Cross Country Aircraft WANTED

[HammerHead]

I have to say that I appreciate all of your thoughts and information that have been reflected thus far in this forum. With that in mind, I am hoping to reach out to people who know people who have a good cross country plane for sale. I have had several posts that linked to a plane for sale that they knew of. I would appreciate alot more links to aircraft that are currently for sale. We are open to different makes and models. Our only requirements are to meet or exceed the capacity of our previous 182. There is a member interest in securing a low wing which is why we're not running out to purchase another 182. We are looking at a Commanche 300 today. I hope that will break the high performance barrier. I'm sure it will break the bank in maintenance dept too.... The members have indicated a strong interest in being able to get time built in a complex, high performance IFR plane.

What say you???

 

[gismo]

Our club has an Arrow IV with the T-tail, and a 182RG. I agree with most of the comments about the Arrow being a good complex trainer and an OK cross country airplane.

I also agree that if you have the money ready to go take your time and look around for a great deal. In this market you shouldn't have to settle for a good deal.

My recommendation is to not choose the T-tail. It's not that bad but I like the straight tail better.

Ditto on that. The T tails are OK but they take some getting used to, probably not a good idea for a club airplane. FWIW, neither is any kind of turbo unless the club members are all very familiar with that.

Joe

ps. Welcome to PoA and don't be put off. There's an unwritten rule in most aviation boards that if someone is looking for a particular make and model that everybody else must try to convince them to buy something else that is better, cheaper, faster or sexier.

Absolutely, it's our sworn duty.

Seriously though, what really should be said is that anyone (including a club) should make sure they understand what their range of missions really is before selecting a model of airplane (or two) to choose from. Cross country airplane can mean something quite different to different pilot's and their families. If the club's interests lie in the area of 200-300 nm trips with a max payload of 3 SOBs (OB is "on board" not the other one) and a few bags, there's not much point in looking for something that will carry twice as much and/or go 170 KTAS when something like an Arrow will do the job at half the cost and only add 30 minutes to the trip. In fact, in some cases a slower airplane will actually be an improvement since clubs often have rules requiring a minimum number of hours flown per day.

But if the vast majority of active members are looking to fly trips that are truly "across the country" they're not going to be anywhere near as satisfied with a 130 Kt airplane, or if a significant number of trips would require carrying 4 people and a week's worth of baggage for each, a 600 lb payload is likely insufficient.

 

[Trapper John]

You could get a better equipped 210 at a much lower price, that will have a better usefull load and cruise at 165 @ about 12 GPH. 182RG/210 are about the same maintinence over the life of the aircraft.

http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_...up=truexxxxxsearchid=18119508xxxxxregionid=-1

As much as I like 210s, I think you're just a tad optimistic. For the 210L that I'm familiar with, top of the green was 165 kt and there was no way to get there without really flogging it: 15.5 + gph...unless you're talking MPH, not kt.


Trapper John

 

[brcase]

I have to say that I appreciate all of your thoughts and information that have been reflected thus far in this forum. With that in mind, I am hoping to reach out to people who know people who have a good cross country plane for sale. I have had several posts that linked to a plane for sale that they knew of. I would appreciate alot more links to aircraft that are currently for sale. We are open to different makes and models. Our only requirements are to meet or exceed the capacity of our previous 182. There is a member interest in securing a low wing which is why we're not running out to purchase another 182. We are looking at a Commanche 300 today. I hope that will break the high performance barrier. I'm sure it will break the bank in maintenance dept too.... The members have indicated a strong interest in being able to get time built in a complex, high performance IFR plane.

What say you???

I don't know why I didn't think of a Commanche in my 1st post. Probably because most people don't really need a retractable for cross country flying. Commanche's (250/260 especially) are an excellent cross country airplane, Especially if they have tip tanks. It is really nice to be able to do long cross countries and not have to worry at all about fuel.

I used to work for a company that used them for Prisoner transports. They really liked that fact that the could make round trip flight and purchase fuel at the local airport with their discount rather than have to fuel away from the home airport.

