Prop Strikes and Values

I flew the Mooney yesterday and I'm not entirely sure what I think about it. In terms of interior space, it's definitely more cramped than I thought it would be (F model) and I was shoulder to shoulder with the other guy. As far as how it flew, I'm not sure what to think. I was flying right seat and had to do everything. I've never flown anything right seat and I've never flown a Mooney so that made for an interesting experience, especially when I couldn't see the gauges that well. The engine didn't seem to idle very well on the ground but I'm not sure if there's a specific setting Mooney's are supposed to be at and this guy didn't know what he was doing or if there was something wrong with the engine.

Once we got it up and leveled out it seemed to fly just fine. It seemed pretty smooth though I'm not a fan of that wing leveler, or at least not from the right seat. Overall I didn't get a good impression of it and I think it may have had more to do with the guy I was flying with rather than the plane itself. I haven't ruled it out but I'm going to keep looking at others.
 
LevelWing said:
I flew the Mooney yesterday and I'm not entirely sure what I think about it. In terms of interior space, it's definitely more cramped than I thought it would be (F model) and I was shoulder to shoulder with the other guy. As far as how it flew, I'm not sure what to think. I was flying right seat and had to do everything. I've never flown anything right seat and I've never flown a Mooney so that made for an interesting experience, especially when I couldn't see the gauges that well. The engine didn't seem to idle very well on the ground but I'm not sure if there's a specific setting Mooney's are supposed to be at and this guy didn't know what he was doing or if there was something wrong with the engine.

Once we got it up and leveled out it seemed to fly just fine. It seemed pretty smooth though I'm not a fan of that wing leveler, or at least not from the right seat. Overall I didn't get a good impression of it and I think it may have had more to do with the guy I was flying with rather than the plane itself. I haven't ruled it out but I'm going to keep looking at others.
Click to expand...


Fly a Bonanza :)
 
If you were buying a new airplane and had the choice between a new Mooney, new Bonanza, a new Cessna 210 and a new Comanche then yes you might like the Bonanza best as they are known for great flight and landing characteristics. The are not perfect and they have their warts but that is another matter.

The thing is we are shopping for used airplanes and we need to be as flexible as possible to find something in a reasonable amount of time. So I looked at all models that I did not specifically rule out. It was a matter of chance as to which I bought ultimately.

If i found a good deal on a 172 rather than a Cherokee all would be different today.

Mooneys are tight but you get 155 knots out of 10-11 gph ROP. Bonanza might be the best feel on the flight controls and they say that Bonanza always make their pilots look good. Mooneys and Comanches fly well but landings require a bit more finesse out of the pilot. 210s are great for what they are load hauling venue but a bit heavy on the controls. Vikings are slick, fast, fun to fly not as tight of cabin as the Mooney but still tighter than a Bonanza, Comanche or 210.

When shopping to buy one, fly as many models as you can and as many models within each brand as possible. It will all come together.

If the plane fits your mission, your butt size and your wallet you cannot make a bad choice IMO.
 
LevelWing said:
Why do you say that?
Click to expand...

If you're OK with a low wing retract 200HP certified plane, but the Mooney is cramped, I think you'll find the Bonanza is a lot more roomy, it feels roomier than than my Nissan Frontier pickup and not quite as roomy as my Tundra. You sit up like driving a truck, not down low like a sports car. I've never shared shoulder space with a passenger and I'm not narrow. A Mooney is more efficient for traveling, 10-11GPH for 155knots (or so I hear), a 260HP variant Bo, rigged right will do 162 knots@13.5GPH. I plan for 160knots@14GPH that's ROP, people claim better efficiency running LOP (but slower). After going from 100HP to 150HP to 260HP. I'm not going to turn down horsepower either. I like my IO-470N but I'd put an IO-550 in it in a heartbeat. My research says that your odds of finding a nicer panel in a given fleet will be in a Bonanza too. I loved my Cherokee, but I wish I had bought the Bonanza first. I am "satisfied" now. I looked at Mooneys, 182RGs, 182s, Comanche's etc.. and wound up with the Bo other people wind up with different things. But the first time I got in a Bo, I knew I wasn't looking for nuthin' else. My wife did too. I honestly think a Bonanza is easier to fly than a C-172 or PA28.
 
