Opinions and/or Thoughts
I am looking for thoughts and opinions on my next new to me plane so here is what I am leaning towards but I am open to options and all opinions.
I think I would love a Dakota but what are opinions on the Comanche? For a 50 yr old pilot I am concerned with insurance now and in the future, along with maintenance, I think this will be my forever plane (I think) but of course there is always something shiny that could catch my eye.
Most of the time it is just my wife and myself, we do take our kids on occasion, they are adults now. We fly all over the Midwest, but also flew my 140 to Sedona a couple years ago. With that in mind I need to think about useful load of course. Not in a hurry but thought I would start the search.
Not scared of somewhat of a project and making it 'mine' since I restored my 140
Thinking Dakota, non turbo for my first choice. Thoughts?
What, if any, advantages on the Comanche other than cost.
Seriously considered a straight tail, fixed gear Lance since you can get into one for same and sometimes less money than a Dakota.
Also found a '73 Charger, but really cannot find out anything much on them, good or bad, not really concerned about the Hershey Bar wings but was thinking I would like tapered.
Thank you
Comments
You have a good list of planes. For two adults you would have plenty of space and useful load for weeks of travel.
Maintenance is going to be a local question. Nothing really complicated on the list of planes. There might be some wing bolt inspection AD's. Coming from a 140 it is more power, climb, cruise and useful load but still favorable handling and great all around performance that Piper is known for.
The Hershey bar wing is nice for getting down quickly. You were never too high on approach when I was flying my Cherokee 180. (The Cessna 310Q was also like this)
I think age based discrimination on planes starts around 65. Fixed gear works in your favor. Basic Medical for all these planes. your Cherokee 140 would likely qualify as a sport pilot plane when the revised rules are finalized.
I would suggest buying one with the avionics, engine, interior, paint that you are looking for.
My own view:
1) Exterior paint/airframe condition is important. Expensive and time consuming to fix anything in this space
2) Interior - easiest upgrade
3) Avionics - expensive and time consuming to update. If you can buy what you need vs want you will be better off vs buying and upgrading
4) Engine - big factor on price and high time engines can be challenging to finance. At 50, I would project how many more years of flying you will expect and average hours a year. Look for an engine that has this much time to TBO + a couple hundred hours buffer. Likely a mid-time engine.
Eric Panning
1981 Seneca III
Hillsboro, OR (KHIO)
Might consider finishing off the requirements, then research attributes of each airframe, and build a list of capabilities of each airframe with a focus on the requirements. After polishing the lists, a decision will make itself.
Requirements so far:
- Insurance friendly for a 50+ pilot
- Payload: 2 adults with ability to carry 2 additional adults; plus luggage
- Ability to comfortably fly in the Rockies (at max payload)
I spend alot of time helping members get parts for their aging airplanes. Just remember, PA-28's are still in manufacture and you can easily get new parts. The PA-24's haven't been built in 50 years and getting parts may be impossible.
Regarding a turbo-Dakota. I have a friend with one and he loves it. I have a turbo-Arrow 3 and I love it. They both have the same engine and I've owned 9 of those engines over 3 decades, no issues. You can fly high and get over weather easily and as you're climbing you're going faster.
Scott Sherer
Wright Brothers Master Pilot, FAA Commercial Pilot
Charlie;
Very good advice above from empannin and jacobsja.
It all boils down to your flight mission. Make a list of items that are important to your typical flight profiles (e.g. speed, payload, mx cost, insurance cost, complex/high performance, fuel burn, etc.). If some of those items are more important than others, weight them accordingly. Then compare your list to the capabilities of each aircraft, and see which one is the best fit for your typical flight profile.
Insurance will vary widely between the aircraft you've listed, and even by options of the same model. My experience was that a 180 Comanche was quoted substantially different than a 250/260, and substantially different from an Arrow. Your mileage may vary, but your total time in a complex aircraft will be a big factor. Call your insurance company and get a quote for each plane you're considering.
Maintenance will also vary widely (retract usually more than fixed gear) as will operating costs, fuel burn, etc.
My experience over 25 years of ownership is that fuel will compose roughly 80% of the cost of flying. To put that in perspective, let's say an engine rebuild is $35,000, you burn 12 gal/hr, gas is roughly $5.70/gal and never rises in price 🤣🤣. In 510 hours, or only 25% of the engine life, you will spend more on fuel than the cost of the engine. And you still have another 1,500 hrs to TBO!
Years from now someone will read this post and either laugh at how cheap things were "back then", or say "Geez, that was before we had electric planes".
Back from my digression - you have a good list of very capable aircraft. Find which one best fits your mission, buy it, and then post pics of your new bird!
PS - there are webinars in the members area dealing with new aircraft ownership. Check it out.
