I would go for a Piper Arrow , there is a high chance that you can drive the cost ofthe aircraft down by more than the cost of the AD inspection if the owner is in Sale focused.
You will of course be taking a chance that the aircraft will pass the AD check but as long as the aircraft has not been used for training and is of average flying hours the risk is minimal.
desH wrote:
Able to live outside in Scottish weather for circa 12-18 months until I can get another space in the hanger…(always a big waiting list!)
How good an idea is that? Summer no problem, but in the winter with limited use?
DesH
I have owned for many years a Comanche 260C and flew it all over Europe. At 65% you get 142kis, fuel consumption 12gl/h, useable fuel 86gl in 4 tanks. All up is 3400lbs with aircraft weight of 1911lbs. We flew 2couples, weekend luggage and full tanks still left us below max.
I flew from hard and grass runways, however would not recommend wet grass runways mainly due to the muck that flys around. The aircraft is comfi spacious and very stable. All Comanches were zinc chromated at the factory, so if you find one that was never re-sprayed you wont have any corrosion, if the aircraft was sprayed then it depends on the quality of work. Most parts are widely available however there are some that are harder to get or cost $$$$$$. The aircraft is very well supported by many after market suppliers, some parts are even produced by the Australian ICS. Saying that, the aircraft has 2 ADs that can be costly. One is the gear 1000h check and the other the Torque Tube T that has to be checked (if remember correctly) annually. This part can be replaced by a piper part or the ICS part. The ICS part cancels the AD while the Piper part has to be checked after 10 year (also might be wrong on the period). You will need a good mechanic to keep an eye on the aircraft as the gear is electro mechanical and correct setting is important. All together it is a great aircraft to fly and own but you must keep on top of maintanence otherwise it can become very expensive.
Some great candidates but if the mission is 130KTAS load carrying and two hours plus, wouldn’t a fixed gear hauler (Dakota, 182, 172 Reims Rocket, DR400) be a simpler proposition than the RG types? A well trimmed Archer will deliver 125KTAS and is even simpler with no CS.
Put another way, if the mission is 500nm plus I can understand the benefit of the 10-15 KTAS advantage of an RG, but for the typical 300-400nm mission the robust simplicity of a fixed gear seems to make more sense.
Dr,400 too small, not comfy enough…
Unless RG gives you >150kts and you are looking for 1000nm range with one stop and happy to fly with oxygen?
Anything less Archer/Robin does the job with 125kts on full load and 3h flying
FYI, I found the 20min difference on 400nm trips to be largely offset by a handy organisation of the cockpit and a proper breif on how to put the covers ;)
I regularly did four hour trips in my DR 400 and it is remarkably comfortable for a small airframe so comfort is not a reason to rule it out, leaving it outside in a Scottish winter is.
If it’s only one winter, I’d have no Problem leaving a Robin outside.
greg_mp wrote:
Dr,400 too small, not comfy enough…
I am really surprised, compared to what?
A_and_C wrote:
I regularly did four hour trips in my DR 400 and it is remarkably comfortable
Yes, the only vehicles I can think of are piper Lance and my car 
Ibra wrote:
I am really surprised, compared to what?
I can’t speak for the DR400 but I did sit inside a HR100 once. I had to tilt my head to the side to close the canopy and I am not that tall (ok 1.86 m but still…) Never had that problem with any other plane and I fly a M20C as it is widely known, I have enough headroom there but not in the Robin. I found the cabin of the HR100 very tight indeed in terms of headroom and also to the left, I never had anyone sit beside me.
