I am in the market for my next airplane and would like to get something with at least reasonable short and rough strip capabilities. The other side of the coin is that I need to regularly haul me and 3 others on 600 mile cross countries in a reasonable amount of time. I do this cross country about once a month and that is the primary reason for getting an airplane again. I need to cruise at least 150 knots to make this trip in a reasonable period of time. While this is the need for this airplane, I also like to get into and out of dirt strips in various places in the south west and Mexico. I'd like to do this while burning as little gas as possible (I'm not asking too much am I?).

Right now I am leaning towards a Bonanza in the late 50s to late 60s vintage. I have friends with these types and they get in and out of some nicely kept dirt and grass strips without any problems. My alternative is a Comanche or a Mooney - both are great airplanes but don't have the prop clearance or landing gear for much off pavement stuff.

I'm not stuck on these three for any reason. I mostly posted hear to make sure I'm not overlooking anything. And yes - I've looked at 182s - like them but they just don't go fast enough for my purposes. And yes - I can only get one airplane!

Thanks!

Are you at all interested in Building?
http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com/Bearhaw ... kMain.html

Phil

The Cessna 185 and Cessna Turbo 206 are both great back-country planes with good XC performance. While not quite as fast, these planes will hold up much more favorably in an off-airport forced landing over less forgiving terrain than a Bnanza or Mooney.

Anything else you want?

I'd agree with a Cessna 185/206 as my first choice. Of the ones you listed a Comanche 260/250 would be on the top. Only other one I'd say to look at is a Bellanca Super Viking.

patrickmathews wrote:I am in the market for my next airplane and would like to get something with at least reasonable short and rough strip capabilities. The other side of the coin is that I need to regularly haul me and 3 others on 600 mile cross countries in a reasonable amount of time. I do this cross country about once a month and that is the primary reason for getting an airplane again. I need to cruise at least 150 knots to make this trip in a reasonable period of time. While this is the need for this airplane, I also like to get into and out of dirt strips in various places in the south west and Mexico. I'd like to do this while burning as little gas as possible (I'm not asking too much am I?).

Right now I am leaning towards a Bonanza in the late 50s to late 60s vintage. I have friends with these types and they get in and out of some nicely kept dirt and grass strips without any problems. My alternative is a Comanche or a Mooney - both are great airplanes but don't have the prop clearance or landing gear for much off pavement stuff.

I'm not stuck on these three for any reason. I mostly posted hear to make sure I'm not overlooking anything. And yes - I've looked at 182s - like them but they just don't go fast enough for my purposes. And yes - I can only get one airplane!

Thanks!

FS:
How about a 1962 210 -great cross county and pretty decent off roader . 40 K and it's yours -send me a email at [email protected] put something want 210 in title block. Thanks Bill Reid

Patrick, I think the only airplanes out there that do what you want them to do have the wheels that disappear.
I can only give you my 2 cents, on what I have flown. A E to S model bonanza works great, the early ones have the e225 which is a good engine but getting hard to find people of knowledge to work on them.
the ones with the 470's are great all around airplanes fast and roomy, I think they have the most robust gear of the whole bunch!
The Viking and Mooney for me have no elbow room??The Commanche has some very expensive gear issues, if tweeked at all!
The venerable 210 is another hard to beat airplane. I beleive the bonanza is a little faster than the 210 but the 210 has a little more room.
Orin Hudson flew a S model out of Merril field as a 135 aircraft for about 10,000 hours to the west side of Cook Inlet.I believe at one time he was the Highest hour Bonanza pilot in existence, He instructed me in the proper way to take off and land a Bonanza off the ruff.It's not everyones cup of tea!
What ever you get Have a big Smile and enjoy.
GT

To get an honest 150kts across the ground on a regular basis, you will be talking retract, unless you get a kit or one of the new Cirrus or Lancair machines. In all honesty, it will take a turbocharger to make a 185 or a 206 go that fast and you'll have to do it at 10K feet or more.

I'd say best bang for the buck right now is a 250 Comanche or an older C210. I would venture a guess that the Comanche with a three blade prop has better prop clearance than a 210 because the Comanche has 6.00's all the way around (unless someone changed it). The gear is simple with no hydraulic systems or saddles to deal with, and tough as nails as long as 1. you keep the bushings in shape, and 2. you CANNOT land them with a side load. The '58 and '59 250 will eat a C210 for breakfast when it comes to getting off the ground short, but doesn't have the useful or range because of smaller fuel tanks. Also, the Cessna is much, much easier to get into and out of, especially with any cargo.