I do know of a pretty nice older C210 (1960 model I think) for sale locally. It is basically the equivalent of a 182RG. It flys regularly, the owner is just looking for a more back country capable airplane. Doesn't sound like this is what you are looking for but let me know if want more information about it.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Ditto on that. The T tails are OK but they take some getting used to, probably not a good idea for a club airplane.

There are practical problems with the T-tails as well, not just the "I don't like it" variety: The biggest, to me, is that the front edge of the CG envelope is significantly farther aft than it is for the straight tails. On soft fields, the elevator can't really do anything to keep the weight off the nosewheel until you're going quite fast, so if you operate out of grass strips your nose gear (and firewall and engine mount) are going to take a beating. IIRC, the short-field performance takes a hit too. The T-tails are really paved-strip birds.

 

[Tom-D]

Not even close.

Check the certification requirements and then make your point again.

Well some one made the point with Cessna at to the tune of $11,000,000.

I believe you are setting your self up for failure, by trimming to landing speed or lower.

the recommended proceedure by the guys who fly the big Cessnas up north at full gross weight are simply this.

trim to go around speed on the down wind, and never touch it again. I'd rather pull like crazy than try to push it to stay alive.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

We are looking at a Commanche 300 today. I hope that will break the high performance barrier. I'm sure it will break the bank in maintenance dept too.... The members have indicated a strong interest in being able to get time built in a complex, high performance IFR plane.

What say you???

I assume you mean a Comanche 400, since there was no Comanche 300.

Just a word of warning, the Comanche 400's had cooling issues, especially on the rearmost 2 cylinders - It's an 8-cylinder IO-720 engine, something that has only been used on one or two other types, probably for that exact reason. It's very difficult to keep the last couple of cylinders cool because by the time the "cooling" air makes it all the way back there, it's hot! For that reason, the Comanche 400 probably does not make a good choice for a club: You really need to baby that engine, and club members generally tend to not do that sort of thing, especially when charged wet or Hobbs rates.

However...

I don't know why I didn't think of a Commanche in my 1st post. Probably because most people don't really need a retractable for cross country flying. Commanche's (250/260 especially) are an excellent cross country airplane, Especially if they have tip tanks. It is really nice to be able to do long cross countries and not have to worry at all about fuel.

A Comanche 250 or 260 would be an excellent choice. 6 cylinders, reasonably efficient, will haul a pretty good load, and there's plenty for sale. Avoid the earliest models - Prior to 1961 they didn't have toe brakes, and there was also a gross weight increase in 1961. Electric flaps showed up in 1962.

As far as finding a particular airplane, there are deals to be had on the web sites too - Just be patient, and never offer asking price. The easiest way to find them is to use http://www.globalplanesearch.com/ which will do sub-searches on ASO, Controller, and a bunch of other airplane-for-sale sites. The only major one it doesn't search, to my knowledge, is Trade-a-Plane. So, a subscription to TaP is a good idea too.

Good luck!

 

[Trapper John]

I assume you mean a Comanche 400, since there was no Comanche 300.

Just a word of warning, the Comanche 400's had cooling issues, especially on the rearmost 2 cylinders - It's an 8-cylinder IO-720 engine, something that has only been used on one or two other types, probably for that exact reason. It's very difficult to keep the last couple of cylinders cool because by the time the "cooling" air makes it all the way back there, it's hot! For that reason, the Comanche 400 probably does not make a good choice for a club: You really need to baby that engine, and club members generally tend to not do that sort of thing, especially when charged wet or Hobbs rates.

However...



A Comanche 250 or 260 would be an excellent choice. 6 cylinders, reasonably efficient, will haul a pretty good load, and there's plenty for sale. Avoid the earliest models - Prior to 1961 they didn't have toe brakes, and there was also a gross weight increase in 1961. Electric flaps showed up in 1962.

As far as finding a particular airplane, there are deals to be had on the web sites too - Just be patient, and never offer asking price. The easiest way to find them is to use http://www.globalplanesearch.com/ which will do sub-searches on ASO, Controller, and a bunch of other airplane-for-sale sites. The only major one it doesn't search, to my knowledge, is Trade-a-Plane. So, a subscription to TaP is a good idea too.

