Folks,
I saw this add on planecheck, really not an expensive airplane with all the times it has.
http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=39485
Has anyone got experience on the Cougar? I see the speeds are not really impressive, but it is a really cheap twin to buy and has the same engines as the Warrior.
What I’ve been seeing is something like 160 kts low down flat out but more realistically 150 kts @ 13 GPH best economy at 10’000 ft. Which is very economical. Long range however you’ll be down at 130 kts but can fly for 1200 NM that way, close to 10 hrs endurance.
I am not in the market but if I was I’d have a close look at this airplane.
The article behind the aircraft review button mentions a 5700hr lifetime limit for the inboard wingspar assembly, just 700hrs away. Maybe that´s a reason?
I wonder if something has changed there.
This says that limit is 47´674 hours….
Component
Part Number
Service Life (hours)
Inboard Spar Assembly
7W10201-1
47,674
Has nobody here ever flown or maintained a Cougar? They seem to be really exotic… But I seem to remember that some UK flight school used a lot of them.
You can ask in the PuF Forum, there are a few (ex)owners.
What I write is based on memory and about 25 years ago.
Cabair that was based at Elstree used to operate a fleet of these as their multi engine trainer. After I was made redundant by a large computers company I went to work at Cabair as a mechanic (for 6 months before moving to another computers company) and worked on the aircraft from time to time. I don’t remember it as a difficult aircraft to work on and also don’t remember any major issues. However, I was forced/instructed by the Chief Engineer to sign inspections (mainly on the AA5) which I didn’t agree with. I don’t know and can’t say whether my judgment was right or wrong.
I flew in the aircraft as a pax. (long after I left Cabair) and found it very easy to fly but not fast, can’t remember the IAS but think that it was about 120-125KIAS @2500’.
There was another occasion where I met in Troy an A7 that was based on the same airfield as me so went to say hi, there were the owner and an instructor from Cabair. When I was about to go they said “we will see you when you arrive”, I smiled and answered that I am much faster, they have turned around, jumped in and started the engines. By the time my pax and I climbed into my aircraft they were airborne and already at late down wind. I started the engine, did my checks and took off VFR to London. Talking to Paris info I was told that there is another aircraft flying the same route at X alt and Y miles ahead of me, we both were heading towards the same VOR. I overtook them about 8 miles from that VOR and landed 20min ahead of them. My aircraft was a Piper Comanche 260C flying at 142KIAS at 65% power. I don’t know what power setting they have flown but there was a big gap between us.
Found a POH here:
Found that at 75% best economy they are said to consume about 15 GPH total, at 65% 13 GPH and at 55% 11 GPH, at 45% 9 GPH
The performance tables are of the old fashioned kind where they give a load of power settings per altitude. Finding sweet spot speeds and consumptions is a bit time consuming…. I looked at 2500 RPM figures for comparison. Flat out would be 2700 but I can’t imagine someone running those engines at 2700 for a couple of hours…
TAS at 75% at 6000 ft is advertized as 152 kt, at 65% 143 kt and at 55% 131 kt.
TAS at 68% at 8000 ft is advertized as 148 kt, at 65% 142 kt and at 55% 130 kt.
TAS at 65% at 10000 ft is advertized as 147 kt, at 55% 127 kt.
TAS at 58% at 12000 ft is advertized as 138 kt, at 55% 128 kt.
Range at 55% power with best economy is advertized as about 1160 NM @ 133 kt TAS and @ 8000 ft. With best power and 148 kts, range goes down to about 900 NM. Flat out with 160 kt range goes down to about 840 NM. (45’ @45% holding and taxi, take off, climb, cruise and descent included. ) I’d deduct 100 NM for practical planning as there will be needs for alternate and who is gonna fly holding at 45% anyway…)
For a twin this appears really slow to me. There are no figures over 12000 ft even though service ceiling is indicated as 17400 ft in the advertizing section up front.
OEI service ceiling is absymal with 4600 ft @ max tow, it goes up to about 9000 ft at 3400 lb (ISA) which suggests that in a drift down situation it may hold anywhere between 6 and 10k ft. when light. At 6000 ft and max power on the live engine, it would consume about 12 GPH on that one engine, there are no figures for OEI cruise.
Obviously, over water and with one engine out it will be able to fly on for quite a while like this but I’d think seeing how fast it is on two, it will be around 100 kts TAS on one maybe?
Doesn’t look like a very attractive traveller to me, which corresponds what Ben has been writing .
I did my MEP rating on one. It was comfortable to ride in, plenty of cabin space, with adequate two-engine performance. OEI is fine at low-level; the fuel system is the simplest possible, but the engines are carburretted so carb heat/icing are issues. I thought it was a great trainer, fairly benign, but I would not consider buying one for personal use , not least because of parts availability. I currently fly a twin comanche which despite being pretty basic, is light years better.
Mark_B wrote:
I currently fly a twin comanche which despite being pretty basic, is light years better.
I think so too. Looking at the figures from the POH explains the price.
Actually just landed after a ferry flight of a Cougar (pic attached). I have about 30 hours on it. I find it rather nice to fly, albeit a bit slow and underpowered. OEI is not too pleasant, but not too bad if you’re quick.
It’s heavy on the controls and very stable so it feels bigger than it is. Spacious cockpit and cabin. Good instrument platform. Generally easy to fly and land. Does not like too much ice.
Maintenance is fairly straight forward. Beware of corrosion in the empennage. Let me know if you need details/pics as I have it in the hangar for a few days. 
