Discuss these 3 please..

S

SinkorSwim

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
165
Location
St. Charles MO or WDW Fla
Display Name
Display name:
HFC1969
As I move closer and closer to purchasing... :blueplane:

Could I get the board to discuss the following 3 models..

All 1965's

C210 , S35 , Piper C260

They all seem to be fairly close in price... :dunno:

Usable load vs...

Speed...

Upkeep $$...
 
You'll find them all pretty much the same in those areas, with the differences primarily subjective. Only really good thing to do is fly them all and see which you (and your spouse, if you have one) like best.
 
I looked at similar aircraft, the PA32-260 is a beast and might be more afforable to upkeep due to the legs staying in the down position but I think they're more for hauling heavy stuff slowly. I looked into mid 60's 210s and since I'm low time the insurance was going to eat me alive. As of right now my next plane will likely be a Mid 60s Bo without hull insurance until I can get hours built up for it to be realistic.
 
I was assuming that C260 meant PA24-260, not PA32-260.
 
I fly a '66 PA-32-260.

Its got lots of leg room, lots of shoulder room, lots of seats, lots of baggage room and a HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE useful load.

My plane can actually carry 6 200lb adult sized adults.

I load it with the wife, the kids, the dog, full fuel, and 150lbs of camping gear and I'm still 400 lbs under gross.

Its not very fast. I get 130kts at 14gph.

Maintenance-wise it is just a long Cherokee. No surprises, just 2 extra cylinders on the engine. Otherwise everything else is almost identical to a PA-28.
 
I have owned a 64 210D, a 64 PA-24 250 and a 66 (or maybe a 64, can't remember S-35 Bo. All were decent airplanes. The Bo was the fastest but the most cramped, the 210 was the easiest to mount and the most comfortable seating but not quite as fast as the Bo, the Comanche was roomier but slower than the Bo or the 210.

The Comanche was the most difficult (physically to work on due to the inaccessability of the cables and stuff under the floorboards. I could be happy with any of them again, as long as the Comanche had 90-gal tanks. The Comanche was also the most expensive to maintain because it ate a valve and required a major overhaul while I owned it. That could have happened to either or both of the others as well, but didn't. Luck of the draw.
 
Last edited:
1) Whichever one had been treated to the best maintenance. If they tie ...
2) Then the one with the best avionics. If they still tie ...
3) Then the one with the best paint. If they still tie ...
4) Then the one with the best interior. If they still tie, revisit your conclusions because no three individual aircraft are that evenly matched.
 
I have heard in discussions that the S35 is perhaps the best rough strip retractable SE aircraft out there in its class, when considering the combination of tough gear, prop clearance, useful load, short field performance and other factors such as cruise speed.

But the Lake Amphibians have heavy trailing link gear. And the prop clearance isn't bad either :rofl:
 
wabower said:
I have owned a 64 210D, a 64 PA-24 250 and a 66 (or maybe a 64, can't remember S-35 Bo. All were decent airplanes. The Bo was the fastest but the most cramped, the 210 was the easiest to mount and the most comfortable seating but not quite as fast as the Bo, the Comanche was roomier but slower than the Bo or the 210.

The Comanche was the most difficult (physically to work on due to the inaccessability of the cables and stuff under the floorboards. I could be happy with any of them again, as long as the Comanche had 90-gal tanks. The Comanche was also the most expensive to maintain because it ate a valve and required a major overhaul while I owned it. That could have happened to either or both of the others as well, but didn't. Luck of the draw.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info...

When you say the Cessna was the easiest to "mount" what did you mean? :dunno:

alaskaflyer said:
I have heard in discussions that the S35 is perhaps the best rough strip retractable SE aircraft out there in its class, when considering the combination of tough gear, prop clearance, useful load, short field performance and other factors such as cruise speed.

But the Lake Amphibians have heavy trailing link gear. And the prop clearance isn't bad either :rofl:
Click to expand...

I really love the looks of the Beech.. :yesnod:
 
With two cabin doors, no wing to climb and no "scrooching over" from the passenger seat to the pilot seat required, no awkward reaching over (and or up) to lock the door after loading, the 210 is infinitely easier to load/unload passengers and crew. Loading during rain and hangar-space utilization are also much better with the high-wing planes.

Some who pump their own fuel prefer low-wings better since no ladders are involved. As with all such decisions, all of the trade-offs are personal decisions that must be made by the owner. I don't think a 210 would ever win a beauty contest against a Bo or Comanche.

SinkorSwim said:
Thanks for the info...

When you say the Cessna was the easiest to "mount" what did you mean? :dunno:



I really love the looks of the Beech.. :yesnod:
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
With two cabin doors, no wing to climb and no "scrooching over" from the passenger seat to the pilot seat required, no awkward reaching over (and or up) to lock the door after loading, the 210 is infinitely easier to load/unload passengers and crew. Loading during rain and hangar-space utilization are also much better with the high-wing planes.

Some who pump their own fuel prefer low-wings better since no ladders are involved. As with all such decisions, all of the trade-offs are personal decisions that must be made by the owner. I don't think a 210 would ever win a beauty contest against a Bo or Comanche.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse.. :mad2: having spent time in a Warrior,,,, should have remembered the seat scoot.. :D

Just trying to put together some homework on airplanes that are great family machines for $75K.. :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top