Comanche v. Cherokee 6/300

P

pipernd

Pre-Flight
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
37
Display Name
Display name:
Mike
I would like some advice/opinions on a future plane purchase.

I'm looking at 2 aircraft, here are the basics:
1. '69 Comanche, 3200 TTAF, 1800 SMOH, all AD's, all speed mods, new interior (leather, carpet), new glass, all mods, very good avionics (530/430 both was), needs paint.

2. '79 Cherokee 6/300, 2950 TTAF, 281 smoh, very basic avionics, good interior, good exterior.

the planes are priced pretty similiarly (+/- $5K).

I'm interested in hearing from those who have flown both and any opinions on the strengths/weaknesses of one versus the other or any other opinions one may have.

thanks in advance!
 
wow....two totally different aircraft. How'd it come down between these two?

The Six sounds like a better deal to me....
 
If it was me, I'd go with the 6 as well. Lower engine time and assuming a recent overhaul, you'll get more mileage out of it.

Also depends on your mission. Very basic avionics to me raises the question of cost to upgrade those avionics vs an overhaul on the comanche.
 
I initially was looking at the PA-32 series b/c I wanted the UL and 6 "person" (wife, 2 kids, 2 dogs) capacity. Then, through numerous conversations with various people/pilots, I started questioning whether I truly needed the 6 person capacity. My "mission" will be divided between personal and business w/ trips in the 500nm range. The vast majority of the time it will be 4 souls or less on board.
So then I started looking at Dakotas when I was shown a Comanche for sale at my local airport. I had known Comanches when I first started flying in the mid-80's and love the look of them so I became interested.

Setting aside the airframe for a moment, it comes down to new engine versus new avionics.
 
I think you need to fly both....before you go further.

Those are two birds of a different color to only be shopping on avionics and engines.

The Six is a family traveling machine. That forward baggage compartment makes it a sweet deal.:yes:

923_large_image__15304.1344401248.1280.1280.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'd go with the 6 even though you say most of the time you only need a 4 place. 6 will be there if and when you need a little more capacity. Not sure if the 6 has that cargo bin between the engine and cockpit like the Lance, but if it does that helps tremendously on W&B. Other than that, looks like a low time sparse avionics vs high time great avionics battle. May the best plane win! :wink2:
 
That's my plan of course. I have some Comanche time, not a lot. Have not flown a 6/300.
I love the speed of the Comanche but it's not so disparate that it makes THAT much of a difference I suppose. Also, the fixed gear on the Cherokee is one less concern/maintenance item.
I think the 6 probably fits my plan better but there's something about the Comanche. . .
 
Price out your avionics dream and then price out the overhaul....the pros/cons list always helps too.
 
Caramon13 said:
If it was me, I'd go with the 6 as well. Lower engine time and assuming a recent overhaul, you'll get more mileage out of it.

Also depends on your mission. Very basic avionics to me raises the question of cost to upgrade those avionics vs an overhaul on the comanche.
Click to expand...

GMascelli said:
Price out your avionics dream and then price out the overhaul....the pros/cons list always helps too.
Click to expand...

I've been told a factory reman on the engine would be $45K and paint is another $12K. so for another $57K the Comanche is effectively a new plane (albeit a 45+ year old plane)

so could I get a "dream panel" for $52K? Probably not but I would think you could get a pretty nice set up for something well w/in that range.
 
Sounds like you want the Comanche, go for it then! Still think the 6 better, and a lot roomier.
 
Both have autopilot.

good point on the insurance. I've got a quote on the Comanche but not the 6.

and I'm afraid I like the 'idea' of the Comanche moreso the plane itself. It's a sexy airplane. I love the lines. More importantly my wife loves the lines. it's a sportscar v. suv.
 
If you have an instrument rating and something north of a couple hundred hours....the insurance on the Six will be around $1,200-1,500/yr.
 
Never flown either, but this is my advice anyway, lol. You decide on your mission. If going a little slower but carrying more load is important, get the 300. If you want more speed and the comanche will carry what you need, go with it.

Not cheap, but you can always change panels and interiors, but you can't really change the plane. Sometimes its better to spend more and get the plane you want i.e. cherokee 300 with nice panel or comanche with low-mid time engine for instance. It comes out cheaper than installing the upgrades/overhauling the engine yourself.
 
thanks. . .the above is beginning to clarify my thought process. Here's a question:

You have airplane A: high engine time, very good avionics but not perfect/exactly what you'd want but doesn't need anything.

Airplane B: same make/model as airplane A but low engine time but lacking wholly in avionics.

where would you go? If new engine is $45K. Go new engine and good avionics OR go low engine time and do avionics yourself? Is $45K enough to do a really solid panel that would be customized to your liking?
 
On longer trips (which 500 nm counts), you'll appreciate the speed of the Comanche. I'd go Comanche unless you expect to need the space and useful load.
 
