wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
AFAIK, not for the 112TC. And the low number of planes makes it expensive to do an STC. Alternate engine STCs exist for the non-turbo models (112/A/B, 114/A/B). There are also TN kits for the 112/A/B.
Restarting The Search
- Thread starter GMascelli
- Start date
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Is that why another Debbie isn't on the table?
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,998
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
I think it's more because he wants to go back to two doors, but I 100% understand the sentiment if a particular engine variant betrayed me. The IO-470 seems more resilient to lunching itself compared to the -520 variants as a generality. The 520 has gone through a bajillion ADs and re-works. VAR cranks, light cases, AD on every possible iteration of cylinders, you name it. 470 variants seem to have a much simpler and consistent history by comparison, with the cylinders being the achilles heel for Conti as a generality. But we still don't know what happened on this accident. Could be something as unrelated as bladder wrinkles introducing water into the engine on takeoff. Nobody knows. As someone interested in owning an airplane equipped with the IO-470, I'm certainly interested in hearing the specific angle to the engine regarding this accident.
Six banger Lycomings in the Lance and 6-300 have had their share of failures, some frozen/galling-related failures on con-rods, others associated with that ghastly siamese mag. The rest dealing with contamination of the injection lines, leading to fuel starvation, which in theory can happen on any fuel injected application. So there's certainly no guarantee the brand will save you, but as a Lycoming guy, I agree those Conti cylinders are a known quantity when it comes to inflight grenading. That is if this engine actually grenaded itself. Again, we haven't seen the evidence, the preliminary was useless.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Gary, I’m glad to see you looking at airplanes. It’s therapeutic in its own way.
You’ve outlined some good requirements that make sense. I would agree with sticking to Lycoming power. I would also suggest not getting anything with a turbo. They add significant maintenance whether a Lycoming or Continental and you won’t see a benefit. A naturally aspirated 540 is about as bulletproof as they come. The Commander 114 seems a good option. Talk to @AdamB about the Trinidad. His seemed to be a maintenance hog and the annuals were in line with what I was paying on the 310 at the same time period, and I was at least doing upgrades with the annual. That said I enjoyed flying it when I was in. Felt like an earlier Cirrus.
Oh, and if you do end up looking at the SRs, I wouldn’t go with a 20. I’m not a fan of the Continental 360. 550 is a much better engine.
I know you’re not high wing people, but with the 2 door requirement (which I agree is a good idea for you) I would at least be open to flying in a 182RG and 177RG. I was a low wing guy for almost 3,000 hours. I have really enjoyed the high wing aspects of the MU-2. It’s fun to see the ground again, something I haven’t seen much of for most of my flying career.
You’ve outlined some good requirements that make sense. I would agree with sticking to Lycoming power. I would also suggest not getting anything with a turbo. They add significant maintenance whether a Lycoming or Continental and you won’t see a benefit. A naturally aspirated 540 is about as bulletproof as they come. The Commander 114 seems a good option. Talk to @AdamB about the Trinidad. His seemed to be a maintenance hog and the annuals were in line with what I was paying on the 310 at the same time period, and I was at least doing upgrades with the annual. That said I enjoyed flying it when I was in. Felt like an earlier Cirrus.
Oh, and if you do end up looking at the SRs, I wouldn’t go with a 20. I’m not a fan of the Continental 360. 550 is a much better engine.
I know you’re not high wing people, but with the 2 door requirement (which I agree is a good idea for you) I would at least be open to flying in a 182RG and 177RG. I was a low wing guy for almost 3,000 hours. I have really enjoyed the high wing aspects of the MU-2. It’s fun to see the ground again, something I haven’t seen much of for most of my flying career.
GMascelli
En-Route
At least it keeps me focused. I agree, no turbo needed for us. I always like the ‘keep it simple stupid’ method.
GMascelli
En-Route
Two reasons, we would rather have two doors and I would rather Lycoming power.
AdamB
Pre-takeoff checklist
Yeah I don’t know if mine was just a lemon, or what, but I was certainly glad to have 4 others to help pay for things.
For the first 7 years of our 8 year ownership our all in (all costs included) was approx $330/hr
That doesn’t factor in our Avidyne radio upgrade to get WAAS.
That’s about $80-$100/hour more than what I was expecting to pay for a high performance piston single of its class.
On the 8th year we spent another $30k prior to selling due to the turbo needing to get replaced and a few other high dollar items. (Granted it was due)
We always had intentions on getting the thing painted, as it badly needed it, but you can see why we kept holding off year after year.
