Complex Aircraft to build time?

S

shyampatel94

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Messages
116
Display Name
Display name:
Shyam Patel
Okay, so what is a good complex aircraft to get my instrument rating and commercial? A used aircraft but still with good time and maintenance will not be a big problem. And will be putting hours on it. Which aircraft are good for this mission? Just give me aircraft names and why you think it would be good.
 
Yup. Seems like a Piper Arrow is the best bang for the buck if you want a complex aircraft. Option number 2 would be a 172RG but I think an Arrow is a bit cheaper and has better performance.
 
Arrow or Bonanza, but you won't be building time on other people's money.
 
172 Cutlass is a maintenance hog.

Arrows are more expensive than they should be.

You can by a 180 Comanche for half the cost of an arrow. Similar costs better performance.


mcoflyer said:
Yup. Seems like a Piper Arrow is the best bang for the buck if you want a complex aircraft. Option number 2 would be a 172RG but I think an Arrow is a bit cheaper and has better performance.
Click to expand...
 
You're gonna be paying a bit more for maintenance on a Comanche due to limited supplies...plus it's a bit underpowered and doesn't qualify as HP.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
172 Cutlass is a maintenance hog.

Arrows are more expensive than they should be.

You can by a 180 Comanche for half the cost of an arrow. Similar costs better performance.
Click to expand...

+1
Not much will beat a Comanche for speed/comfort/value index.
Though, I'm a bit biased. :yes:
 
It is a rumor about parts supplies limited on Comanches.....10.000 of them all have the same fuselage and landing gear,wings tails (bigger on twins). More old bonanza's have been abandon than Comanche's single fuselage.

Piper still makes plenty selling Comanche parts. International Comanche Society works with Piper to know what parts are beginning to be in short supply and they are happy to have more made so they can keep making those sales....Plus there are over 100 PMAs by other manufacturers for same.

180 hp is not underpowered it flies extremely well on 180 hp. It flies better than any 200 HP Arrow will. It has a larger fuselage with adult back seats and flies higher, faster and farther due to its long skinny wings. It is not as easy to land but anyone with 10 hr check out should be able to handle it. But if you want a 250hp that is good too but you do not need HP to get complex time.

You can fly a HP Comanche and pull the fuel back and still get the 9 gph and 140 knots but still log HP time as well as complex so it is a good way to go. Right now you can buy a 250 for maybe $5-10k more than a 180hp Comanche. I doubt this will always be this way but it is a good time to get one.

Nearly every AD on the Comanche 180 applies to the Arrow and the Arrow has one or two the Comanche does not have.

mcoflyer said:
You're gonna be paying a bit more for maintenance on a Comanche due to limited supplies...plus it's a bit underpowered and doesn't qualify as HP.
Click to expand...
 
I've flown both a Comanche 250 and an Arrow and I have to say I liked the Arrow better. I've talked to people who have flown the 180 and the consensus was that it was a bit short on HP.

Every person has their preference. I'm more of a Cessna guy mostly because I like having doors on both sides and I like the high wings. If I could choose between an Arrow, a Comanche, and a 182RG....i'd pick the 182RG. But they're more pricey.
 
warthog1984 said:
182RG or Beech F33. Reasons: Good flying, relatively affordable to buy/keep, and covers HP and complex.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't instruct in my 182RG. No way. They're really too nice of airplanes for a revolving door a students to be going in & out of. They're not training airplanes. I'm training a guy in one, but it's his and I'm just doing his transition to it. There is a reason 182RG's go for $200/hr on a rental line.


That being said. If you like going places, with people and lots of fuel the 182RG is for you. If you're just in it to get your ratings then train other people it's not for you.
 
mcoflyer said:
I've flown both a Comanche 250 and an Arrow and I have to say I liked the Arrow better.
Click to expand...

You are a renter? How many hours you got? How many in the Arrow? How Many in the Comanche 250?

It does not surprise me the Arrow flies more like a 182 with heavy control inputs and your preference for the heavier control.

Also with your being an inexperience pilot you should stick with 2 door censsnas as it helps even the odds so you can get out in a crash.

mcoflyer said:
I've talked to people who have flown the 180 and the consensus was that it was a bit short on HP.
Click to expand...

Oh well, if you talked to people that changes everything.... your definitely an expert on the subject.

People say an Arrow is under powered and it is but the thing is you should not get into a 180hp plane and compare it to a 250/260/300 hp even the 200 hp arrow is a dog compared to the 180 hp Comanche.

People often fly at or above gross on hp aircraft but that is something you will do only once on a 180hp aircraft and then you will go tell all your friends how under powered they are......yes silly.....its 180 hp.

When I take my grand mother along i will rent a 182.
 
Last edited:
Yes i'm a renter. I have about 120 hours.

I haven't flown anything over gross but i've been lucky and have experience flying in different parts of the country. Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Florida, Denver and even up to Leadville (9,900ft elevation). The smallest thing i've flown is a 172, I tried getting in a 152 once and jumped right back out...way too uncomfortable. The biggest thing i've flown is a Piper Lance.
 
I made the mistake-I heard from hundreds of pilots who never flew a 180 Comanche how under powered they were, so I pretty much wrote them off during my search for a complex a/c. Then I bought the Comanche 250 and happy with its speed of course with the Turbos.

However I helped a friend pickup his 180hp Comanche from WA and fly it across country to NYC and I have to tell you that I am blown away by the power, speed, agility, handling.... Nothing like I expected from all those old salt pilots on AOPA forums with years of experience and thousands of hours.....

