How is the Piper Comanche?

ateamer said:
Why in the world would someone do that? It’s still an O-320, so it’s not like they’re getting back some signficant weight. Maybe they weren’t happy flying with adequate horsepower and decided it was better to go with marginal?
Click to expand...

Yup, that ^^^ Those I know did it in order to run Mogas in their Cherokees.
 
schmookeeg said:
I can't think of any problems that LESS horsepower solves.
Click to expand...

- Higher acquisition cost
- Higher maintenance cost
- Higher overhaul cost
- Need for HP rating
- Weight and balance
- Higher fuel burn

Just to name a few. In the Comanche 180 vs. 250 example, sure with the 180 you lose 200 lbs in useful load and a few kts in cruise but increase your endurance and are less nose heavy. Also, going from the 250 to a 180 wouldn't be my first choice. I am just wondering if that's even a possibility to have options once it is time for a new engine.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
All numbers in CAD: An Arrow III with a low time engine: $230k. A Comanche 250 with a high time engine: $65k (off market deal I came across). A overhauled O360 plus labor to strap it on: ~$60k so total of $125k
Click to expand...
Just a guess, but the extra labor you incur to mount a different engine might be enough to offset the higher cost to overhaul the same engine.
 
They dont have Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor in Canada to look up to as an example of proper mechanical strategy.
 
180hp has more range, less moving parts(valves, cylinders, etc), more efficiency, cooler temps, more likely to reach TBO. I would not make the conversion, but I would consider a 180 if I did not need the speed or load hauling ability. According to the book, 180 had a less take off distance(50 ft if a remember correctly) than a 250 at gross. I understand most would like a 250, but for the right person, a 180 would be a good plane. I flew my 180 out of a dirt strip 7202ft(E32) as I did my 250 for 10 yrs. Neither was designed for STOL, but all planes have their plus and minuses. Having owned both PA 24’s types, as well as PA30, it would depend on 85% of my missions, not which one is “better”. At age 76 I fly a 180/csp Skyhawk(insurance getting to be a factor). If I was younger, only had my wife on board, few trips over mountains, most trips under 700nm, a 180 Comanche would be my first choice.
 
The 160 from the 140" conversion increases the output by 10HP, higher compression pistons and a new carb is pretty much it I think
 
I don't think anyone is arguing against buying a comanche 180 if it fits the mission. It's the messy downrate conversion that seems like a potential boondoggle.
 
So, I am looking at the logs of a Comanche and saw that the horn inspection was last performed and logged correctly in 2019 and about 580 hours ago (so, essentially the plane is not airworthy as of right now). However, the owner said it was "recently done". The only thing that was "recently" done in the logs is logged as "stabilizer counter weight inspection completed" with no reference to the AD. I doubt that's the right inspection, right? The inspections prior to this one were always logged properly with the AD number present. Any mechanics here who can confirm that "stabilizer counter weight inspection completed" is NOT the horn AD inspection? The plane has the regular Piper horn, not the aussie horn.
 
What ever they called it doesn’t matter without the AD number listed and the method of compliance in the sign off.
Chrisgoesflying said:
So, I am looking at the logs of a Comanche and saw that the horn inspection was last performed and logged correctly in 2019 and about 580 hours ago (so, essentially the plane is not airworthy as of right now). However, the owner said it was "recently done". The only thing that was "recently" done in the logs is logged as "stabilizer counter weight inspection completed" with no reference to the AD. I doubt that's the right inspection, right? The inspections prior to this one were always logged properly with the AD number present. Any mechanics here who can confirm that "stabilizer counter weight inspection completed" is NOT the horn AD inspection? The plane has the regular Piper horn, not the aussie horn.
Click to expand...
 
Depends on what they did with the horn. Could fall under the 10yr/1000 hr repeat. There are multiple methods of compliance. The best one is to replace it with the Australian horn and never have to worry about it again.

Counterweight inspection is not the same as 2012-17-06. The counterweight inspection I have done every annual and it's a yawner.
 
Correct me if I’m wrong but from my understanding of the AD, it needs to be inspected every 5 years or 500 hours whichever comes first. The only way to get 1,000 hours or 10 years is by installing a new one. In 2019, the logs said “inspected as per AD 2012-17-06” which means it should be inspected again after 500 hours, or in this particular plane, 80 hours ago.

On another note, what is it with Comanches not having shoulder harnesses? Saw several for sale with no front seat shoulder harness. Is it difficult and expensive to install?
 