$45k for an engine overhaul in a Comanche sounds high to me. I am pricing one now for mine ('58 Comanche 250) and a factory reman is $36k... Not sure how you spend another 10k.

My UL in the Comanche is 1300 lbs. (tip tanks)
 
If your mission doesn't require RNAV approaches and typically doesn't venture more than 300 miles, I think the 6 is a clear winner here. Use an Ipad and call it a day.
 
pipernd said:
thanks. . .the above is beginning to clarify my thought process. Here's a question:

You have airplane A: high engine time, very good avionics but not perfect/exactly what you'd want but doesn't need anything.

Airplane B: same make/model as airplane A but low engine time but lacking wholly in avionics.

where would you go? If new engine is $45K. Go new engine and good avionics OR go low engine time and do avionics yourself? Is $45K enough to do a really solid panel that would be customized to your liking?
Click to expand...

The engine overhaul is a routine, well known procedure (like replacing the furnace and air conditioner in the house)

The avionics upgrade on any older airplane is always custom surgery (like doing a kitchen & bath renovation on the house).

One is a clear lower risk option (from a costmanagement standpoint).
 
Tflhndn said:
$45k for an engine overhaul in a Comanche sounds high to me. I am pricing one now for mine ('58 Comanche 250) and a factory reman is $36k... Not sure how you spend another 10k.

My UL in the Comanche is 1300 lbs. (tip tanks)
Click to expand...

That's a number (ball park obviously) I've been given by a couple of different people. I like your number better! What engine do you have? Is it the same IO-540 260 hp engine the '69 C model has?
 
GRG55 said:
The engine overhaul is a routine, well known procedure (like replacing the furnace and air conditioner in the house)

The avionics upgrade on any older airplane is always custom surgery (like doing a kitchen & bath renovation on the house).

One is a clear lower risk option (from a costmanagement standpoint).
Click to expand...

Devil's advocate: doesn't matter if you do the engine oh or it's been done for you as it is what it is (as you kinda say)

The avionics allows you to choose what YOU want which is distinct from what someone else may have/want. Question is. . .is $45K enough?
 
pipernd said:
Both have autopilot.

good point on the insurance. I've got a quote on the Comanche but not the 6.

and I'm afraid I like the 'idea' of the Comanche moreso the plane itself. It's a sexy airplane. I love the lines. More importantly my wife loves the lines. it's a sportscar v. suv.
Click to expand...

Fly both types more than just a couple of circuits before you make a decision.

Around my airport the Comanche owners are much more rabid fanatics about the virtues of their airplanes than any of the Cherokee pilots. That's not to say the Cherokees aren't great airplanes; they just don't seem to generate the same emotional response as a Comanche. I have never flown a Comanche, but I get the sense this difference may be in part how the Comanche flies.
 
pipernd said:
Devil's advocate: doesn't matter if you do the engine oh or it's been done for you as it is what it is (as you kinda say)

The avionics allows you to choose what YOU want which is distinct from what someone else may have/want. Question is. . .is $45K enough?
Click to expand...

Understand fully.

In fact, my Aztec was purchased in part because it had good engines. But it didn't come with anything too special on the panel (430 coupled to the autopilot, good set of early 90s vintage King equipment)

I am doing the panel porn thing right now contemplating some center stack upgrades, including ADS-B compliance. What I am finding is, like a house reno, it is difficult to do just one or two things. Once you open things up and start shuffling things around the temptation to "do it right and do it all at one time" is hard to resist. And that means the $ keep adding up. These days it's not too difficult to spend as much on a panel as you spent on the rest of the airplane.

If the panel is already stacked with goodies, the previous owner will never get all that money back, so you benefit. My point was that an engine overhaul is a more certain expenditure from the standpoint of budgeting and managing the costs - less chance of a "surprise".
 
one more point I'd like to add. A 300 or 700 SMOH doesn't mean diddly if your engine starts making metal. It's possible to buy a plane with 1800 SMOH that will out last another plane with a low time engine. avionics are pretty dependable IMO. I did have an issue with my 430 and engine monitor, but those repairs were pretty inexpensive compared to replacing a cylinder.
 
GRG55 said:
Fly both types more than just a couple of circuits before you make a decision.

Around my airport the Comanche owners are much more rabid fanatics about the virtues of their airplanes than any of the Cherokee pilots. That's not to say the Cherokees aren't great airplanes; they just don't seem to generate the same emotional response as a Comanche. I have never flown a Comanche, but I get the sense this difference may be in part how the Comanche flies.
Click to expand...

I think this fanaticism is partly why I'm struggling (absent flying the 6).

It's heart over head. Need to find a 6 to play with for a few hours I guess!
 
pipernd said:
I think this fanaticism is partly why I'm struggling (absent flying the 6).

