Is a Piper PA-24-180 Comanche under powered?

jd21476

jd21476

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
702
Location
San Diego, CA
Display Name
Display name:
jd21476
I was looking at the Piper PA-24 Comanche series and I see that they made three engine variations. They have the 180hp, the 250hp and the 260hp....and actually I think a 400. Anyway, has anyone ever flown the 180hp version? Is it under powered or did it feel slow?
 
I don't remember the exact numbers, but the single Commanches, being very well built, tend to be a little heavier than you'd think. Hence, the higher Hp variants are the better choice. The 180 hp cruises just fine, but heavy take offs, especially in high density conditions need absolute attention and respect. Some of the props have AD's against then, and the gear has bungees that require regular replacement. Opinion, yes, very well built airplanes, but underpowered when mated with 180hp.
 
"Underpowered" is always in the eye of the operation you intend.

I have at least a couple hundred hours in the 180 and about half that in the 250. The 180's are not speed demons, but they are perfectly reasonable airplanes if you know the limits (like any airplane), and decently efficient as well. It didn't do great on a 9000 DA day at COS, but few 180 hp airplanes do.

Calling @ahypnoz ...
 
It is not any more or less underpowered than any other 180 horse airplane. I believe the gross weight on a Comanche 180 is 2550 lb. That was the same as an Archer 2. The people that have them love them. Is an early Bonanza that had a 185 underpowered compared to a 285 horsepower Bonanza?
 
People conflate topics. As has been highlighted already, cruise speed is not the inflection point on the power discussion, imo. Power changes speed at the power of the cube root of the increase, once you move everything around to solve for the new speed. A 2550# version of a bench seat comanche on only 180HP... Yeah, I call that underpowered. Like 172RG underpowered (similar power loading). And before the tribe gets all bent outta shape, my Arrow is underpowered too, though it has better power loading than the 180hp offerings I've mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Right now I have a Grumman with the O-235 and its 108HP. It flies fine but is underpowered. If I buy another plane I dont want to be underpowered but the Comanche 180 is appealing because it tends toc ost leas than the 250
 
jd21476 said:
Right now I have a Grumman with the O-235 and its 108HP. It flies fine but is underpowered. If I buy another plane I dont want to be underpowered but the Comanche 180 is appealing because it tends toc ost leas than the 250
Click to expand...
What’s your mission? There are a ton of affordable options out there, especially if the mission is similar to the AA1, only faster.
 
There's a place for all of these airplanes. Personally I have a 260, and I wouldn't be interested in the 180 but I'm telling you the people that have them like them, it works for them. But if you want the go power and the useful load, the 250 / 260 it's hard to beat. Don't worry about the difference in gas it all works out over the Long Haul and you can always throttle back and do what a 180 can do.
 
jd21476 said:
I was looking at the Piper PA-24 Comanche series and I see that they made three engine variations. They have the 180hp, the 250hp and the 260hp....and actually I think a 400. Anyway, has anyone ever flown the 180hp version? Is it under powered or did it feel slow?
Click to expand...

The good thing about the 180 HP Comanche is it has a constant speed prop. That means it will accelerate better than other 4 seaters of similar weight but with FP prop's. Thing is, the 250's aren't that much more expensive and the 70 extra HP does make a difference on takeoff and climb.
 
Guy at our field had one. He sold it because it was a dog on takeoff. I went with a 250. I wouldn't do a 180 at full gross for the flying I do. 250, no problem. Also, unless it recently changed, insurance companies were putting a premium on the 180 vs the 250 because of the lack of power for the airframe.
11.2lbs/hp on the 250 (12 if you get the tip tank stc)
14.2lbs/hp on the 180
 
I've flown both. The 180 flies just fine, and you wouldn't know what you are missing until you've flown the 250/260. You do have to watch your takeoff/climb performance numbers a little when fully loaded, but no worse than an Archer or Arrow. The 250/260, will fly with everything short of the kitchen sink. On the 180, I always flight planned for 140kts/9gph. For the 250 I use 155kts/14gph.
 