Good luck!

My guess is he was talking about a Cherokee 6-300...

I don't think any of the Comanches have more useful load than a 182, and he said they were looking for better useful load than their 182...

Comanches are nice birds. Maybe not an ideal club plane, though.


Trapper John

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't think any of the Comanches have more useful load than a 182, and he said they were looking for better useful load than their 182...

Huh? Payload on a Comanche 250 with the 60-gallon fuel system would run around 840 pounds. Our 182's full-fuel payload is 747 pounds. Of course, if I only put 60 gallons in it it'd be 861; if the Comanche had aux tanks (90 gallons total) it'd be down to 660, but I think they're comparable.

As you move into the 260's and then A's B's C's it gets a little better. 260C's payload is supposedly 887 pounds with the full 90 gallons of fuel.

Comanches are nice birds.

Maybe not an ideal club plane, though.

I think the smaller-engined ones would be "OK" if not ideal, but not the 400.

 

[Trapper John]

Huh? Payload on a Comanche 250 with the 60-gallon fuel system would run around 840 pounds. Our 182's full-fuel payload is 747 pounds. Of course, if I only put 60 gallons in it it'd be 861; if the Comanche had aux tanks (90 gallons total) it'd be down to 660, but I think they're comparable.

Well, they are pretty close...

As you move into the 260's and then A's B's C's it gets a little better. 260C's payload is supposedly 887 pounds with the full 90 gallons of fuel.

Wasn't aware of that...I haven't seen so many 260s myself, seems like there are a lot more 250s around.

I think the smaller-engined ones would be "OK" if not ideal, but not the 400.

I'd just hate to see a Comanche used as a complex trainer, they're getting rarer and rarer these days. Let the members beat up an Arrow...

There weren't more than a handful of Comanche 400s built, were there? I can only remember seeing one in the last 30 or so years...


Trapper John

 

[Areeda]

There are practical problems with the T-tails as well, not just the "I don't like it" variety: The biggest, to me, is that the front edge of the CG envelope is significantly farther aft than it is for the straight tails. On soft fields, the elevator can't really do anything to keep the weight off the nosewheel until you're going quite fast, so if you operate out of grass strips your nose gear (and firewall and engine mount) are going to take a beating. IIRC, the short-field performance takes a hit too. The T-tails are really paved-strip birds.

These are all related to the lack of propwash over the elevator, I believe. At slow speeds there is very little elevator authority.

Joe

 

[Pilawt]

My recommendation is to not choose the T-tail. It's not that bad but I like the straight tail better.

There are practical problems with the T-tails as well, not just the "I don't like it" variety: The biggest, to me, is that the front edge of the CG envelope is significantly farther aft than it is for the straight tails. On soft fields, the elevator can't really do anything to keep the weight off the nosewheel until you're going quite fast, so if you operate out of grass strips your nose gear (and firewall and engine mount) are going to take a beating. IIRC, the short-field performance takes a hit too. The T-tails are really paved-strip birds.

These are all related to the lack of propwash over the elevator, I believe. At slow speeds there is very little elevator authority.

I've got about 250 hours in T-tail Arrows, most in N4296J, the airplane in the brochure photo below (an '83, painted in the '84 scheme for the ad photos). The FBO had two of them at bargain rates on its rental line, but I wasn't fond of their handling, for the reasons expressed above. Not only is the high stabilator not "energized" by the propwash, it is much smaller in span and area than the stabilator of a low-tail Arrow II or III. You notice it on takeoff, when the airplane doesn't feel "ready" to fly until about 75 KIAS and you've crossed two or three zip codes. On landing there's not as much pitch authority to keep the nosewheel from clunking down to the pavement, compared to other PA-28s. I also felt that the T-tail had more tail-wag in turbulence.

Look at the fences, fillets and slots on an Arrow IV stabilator -- I'd bet Piper engineers had a heckuva time making that thing fly right.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

These are all related to the lack of propwash over the elevator, I believe. At slow speeds there is very little elevator authority.

