Advice wanted for an airplane search

[Zac Weidner]

Here's your chance to spread your knowledge (and opinions) about all of the other great airplanes of the world besides Short Wings.
Our Twin Comanche is getting close to the point where it needs 2 engine and prop overhauls and a panel upgrade to at least an IFR GPS and ADS-B out, plus the Altimatic III is getting old and repairs for it are getting more expen$ive, so it shouldn't be ruled out that a new autopilot would be needed in the next 10 years. It is very sound structurally, and the gear is in top notch condition after a lot of work last winter on it.
Here are what we're considering as options:
Upgrade the TwinCo, starting with engines and props and then the panel.

Sell it, and build something like a Bearhawk 4-place that can be a good compromise between the twin and the Tri-Pacer, then sell the Tri-Pacer when it's finished. I think the RV-10 would be a good fit but it is out of our price range, and I don't know how it would handle our grass strip which is not perfect and can get pretty soft at times. I looked a bit into the Aero Comp 6, but it doesn't seem that there is much of a following and I read some bad stories about factory support, so I don't like that option.

Trade either the Twin or both airplanes for some other certified aircraft. Here's where I really need some advice, because there are so many models that I have never flown or been around to know about maintenance costs and the quirks of them all.
Some of the ones I've thought of are a different PA30 that is already fixed up the way we like, a C205/206, 182, Cherokee 6/300, or a Comanche 260. We're not doctors, so I haven't thought about Bonanzas.
If we trade both for one, I think we want something that can fly slow enough to have fun flying local and taking rides in, but that could take 4 people and plenty of baggage on a trip. I'm thinking 130+ knots for 500nm or better with 4 people and bags. I think there are a few airplanes that could do this and possibly more than I know about. We're leaning towards a high wing for visibility and the speed isn't as big of an issue as the useful load and practicality, but it has to be faster than driving.

[d.grimm]

My choice would be a Cessna 180. Or better yet with your experience
a straight tail 182 converted to Tailwheel. Or not converted.
Dave

[andya]

If you are going anywhere regular you'll miss the PA-30 speed to get you there. You are probably right about selling and trading for another if you can find one that
you like the equipmemt. about 11 years ago I put 2 new engines on mine and a few years later worked in an Stec AP, King GPS, Heater, Alternators and I could have
bought one cheaper, but it was fun at the time and it is the way I preferred it. The single comanche will probably do atleast 158-165 depending on how straight it is.
Nice thing there is your are familiar with all the systems and fly quite similar to the twin. I like working on the pipers vs cessna and beech. Seems like few years back Cherokee 6's are priced high due to the utility the have, same with the 206 (helped a neighbor sell his for about $95k). Those that I talked to that were possible buyers
said there were few on the market near that price that were in reasonable condition. Seems like good ones were over $115k at that time. Seems like single Comanches have
been available at reasonable prices. With exception to the Cherokee 6 and C-206 everything else has limiting payload with full fuel. My twin is good for 2 and heavy baggage and that's the way it is loaded almost every time it leaves the hangar. I have not seen a plane purchased that didn't need something to improve or fix, same can be said for those that I have assisted in the sale there of. I guess you really need to sit down and figure out what you mission is.

Also agree with Dave's recommendation for the C-180, be ideal for the grass strip and good performance

[gliderman]

IMHO

If I had the choice


A-36 Bonanza( straight tail)

[j_w_Bruce]

Here's your chance to spread your knowledge (and opinions) about all of the other great airplanes of the world besides Short Wings.
Our Twin Comanche is getting close to the point where it needs 2 engine and prop overhauls and a panel upgrade to at least an IFR GPS and ADS-B out, plus the Altimatic III is getting old and repairs for it are getting more expen$ive, so it shouldn't be ruled out that a new autopilot would be needed in the next 10 years. It is very sound structurally, and the gear is in top notch condition after a lot of work last winter on it.
Here are what we're considering as options:
Upgrade the TwinCo, starting with engines and props and then the panel.

Sell it, and build something like a Bearhawk 4-place that can be a good compromise between the twin and the Tri-Pacer, then sell the Tri-Pacer when it's finished. I think the RV-10 would be a good fit but it is out of our price range, and I don't know how it would handle our grass strip which is not perfect and can get pretty soft at times. I looked a bit into the Aero Comp 6, but it doesn't seem that there is much of a following and I read some bad stories about factory support, so I don't like that option.

Trade either the Twin or both airplanes for some other certified aircraft. Here's where I really need some advice, because there are so many models that I have never flown or been around to know about maintenance costs and the quirks of them all.
Some of the ones I've thought of are a different PA30 that is already fixed up the way we like, a C205/206, 182, Cherokee 6/300, or a Comanche 260. We're not doctors, so I haven't thought about Bonanzas.
If we trade both for one, I think we want something that can fly slow enough to have fun flying local and taking rides in, but that could take 4 people and plenty of baggage on a trip. I'm thinking 130+ knots for 500nm or better with 4 people and bags. I think there are a few airplanes that could do this and possibly more than I know about. We're leaning towards a high wing for visibility and the speed isn't as big of an issue as the useful load and practicality, but it has to be faster than driving.