Last edited:
I'm currently looking at a Mooney and a Cherokee 180. The Cherokee is a little less expensive (by a few grand) but I really like the idea of the Mooney's manual retract. I haven't seen the Cherokee yet (hopefully this weekend), but I'm a little torn. The avionics in the Cherokee are way better, but it's only a little bit cheaper and definitely slower. Either one fits my mission (IFR training, hour building and traveling) and both fit my budget. Both are good on P&I and I could eventually upgrade avionics to something better in the Mooney. I'm beginning to think that if I got the Cherokee I'll regret not getting the Mooney later on.
 
LevelWing said:
I'm currently looking at a Mooney and a Cherokee 180. The Cherokee is a little less expensive (by a few grand) but I really like the idea of the Mooney's manual retract. I haven't seen the Cherokee yet (hopefully this weekend), but I'm a little torn. The avionics in the Cherokee are way better, but it's only a little bit cheaper and definitely slower. Either one fits my mission (IFR training, hour building and traveling) and both fit my budget. Both are good on P&I and I could eventually upgrade avionics to something better in the Mooney. I'm beginning to think that if I got the Cherokee I'll regret not getting the Mooney later on.
Click to expand...

If I were looking for a plane, I'd be on the phone with this guy..

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_810723_Very+clean+N35+Bonanza.html

OK, I'll quit with the Bonanza talk, lest I become "Certified Geico/Jay Honeck"
 
bartmc said:
If you're OK with a low wing retract 200HP certified plane, but the Mooney is cramped, I think you'll find the Bonanza is a lot more roomy, it feels roomier than than my Nissan Frontier pickup and not quite as roomy as my Tundra. You sit up like driving a truck, not down low like a sports car. I've never shared shoulder space with a passenger and I'm not narrow. A Mooney is more efficient for traveling, 10-11GPH for 155knots (or so I hear), a 260HP variant Bo, rigged right will do 162 knots@13.5GPH. I plan for 160knots@14GPH that's ROP, people claim better efficiency running LOP (but slower). After going from 100HP to 150HP to 260HP. I'm not going to turn down horsepower either. I like my IO-470N but I'd put an IO-550 in it in a heartbeat. My research says that your odds of finding a nicer panel in a given fleet will be in a Bonanza too. I loved my Cherokee, but I wish I had bought the Bonanza first. I am "satisfied" now. I looked at Mooneys, 182RGs, 182s, Comanche's etc.. and wound up with the Bo other people wind up with different things. But the first time I got in a Bo, I knew I wasn't looking for nuthin' else. My wife did too. I honestly think a Bonanza is easier to fly than a C-172 or PA28.
Click to expand...


You missed 'bigger windows to see out of.'
 
I put a Mooney through a pre-buy and the mechanic stopped after he looked at the logs. The plane just came out of annual so I'm not sure how everything he told me was missed. The owner told me there was no damage history but the mechanic found otherwise. The mechanic also isn't sure what engine is in the plane given how the log books read. Either way, there's a ton of work that needs to be done.

This is the second plane I've put into a pre-buy and both haven't even made it past the log book check stage. I'm not sure where my decision making is going wrong on my plane choices. I'm not picking random planes out of the blue and going forward with pre-buy's but I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong.
 
"Fly a Bonanza"

LevelWing said:
Why do you say that?
Click to expand...

Why not? You are in the market so asking for a test flight isn't out of the question (but always offer to pay for fuel). Better to rule it out from first hand experience then OWT's.

If i was looking for a 4 seat retractable, absolutely positively that would be getting my first attention (I've flown both Mooney's and V tail Bonanza's).
 