Exactly!

Look at the fences, fillets and slots on an Arrow IV stabilator -- I'd bet Piper engineers had a heckuva time making that thing fly right.

I'm not sure they ever succeeded.

The Arrow IV *is* a bit faster, and if all you're wanting is a cross country machine for 3000-foot plus paved strips, it's a fine bird.

But me, I like going EVERYWHERE, which is why I love the big, slow, doggy 182. I've had it in and out of a 1,000-foot grass strip, and it was perfectly happy in Leadville, CO with a 12,200 foot density altitude and going in and out of the tiny backcountry mountain strips as well. Whee!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Wasn't aware of that...I haven't seen so many 260s myself, seems like there are a lot more 250s around.

There weren't more than a handful of Comanche 400s built, were there? I can only remember seeing one in the last 30 or so years...

Well, there's a reason for that... Here's the production numbers, according to the International Comanche Society:

1,143 Comanche 180's
2,537 Comanche 250's
1,029 Comanche 260's
148 Comanche 400's

I'd just hate to see a Comanche used as a complex trainer, they're getting rarer and rarer these days. Let the members beat up an Arrow...

That's a very good point. Looks like the club currently has only fixed-gear birds. http://www.flyingclubkansascity.org/ But, it looks like they have pretty old birds too, so maybe their members have learned to care for them? Or, knowing how clubs are, not!

 

[HammerHead]

Good evening fellow Airmen. I was mistaken when I spoke of the plane we looked at today. We looked at a 1962 Comanche 250. That was a beautiful bird. There is a 1961 Comanche 250 in Iowa that is supposed to be coming into town for us to see, we will hopefully see it really soon.

 

[jmaynard]

Comanche owners tend to be fanatically in love with their aircraft. Since you've been there before as far as buying older aircraft goes, you know to have a good prepurchase done by someone knowledgeable in the type...but you could certainly do worse than one.

 

[Ghery]

I would second the Cherokee 235 or C-182 may be your best option. As for the C-182 nose wheel issue mentioned by another poster My opinion is just make sure pilots are not pushing the forward CG limits. Some Semi permanent weight (survival kit) in the baggage area can help with this. Perhaps others can offer more info on this.

I am not impressed with the Arrow as a cross country plane, it is a great trainer but generally not much better than a Cherokee 180 for cross country and has less payload. The 182RG is better performance wise but generally have limited payload compared to a 182.

Of course Mooneys and Bonanzas are in a another class. Insurance and additional maintenance costs are a factor to be seriously considered for retractable gear aircraft.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

IMO, an Arrow is a good complex trainer but not such a great traveling machine. It's pretty slow for a retractable and doesn't have much of a payload+range capability either. A fixed gear C-182 is as fast with a little higher fuel consumption, a lot more room and much greater payload.

If you can afford it, a Bonanza or M20J (Mooney 201) offer much more.

Our club has a 1969 PA-28R-200 and a 1973 C-182P (with the Q engine). They are about the same speed (182 is slightly faster). With full fuel (48 gal in the Arrow, 75 gal in the 182) the Arrow has a higher payload by about 50 pounds (from memory). As club rules require that we put them away with full tanks we really don't have the option of trading fuel for payload. The higher payload in the Arrow is primarily for cargo (and the 50 pounds I have to put in the baggage compartment with two adults up front to move the CG aft of the forward limit) as there is so little legroom in the back seat that I've never subjected anyone to it. The 182, on the other hand, has lots of room in the back seat. I've ridden there twice and at 6'2" was quite comfortable.

It may be me, but I cannot sit in the Arrow for more than 3 hours, and that is an absolute limit. It's all I can do to crawl out of it after that much time flying it. I'm not sure just what the cause is, but my knees are dead by then. The 182, on the other hand, causes me no discomfort at all. Just a big comfortable cross country cruising machine. I can't compare it with Cessna's larger offerings as I haven't had the pleasure of trying them. But in my limited list of aircraft flown (C-150, C-172, C-182, Arrow) it is the way to go.