It's a buyers market on traveling machines right now. Have fun looking.

gb

I was gonna say 182 with a Pponk motor or IO520, but then I reread your post and see you are asking for 150 knots, not 150 mph. My Pponk 182 cruises at about 155 mph at 4000 feet, cool dry air, 14 gph. Boy, you're asking for a lot, that kind of speed plus some off field capability. Will all respect to the Bearhawk guy, can't believe there is any way they will run 150 knots with 4 onboard without going to oxygen needed altitudes. Turbine beaver might do it. It would have lots of room and great shortfield, not sure if it will hit 150 knots on wheels or not. there is an absolutely beautiful one for sale on Wipaire's website.

Patrick- To be fair....what is your budget?? I have had favorable experience with the C-210T for good cruise and good off pavement performance.

If you get a IO-550 powered 206 you will get 150 knots at 8-10k which is where you will be most of the time trying to get good economy and range. And the rough strip performance is legendary. A T-210 would also be your next best bet. I trained several guys who purchased 210's for the very reason you are talking about, good X-C plane to go to Baja and land on those strips. They are capable of alot of punishment. Plus if you want to actually put 4 adults PLUS gear you are realistically looking at a 6 place plane.

Of course the Quest Kodiak would fit the bill too!

206 all the way!!

Rhyppa wrote:Will all respect to the Bearhawk guy, can't believe there is any way they will run 150 knots with 4 onboard without going to oxygen needed altitudes.

I also made the Knots vs Statute mistake. The 260 hp Bearhawks will do 150+ mph at 8,000+ ft. with small tires and good fairing work, but not 150kts.

Phil

Seems to me that you're asking quite a lot of one airplane. There are airplanes that will do what you ask, for example the Quest Kodiak.

I think a big part of the conundrum here is what you are referring to as "the bush", as in what sort of strips do you really want to go to? To me, if you can land a Bonanza in "the bush" and fly it again, it's not "the bush".

So, what precisely are the parameters of "the bush" are you describing? Length, density altitude, and approximately how smooth? If you're talking about a 5,000 foot long groomed grass runway (Johnson Creek, Smiley Creek, etc), a Bonanza would do the trick just fine.

I sure wouldn't call those "the bush" however.

But, if you really DO want to go into some less civilized airstrips, and money's not much of an issue, the Kodiak would do the deed--that is specifically what it's designed to do. And it doesn't have folding wheels.

MTV

I have owned a 182, a 206, a T-210, and now a 185 and flown them all to Mexico hundreds of times. To start with, there are NO bush strips legally available in Mexico. The Mexican government has ditched, fenced off, or otherwise made the old time strips obsolete. You can land almost any GA plane on what strips are left to the public.

As far as 600 mile cross country trips with 4 on board, forget the 185 unless the passengers weigh under 100 lbs and are skinny. It would be torture for an adult to sit in the back of a Skywagon for that long, heck, I think it is torture to sit in the front seat for that matter.

Of all the planes I have owned, I would go back to the T-210 in a hearbeat if I didn't want to be on floats. It would haul as much as a 206, but is harder to load due to not having double doors. Prop clearance is a non issue again on the strips available in Mexico unless you are flying something with teeny little tires like a Lanceair.

Not wanting to burn gas is not realistic if you want to haul 4 and go 150 kts. Will have to be 11-12 gph or more. I can lean the 185 down to 12 gph but for the reasons listed above not good for your mission. Good luck.

Thanks for all the interesting replies. To answer a few questions:

My idea of not burning much gas is to stay as close to 12 - 13 GPH as possible while traveling 150 knots. I think this means that I'm pretty much limits me to 260HP unless I'm going significantly faster - an S model Bonanza will burn close to 15gph but travels 175 knots doing it so the trade off is ok. This also is a big advantage of a Mooney - with a 200hp IO-360, I will burn about 10gph while traveling around 160 knots - that's about the same mileage as my SUV. I know they are a bit tight but I have flown one they seem to fit me ok - I think it's particular to ones own "personal geometry" - and I'm 6'2" 220 lbs.