For the first 7 years of our 8 year ownership our all in (all costs included) was approx $330/hr
That doesn’t factor in our Avidyne radio upgrade to get WAAS.
That’s about $80-$100/hour more than what I was expecting to pay for a high performance piston single of its class.
On the 8th year we spent another $30k prior to selling due to the turbo needing to get replaced and a few other high dollar items. (Granted it was due)
We always had intentions on getting the thing painted, as it badly needed it, but you can see why we kept holding off year after year.
GMascelli
En-Route
Bill, thanks for the info. I'm thinking the 114A is the way to go for our mission and budget.
Just starting the search so there is plenty for me to research. I may have to pick your brain for a few things
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
The only thing better than a Lycoming 540 is two of them...right Ted?
Friend of mine bought a 177RG this summer and upgraded the panel/interior. Speaking as a life-long (until recently) low wing guy that airplane is a head turner. It just has such lovely lines and proportions.
Turncoat! Reported.
(Now that I have one of each I've been telling my family and friends I'm bi-polar).
Radar Contact
Pattern Altitude
Gary,
Glad things are continuing to improve for you and Mary! If I was going to get a cruising single it would be an Ovation or a Commander 114. Only one has two doors and Lycoming power.
Enjoy the fun searching process. It will be fun to follow along!
Glad things are continuing to improve for you and Mary! If I was going to get a cruising single it would be an Ovation or a Commander 114. Only one has two doors and Lycoming power.
Enjoy the fun searching process. It will be fun to follow along!
Rcmutz
Cleared for Takeoff
Hi Gary... I don’t post much on here, but glad to hear you and the wife are on the mend.
Given your requirements, have you considered a Tiger. Low wing, sliding canopy making it easy to get in and out, fold down rear seats for a large area for the dog, 900 lbs useful, 52 gals of fuel for good range, and. 135 Kts true for reasonable speed. Low annuals and maintenance cost, and the coup de gra, Lycoming engine.
Stephen Shore
Pre-takeoff checklist
Gary, you flew right over me last year on the way to Waco (I live in Longview - KGGG).
If you make it down this way again I will give you a ride in my 114B. I am like you - went from a "Baby Beech" (like you a Sundowner) to a complex (but in my case a 114B) because I got completely hooked on a pilot's side door. Why is this not "standard" with all airplanes?! I cannot ever again bring myself to crawl over a right seat to get to a left seat.
I did, however, keep my Sundowner. I love that airplane and could not bear to get rid of it.
Keep healing and enjoy "shopping". That in itself can be therapeutic.
If you make it down this way again I will give you a ride in my 114B. I am like you - went from a "Baby Beech" (like you a Sundowner) to a complex (but in my case a 114B) because I got completely hooked on a pilot's side door. Why is this not "standard" with all airplanes?! I cannot ever again bring myself to crawl over a right seat to get to a left seat.
I did, however, keep my Sundowner. I love that airplane and could not bear to get rid of it.
Keep healing and enjoy "shopping". That in itself can be therapeutic.
GMascelli
En-Route
Stephen,
I’ll have to catch up with you in the spring. Mary and I are thinking of heading to Austin to catch up with fellow BAC members Mark and Candy.
As you suggested, I did make contact with Judi. She is the Commander Queen.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
If I had the Ovation Ultra (the two-door model), I would still use the right-hand door to get into the left seat. It's WAY easier on my plane to get into the left seat than the right seat from the right-hand door. I can't think of a low wing right offhand where that isn't the case. That's probably why Cessnas have doors on both sides, and most low wings do not.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I haven’t found that at all, Kent. Maybe it’s different for you given that you’ve got a very large frame (as in, for you my K100 looked like an economy car rather than a semi). For me with the wimpy “built to surrender” French body, getting in the left seat from the right has always been a pain. I’d love a second door on the normal low wings I used to fly.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Gary, sure, anytime.Bill, thanks for the info. I'm thinking the 114A is the way to go for our mission and budget.
Just starting the search so there is plenty for me to research. I may have to pick your brain for a few things
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Incidentally, Gary, I do think the 114 meets the marks for you well. You and Mary prefer comfort over speed on the whole. The Commander 114 will give you comfort, more speed than the Sundowner (albeit probably less than the Deb), and some nice features that help make it easier to fly.
Each segment of aviation has its sweet spot where most purchasers want to be in terms of speed/comfort/economy. For example, the King Air dominates the turboprop market because it nails the comfort and is fast enough for most. The MU2 was on the opposite end - supremely fast but the least comfortable. The Commander 114 falls more on the King Air side of that equation, where in that segment most people wanted more speed or utility, like what they got out of a 182RG or maybe a 210.