We made the trip mostly at 11,500' with plenty of clime left to go higher at full gross weight. I am a big guy too. We averaged 172-175 knots and true airspeeds of 153 consistently over 3 days and four hops. I was jealous of his fuel burn and speed and performance.... and he paid less than half with GPS/Autopilot what I paid for my 250 Turbo.

So be careful about listening to all the guys that know a lot about airplanes if they actually have not owned or booked a fair amount of time in the aircraft their opinions are greatly suspect.
 
What is a good bonanza 4 seater for complex training?
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
We made the trip mostly at 11,500' with plenty of clime left to go higher at full gross weight. I am a big guy too. We averaged 172-175 knots and true airspeeds of 153 consistently over 3 days and four hops. I was jealous of his fuel burn and speed and performance.... and he paid less than half with GPS/Autopilot what I paid for my 250 Turbo.
.
Click to expand...

What sort of fuel burn did you get in that 180?
 
I'm surprised this discussion has made it this far without someone mentioning a Mooney.
 
Mooney M20C has all the good flying qualities of the Comanche. Parts are easier to find and less expensive. Cabin is a little tighter, especially for the back seats. Cheaper to acquire than an Arrow or comparable Cessna. You can find manual and electric gear models. I like our manual gear, but electric is better for training.

Happy hunting.
 
shyampatel94 said:
Okay, so what is a good complex aircraft to get my instrument rating and commercial? A used aircraft but still with good time and maintenance will not be a big problem. And will be putting hours on it. Which aircraft are good for this mission? Just give me aircraft names and why you think it would be good.
Click to expand...
Didn't we just have this conversation?

As I said before, Piper Arrow and Cessna 172RG are probably best, followed closely by the Beech Sierra. I suggest the first two because they are common (giving choices when buying), popular in this role (giving a market when selling), very familiar to mechanics, and have the best parts support in class. The Beech Sierra is less popular and has more expensive parts support, but otherwise is much the same. All three are easy to fly, comfortable training platforms, and familiar to instructors. Finally, you won't find anything in this class that is cheaper to own and operate than these three.
 
warthog1984 said:
182RG or Beech F33. Reasons: Good flying, relatively affordable to buy/keep, and covers HP and complex.
Click to expand...
And a lot more expensive to buy, own, and operate than the 200HP-class complex trainers. Since HP is not a requirement for IR/CP, there's no reason to spend the extra money, which would be better spent on more flight time and better training.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
172 Cutlass is a maintenance hog.

Arrows are more expensive than they should be.

You can by a 180 Comanche for half the cost of an arrow. Similar costs better performance.
Click to expand...
Comanche costs are higher, starting with higher insurance and scarcer parts.
 
shyampatel94 said:
What is a good bonanza 4 seater for complex training?
Click to expand...
I can't think of one, since it costs a good bit more to buy, own, and operate than an Arrow which will do you just as well for your stated purposes (and maybe better). Also, make sure that older Bonanza has dual controls, not the original throwover yoke. There are significant training limitations in the regulations when you have the throwover yoke, and many instructors and examiners will decline to participate with it.
 
mondtster said:
I'm surprised this discussion has made it this far without someone mentioning a Mooney.
Click to expand...
Not a great trainer for this purpose (you'll be fighting that PC system all the time), and there are maintenance issues with Mooney fuel systems you don't have with the others. It's also not the most comfortable cockpit in the world for training. At the end of the day, it will cost more to buy and own than an Arrow (my first choice for this role).
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
This may be.



not true. . do you have examples or are you just repeating the same tired stupid rumors?

.
Click to expand...

My family owned a 260B for about 40 years. They are machines, not spouses, my friend. Don't take offense so easily.
 
I don't know about 20 years ago but in the last 5 years the only Comanche parts that were difficult to source for awhile were the twinkie fuel valves which did not effect any of the singles.

What may have been true in the 90s is not true today.



Rwsavory said:
My family owned a 260B for about 40 years. They are machines, not spouses, my friend. Don't take offense so easily.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
Comanche costs are higher, starting with higher insurance and scarcer parts.
Click to expand...

Which part is scarce? I'd like to get a list. True insurance for the first 50 hrs is a bit more than an Arrow but after that it is a % of hull cost. I was offered the same % of hull rate for the Comanche as the Cherokee when I had 100 hrs in type. I think it was 2% of hull value.
 
yes they are.... I have 880 hrs in a Cherokee. The Cherokee has an open area below the panel where the Mooney have the nose wheel housing which limits the width of room you have for your knees. It is narrower than a child's coffin.


mondtster said:
They're no worse than Cherokees.
Click to expand...
 
Tony, I'm sorry if we kicked your puppy, but your love for your plane will not change the reality facing someone who wants what the OP says he wants. There are better choices than a Comanche for that.
 
shyampatel94 said:
35 is the V-Tail right? What do those fly like?
Click to expand...

Yep, they fly like airplanes. They are cheaper and faster than their 33 counterparts. Again, you won't be time building on someone else's dime in one for the most part. The only planes that offer that option are simple trainers and twins.
 
mondtster said:
I'm surprised this discussion has made it this far without someone mentioning a Mooney.
Click to expand...


Mooney's are great, but if the guy is looking to build time, then you need something slow like a Piper Arrow. :lol:

And unfortunately I'll admit the average Piper Arrow has a better standard panel for IFR flying.
 
It's obvious that everyone has a different preference. At least I hope the OP got some good advice and he'll just have to make up his own opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top