Jim "Doc Griff" Griffin
PA28 - 161
Chicago area
I would just like to add that the advice given above is excellent. The only other thing I would like to add. Turbo vs non turbo will depend on your mission. Flying over mountains or not as a regular thing. Over mountains..... turbo for sure. Mountains on occasion.... tougher decision. I have a non turbo and often wish I bought a turbo Arrow to get higher than weather buildups and better climb characteristics. But I bought an Arrow 2, non turbo and it very much meets my current mission. The plane is awesome.
Best of luck in your decision, it is a personal one for each pilot. But Piper makes excellent aircraft!!!
Andy Sikora
1972 PA28R-200
X51
Retired Miami ATCT/Tracon
Scott, I am in Kansas City, you are in Wisconsin. In regards to the turbo, I know there probably isnt much need for it here in the midwest but we have strongly considered moving to S. Carolina, again I don't think the "mountains" out there call for turbo and I am not positive how much I plan on flying out west, although we did fly my 140 to Sedona and it was awesome! Would you still go for the turbo? Fuel burn, pros/cons?
Griff390,
All excellent points and I appreciate every one of them except adding up how much fuel is going to cost me! 🤣 I don't do that in my truck either, makes me sob 😪
I think I will pass on a Comanche although they look cool, Scott says 50 is to old for parts and I am experiencing that now being 50! LOL
I find myself leaning real hard towards the Dakota and Lance!
If you are not planning on regular trips in high terrain or long cross countries at altitude you probably don't need a turbo. If you are traveling occasionally in the west just stay under gross and watch your Density Altitude. If you flew a 140 out to Sedona I think you know the tradeoffs!
Turbo's are less efficient below around 8000 ft and I think the TSIO-360 really shines in the Piper's from 12k to 16k. The service ceiling is much higher for my Seneca at FL250, but RVSM would drive no higher than FL230 and the criticality of feeding O2 to everyone really drives < 18,000. Peak true air speed is achieved at 16,000 ft with the stock wastegate setting.
The only unpressurized planes I routinely see flying up in the FL's single engine piston unpressurized are the Cirrus pilots. That is full fask mask flying at high flow with big and immediate risks for interruption of flow. Is it really worth it? 16k to FL230 is ~ 7000 ft. This may be enough to top some weather but 16k to FL230 is also the right altitude for icing year round in IMC. I used to fly up there when I had a Cessna 421C (pressurized) but would not consider taking non-pilot passengers this high unpressurized.
Anyways - non-turbo seems a good match for your flying and you have good airframes in mind that would be very easy to transition to.
Eric Panning
1981 Seneca III
Hillsboro, OR (KHIO)
I run a turbo and wouldn’t have it any other way. Nothing says easy flying like mid teens, over a lot of weather, and hardly any traffic to deal with. Plus, on hot days, you are getting full rental power on take off and climb. The best part is you can indeed pull it back and cruise off the pipe so to speak. When I have no particular need to be there quick, I’ll pull it back to 55% and run 120 kts on 10 gph. And that’s for a TIO540,
Bottom line is that it give you options. Options are good.
I own and fly a 79 PA32RT-300T. Previous aircraft are a 79 Archer and 76 Arrow.
Thank you, so you don't have to run the turbo? Did I understand that correctly?
Well, you pull the power back and the wastegate closes. Not like there is an on off switch or anything. Couple weeks ago I flew it 21” and 2500 rpm at around 110 kts just cuz.
I own and fly a 79 PA32RT-300T. Previous aircraft are a 79 Archer and 76 Arrow.
I have flown a Dakota for four years now grew up in l the Piper family from 140 to a warrior to an archer to an arrow, and finally bought my first plane a 1985 Dakota .
Insurance with fixed gear and a student pilot was $2400 per year without the student pilot it would be 1400 year I have about 450 hours of which 200 are in the Dakota
It’s an extremely powerful airplane with a three blade prop very smooth fairyly quiet, climbs, no less than 1000 ft./min. and cool days 1500 ft./min.
Carries a tremendous amount of weight my usual is 1285 so you could take the full family 50 gallons of fuel burn 12 gallons per hour and be 450 miles away great
This is an extremely effective aircraft, and I don’t think I’d buy anything else as a four seat airplane for maintenance insurance overall operational cost in my opinion and I am biased because it’s what I fly. But There’s no better value in flying.
Thank you for your opinion, I am really leaning towards a Dakota. The only draw back is the initial investment, the Lance is more plane for less money in many instances. I am still a few months from pulling the trigger but I needed opinions from actual owners, thank you!
If you want to fly above 10,000 feet, turbo or not, you will need oxygen. This is an additional cost and maintenance headache for bottle refill.
Buy an old O2 bottle off Craigslist, make a trans fill or buy one premade, head to your local welding gas outlet and do a tank exchange. That’s what I did. I fill mine in a bucket of water Uber, Uber slow. Takes maybe 30 min to fill from empty.
Result- a bottle that will last you a year or better and you can always be full. Cost about the same as maybe two or three FBO fill ups, you know, because they can charge you that much. 🤨
I own and fly a 79 PA32RT-300T. Previous aircraft are a 79 Archer and 76 Arrow.