Each segment of aviation has its sweet spot where most purchasers want to be in terms of speed/comfort/economy. For example, the King Air dominates the turboprop market because it nails the comfort and is fast enough for most. The MU2 was on the opposite end - supremely fast but the least comfortable. The Commander 114 falls more on the King Air side of that equation, where in that segment most people wanted more speed or utility, like what they got out of a 182RG or maybe a 210.
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,587
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
BrianNC
En-Route
If this is serious, I don’t get it. If it’s said tongue-in-cheek, then I get it.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well, as with any airplane, it's all about how you get in.
I've modified my low-wing technique since I got the Mooney. I actually don't really remember exactly how I used to get into low wings, but I think it was the old "Feet in, sit down, slide across" thing. Doesn't work too well with the Mooney, since the foot well starts about where the leading edge of the wing is, and it's so low there's nothing to hang onto that really works.
So, what I do now is to stand on the wing walk facing aft, kneel down with my right knee on the right seat, and just roll right into the left seat. No slide necessary, quick and painless. Doesn't work if there's some sort of center console in the way, but I think most low wings tend to avoid that unless they have a left door (a la Cirrus) or a canopy (like the DA40) anyway, because that would make getting in them a real pain.
If this is serious, I don’t get it. If it’s said tongue-in-cheek, then I get it.
Nope - I was serious. Now that I've been using the "kneel and roll" technique described above, I can get in as fast if not maybe even a tad faster than I could get into a C182 from the left door. The reason it's easier to "cross the plane inside the cabin" on the Mooney is just the geometry of the foot well vs. the wing - When I do get in the right seat, I use the same technique described above only I put my knee on the wing walk.
Sinistar
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 3,734
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad
Hopefully not too much of an aside...but I could also see you and Jamie in a Cirrus or TTx? Similar cruise speeds to the 310 and maybe 4 people, at least similar to the Ovation and Commander 114. Seems you prefer the retracts?Gary,
Glad things are continuing to improve for you and Mary! If I was going to get a cruising single it would be an Ovation or a Commander 114. Only one has two doors and Lycoming power.
Enjoy the fun searching process. It will be fun to follow along!
GMascelli
En-Route
TTx?
Mary and I have talked about the Cirrus, expensive to maintain and the chute pack costs turn me off. I like the Corvallis more, better interior and fit, just too much $$$$.
Mary and I have talked about the Cirrus, expensive to maintain and the chute pack costs turn me off. I like the Corvallis more, better interior and fit, just too much $$$$.
Radar Contact
Pattern Altitude
If I was going to decide between the Cirrus/TTX and Ovation, It for sure would be an Ovation. No real logic. The chute is an awesome selling point. I'm not a fan of side sticks but of course it wouldn't be a deal breaker. I like the Ovation's look, speed, interior and most important the price vs the Cirrus. Of course we looked at them all at OSH and after so many hours in the 310's cabin, Jaime thinks they all look small now.
I'm going to play with twin's until it just absolutely doesn't work out for me anymore. I (Jaime very much as well) like the added security of a second engine. (Stand by for all the internet geniuses that will explain how absolutely wrong I am and that all the second engine does is get 100% of all twins to the crash scene quicker, etc etc
) I'm also a fan of all the extra useful load it gives and even though it is rare, I like to be able to take 5-6 people with when needed.At this point I've dumped so much into this 310 over the past 2 years, I'm in for a long haul I believe. Overhauled both propellers, o/h left fuel divider, rebuilt 2 of 3 struts, new right alternator, 2 new exhaust stacks, 500 hour 2 of 4 mags, installed: Insight Twin G4 monitor, Dual G5's, GTX345 transponder and WAAS'ed the 530...probably missing something. The heater is getting O/H'ed right now and will be back within the week. I'm 2-3 things away from turning a pretty good 310 into my dream bird.
Back to Gary's quest!
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
well....we've all picked our poison. 
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Gary, would you consider an experimental, specifically a Lancair ES? That’s what the Columbia/Corvallis/TTx became.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
But try them out for fit before committing. IME, they are a tighter fit inside than a Mooney.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Hence why I say consider. I would say that for Gary and Mary especially, sitting first would be important as comfort is one of the key CTQs.
The chute repack (and cutter replacement) is a scheduled and fairly fixed expense. I have found the cost to maintain a beech landing gear to be less predictable and on the same timeframe probably equivalent (adjusting uplock tension, gear box overhaul, motor overhaul, rod-ends that wear out etc).
If it's just the two of you, a SR20 may be all you need.