I assume it cant be much worse than my Grumman on takeoff and definitely cant be worse on the climb out.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I've flown both. The 180 flies just fine, and you wouldn't know what you are missing until you've flown the 250/260. You do have to watch your takeoff/climb performance numbers a little when fully loaded, but no worse than an Archer or Arrow. The 250/260, will fly with everything short of the kitchen sink. On the 180, I always flight planned for 140kts/9gph. For the 250 I use 155kts/14gph.
Click to expand...

I bet the 250 can also do 140kt/9gph if desired.
 
I can do 138 to 140knots lean of peak 65% power setting 10.5 gallons per hour. It's useful on short flights if I'm in no particular hurry, with a 260
 
jd21476 said:
Right now I have a Grumman with the O-235 and its 108HP. It flies fine but is underpowered. If I buy another plane I dont want to be underpowered but the Comanche 180 is appealing because it tends toc ost leas than the 250
Click to expand...

If you want a 180 HP plane that you already know how to land, get a Tiger. If you want a Comanche get, at least, a 250. The price delta isn't worth it.

Jmcmanna said:
My Arrow can’t do 140kt on 9gph ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, though I'd say 135 on 9gph is realistic if you are at about 8000'

lblandina said:
I can do 138 to 140knots lean of peak 65% power setting 10.5 gallons per hour. It's useful on short flights if I'm in no particular hurry, with a 260
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you go that slow at 10.5. The 260 is a great plane.
 
The Comanche 180 is still a nice plane but may seem underpowered due to all of its big brothers. After flying my 250 and regularly seeing 1500+ft/min, pretty much any 180hp airplane will feel underpowered in the climb. Fuel burn isn’t a big difference either. At 160kts (speed mods) above 8000ft and 13.5gph equals 11.85NM per gallon vs 12.85NM per gallon for a 180’s 135kts @ 10.5gph.
 

Attachments

  • D87411AF-3DD7-4441-9338-FC5D9F389697.jpeg
    D87411AF-3DD7-4441-9338-FC5D9F389697.jpeg
    222.3 KB · Views: 39
jd21476 said:
I assume it cant be much worse than my Grumman on takeoff and definitely cant be worse on the climb out.
Click to expand...

A 180 Comanche is no worse on takeoff than an Arrow. It carries more on less fuel than an Arrow. The 180 is particularly strong as it was actually designed to an ultimately load of 7.5 G's and not the required 5.7 G's. That is why Piper could keep upping the engine and the gross weight. The 180 Comanche is also the nicest flying and nicest landing of the Comanches. It is really may favorite single Comanche. That being said, if I lived out west and wanted to do high and hot takeoffs and criss-cross the mountains, I would go for the higher horsepower versions. Here in the flats lands of Minnesota, I would be pretty happy with the 180, unless I felt the need to regularly carry four, in which case I want the higher useful load of the 250/260.
 
Kristin said:
A 180 Comanche is no worse on takeoff than an Arrow. It carries more on less fuel than an Arrow. The 180 is particularly strong as it was actually designed to an ultimately load of 7.5 G's and not the required 5.7 G's. That is why Piper could keep upping the engine and the gross weight. The 180 Comanche is also the nicest flying and nicest landing of the Comanches. It is really may favorite single Comanche. That being said, if I lived out west and wanted to do high and hot takeoffs and criss-cross the mountains, I would go for the higher horsepower versions. Here in the flats lands of Minnesota, I would be pretty happy with the 180, unless I felt the need to regularly carry four, in which case I want the higher useful load of the 250/260.
Click to expand...

So you did move to Minnisnowta from Alaska. Congrats on the new job!
 
I've flown both, and both are great flying airplanes. I bought a 250 because no matter how hard you push the black knob of a 180, you'll never get 250 horses out of it to climb over that tree, or out of that ice. However, you can throttle back a 250 to get 180 performance. Landing is a matter of speed control in each. Both can be landed very well, or very poorly.
 
Every airplane is underpowered..:rolleyes: Fly my 150 hp Beech Sport and you will know the definition of underpowered.
 
Last edited:
That low of a power setting you can about run the mixture anywhere you want and not hurt the engine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top