Sounds like you need a Sierra, haul a ridiculous load, right around your target speed, 60 gallons of gas, very rugged, even in the gear, and a great support network (type club), lower than average price point.

[Brian]

I think the C-177RG would be a good plane for your needs. Good speed, service ceiling, economy, range, useful load, etc. Lots of them on the used market from 35K and up depending on age, hours, equipment, etc.

http://www.cardinalflyers.com/prep/specs/177rg2.php

[Zac Weidner]

I think the C-177RG would be a good plane for your needs. Good speed, service ceiling, economy, range, useful load, etc. Lots of them on the used market from 35K and up depending on age, hours, equipment, etc.

http://www.cardinalflyers.com/prep/specs/177rg2.php

I think the Bonanzas are out because if we're going to go with another low wing, it'll probably be a Comanche of some sort. Mostly because we know comanches so well already.

I've always like the Cardinal, but the useful load seems a tad low on it. It's not really what I would call a 4-place airplane, where you can fill it with fuel and put 4 people and some bags in it. It's not out of the question, though.

What's the scoop on the 337 Skymaster or 336 fixed gear? They seem very capable, but if they were so great, why did Cessna stop production? The maintenance might be a big one.

The insurance is going to be pretty steep on anything like a 180 or the Bearhawk, unfortunately. Both more than the Twin Comanche at the same hull value.

[Zac Weidner]

If you are going anywhere regular you'll miss the PA-30 speed to get you there. You are probably right about selling and trading for another if you can find one that
you like the equipmemt. about 11 years ago I put 2 new engines on mine and a few years later worked in an Stec AP, King GPS, Heater, Alternators and I could have
bought one cheaper, but it was fun at the time and it is the way I preferred it. The single comanche will probably do atleast 158-165 depending on how straight it is.
Nice thing there is your are familiar with all the systems and fly quite similar to the twin. I like working on the pipers vs cessna and beech. Seems like few years back Cherokee 6's are priced high due to the utility the have, same with the 206 (helped a neighbor sell his for about $95k). Those that I talked to that were possible buyers
said there were few on the market near that price that were in reasonable condition. Seems like good ones were over $115k at that time. Seems like single Comanches have
been available at reasonable prices. With exception to the Cherokee 6 and C-206 everything else has limiting payload with full fuel. My twin is good for 2 and heavy baggage and that's the way it is loaded almost every time it leaves the hangar. I have not seen a plane purchased that didn't need something to improve or fix, same can be said for those that I have assisted in the sale there of. I guess you really need to sit down and figure out what you mission is.

Also agree with Dave's recommendation for the C-180, be ideal for the grass strip and good performance

Do you know whether we would be better off to overhaul the engines before selling it, since they are both over TBO? Cylinders were new at approx. 1,300 hours ago, but the engines are still over TBO. I'm thinking a reputable overhaul would be worth a good deal more than a field OH, but maybe it would still be worth the time to do the overhauls first, to get more of the value out of it. I know avionics are rarely worth what is spent on them, so that's probably the single biggest reason to trade up.

The 206 would be nice, but apparently everyone else in the world also thinks that!

A good PA-24 260C would be about equivalent in performance to the twin, and the price for a well equipped one is also about equivalent. The only difference would be, obviously, the lack of an engine and the associated maintenance and safety factor.

I know we would definitely miss the speed of it. We just got back from a family trip out to Driggs, ID, Mcminnville, Oregon and Grants Pass last week with it and covered over 3,400nm in 26 flight hours. I'm just not thinking that we take enough trips like that to make it worthwhile. I'd have just as much fun taking two days to get there, but I want the IFR capability (light IFR) and a decent range to cover a good number of miles in a day without making half a dozen stops.

I think the Bearhawk is going to be the lowest maintenance costs for a long time, because everything would be brand new (or nearly so), and it's simple. No retracts, no C/S prop (3 blade Catto cruise prop), no fuel bladders.

[Steve Pierce]

I don't think you can get a return on the cost of engine overhauls if you sell it.

[andya]

My experience is that you will not recover the cost of the ovhl even though the you'll sell it for more and it makes it sell easier. If you are doing the ovhl yourself, it might come out closer but don't think you'll get all your money back. Seems like the PA-30s have been pretty low priced since ten or fifteen years back and yours with the engines high time will come it at the low end. You will get some insulting low offers so hope you are thick skinned enough to carry on. The Bearhawk would be a great choice for all the reasons mentioned.