I think I found my ideal plane once I'm ready to buy

midcap

midcap

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
1,515
Location
South Louisiana
Display Name
Display name:
midcap
It's a Comanche 260C turbo.

Nice specs from a old bird, just to actually find one.

The 260-TC, or Turbo C, is the hot rod of the 260 series. It has a turbo normalizing system with what Piper called a "second throttle" on the power quadrant. The procedure for using this manually controlled turbocharger was to first use throttle to bring manifold pressure up to a desired level. If conditions are such that insufficient manifold pressure is developed for the task at hand, then the drill is to begin closing the turbo's wastegate by moving the turbocharger lever forward. This raises manifold pressure to values as high as 29 inches MAP at altitudes up to 25,000 feet. In this way, the "second throttle" can make up for the adverse effects of high-density altitude. The turbo lever must be moved slowly to avoid sudden, inadvertent over-boosting. With full turbocharger and a power setting of 25 inches MAP, 2,400 rpm, and 15 gph, the TC could turn in a true airspeed of 198 knots at 25,000 feet. At 12,000 feet, the TC could still turn out 178 knots using 27 inches MAP, 2,400 rpm, and 15 to 17 gph. Range with the 90-gallon tanks could reach 1,000 nm with IFR reserves. Gross weight is 3,200 pounds, useful load is 1,306 pounds, and if you really had the need for speed, you could crack open the turbo at optimum altitude and achieve 210 knots. New, the TC sold for between $46,375 and $51,720.
 
midcap said:
In this way, the "second throttle" can make up for the adverse effects of high-density altitude.
Click to expand...
Your location says you live in South Louisiana, correct? Unless you plan to take it out west, that "second throttle" would collect dust. I don't think you would experience a high enough DA to truly need a Turbo, IMO. However, it really depends upon your mission and what you intend to do with it.
 
Last edited:
a local guy just bought a nice looking non turbo 250. not sure what supplying the 'new' purchase price means.
 
A turbo is a wonderful weather avoidance tool for either summer cumulus clouds or a winter cloud deck. This flat lander likes his turbo.
 
Ryanb said:
Your location says you live in South Louisiana, correct? Unless you plan to take it out west, that "second throttle" would collect dust. I don't think you would experience a high enough DA to truly need a Turbo, IMO. However, it really depends upon your mission and what you intend to do with it.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's where I live, I just assumed on a long x-country I could climb up and pour on the coals with the turbo.
 
Last edited:
What turbo aircraft do is go fast up high. Only worth it for longer trips. One consideration, you have to buy and breathe oxygen up there. Another downside is the fuel burn and maintenance.
 
Slightly OT but what SEL planes arent turbo normalized, but actually turbo charged or super charged for more power? Apart from old school Warbirds. As in sea level altitude and 33-35in of MP? I know many twins are like this, but im not familiar with many SEL planes like this.
 
ChemGuy said:
Slightly OT but what SEL planes arent turbo normalized, but actually turbo charged or super charged for more power? Apart from old school Warbirds. As in sea level altitude and 33-35in of MP? I know many twins are like this, but im not familiar with many SEL planes like this.
Click to expand...

The newer SR22T's are turbocharged up to 36" of MAP for climb out. My older TN (Turbonormalized) is designed to run 30" from SL to it's certified operating ceiling of FL250. Performance between the two is very similar with the TN usually a touch faster but more finicky to get setup correctly and maintain.
 
coloradobluesky said:
What turbo aircraft do is go fast up high. Only worth it for longer trips. One consideration, you have to buy and breathe oxygen up there. Another downside is the fuel burn and maintenance.
Click to expand...

It's not just go fast at altitude. The climb capability, especially at high DA, might be the greatest advantage of TC.

As for fuel burn, maintenance, breathing oxygen and so forth, TC is just another step in the performance continuum - constant speed props, 6-cylinder engines, retractable gear, anti-ice/de-ice equipment, turbocharging, pressurization all add to both the capability and the complexity of the airplane. They all have their place, or not. All depends on how one expects to use the airplane
 
ChemGuy said:
Slightly OT but what SEL planes arent turbo normalized, but actually turbo charged or super charged for more power? Apart from old school Warbirds. As in sea level altitude and 33-35in of MP? I know many twins are like this, but im not familiar with many SEL planes like this.
Click to expand...

To name a few off the top -

Piper Malibu/Mirage/Matrix, Arrow, TSaratoga, TDakota
Beech 36TC
Cessna T210, T182, T206, TTX
Mooney Bravo, 252, 231
 
I live in Colorado. The normally aspirated 182's and such do just fine without turbo charging. Go fly in Idaho backcountry or Alaska, land of the short airstrips. You don't see many turbos. All normally aspirated Supercubs, 180s and such.

But take a turbo 182 up to 17k and pour on the power and watch the airspeed go up. You can now make it to California (800 miles) in one day easy. You have to have oxygen but thats where turbos shine.
 
Ryanb said:
Check this article out, talks all about Turbochargers http://www.shorelineaviation.net/news---events/bid/57041/Aircraft-Engine-Turbochargers-Explained
Click to expand...