It's heart over head. Need to find a 6 to play with for a few hours I guess!
Click to expand...

the pilot will prefer the Comanche.....the family will enjoy the cabin of the Six.

Piper-Saratoga-Inside.jpg
 
GRG55 said:
Around my airport the Comanche owners are much more rabid fanatics about the virtues of their airplanes than any of the Cherokee pilots. That's not to say the Cherokees aren't great airplanes; they just don't seem to generate the same emotional response as a Comanche.
Click to expand...

Similarly, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who sings the virtues of a 172. The fact remains they've made and sold more of them than any other airframe ever worldwide. I surmise it must have something going for it.
 
Different missions. Unless you need the heavy-hauling abilities of a Six, you'll be carrying around more plane than you need 95% of the time.

Otoh, if you need the hauling abilities of a Six, aComanche will never do.

The Comanche C is a beautiful and capable bird. You can't lose with either one.
 
pipernd said:
That's a number (ball park obviously) I've been given by a couple of different people. I like your number better! What engine do you have? Is it the same IO-540 260 hp engine the '69 C model has?
Click to expand...

I had the same dilemma a while back. Both great planes but 2 different missions. The six is more a SUV and the PA24 is more a sports car. Both good, just different.

I chose the 69 Comanche (C model). We overhauled the engine to new specs at TRIAD last fall for 39K including overhauling most of the appliances. We did the prop at the same time for 2K.

It's actually a 6 seater (4 real seats with two kiddie seats in the back), like most, we removed the kiddie seats and it's a full fuel, full 4 seat plane.

One of your choices will eventually need a engine, the other will need a panel upgrade so I think it's a tie in that respect.

It'll boil down to the mission i think. (but you'll never regret the Comanche :yes:)
 
jbarrass said:
I had the same dilemma a while back. Both great planes but 2 different missions. The six is more a SUV and the PA24 is more a sports car. Both good, just different.
Click to expand...

We were in the same boat, my partner and I were down to the J201 vs Cherokee 6. He liked the idea of being able to take a plane load of buddies off fishing somewhere, but in the end that would only constitute 10% of the missions, so we went for efficient speed. Not to mention an IO-360 is a lot cheaper to overhaul vs the 6.
 
Take it from me, buying a plane for the 10% as Bill already said will make you crazy.

I wanted a plane that would get me through my IFR training, the PA-28-180C was a bit overkill, but my wife wanted to fly with me.

I caved and bought it, turns out she doesn't like flying that much and it's usually me up in the plane by myself or with one other person. A two-seater would have been way more efficient.

The next plane I buy (down the road) may be a Mooney :). I had a chance to buy a Comanche 400 but turned it down. That would have been an awesome plane to fly myself. If my family DID fly with me more often I think it would be no-contest we'd go the 6 route.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
the pilot will prefer the Comanche.....the family will enjoy the cabin of the Six.

Piper-Saratoga-Inside.jpg
Click to expand...

Serious dilemma indeed!

I tend to put a high value on useful load and utility; one of the reasons I chose an Aztec over some of the faster machines such as the Twin Comanche. Those big doors in you pic would get my attention.

For each comes down to what satisfies the most needs (rational) and wants (emotional) I suppose.
 
Caramon13 said:
Take it from me, buying a plane for the 10% as Bill already said will make you crazy.

I wanted a plane that would get me through my IFR training, the PA-28-180C was a bit overkill, but my wife wanted to fly with me.

I caved and bought it, turns out she doesn't like flying that much and it's usually me up in the plane by myself or with one other person. A two-seater would have been way more efficient.

The next plane I buy (down the road) may be a Mooney :).
Click to expand...

Yup....did the same thing. The wife didn't fly....so we sold the Six and down sized to a faster plane. :yes::D
1101p_bonanza_top.jpg
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Yup....did the same thing. The wife didn't fly....so we sold the Six and down sized to a faster plane. :yes::D
1101p_bonanza_top.jpg
Click to expand...

that's a beautiful plane. . . I just hate the idea of having to put the tail back on every so often! Seriously though, I've been putting time on an F33 recently which is another reason I love the Comanche idea (poor man's Bonanza!)
 
Does anyone know which Comanches had the additional (5th or 6th seat)? Is it an option that could go in any of them? Could you do it in a 400?

I'm actually torn between the same two types of planes and a getting Comanche speed with a 5th or 6th seat would sure be interesting.
 
pipernd said:
that's a beautiful plane. . . I just hate the idea of having to put the tail back on every so often! Seriously though, I've been putting time on an F33 recently which is another reason I love the Comanche idea (poor man's Bonanza!)
Click to expand...

poor man's Comanche?.....Na, they're bout the same:no:

I purchased the Bo for $5K less than I sold the '64 Six. :yes: It was a good exchange for an upgraded GNS530W and STec 60-2 autopilot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top