SUS Aero Commander Accident
- Thread starter phill1174
- Start date
ppragman
No pasa nada.
I don’t have an ex wife, but “got me” I guess.
DropTank
Well-Known Member
you still have time...
imagine hating on talking about airplanes on an airplane site
210M/N are all I have in the logbook, besides a 210-5A jump plane.
The turbo ones really always seemed like the perfect personal aircraft, it was a stable ifr machine and like miller said they would get to scooting in the teens.
I am glad I did not have to pay to maintain one, though
210M/N are all I have in the logbook, besides a 210-5A jump plane.
The turbo ones really always seemed like the perfect personal aircraft, it was a stable ifr machine and like miller said they would get to scooting in the teens.
I am glad I did not have to pay to maintain one, though
ahw01
Well-Known Member
BelllaaanKA
WacoFan
Bigly
Last good Beechcraft. They've been putting out trash since the last G17 left the factory in 1949.
ppragman
No pasa nada.
Right?! I don't know, to be honest I flew a couple of Cessna 400 series airplanes - I liked the PA31-350 way better, but on the single engine side I never flew a piper single I really liked.
I have like 3 hours in a 210L in my log book? It was not appreciably different than flying the 206? But admittedly I wasn't flying it day in and day out. I did like how it got up and moved.
ppragman
No pasa nada.
14 years this year, obviously this could implode at any moment, but things are fine. Also, dude, you don't like talking about airplanes? Why are you here? I haven't even turned a prop for money in like 6 years and I still LOVE airplanes... they're amazing! And the nuance and differences between them is part of the fun.
ASpilot2be
Qbicle seat warmer
The 207 is the worst airplane I have ever flown. Just throwing that out there.
DropTank
Well-Known Member
I wish your marriage great longevity and success. Hope you don't join the broken masses.
I didn't mean to bash the argument, I meant to bash Cessna and Piper.
My (positive) Beech comment was made in jest
Worked on and flown all of them, don't miss a single one of the 3.
Snob mode on:
Look, once you fly a Pilatus, everything else with a prop seems primitive.
(including and especially the King Air)
I know, different price points....
ppragman
No pasa nada.
I love that airplane, but I love it for different reasons than I should. It was like an abusive relationship - flying the 207 is the "I can change her" of Alaska flying. She's not going to change and you're going to suffer. Also, it was the "hardest" airplane I flew, even though it's not a hard airplane to fly. I can think of the knock-off Foxworthy bit: "Oh, you're going to be desperately trying to get in because there's nothing open in 50 miles when the weather suddenly changes and you're popping in and out of the clouds and flying a hand made instrument approach while they hold the visibility up for the last 3 guys stuck out of the surface area? The panel is a shotgun blast of instruments in crazy places and the CHT doesn't really work? The best instrument in the airplane is Eskimo ADF? You're probably in a 207." Like, the conditions that you use those damn things in are so varied and dynamic and abusive that I can respect the dislike and simultaneously think back to flying the thing so damn fondly.
Also, the sled is a "bad" design for a wide array of reasons. It's too long, the gear are sproingy, and IO520F is a bit underpowered for what you're trying to do with the thing most of the time. The nose baggage is inadequate and the pilot seat is uncomfortable. The seats are convenient to install and remove though. Still, I love the airplane because it taught me more about aerodynamics than any other flying machine I climbed into. I prefer it to the Cherokee 6; still though, the "sled" is weird and bad for a wide variety of reasons.
The length is long enough to generate all the various types of stability you talk about in flight school. The airplane will literally get neutrally stable at the aft end of the CG - it's kind of crazy, and if you have a load shift and put a couple hundred pounds in the aft baggage (ask 19 year old me how much of a dumbass he was for not properly securing his cargo), it will demonstrate some types of instability too. It's both weirdly easy to land, and also strangely hard to land. I'm sure if you didn't have the gigantor oversized landis nose fork, it'd be better, but you chew through props if you don't. You're basically landing by braile on every leg, and eventually you get good at it? But adjust the seat 8 tenths of an inch or climb into a different airplane and you're going to be making terrible landings for the next hour until you learn how to land again.
It does well in the ice though - better than the comparable piper in my experience. That said, my general disgust with winter is a direct result of flying the sled. It is straight up too drafty and cold, and I'm sorry, I should not have to pop a piece of scat tubing off of a hose clamp and duct heat into my pantleg so my balls don't freeze. That might just be because the ones I flew had more hours than sin though. I flew a 207 with 18,000 hours on the airframe in 2008, and that airplane has been out there flying 1000 hours per year every year since then. The machine is incredible, and painfully cold.
ppragman
No pasa nada.
agreed tbh, the PC12 was an amazing airplane.
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
I always tell people the PC12 is far and away the best airplane I’ve flown (and I like to think that list is substantially longer than the CFI->Horizon/Skywest->Alaska folks they usually with). The Lear 45 is still my favorite, but the PC12 was objectively a better airplane. The Navajo was the most fun.
206-900ER still makes me giggle to this day
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Yknow, I actually thought it handled a bit better than the Cherokee. The flat floor made it easier to load in some ways, but in others the Cherokee was easier to load. Certainly the larger nose compartment made it easier to keep the CG reasonable on the 6. Also, the back 2 seats on the 6 were really easy for the village elders to get into. And if you had a lot of USPS you could build a flat floor pretty quick with the thin flat rate boxes and the Amazon dog food. The Lycoming was less fussy. Manual flaps were nice.
As far as maintenance, no comparison. Everything on the 206/207 was twice as complicated as it needed to be. On the Cherokee you could reach most everything once you got the middle seat board out (which was probably twice as hard as it needed to be because the last •wit cross threaded and/or stripped half the screws) where on the Cessna you had to work through access holes in the floor. Also the bottom cowl comes off the Cherokee. Doing anything in the engine bay on the Cessna sucked because the intake, exhaust, and pushrods were all on the bottom of the cylinder heads AND the lower cowl didn’t come off. Heaven help you if you had the power flow exhaust. So many slipping starter adapters. The fuel injection system could be finicky. Etc.
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
I haven’t worked on wood, but imho it’s 6 of 1 half dozen of the other. Metal may have a corrosion risk comparable to wood rot, but really only on the really old stuff before good corrosion preventive primers were a thing. Anything that had each individual piece painted up with a good epoxy primer before assembly is gonna be good to go for a looong time unless you’re talking salt water floatplane ops. OTOH wood doesn’t really have a fatigue life and with an aluminum wing sooner or later the reaper comes for it in the form of micro cracks.
DropTank
Well-Known Member
The 207 and Cherokee 6 have a lot of similarities
Both were made from good airplanes that were stretched to insanity.
and both, when loaded "typically" had the same pitch on takeoff, cruise, and landing and both are nearly tail draggers.
They worked...
they were relatively cheap for a reason.
(guess I should include the 737 and MD-80 series too)
Both were made from good airplanes that were stretched to insanity.
and both, when loaded "typically" had the same pitch on takeoff, cruise, and landing and both are nearly tail draggers.
They worked...
they were relatively cheap for a reason.
(guess I should include the 737 and MD-80 series too)