I think about planes sooo much

Bill Jennings said:
It does, but a lot of people seem to be down on them, claim they have bad corrosion problems, etc. If (no, when) I drop $80k on a plane, I want to have something decent. Maybe I need to get out and look at some, maybe beg rides???
Click to expand...

Mike Schneider has a Maule, but I forget which model. Mike, tell me abut your plane!

I noticed on their website they quote a 500ft landing roll over a 50ft obsticle, is that for real???
 
Bill Jennings said:
Mike Schneider has a Maule, but I forget which model. Mike, tell me abut your plane!

I noticed on their website they quote a 500ft landing roll over a 50ft obsticle, is that for real???
Click to expand...
Yep, at gross.

And if you move up to the O-540 powered model, a takeoff distance over 50' obstacle nearly as short.

There is a gentleman in Fairbanks that does dual in a 180 hp Maule, tailwheel checkouts in the summer, ski training in the winter.
 
I love LOVE Maules! You must get a tail wheel though if you get one :)
 
tonycondon said:
If Gastons is the shortest strip you are going to be going into, you really dont need an airplane designed for short fields. crikey its like 3300 feet long isnt it?
Click to expand...
Tony, I wasn't thinking about length when I mentioned Gaston's, just that Commanders should operate on grass no problem.

Troy Whistman said:
Oops. Joe crossed a line. Recommended a Commander 114 and got his account deleted!!
Click to expand...
Gary Miesch will really be in trouble then. Can we just go ahead and delete him, too? Bwahahahaha!

It's interesting so many Apache mentions. The fellow I bought my 112 from bought a '59 Apache w/180 hp engine upgrades. I think it does about 150 kts on about 15 gals/hr total, but I'm not totally sure. I'd have to ask him about its short/soft field performance. He says it won't kill ya either if you lose an engine.

The wallet, however, may be another issue altogether. Entry price is pretty cheap, though.


-Rich
 
woodstock said:
Richard, what is your avatar? It looks like a guy standing near a tent making the shush shush gesture with his hand. either that or a thumb's up. and I can't tell what he is holding - a clock?
Click to expand...
Being the overly sensitive person that I am, I went and cried a little, then found a better one.
 
got it rich, and even gastons isnt representative of most grass strips ive operated off. its awfully firm and smooth and the grass is pretty short. in iowa we have to dodge the molehills on takeoff/landing usually.
 
actually that is the Abbey filmed in the English Patient - Sant'Anna in Camprena. Where Hannah (played by Juliette Binoche) tended to Ralph Fiennes character.

The big pink bunny/dog I took in Venice.
 
the shadows are cypress trees. I'm actually standing in the shadow of one, so that the photo wouldn't show my shadow.
 
woodstock said:
actually that is the Abbey filmed in the English Patient - Sant'Anna in Camprena. Where Hannah (played by Juliette Binoche) tended to Ralph Fiennes character.

The big pink bunny/dog I took in Venice.
Click to expand...
Hmm...if an avatar is supposed to be the virtual embodiment of its user...
 
Have you considered the Cardinal RG II?? Lycoming 200hp IO-360.. ~11gph.. 1050 lb useful load.. ~145kts cruise.. <1000ft take-off run... <800ft landing roll..

Pretty good handling airplane. Easy to fly.. Easy to handle in IMC.. A little less fuel burn than Skylane.. HUGE doors for getting people/stuff in-and-out.. All-around not a bad airplane.. Haven't checked lately, but I think they were in the $75-100k range within the past few years..

Of course... the big CON is the Cessna retractable gear. In my PERSONAL experience, I have never had a problem with the gear, but I DO know that people have gotten into a 'lemon' type of deal with regards to maintenance.

Just another option to throw into the hat. :)

-Chris
 
Bill,
Personally, I like the Beech Sierra. I have close to 1200 hours in one particular airplane as a student, renter, instructor, and charter pilot. It's not fast but it's durable and importantly, reliable. Very simple systems and very stable for IFR work. Like all of the Beech Aero Club airplanes you have to be careful about firewall damage from bouncing off the nose gear but there is no special techniques to doing anything in this airplane. Find a well maintained example and I think you'll find pretty much what your looking for. The Mrs and the kids will like the roominess, two main entry doors. and the large baggage door. Think of it as the Buick Century of airplanes. Enjoy.
 
rpadula said:
Time for a Doc Bruce "Sigh." Joe is correctomundo -- Commander Premier opened it's factory parts department last week! (PDF)

I'm sure Bill Suffa will chime in on the pros/cons of the TC, but a few years ago some pilot mag did a story on the 112TC and they flew it into Gaston's for the photo shoot, so there you go.

Ya know, if you like the Commander, this almost cries out for a 112 with the Hot Shot turbonormalizer. My 112A has a 879 lb useful load (which is on the high side for the fleet, I think avg. is about 830 or so). Subtract 3*170 and you have 369 lbs (61 gals) left over for fuel. The Hot Shot wouldn't even bat an eye at that.


-Rich
Click to expand...