Last edited:
Tony_Scarpelli said:
If you were buying a new airplane and had the choice between a new Mooney, new Bonanza, a new Cessna 210 and a new Comanche then yes you might like the Bonanza best as they are known for great flight and landing characteristics. The are not perfect and they have their warts but that is another matter.

The thing is we are shopping for used airplanes and we need to be as flexible as possible to find something in a reasonable amount of time. So I looked at all models that I did not specifically rule out. It was a matter of chance as to which I bought ultimately.

If i found a good deal on a 172 rather than a Cherokee all would be different today.

Mooneys are tight but you get 155 knots out of 10-11 gph ROP. Bonanza might be the best feel on the flight controls and they say that Bonanza always make their pilots look good. Mooneys and Comanches fly well but landings require a bit more finesse out of the pilot. 210s are great for what they are load hauling venue but a bit heavy on the controls. Vikings are slick, fast, fun to fly not as tight of cabin as the Mooney but still tighter than a Bonanza, Comanche or 210.

When shopping to buy one, fly as many models as you can and as many models within each brand as possible. It will all come together.

If the plane fits your mission, your butt size and your wallet you cannot make a bad choice IMO.
Click to expand...

Tony you find your comanche tricky to land? Hitting speed is the key on the old Indian never fell like the old boy was harder than any other plane to land :dunno::dunno:
 
Comanche flyer said:
And be sure to get a v tail so safe and no many ad's such of good value :rofl::rofl::rofl: :mad2::goofy:
Click to expand...

Not as many pricey ADs as a Comanche, and the factory still supports it, you won't be waiting on someone in Australia to rescue you. I'll take my Bo's AD list over a Comanche any day and twice on sunday.
 
Definitely for mine, absolutely no question. LF wings are a double-edge sword. Especially in shear conditions or when pilots are distracted. Whomp!

I've only seen a few landing-induced bent wings in the shop for repairs, all have been Comanches. Not that C's B's and M's don't suffer some abuse, but not tot he same extent.

Comanche flyer said:
Tony you find your comanche tricky to land? Hitting speed is the key on the old Indian never fell like the old boy was harder than any other plane to land :dunno::dunno:
Click to expand...
 
Comanche flyer said:
Tony you find your comanche tricky to land? Hitting speed is the key on the old Indian never fell like the old boy was harder than any other plane to land :dunno::dunno:
Click to expand...

No I really do not. As a matter of fact if I get in after 100 days of not flying I still pull out a greaser 3 times in a row. But I suspect that I am a much better pilot than most Bonanza pilots. I think guys with slopy pilot skills like Bonanzas as they cover up a bit of that for them.
 
Then you really do not know what you are talking about.

Bonanza's are good planes but if you compare a 62 Bonanza to my 62 Comanche side by side the maintenance will be higher on the Bonanza than the Comanche. Ad lists are almost the same. Beechcraft parts bring tears to your eyes if not a nose bleed.

There is now a 1000 AD to inspect the landing gear. This cna cost next to nothing if you keep your plane up. If you neglect it could cost you a dime or two. If you are flying a 210 or Bonanza without doing some serious inspections on your landing gear than you will be up for a rude awakening some day. Do you nct have power pack to exchange, rebuild?

There is a Hartzel prop ad to inspect every 5 years and 500 hrs but that can be changed by upgrading prop and that is the same on Bonanza's and 210's.

Now there is a 500 or 1000 hr inspection on tail horns. Mainly created by some clown in California who pressed off horns rather than heating them before removal. He has found 75 % of the faults mainly because he has created them in the opinion of many knowledgeable Comanche experts.

If we look at the Service bulletins from Piper and Bonanza as well as ADs and servicability difficulty reports from mechanics submitted to FAA the Bonanza has more issue than the Comanche. At least according to Aviation Consumer.

There is more maintenance cost variability between owners than between aircraft models. I know people who spend 2-3x what I do and have worse maintenance on their aircraft. There are people who pay 1/2 of what I do or less because they are able to dig in and do much of the work themselves...something I do not do.

But I think your claim is grossly inaccurate and reflects a naivety about Bonanza maintenance.