As far as my classification of "Bush" strips (boy that phrase could mean a lot of things...) - I am talking about dirt strips in Baja and mainland Mexico - I used to fly for a volunteer flying doctor's group and want to do that again. I would also like to fly to some places in Arizona, Nevada, Utah etc. It's hard to say exactly where but to the extent I can, my goal is to not limit myself as much as possible. I would expect any of these airplanes - even the Mooney could land at well groomed non paved strips such as Johnson creek.

As far as budget - I would like to stay somewhere south of $60k. I can go a bit higher but then it starts to be a stretch.

I like T-210 Cessnas - I flew one for a few hours several years ago. I have read that pre 1970 models are fairly maintenance intensive. I purchased a 210 buyers guide form the Cessna Pilot's association that pretty much steered me away from pre L model 210s. Given the cost of these later model 210s - I pretty much consider them out of my budget.

I am surprised to hear the positive comment about Comanches. I am also partial to Comanches - I like the cabin space and they are bargain priced right now. Given the short gear stance I assumed that they would not tolerate even slightly rough strips. If I'm wrong here please speak up.

I also like 206's but I'm not crazy about the fuel economy.

I'd take a second looks at a turbo or super viking. I have a friend with one and they are great aircraft, would be a contender for the needs you describe (good rugged airplane). They are a bargin as well.

Since we were talking Kodiak I was going to throw in the Aerocomp Comp Air 7XL as well, but it seems those are a little north of your price range.

I sat in a few Vikings and didn't fit very well - my head hit the roof and it felt a bit tight to me. I have a friend with one and he loves it. I'm also not to comfortable with an old wood airplane. I guess every material has it's own set of problems but the idea of aging wood does not appeal to me.

Piper was very proud of the Comanche, and as I understand it, they were built in their very own dedicated building.

The Comanche gear will take some bumps. It is an oleo strut gear. Of course, it isn't going to take giant rocks, gopher holes, etc., but that is obvious. It will take very, very little side load. It is basically the same bungee system as Aero Commander. I assume that the Beechcraft gear is tougher, as they they are very well built all the way around. They do use considerable more runway though, at least any I was ever around. Maybe didn't know how to fly it... Don't know a thing about Mooney other than most mechanics hate working on them and bill you accordingly.

We used to operate our '59 250 from a 2000' dog - leg ag strip in W. CO, elevation 5200', power line on one end, feed lot with grain elevator on the other. I wouldn't have wanted to bring it out of there loaded on a hot afternoon, but it was OK in the morning. Our mechanic had a strip at 6500' on a plateau that was pretty rough for "down south" standards, but the approach end was open. He operated his Comanche out of there for years.

If you need more room, look for a "B" model. It's a little heavier, electric fowler type flaps, and carries more gas. There is one that LOOKS good in Placerville, CA right now that can be had for around $50K. I saw it down there a couple of weeks ago, didn't look closely at it, though, so be careful if you go.

I would not hesitate to use one for your described mission. Pretty decent fuel economy, and the prices on them are very attractive right now. Plus...and FloatFlyer will agree with me...they are not as prone to theft as the Cessna whilst S. of the Border.

Used to be some good resources at the International Comanche Society. Look them up, I'm sure they're still around.

gb

All these airplanes are capable performers, some more than others, but I would think twice about using a retract:
1) IMHO rough strips put undue stress on mechanisms that must by their design have some clearances (aka "slop") built into them to work properly. I like down-and-welded if rough treatment is in the mission statement.
2) A lot of retracts, esp low-wings (in particular the Mooney), seem awful low-slung in the propeller department. I have seen a Mooney taxi across the grass infield parking area at my airport, merrily buzzing the grass at every bump. He avoided a actual prop strike only due to the grace of God.
Your parameters may be a bit unrealistic: high cruise speed, some STOL/rough-field capability, reasonable fuel burn, AND $60K or less purchase price? You might have to live with 3 out of 4. And remember, with a few exceptions, a jack of all trades is usually a master of none. If you relax your speed requirement to 120+ knots, an older 182 seems like it'd meet all your other needs. Down to 100+ knots, and a whole lot of other cheaper-to-operate aircraft would meet them also
Good luck looking.

Eric

Hotrod, since we know he's talking about dirt strips, not off airport, or unmaintained, the retracts should be fine. Bonanzas, Arrows and especially Navajos are mainstays for going in and out of the villages here. And all of them have dirt and gravel runways.

Phil