Yep, Parts is open. And best of all, the airplane owners own the majority stake in the company, which is professionally managed. So I'd not be so concerned about parts.

I like my TC.

It is a two-person airplane with full fuel. 3 with reduced fuel load. 4 if the two back-seaters are young kids.

There are some differences between factory TC and the Hotshot TN. They are mostly engine-related, the TN has a manually-controlled wastegate (as in, knob in the cockpit). The TC has a wastegate linked to the throttle. The TN is an STC on the stock IO360 engine on the 112/a/b, while the 112TC's factory engine has a factory TO360 engine that is carburated. You have to be careful on takeoff to avoid overboost (but unlike the T-Arrow which has a fixed wastegate, there isn't as much loss of efficiency because the wastegate moves with the throttle).

Yes, it can go into Gastons. I chose to use BPK for a number of reasons, but you can take it into Gastons.

The big difference between the 114 and the 112-series is the size of engine, which translates to climb rate and load. I want the turbocharger so I can go high - not everyone needs it.
 
Bill Jennings said:
How is the factory TC vs the Hot Shot? I know the HS has gotten lots of good press and word of mouth.
Click to expand...

See my other note.

The TC is legally a HP plane at 210 HP. The HS is legally at 200 HP. They do operate differently.

BTW, the single biggest drawback to the TC is that the engines are rarer than the IO360s. I've had no support issues, but it's a bit harder to find stocking Lycoming dealers.
 
Beech Sierra will NOT do a short field. Jesse's post is spot on. They are more like a Buick Electra that's been detuned to 125hp.
 
Ed, the Beech will meet the manufacturors performance numbers when flown by the manufacturors numbers. Your mileage obviously varies.
 
I know the Beech Sierra I flew with only a CFI, myself and 3/4 to full tanks, used over 1500' of paved runway before it even thought about getting into ground effect, at 600 MSL and standard temp. Thats all I can go by. And like Jesse said, the landings felt like a divebombing run.
 
Last edited:
There is no standard one size fits all distance for a "short field". What is short for a Sierra may seem like all day for a Cherokee. What's important is that you understand what your airplane will do when flown by the numbers when the numbers are important.
 
Correct John, but like Bill said, he wanted to get into 6Y9. He could get in with the Sierra, but not out. Not without a 30kt headwind.
 
It's been VERY quiet from the Mooney crowd in this thread. I need to fix that.

Bill, we got into/out of Gaston's with 3 adults, a fair amount of fuel and some luggage on very high density altitude days and didn't use that much of the grass to do it either. You'll get your speed and then some (using less fuel to do it with), and there's lots of good ones out there under your price point. OK, I don't suggest landing a Mooney on grass up to your knees, but don't count out Mooneys because of the grass aspect. (However, if acro moves up your wish list, I humbly withdraw the Mooney from the competition.:D )
 
Nothing against the Mooney, it just looks like there is no ground clearance. As opposed to the Commanders that seem to be on stilts. :)
 
I think the biggest thing is to rank what your needs are. If it's carrying people, short/soft fields and roughly 130kts. Get the 182.

If you 'might' do a short/soft field, but want speed. Maybe the Mooney edges out the 182.

As for the Beech Sierra, I'm going to have to go rent one to check it out myself.
 
CJones said:
Have you considered the Cardinal RG II?? Lycoming 200hp IO-360.. ~11gph.. 1050 lb useful load.. ~145kts cruise.. <1000ft take-off run... <800ft landing roll..
Click to expand...
You know, I was going to say that, but I thought the landing gear was so.... wobbly (and that was just during taxi) when I flew one years ago. IIRC, Cessna went from a flat style retrac. main gear leg on early 210's to a tube type (and the 172 and 177 RG inherited that round tube) that people said were less rugged. Don't remember hitting 145 kts either. Is that real or what the book says?

AirBaker said:
As opposed to the Commanders that seem to be on stilts.
Click to expand...
That's cause most owners overinflate the struts. Compensating for something, I think (especially Gary :rofl: ). Bwahahahahaha!


-Rich
 
rpadula said:
You know, I was going to say that, but I thought the landing gear was so.... wobbly (and that was just during taxi) when I flew one years ago. IIRC, Cessna went from a flat style retrac. main gear leg on early 210's to a tube type (and the 172 and 177 RG inherited that round tube) that people said were less rugged. Don't remember hitting 145 kts either. Is that real or what the book says?
Click to expand...


Yeah.. The gear is the hold-back for the Cardinal RG.. I HAVE taken it into grass strips, but I was very VERY careful about easy touch down and landing as SLOWLY as possible (just in case)...

The 145 kts is from the book (I just happened to have it laying by the desk when I posted).. I think we usually only got about 140kts.. Still pretty good with 4 people, 3 hrs of fuel, and enough luggage for a small army - or my mom and sis.. It was the first 'higher class tier' type of airplane I flew and I loved it from the first minute. It handled like a sports car as opposed to a pickup truck like the 172 & PA28-180. Of course, now that we have the RV, my standards have probably changed a bit. ha!

-Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top