Every mechanic I have ever spoken to hate to work on Bonanza's as the bottom cowling doesn't come off. It ads hours to routine maintenance. It is crowded compared to Comanches and 210s.

I spent 3 long years inquiring with every IA and A&P that I could find while I owned my Cherokee about which 60's model aircraft would be the most and least expensive to maintain. Cessna 210 built in Wichita, the Bonanzi also built in Wichita and the Comanche. To my surprise none of the local 20-30 mechanics I knew picked the 210 nor the Bonanza. Thus my decision to find and buy a Comanche. This is not ideal gossup or bragging. I did a thorough investigation and it was not even a close call.

bartmc said:
Not as many pricey ADs as a Comanche, and the factory still supports it, you won't be waiting on someone in Australia to rescue you. I'll take my Bo's AD list over a Comanche any day and twice on sunday.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Are 1958-1960 Bonanza's even worth looking at? I'm not sure I like the idea of getting a plane from the 1950's but in reality it's only a few years difference from what I've been looking at (mid-late 60's).
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
Then you really do not know what you are talking about.

Bonanza's are good planes but if you compare a 62 Bonanza to my 62 Comanche side by side the maintenance will be higher on the Bonanza than the Comanche. Ad lists are almost the same. Beechcraft parts bring tears to your eyes if not a nose bleed.
Click to expand...

I would surmise that you don't know what you're talking about. My co-worker owned a comanche, after 2 years worth of MX bills? He sold his..wasn't even close. I'm glad you're happy with your comanche, I ran the numbers and doubled checked them with more than one Mechanic. Bonanza won. My initial search was for a Comanche. The ICS had their Comanche fly-in at my airport. I almost hit the ground laughing at the Twikie owners telling me how much cheaper their twinkies were to run than my Bonanza... The ICS forums must me full of it.

My intent was to buy a Comanche: See Here. http://www.piperforum.com/f17/comanche-250-a-134/

The numbers didn't work.

Sure just like Piper, the Beech parts are pricey. Who buys them? I sure haven't other than some bushings and exhaust hangars that totaled up to less than $100.00.

Kristin in the thread above is a well respected Comanche expert

Kristin said:
The most expensive AD is the 1000 hour gear inspection which runs $3,000 plus or minus.

....
The gear AD is the only one that has any significant expense to it. It is 1000 hours and runs around $3,000. I expect we will get a terminating action on the tail AD. In the meantime, that adds a couple of bucks an hour.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
I would surmise that you don't know what you're talking about. My co-worker owned a comanche, after 2 years worth of MX bills? He sold his..wasn't even close. I'm glad you're happy with your comanche, I ran the numbers and doubled checked them with more than one Mechanic. Bonanza won. My initial search was for a Comanche. The ICS had their Comanche fly-in at my airport. I almost hit the ground laughing at the Twikie owners telling me how much cheaper their twinkies were to run than my Bonanza... The ICS forums must me full of it.

My intent was to buy a Comanche: See Here. http://www.piperforum.com/f17/comanche-250-a-134/

The numbers didn't work.

Sure just like Piper, the Beech parts are pricey. Who buys them? I sure haven't other than some bushings and exhaust hangars that totaled up to less than $100.00.
Click to expand...

I've seen my share of Beech Bonanzas that are maintenance pigs. Although some Beech owners will try to convince everyone of the supposed quality of Beech, if the airplane is not maintained properly over time they too become a maintenance nightmare.

This applies to any GA airplane. Skimp on the maintenance and it becomes evident over time. And GA pilot/owners are notorious for deferring or skipping maintenance.

This discussion of how much cheaper a (_____) over a (______) is pure
BS.gif
 
RotorAndWing said:
I've seen my share of Beech Bonanzas that are maintenance pigs. Although some Beech owners will try to convince everyone of the supposed quality of Beech, if the airplane is not maintained properly over time they too become a maintenance nightmare.

This applies to any GA airplane. Skimp on the maintenance and it becomes evident over time.