From the way it sounds the Comanche is turbo normalized.
coloradobluesky said:
I live in Colorado. The normally aspirated 182's and such do just fine without turbo charging. Go fly in Idaho backcountry or Alaska, land of the short airstrips. You don't see many turbos. All normally aspirated Supercubs, 180s and such.

But take a turbo 182 up to 17k and pour on the power and watch the airspeed go up. You can now make it to California (800 miles) in one day easy. You have to have oxygen but thats where turbos shine.
Click to expand...

you hit the nail on the head for my line of thinking with that post.

If I am flying around local or short XC trip, leave that waste gate open and just fly the plane like the turbo isn't there.

Now if I am going to do a Long XC, climb that rascal up and over the clouds and close that waste gate and watch the air speed increase.

I don't see an issue with carrying o2, my home airport can refill me.
 
To breathe oxygen, you have to have a cannula, mask, or tube in your mouth. And if you depend on it, you need a backup bottle. It can be done. Some don't like it. It also gets cold up there. You need a warm plane with a good heater.
 
The problem with the 260TC is that they only made a couple of dozen of them. I have only see two or three for sale in the last decade. You can find a turbo Twin Comanche much more easily. I am not a huge fan of the turbo Comanches. They do so well as altitude without the turbos that the marginal improvement is scarcely worth the price for most pilot's needs. The Comanche wing is very happy in the 12,000 to 15,000 range without the turbocharging.
 
My 250 gets pretty damn anemic up there. (of course - so do i)

Getting above 15000 would be nice in the summer to get above everything and be able to run at 65%+
 
coloradobluesky said:
To breathe oxygen, you have to have a cannula, mask, or tube in your mouth. And if you depend on it, you need a backup bottle. It can be done. Some don't like it. It also gets cold up there. You need a warm plane with a good heater.
Click to expand...

a cannula doesn't bother me, but as I can tell how hard a turbo Comanche is to find, it looks like I won't have to worry about that any time soon. :D
 
Kristin said:
The problem with the 260TC is that they only made a couple of dozen of them. I have only see two or three for sale in the last decade. You can find a turbo Twin Comanche much more easily. I am not a huge fan of the turbo Comanches. They do so well as altitude without the turbos that the marginal improvement is scarcely worth the price for most pilot's needs. The Comanche wing is very happy in the 12,000 to 15,000 range without the turbocharging.
Click to expand...

I don't think I would ever want to get into twins though.
 
EdFred said:
My 250 gets pretty damn anemic up there. (of course - so do i)

Getting above 15000 would be nice in the summer to get above everything and be able to run at 65%+
Click to expand...

I need to send you some PM's about your Comanche. I just keep going back to them as the aircraft I want. Great speed, good useful load and a really good air frame. They have one at my local FBO in his hangar and that is one sharp plane and the price on them are reasonable.
 
midcap said:
I don't think I would ever want to get into twins though.
Click to expand...

They are about $30 an hour more to operate than the singles and do require semi-annual recurrent training if one is going to be safe. Otherwise, it is having two small engines instead of one big one.

The Comanche is a great aircraft. Strong, well-corrosion protected, very nice flying, and up high will outrun a Bonanza because the wing is better. They have great range and economy, especially when operated in the low teens. The B and C model offer more flexibility as there is not a divider between the baggage compartment and the seats are removable. I often don't have the rear seats in my Twin Comanche, making it easier to get at stuff in flight.
 
Kristin said:
They are about $30 an hour more to operate than the singles and do require semi-annual recurrent training if one is going to be safe. Otherwise, it is having two small engines instead of one big one.
Click to expand...

That's quite eye opening. What is the climb and single engine performance like?
 
Kristin said:
They are about $30 an hour more to operate than the singles and do require semi-annual recurrent training if one is going to be safe. Otherwise, it is having two small engines instead of one big one.

The Comanche is a great aircraft. Strong, well-corrosion protected, very nice flying, and up high will outrun a Bonanza because the wing is better. They have great range and economy, especially when operated in the low teens. The B and C model offer more flexibility as there is not a divider between the baggage compartment and the seats are removable. I often don't have the rear seats in my Twin Comanche, making it easier to get at stuff in flight.
Click to expand...

That's not much more per hour. I just always assumed they would be much much more due to the extra engine.

Maybe upgrading to twin's may be in the cards in the future.

Right now my mission would be just the wife and son and a suitcase.

KHUM to KISM would be the longest trip done annually.

Except if a twin can fly me from Khum to PLS in the Turks and Caicos islands...:cool: if that were the case I would definitely consider a twin.
 
Last edited:
midcap said:
Those storms tend to pop up down here during the summers.
Click to expand...

Not sure even the turbo would get you above the stuff you really would want to avoid.

We don't have it half as bad up here, and it's not uncommon to see cells over 30k
 
CMongoose said:
That's quite eye opening. What is the climb and single engine performance like?
Click to expand...

