A friend of mine wasn't using his 1974 Cherokee 140 and told me that if I put it in a hanger and maintained it, it was mine to use. Cool I said, picked it up in Houston with a Pilot friend and flew back to Minneapolis in 9 hours. Nice trip.
Now that my trusted network of friends has been able to look at this "free" plane, we find out that the wing needs to be removed to fix softening around the portion you walk on to enter the plane and also that the engine needs rebuilding as the time since last overhaul was 2,900 hours ago.....

Do I:
1. Go buy a Liberty XL2 for $150k and get a NEW plane, FADEC, 5.5gph, 150mph, what more could you want?
2. Spend $30k on my friends plane but really use it to learn to fly over the next couple years...
3. Buy the guy next door's 1961 Commanche with 120 gal fuel load and 250hp with 4000TT for about $50k and stick another $20k in to it...
4. Rent a friend's Cirrus SR20, don't know how much yet.

I have one hour of documented flying time. I've been studying like hell though and I really enjoy the challange and love the benefits of flight/fast travel.

I can't really afford it but can somehow squeeze it in if it doesn't cost me too much money.... So what would you do if money wasn't an object and what would you do if it was?

Any thoughts would be appriated as this is driving me nuts... Phil

Of your above options, I'm a clear fan of the 61 Comanche, in fact, after MUCH research I decided that the 61 Comanche was the best option for my mission. It's a no kidding 4 person and reasonable luggage a/c. And it's next to impossible to get it out of aft CG. For example the only way I can theoreticall to do it as a 250 pd pilot is to place 200 pds in the luggage compartment and 380 pds in the back seat, and land with only 15 gal of gas! And then I'm barely outside aft CG.
The 61 Comanche is a great compromise in the line. It's the last year for manual flaps and the first year for 90 gal tanks. Plane will use about 14 gal/hr and flies around 145-150 knots. It has a service ceiling of 20K. Stalls are gentile and she's rock solid in IFR. I'm finishing up my commercial in the plane and she's a responsive fun to fly aircraft. The reported difficulty in landing comanches is way overstated. However, it's no Warrior or 172 and you must carry power all the way into the flare. You can also float a landing, the key is watching the airspeed on approach.
I've owned my plane for 4 years and I because she's such a great plane I've blowed a lot of money into her in upgrades. I have a complete new panel with all the bells and whistles. Maintenance costs are very reasonable if you actually maintain the aircraft. The landing gear are stone simple. Electric system with a manual emergency extension system. No hydraulic lines to worry about. A well maintained comanche is by far one of the best bargains out there for a high performance aircraft. Which leads me to a point. You indicated that you had an hour flying time. This would be a problem if you want to insure the aircraft, if you could get insurance at all. If you can afford a 150K liberty, I'd buy the comanche and only get liability insurance myself. Finally, the comanche society is an active community. There are 2 websites with a bunch of info for the comanche community. E-mail me off line and I'd be happy to discuss the comanche. Long and short of it is, I spent a lot of time doing research on what plane gave me the most bang for the buck that went reasonably fast, could carry a bunch, and was a serious xc aircraft. The comanche won hands down. If you want to go faster, burn less than 10 gals an hour, but only want to carry 2 plus minimal luggage go with a Mooney. If you want to stay low, go slower, burn the same amount, carry less fuel, but have about the same useful load, go with a 182. If you want to go just a little faster, carry less, have to worry about an aft CG all the time, carry less fuel, and pay outrageous parts costs, go with a Bonanza. BTW, here's a dark little secret about the newer pipers, a comanche can actually carry more than a lance or saratoga. Don't worry about the age of the aircraft. The key issue is has it been maintained. The 140 is a nice beginner a/c, but for what it will cost you to buy it and put an engine in, you can have the comanche. There is zero comparison in capabilities. Finally, the plane I owned before my comanche was a warrior II. That really is a great little starter aircraft and I had to replace/reinforce the wing walk area on that aircraft. Not a big deal. Hope this helps with your decision and feel free to email me if you have any questions about the comanche.

Scott

Frank,
You are correct that money is an object and to prove it, I have to borrow the money in order to buy my plane.

I do believe that the Liberty would be all I really need in a plane for a quite a while. My gut instinct is telling me that a new plane and new technology is probably the best for my non-mechanical brain. Plus, I think that there will be some decent resale value (unless they change the plane dramatically in the next 5-10 years) as there aren't any on the market yet (8 month lead time on new).

I appreciate your input and will probably change my mind several more times.... but I sure want to get that Liberty and be done with it!

Phil

That's another myth about Comanches with the caveat that it has been maintained. The cost is not that much higher and I'm particular about the condition of my plane. The biggest increased cost would be insurance, fuel consumption, and engine overhaul (less a Cherokee 235). By definition an O-320 or O-360 will be cheaper to overhaul than a O-540. Before you run out to buy a liberty remember the upfront costs you are paying in your calculations. I fly 50 - 100 hours per year. My annuals are usually $2-3K and that is because I add something to the plane every year. For a vanilla annual it would be 16 hrs labor, or roughly $1k. As for learning in a Comanche, I respectfully disagree. Granted it's not the normal training path, but there's nothing wrong with going this route. And would your rather learn that you need more plane later. If you train in a Cirrus, have you checked the cost to rent one? Have you check the limits on whether you can take the plane overnight on any type of xc? For me, the reason why I own a plane rather than rent is the total freedom flying when I want to and where I want to. If I just want to go burn gas, I go. I don't have to schedule a week in advance for the plane and I can go fly somewhere overnight if I choose. The plane doesn't have to be back at any given time and if I want to fly out of state or go away for a weekend I can do it. You simply can't do that when you rent a plane. Also, if you rent you don't have a say in how the plane is maintained. I fly my family a lot. I want to know exactly what was done to my plane and who did it. Lastly, the comanche really has no bad habits. If you get slow (under 75 mph) you've got to pay attention because when the laminar flow wing loses lift it does so all at once. However, it still warns you with a buffet. The hardest part about flying a comanche is trying to make a short field landing. That just takes practice. Now there is a lot more to do starting out with a complex aircraft that a fixed gear plane that is for sure, but as far as training in one, if you are going to own one, it's not a big issue. It may just take you a little longer to get your license. BTW, has your instructor spend any time in a comanche??? If they haven't they may be relying upon wives' tales. Lastly, calculate for yourself how much you will be spending to rent an aircraft for training. Those several thousand dollars could be used to maintain your aircraft rather than someone elses.

Scott

Scott

I dont know....buying time in a Cirrus that you dont have to maintain is really appealing.