This discussion of how much cheaper a (_____) over a (______) is pure
BS.gif
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, you're talking a skymaster, those things are cheaper to operate than Cessna 150s. :D

Seriously though, Tony threw out "expect" $3000/yr MX on a Bo in another thread.... if that were the case, mine would have a for sale sign hanging on the prop right now. I practically begged a well respected BPPP mechanic to use a microscope on mine and find any first annual issues. He found em' $2,600 was the bill I paid. He found tons of crap wrong, even had to buy a few of those limited edition 24K gold minted beech parts.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I've seen my share of Beech Bonanzas that are maintenance pigs. Although some Beech owners will try to convince everyone of the supposed quality of Beech, if the airplane is not maintained properly over time they too become a maintenance nightmare.

This applies to any GA airplane. Skimp on the maintenance and it becomes evident over time. And GA pilot/owners are notorious for deferring or skipping maintenance.

This discussion of how much cheaper a (_____) over a (______) is pure
BS.gif
Click to expand...

That's about right, cost of forward going maintenance is more about condition and care than brand, there is no plane that is cheap to bring back once it's been allowed to degrade. That said, for many years Bonanzas cost 3 times what a Comanche cost and Comanches were considered a 'poor man's Bonanza' and often suffered for it while their Bonanza counterparts typically had more money in care and upgrades lavished on them. So it's easier to find a Bonanza in good condition than a Comanche, although top quality and rags of both models are out there.
 
Henning said:
That's about right, cost of forward going maintenance is more about condition and care than brand, there is no plane that is cheap to bring back once it's been allowed to degrade. That said, for many years Bonanzas cost 3 times what a Comanche cost and Comanches were considered a 'poor man's Bonanza' and often suffered for it while their Bonanza counterparts typically had more money in care and upgrades lavished on them. So it's easier to find a Bonanza in good condition than a Comanche, although top quality and rags of both models are out there.
Click to expand...

Which is a lot of the reason why my search began for a Comanche and ended with a Bonanza in my hangar.
 
Henning said:
That's about right, cost of forward going maintenance is more about condition and care than brand, there is no plane that is cheap to bring back once it's been allowed to degrade. That said, for many years Bonanzas cost 3 times what a Comanche cost and Comanches were considered a 'poor man's Bonanza' and often suffered for it while their Bonanza counterparts typically had more money in care and upgrades lavished on them. So it's easier to find a Bonanza in good condition than a Comanche, although top quality and rags of both models are out there.
Click to expand...

And many Bonanza's were purchased by people who couldn't afford them and also skipped maintenance in favor of putting the latest "enhancements" and gadgets in them.

The whole argument that (_____) is cheaper to maintain than (_____) is by people who don't understand what they are talking about and rely upon "internet myths" to make their decisions.
 
RotorAndWing said:
And many Bonanza's were purchased by people who couldn't afford them and also skipped maintenance in favor of putting the latest "enhancements" and gadgets in them.

The whole argument that (_____) is cheaper to maintain than (_____) is by people who don't understand what they are talking about and rely upon "internet myths" to make their decisions.
Click to expand...

I paid more than one mechanic to tell the owner as much.
 
Bart do you watch Fox News by any chance? Because you seem to be in a habit of getting the wrong facts from the wrong places so I just was wondering? That inspection you claim is $3k, I had that done for $400 by webco the Comanche specialists 3 years ago.

A twinkie is a contraction from the words Twin-Comanche so it has little in resemblance to the Comanche about like a Baron does to a N35. While the Comanches are 2550 for 180hp, 2800-3200 lbs GW for 250-260;s the Twinkies are 3850 lbs plus many have wing tips tanks bringing them to 4050 lbs it is the identical landing gear for a 180hp Comanche and the twin Comanche so it may be possible their inspections might require more parts to bring it up to par. However $3k is a gross rounded up number that represents about 100% new parts replacing everything like a factory new engine compared to an OH'd one. It is not reflective of real inspections. But you couldn't know that if you did not speak to a half dozen guys who already have done it. BTW what is the 1000 hr landing gear maintenance on a Bonanza landing gear? Do you want to guess?