SE climb is about 250 fpm at gross, though that only tells part of the story. The aircraft is not very draggy, so you don't have a big window of vulnerability, that being the time to go from rotation to clean and at Vyse (blueline). Typically, it take me about five seconds before the gear is up and I have achieved blueline at about 100' and can consider caging a failed engine and keep going. The windmilling prop does not create nearly as much drag as the bigger three bladed props on C-310, Baron, Navajo, etc, so you have time to identify, verify, and feather the engine.

The other day, at only a couple or three hundred pounds under gross I shut down the LH engine in cruise at about 9,500 density altitude. I was curious to see who fast we were going to be coming down hill. Well, we went about 10 nm while just bleed off the airspeed. Then she started to drift down at about 150-200 fpm. After descending about a thousand feet, she pretty much quite descending. Maybe she was going down at <50 fpm, but we had gotten so close to our destination it was time to come down anyway, so I could experiment longer. In all that, we covered at least 30 nm.
 
midcap said:
That's not much more per hour. I just always assumed they would be much much more due to the extra engine.

Maybe upgrading to twin's may be in the cards in the future.

Right now my mission would be just the wife and son and a suitcase.

KHUM to KISM would be the longest trip done annually.

Except if a twin can fly me from Khum to PLS in the Turks and Caicos islands...:cool: if that were the case I would definitely consider a twin.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who lived for a decade on the Turks and Caicos Islands and used a Twin Comanche to get to Ft. Lauderdale and points beyond. Even without the tip tanks, range is 800+ nm. I have tip tanks which gives me 114 useable and have gone 1275 nm non-stop. That was at high altitude where the economy is best. But even down low, I can do 1000 nm. While that might not get you from Louisiana non-stop to the Turks, it will get you there from the U.S. Maybe with the nacelle tanks you could make it non-stop, but what are the chances you wife will sit in the plane for 9-10 hours without a break? :)
 
Kristin said:
I have a friend who lived for a decade on the Turks and Caicos Islands and used a Twin Comanche to get to Ft. Lauderdale and points beyond. Even without the tip tanks, range is 800+ nm. I have tip tanks which gives me 114 useable and have gone 1275 nm non-stop. That was at high altitude where the economy is best. But even down low, I can do 1000 nm. While that might not get you from Louisiana non-stop to the Turks, it will get you there from the U.S. Maybe with the nacelle tanks you could make it non-stop, but what are the chances you wife will sit in the plane for 9-10 hours without a break? :)
Click to expand...

Haha, yeah that would be very rough all that time in a small plane.

I don't think she would be able to do it, but that means we can stop along the way, she loves Florida.
 
midcap said:
Haha, yeah that would be very rough all that time in a small plane.

I don't think she would be able to do it, but that means we can stop along the way, she loves Florida.
Click to expand...

As you are near the ocean and contemplating visiting the islands, you will like the way Piper's Lock Haven plant did corrosion protect on these aircraft. Each piece of sheet metal was protected with zinc chromate before they were riveted together, not sprayed after assembly. That means that there is protection in the lap seams. Comanches generally have relatively few issues with corrosion.
 
Kristin, does that corrosion comment apply to the entire Comanche line (180/250/260/400 singles, and twins)? That's really interesting.
 
Kristin said:
As you are near the ocean and contemplating visiting the islands, you will like the way Piper's Lock Haven plant did corrosion protect on these aircraft. Each piece of sheet metal was protected with zinc chromate before they were riveted together, not sprayed after assembly. That means that there is protection in the lap seams. Comanches generally have relatively few issues with corrosion.
Click to expand...

That is awesome. Shows a lot of foresight.
The more I think about it the more I think I'm going to rent the local 172 and then buy a cross country machine when I build up enough time.
 
If the Comanche has been repainted then one must be very careful of corrosion due to the paint stripper stripping off the factory protective coating in places . It needs a mechanic familiar with the Comanche to do a careful prebuy or annual.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
If the Comanche has been repainted then one must be very careful of corrosion due to the paint stripper stripping off the factory protective coating in places . It needs a mechanic familiar with the Comanche to do a careful prebuy or annual.
Click to expand...
that's good to know.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
If the Comanche has been repainted then one must be very careful of corrosion due to the paint stripper stripping off the factory protective coating in places . It needs a mechanic familiar with the Comanche to do a careful prebuy or annual.
Click to expand...

Definitely need a pre-buy by someone who really knows Comanches, not just someone who has done a few annuals on them. You really want someone who has been an owner or who has specialized.

There hasn't been too much problem with losing the zinc chromate protection. That old zinc chromate doesn't come off all that easily. Much harder than the top coat. Also, the replacement top coats are of better quality than they were 50 years ago. Add to that a two-part epoxy primer and I don't think you lose much, if any, protect on a repaint if such was done properly.
 
Depends on who repainted it and when. It happens and needs to be inspected carefully. And yes,zincc chromate is easily stripped with paint stripper.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Depends on who repainted it and when. It happens and needs to be inspected carefully. And yes,zincc chromate is easily stripped with paint stripper.
Click to expand...

Not easily, in my experience with the older Pipers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top