PA-24 vs PA-32R vs Commander

[nickorette]

Ok, so I've done some reasearch into what aircraft I'd be able to afford and what I'd be personally interested in. I have come up with the selection in the poll.

Which would you choose and why? (No alternative suggestions!)

Differences in operating and maintenance costs are not of a major concern.

[iflyforpie]

Tough to say based on the info. A Comanche 180 or 250? (or 400 ) A Commander 112 or 114?

I would probably chose the PA-32 since it is far more versatile than the other aircraft and most likely the easiest to maintain. But I don't think it is in the same price range as any of the other aircraft.

[nickorette]

Tough to say based on the info. A Comanche 180 or 250? (or 400 ) A Commander 112 or 114?

Your right. Fixed the poll.

[moocow]

T-tail Lance or regular tail Lance?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Nicorette

I can tell you what airplane is right for me, but presumably you want advice on the best one for you. To do that I think you need to provide some context like:
- Your experience level
- What part of the country you want to fly in
- IFR or VFR
- What is the average/maximum load you will be carrying
- How much do want to spend on the purchase
- How much can you afford in annual operating expenses

[nickorette]

Nicorette

I can tell you what airplane is right for me, but presumably you want advice on the best one for you. To do that I think you need to provide some context like:
- Your experience level
- What part of the country you want to fly in
- IFR or VFR
- What is the average/maximum load you will be carrying
- How much do want to spend on the purchase
- How much can you afford in annual operating expenses

-low
-all over
-both
-500-750 lbs av.

[nickorette]

T-tail Lance or regular tail Lance?

regular

[Big Pistons Forever]

Nicorette

I can tell you what airplane is right for me, but presumably you want advice on the best one for you. To do that I think you need to provide some context like:
- Your experience level
- What part of the country you want to fly in
- IFR or VFR
- What is the average/maximum load you will be carrying
- How much do want to spend on the purchase
- How much can you afford in annual operating expenses

-low
-all over
-both
-500-750 lbs av.

Buy a C182 or Piper Dakota, if it has to be low wing. Both are fast enough to get places, carry a good load, are suitable for low time pilots to safely get started in the IFR world, easy to insure and hold their value when you want to move up. Just because you have enough money to buy a fast retractable doesn't necessarily mean you have the skills to safely fly it.

[arctic navigator]

How many passengers are you planning on carrying? 3 or less go with the Comanche, 4 or 5, or bigger pieces of cargo, go with the Lance. The does the Viking have wood wings? If so are you keeping it inside and do you have a mechanic that is very very familiar with maintaining wood structure? I've never had anything to do with the Commander but I think I would be more inclined to go with an Arrow instead mainly because they're everywhere and pretty much anyone can work on them.

I've flown the Comanche 180 and the Lance. The Comanche was a great plane to fly, albeit underpowered for the Okanagan summers. The 250 or 260 would have been super nice, and well the 400 would just be spectacular. The Lance flies kinda like a truck, but it has the big door in the back and the baggage compartment up front between the cabin and engine. It's a solid and easy 4 guys plus clubs plus gas to go somewhere airplane where I think the others are more a 2 adults, 2 kids and a bag or 2.

I think a solid natural progression for you (which would also keep your insurance company happy) would be fly a PA28-180 around for a bit, then move into a PA28R-200 before moving on to the Lance. The only real difference between the Arrow and Lance as far as I know is 2 seats, the big door, and 100hp.

[iflyforpie]

The does the Viking have wood wings? If so are you keeping it inside and do you have a mechanic that is very very familiar with maintaining wood structure?

A big +1 and one of the reasons why I would stay away from the Viking. One case of veneeral disease can ruin your day...

[nickorette]

The does the Viking have wood wings? If so are you keeping it inside and do you have a mechanic that is very very familiar with maintaining wood structure?

A big +1 and one of the reasons why I would stay away from the Viking. One case of veneeral disease can ruin your day...

Good God news to me! I'm definately not considering a viking anymore. Off the poll.

[Old Dog Flying]

I've flown all of the aforementioned aircraft quite extensively and as was mentioned, the Piper Dakota is by far the best bet even though it has fixed gear. It will cruise at 165 mph and carry nearly 1400 pounds of people fuel and baggage,.

The Commander 112 TCA is a good looking aircraft but the Arrow does everything the 112 will do but better. And stay away from the turbo models...a pita and expensive.

[Doc]

I've never flown a Lance. I have flown everything else on your list. For a person of limited experience, the Dakota is far and away the best choice. The speed difference on a 300 mile leg is not worth the extra cost and insurance hassles of a retractable. After 300 miles, you'll want to stop for a spot of tea, and the potty at any rate.
BTW, while some shy away from the sitka spruce wing of the Viking, it is the sweetest flying airplane out there. Frankly, while I'd hesitate to recommend one in your case (it's also the most demanding of the bunch) it's the one I would go for.....for me. My experience level may be a little more than yours.

[iflyforpie]

The Cherokee SIX is also a good alternative to the Lance/Saratoga if you want a heavy hauler that goes a reasonable speed. I used to fly a couple of 260 HP ones and they can hold more than they weigh and go 130 kts. No more maintenance than a regular Cherokee other than a bit heftier fuel burn, bigger engine, and CS prop.

[xsbank]

It seems to me that if you had no idea what the structure of a Viking was made of, and your strong negative response to wood, means you need to do way more research than an internet poll.

[Shiny Side Up]

From the three choices the Commanche 260 is the nicest flying one of the bunch, and definitely the best IFR ship. The Commander is a nice flying airplane but the 112 is a bit underpowered for its weight - if I had a choice I'd go for a 114, they definitely made right that wrong with it, the bit of extra power makes a lot of difference. The lance is a good plane and probably actually costs wise the smartest one of the bunch.

As an aside I really love the Viking, but I'd only own one if I was really, really, really that much in love with it. They're heavy and slow - for a retractable (the gear aren't fully faired, and the early models have a strutted tail if I remember), so numbers wise really lose out compared to most of their competition. They do fly nice though, and that wing is really a work of art.

A Comanche 180 or 250? (or 400 )

Mmmm. Commanche 400, now there's a man's airplane! There used to be one around Alberta, while apparently it wasn't much faster than a regular 260, it could post rates of climb in the +2500 fpm range. There might have been some chest thumping there on the part of its owner, but it did make an impressive sound. Collector's item.

[ScudRunner]

It seems to me that if you had no idea what the structure of a Viking was made of, and your strong negative response to wood, means you need to do way more research than an internet poll.

+1

I think you should have a coffee with a Mechanic who has wrenched on these and similar types. Say your thinking of these types and what sort of mission you need it for. Sit back take notes and listen, have that person inspect your perspective aircraft. Always good to have a mechanic as a trusted friend.