Also the inspection is 8 hrs or less- $400...that is it. Whether Kristen spends $3k or not I cannot tell you but she also lives in Los Angles so that number means nothing at all other than what attorneys living in LA might pay for a full 100% rebuild of their landing gear including some conduits and other nice to have things. You would have to put in parts that are not even part of the inspection AD to get above $1000: two landing gear conduits and a landing gear electrical harness to get to that.

Webco said if I replace every part inspected in the AD it would be $1000 in parts and that would have to be a plane that has had no maintenance on the landing gear or landed in mud and neglected. So maybe you do not know what you are talking about.

So you let one friends incident make you buy a plane with an ugly panel? Maybe should have flown and looked at a couple of Comanches and spoke with some real owners. But you would rather say that everyone on International Comanche Society is full of it than consider the possibility that your friend had a lemon and/or incompetent mechanic?

I am glad you talked to more than one mechanic on the issue as I spoke with between 20-30 around here and these guys know Bonanza's they are made up the block from my airport. Most of us have toured the Bonanza line.

Most mechanics do not like to work on Bonanza's.

bartmc said:
I would surmise that you don't know what you're talking about. My co-worker owned a comanche, after 2 years worth of MX bills? He sold his..wasn't even close. I'm glad you're happy with your comanche, I ran the numbers and doubled checked them with more than one Mechanic. Bonanza won. My initial search was for a Comanche. The ICS had their Comanche fly-in at my airport. I almost hit the ground laughing at the Twikie owners telling me how much cheaper their twinkies were to run than my Bonanza... The ICS forums must me full of it.

My intent was to buy a Comanche: See Here. http://www.piperforum.com/f17/comanche-250-a-134/

The numbers didn't work.

Sure just like Piper, the Beech parts are pricey. Who buys them? I sure haven't other than some bushings and exhaust hangars that totaled up to less than $100.00.

Kristin in the thread above is a well respected Comanche expert
Click to expand...

Kristin is an attorney who took a volunteer office that no one wanted to take. I could be the Mid states Tribal Chief If I would raise my hand....Doesn't make me more of an expert than the 10k other Comanche owners. Although I probably know more about Turbo Comanches than 99% of them.
 
Last edited:
LevelWing said:
Are 1958-1960 Bonanza's even worth looking at? I'm not sure I like the idea of getting a plane from the 1950's but in reality it's only a few years difference from what I've been looking at (mid-late 60's).
Click to expand...

I don't like the fuel system setup on them. Other than that, why not?

I have an N but a P or S would be more desirable.

Don't back up too much from there or you start running into the E engine and/or carbureators. I'd stick with the IO-470 or newer variants.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
Bart do you watch Fox News by any chance? Because you seem to be in a habit of getting the wrong facts from the wrong places so I just was wondering? That inspection you claim is $3k, I had that done for $400 by webco the Comanche specialists 3 years ago.

A twinkie is a contraction from the words Twin-Comanche so it has little in resemblance to the Comanche about like a Baron does to a N35. While the Comanches are 2550 for 180hp, 2800-3200 lbs GW for 250-260;s the Twinkies are 3850 lbs plus many have wing tips tanks bringing them to 4050 lbs it is the identical landing gear for a 180hp Comanche and the twin Comanche so it may be possible their inspections might require more parts to bring it up to par. However $3k is a gross rounded up number that represents about 100% new parts replacing everything like a factory new engine compared to an OH'd one. It is not reflective of real inspections. But you couldn't know that if you did not speak to a half dozen guys who already have done it. BTW what is the 1000 hr landing gear maintenance on a Bonanza landing gear? Do you want to guess?

Also the inspection is 8 hrs or less- $400...that is it. Whether Kristen spends $3k or not I cannot tell you but she also lives in Los Angles so that number means nothing at all other than what attorneys living in LA might pay for a full 100% rebuild of their landing gear including some conduits and other nice to have things. You would have to put in parts that are not even part of the inspection AD to get above $1000: two landing gear conduits and a landing gear electrical harness to get to that.