Point of interest. To the best of my knowledge and from conversations with those who know such things, here have been no original horns with cracks found after the initial inspection and reinstallation with through-proper bolt torque. Some might contend that continuous R&R for inspection actually leads to a greater chance of maintenance induced failure.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Point of interest. To the best of my knowledge and from conversations with those who know such things, here have been no original horns with cracks found after the initial inspection and reinstallation with through-proper bolt torque. Some might contend that continuous R&R for inspection actually leads to a greater chance of maintenance induced failure.
Click to expand...

I have heard this as well and I hear this AD is very close to going away.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Point of interest. To the best of my knowledge and from conversations with those who know such things, here have been no original horns with cracks found after the initial inspection and reinstallation with through-proper bolt torque. Some might contend that continuous R&R for inspection actually leads to a greater chance of maintenance induced failure.
Click to expand...
One of the points of argument against the AD was that the cracks were being found because of / caused by the SB inspection. FAA dismissed that as nonsense, because, FAA.
 
EdFred said:
There's a reason the 180 was developed first and became a 250 and not the other way around. The 180s are dog s*** on takeoff.
Click to expand...

Actually, they were in development at the same time. The first 104 Comanches were all 180's. After just a few months, the 250's were being delivered. If the 180's are underpowered, so are all of the 1,000's of Arrows.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
So, I am looking at the logs of a Comanche and saw that the horn inspection was last performed and logged correctly in 2019 and about 580 hours ago (so, essentially the plane is not airworthy as of right now). However, the owner said it was "recently done". The only thing that was "recently" done in the logs is logged as "stabilizer counter weight inspection completed" with no reference to the AD. I doubt that's the right inspection, right? The inspections prior to this one were always logged properly with the AD number present. Any mechanics here who can confirm that "stabilizer counter weight inspection completed" is NOT the horn AD inspection? The plane has the regular Piper horn, not the aussie horn.
Click to expand...

You are correct. It is not. I have passing knowledge of Comanche maintenance and AD's.
 
Perhaps referring to the fact that they have stall indicator lights versus horns.

Mine doesn't have an audible horn but rather, a light in the panel that lets you know the stall is near.
 
Michael T. Runyan said:
I've been looking at a 1963, 180 Model. Was told there is no stall horn by the current owner. Do you know what the situation is there?
Click to expand...

I believe stall indicators (light or horn) were an option back then. I know I have flown a 180 with no stall indication other than the aerodynamic indications (buffeting, etc.) There wasn't even a stall vane installed on the wing, that area was covered by a blank plate (which, presumably, would be replaced by the stall vane if you paid for that option).

It wouldn't be a make or break item for me.
 
The 180 Comanche was certified without a stall warning device. Apparently the aerodynamic buffet was determined to be adequate.
 
Mine is a 250 and has a stall warning light. The horn that you normally hear in Cessnas is for the gear reminder in the Comanche.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Mine is a 250 and has a stall warning light. The horn that you normally hear in Cessnas is for the gear reminder in the Comanche.
Click to expand...
It sounds like between April 2023 and September 2023 you upgrade to the 250 after all. Is that right? Is there a different POA thread that talks about your transition? Or maybe I am misunderstanding.
 
texasclouds said:
We pulled up to the Million Air ramp at AUS and in a sea of jets I pointed out a nice Comanche. My capn said something along the lines of “you sure do point out the crappiest planes on the ramp”.
Click to expand...
No doubt that dude started off flying something that looked bad.
 
Justin M said:
It sounds like between April 2023 and September 2023 you upgrade to the 250 after all. Is that right? Is there a different POA thread that talks about your transition? Or maybe I am misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

That is correct. Bought the Comanche in May and have flown it 30ish hours so far all across Canada. There is a thread about when I bought it. I’ll dig it up and link to it when I’m on the computer.
 
Justin M said:
Thanks.

I’m guessing you found a great Comanche and went for it even though your initial thoughts at the beginning of the thread sounded like you’d wait until your family needed it in a few years.

Anyway, happy for you and thanks for the link.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize how bad we needed it until we actually had it lol. It's a whole new world being able to go on trips and actually pack more than just a toothbrush. I just completed a trip, three adults, one big dog, full fuel and baggage compartment loaded to the brim and we still had 30 lbs to spare.

It all just fell into place. I had an offer better than expected on my Cherokee and at the same time, there was a Comanche for sale for less than what I wanted to spend so I decided to go for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top