grow it becomes darn easy to go a long way, or just 300-400nm in less than 3 hours.

Except for the extra cost of maintenance of the landing gear and 2 extra cylinders, the Comanche @ 160kts costs the same in fuel and direct operating expense for almost any trip as a Cherokee 180@ 120kts.

Bonanzas are little faster - a little bigger - a little taller - and generally more money than an equivalently equipped Comanche. If you want a basic IFR steam gauge radio Bo - sure - you can find them cheaper - but then a Comanche 260 or -B with the same steam era radios will be sub $70k in this market.

I like my Comanche. I have not sold it for a Bonanza. It is reliable, easy to maintain on a decent budget and flies nicely - they attract attention on the ramp like a Bo does not also. If that is important to you. . ..

Anyway good luck, either airplane is a great choice, as is the $150-200k Cirrus . . . but look very closely at the Cirrus payload options . . .
Click to expand...



Thank you for your post. It's really helpful.
How many seats does a Comanche usually have? 4 or 5?
 
Jhernandez04 said:
Thank you for your post. It's really helpful.

How many seats does a Comanche usually have? 4 or 5?
Click to expand...


I have a 260B. It (and I believe the 260C). Have 4 standard seats, and two "jump" seats that go in the baggage compartment. Those seats have limited legroom, so are best for kids or small women. (I've had my wife and mother in law back there before).

With six seats in, there is really no space for bags. With five, we stack the bags in the remaining 1/2 of the baggage area.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
Thank you for your post. It's really helpful.
How many seats does a Comanche usually have? 4 or 5?
Click to expand...

Dan has it right - the Comanche has 4 standard seats - then they came with 2 'jump' seats that snap onto the rear wall of the baggage compartment - they have a maximum weight of 250# back there -
 
Jhernandez04 said:
Thank you for your post. It's really helpful.
How many seats does a Comanche usually have? 4 or 5?
Click to expand...

Jesse

I would suggest joining the international comanche society I joined them as well as ABS. I will be joining COPA as well. These are three planes I have narrowed down, although the Comanche has fallen to third place. Lots about the Comanche I like, but, have concerns as it has not been manufactured for 42 years.
 
One thing you should know - ComanchePilot has a Comanche C, one of the best-looking GA planes ever. The market covets them, and they never seem to lose value.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
Thank you for your post. It's really helpful.
How many seats does a Comanche usually have? 4 or 5?
Click to expand...
comanche or 33/35 bo, either one count only 4 seats. The 5/6 seats are more like child booster seats, have no access, and take the baggage space.

one small correction to Joe's comments, the straight tail bo really doesn't have less tail waggle than the V-tail. The most effective solution to lessen tail waggle with either tail is not to spend tons of money on yaw dampers etc, it's just to rest your feet lightly on the rudder pedals in turbulence instead of sitting feet flat on the floor.

every plane has strengths and weaknesses, the bo will always have a little waggle in rough air, some back seaters don't like it, others never notice. You won't have that concern in a comanche.

OTOH a slightly trained chimp can land a bo like a pro while getting a perfect landing on a comanche is sort of like chasing the perfect golf shot. You remenber the good ones because they are rare.

neither of these are serious flaws, just niggly things to keep in mind.

In the end though, I don't think either of these options 33/35/PA24 are right for the OP with 3 small kids. He needs a 6-seater preferably with club seating so that mom has easy access to all the kids.
 
JHW said:
In the end though, I don't think either of these options 33/35/PA24 are right for the OP with 3 small kids. He needs a 6-seater preferably with club seating so that mom has easy access to all the kids.
Click to expand...

Which narrows the field to either an A36 or a PA32 variant.

PA32 if he needs lots of luggage space and payload, A36 for everything else ;) .

Btw. the setup in the back of a 206 is not bad for family travel either. The two seat rows are close enough together for mom to attend to kids in both rows, one of the short guys can ride up front with dad leaving plenty of maneuvering room in the back. Not everyone likes travelling backwards(my son can do it but he doesn't like riding backwards if we go into clouds).
 
You need a six seater. Otherwise you are just going to be repeating this process in a couple of years.
 
JHW said:
OTOH a slightly trained chimp can land a bo like a pro while getting a perfect landing on a comanche is sort of like chasing the perfect golf shot. You remenber the good ones because they are rare.

In the end though, I don't think either of these options 33/35/PA24 are right for the OP with 3 small kids. He needs a 6-seater preferably with club seating so that mom has easy access to all the kids.
Click to expand...

Hey -- I resemble that remark. It's true, the Bonanza is a joy landing, and other ground ops. The short body, with far forward CG can run out of elevator, but it's no issue if you know about it.

I agree the OP will need something with 6 seats. Kids grow fast, and changing planes is a hassle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top