Webco said if I replace every part inspected in the AD it would be $1000 in parts and that would have to be a plane that has had no maintenance on the landing gear or landed in mud and neglected. So maybe you do not know what you are talking about.

So you let one friends incident make you buy a plane with an ugly panel? Maybe should have flown and looked at a couple of Comanches and spoke with some real owners. But you would rather say that everyone on International Comanche Society is full of it than consider the possibility that your friend had a lemon and/or incompetent mechanic?

I am glad you talked to more than one mechanic on the issue as I spoke with between 20-30 around here and these guys know Bonanza's they are made up the block from my airport. Most of us have toured the Bonanza line.

Most mechanics do not like to work on Bonanza's.



Kristin is an attorney who took a volunteer office that no one wanted to take. I could be the Mid states Tribal Chief If I would raise my hand....Doesn't make me more of an expert than the 10k other Comanche owners. Although I probably know more about Turbo Comanches than 99% of them.
Click to expand...

You got it right tony, I shopped for a Comanche for 2 years yet base my Comanche opinion off one guy I met after I bought the Bo. :rolleyes:

I'm sure the ICS Is great for Comanche knowledge, their members out on the ramp that day could use a brushing up on their Bonanza knowledge though.
 
bartmc said:
I don't like the fuel system setup on them. Other than that, why not?

I have an N but a P or S would be more desirable.

Don't back up too much from there or you start running into the E engine and/or carbureators. I'd stick with the IO-470 or newer variants.
Click to expand...
What models should I be looking at that can be reasonably had for around $45k or less? I'd prefer no earlier than 1958 and even that seems pretty old. Fuel injection would be nice if possible. What kind of fuel burn do they get?
 
LevelWing said:
What models should I be looking at that can be reasonably had for around $45k or less? I'd prefer no earlier than 1958 and even that seems pretty old. Fuel injection would be nice if possible. What kind of fuel burn do they get?
Click to expand...

$45 or less? Doubt you're going to find much good after 1960, look into the K models with an IO-470 and panel upgrade.
 
bartmc said:
You got it right tony, I shopped for a Comanche for 2 years yet base my Comanche opinion off one guy I met after I bought the Bo. :rolleyes:

I'm sure the ICS Is great for Comanche knowledge, their members out on the ramp that day could use a brushing up on their Bonanza knowledge though.
Click to expand...

That does not surprise me. I think if we infiltrated Mooney head quarters we would be surprised to hear they were plotting against both of us.:) Group think, stories, rumar mills have a way of developing our own legends.

It sounds like, for whatever reason, you got a great Bonanza specimen and have every reason to be ecstatic. You avoided the dreaded first year annual that many many face so that says something about the maintenance and character of your seller and your plane.

I could easily have bought a Cherokee 6, Bonanza or Cessna 210 had the right one crossed my path before N7985P did. The Comanche was my first choice because of feedback I got but just like I sometimes buy Chevys and sometimes buy Toyotas when buying used I will drive other things.:) The fact that Consumer reports likes Hondas and toyotas doesn't mean that I will not still be thrilled with my 72 Lemans classic.

We get so pixilated in our discussions it is easy to lose site that most of us would rather fly just about anything than not fly. You will notice I began my first comments in 62 Debonair that it was a great plane/partnership to go after....dispite the tiny things that annoy me about the breed. Just to keep it in perspective.
 
LevelWing said:
What models should I be looking at that can be reasonably had for around $45k or less? I'd prefer no earlier than 1958 and even that seems pretty old. Fuel injection would be nice if possible. What kind of fuel burn do they get?
Click to expand...

you MIGHT slip into an N in that range. Don't expect a lot of christmas lights in the panel. I started off with $45K in mind, I spent substantially more than that to get a good specimin. There was a Green N on barnstormers in the past few weeks that didn't look like it was going to last long. It didn't. Keep an ear to the ground and keep looking.
 
bartmc said:
you MIGHT slip into an N in that range. Don't expect a lot of christmas lights in the panel. I started off with $45K in mind, I spent substantially more than that to get a good specimin. There was a Green N on barnstormers in the past few weeks that didn't look like it was going to last long. It didn't. Keep an ear to the ground and keep looking.
Click to expand...
I found a few N models (among others) that fit my price range but most have right around 1,000 hours and from what I've seen, the recommended TBO is right around 1500 hours. It almost seems like I should be looking for a Super Viking at this rate (I'm sure the comparison between a Bonanza and a Super Viking aren't valid).
 
LevelWing said:
I found a few N models (among others) that fit my price range but most have right around 1,000 hours and from what I've seen, the recommended TBO is right around 1500 hours. It almost seems like I should be looking for a Super Viking at this rate (I'm sure the comparison between a Bonanza and a Super Viking aren't valid).
Click to expand...

Most planes are a trade off between speed, useful load, comfort, range, upkeep and styling. The Viking is extraordinary in that it trades all of them off in return for nothing. There's a reason why a late 70s 300HP low time decent equipped viking goes for 1/5th of what a Bonanza does. If you buy one, be sure you like it, you can't give them away. It needs to be hangared and babied, is slow for the fuel burn, cramped, doesn't haul much and is ugly. Owners will tell you how great they "handle". I would compare that with that girl your buddy's girlfriend wanted to set you up with that had " a great personality".

TBO is 1500, Conti's have a rep for needing cylinders here and there. An IO-470 surpassing the TBO mark is more common than not. That said, I'm with you at TBO, I don't expect the engine to owe me anything.

Keep lookin'. That N35 on Barnstormers looked sweet and looked like a deal. They pop up.
 
bartmc said:
Most planes are a trade off between speed, useful load, comfort, range, upkeep and styling. The Viking is extraordinary in that it trades all of them off in return for nothing. There's a reason why a late 70s 300HP low time decent equipped viking goes for 1/5th of what a Bonanza does. If you buy one, be sure you like it, you can't give them away. It needs to be hangared and babied, is slow for the fuel burn, cramped, doesn't haul much and is ugly. Owners will tell you how great they "handle". I would compare that with that girl your buddy's girlfriend wanted to set you up with that had " a great personality".

TBO is 1500, Conti's have a rep for needing cylinders here and there. An IO-470 surpassing the TBO mark is more common than not. That said, I'm with you at TBO, I don't expect the engine to owe me anything.

Keep lookin'. That N35 on Barnstormers looked sweet and looked like a deal. They pop up.
Click to expand...

So which Vikings have you owned? How much time do you have flying them?
 
RotorAndWing said:
So which Vikings have you owned? How much time do you have flying them?
Click to expand...

Hangared beside one for a year, other than the groovy interior, not much going for it. The market is great at assigning values, and much like a Sky Master, you can't give them away.
 
bartmc said:
Hangared beside one for a year, other than the groovy interior, not much going for it. The market is great at assigning values, and much like a Sky Master, you can't give them away.
Click to expand...


Ah, OK. So being in a hangar next to one (not actually owning or having even flown one) makes one an authority on said model.

Right............:rolleyes2:

Your post should have started "I read on the internet"........ :rofl:
 
RotorAndWing said:
Ah, OK. So being in a hangar next to one (not actually owning or having even flown one) makes one an authority on said model.

Right............:rolleyes2:

Your post should have started "I read on the internet"........ :rofl:
Click to expand...

I offered to race him any time he wanted, because "he had a few knots on me"
I'm not sure if he didn't want to put that theory to the test or if he didn't want to put the cowling back on. I'm not a veternarian, but I know a horses ass when I see one. I also have never owned or driven a Reliant Robin, but I'm pretty sure it's not as good as a Porche 911. The market value will typically let you know. There's no deals in aviation, the Viking isn't the exception. I'm also sure I didn't want to hook up with my buddy's girlfriend's fat friend because she had a good personality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top