Looking for more rear cabin

Go find a Comanche 260 C. Bigger cabin and 6 seats. Leave the back seat out and there is plenty of leg room. Fastest of the Comanche series. Don
 
yakdriver said:
Go find a Comanche 260 C. Bigger cabin and 6 seats. Leave the back seat out and there is plenty of leg room. Fastest of the Comanche series. Don
Click to expand...

I haven't been able to find any source document that describes a bigger cabin on the comanche. The "POH" I have found online are incomplete and a hodge podge of partial PDFs cobbled together (they are old airplanes after all). What model year did this occur? I have only sampled the 250. I should probably swing this question over on the P forum. Thanks!
 
GRG55 said:
My, my. Touched a soft spot evidently.
Chill out. I thought it was funny...only because of the way you carry on.
Click to expand...


No. That's the problem with written word. There is no inflection. The reader is free to interpolate whatever emotion they feel the writer has intended to convey. It's terrible in emails, especially at work too.

Its interwebz protocol that thread spillover is faux pa. But if your gonna talk ****, at least do it screen to screen, Not bleed over to another post hoping to rally support without revealing your hand. Classic high school move really.
 
The 260 B also has the six place option. Get one with the extended hub Hartzell as useful load goes up to 1375lbs. Don
 
It has been brought to my attention that the individual bucket seats were placed significantly aft than the overall seating position of the bench seat, creating more leg room. Theres also been suggested the retrofit of the bench seat for individual seats is possible.

Paging comanche experts to confirm or refute both claims. Im in the process of finding a comanche with individual seats to sit in and compare, but if the 250s can be retrofitted realistically and economically, then perhaps they could get back in the running for upgrade from the arrow. Thanks and happy new year everyone.
 
If you like the flying characteristics of the Comanche, a 260B has considerably more legroom in back than the 250.

As far as conversion, I know of one airplane that was done on field approval, I don't think it would be worth the hassle. It involves fabrication of a steel cradle to hold the new seats, and structural changes to remove the package tray. The owner's name was Dale Vandever, but he's since flown west.

Easier to just find a nice 260B or C. Those also come with "toy" 5th and 6th seats, but are good only for very, very young pax.
 
Last edited:
Chip Sylverne said:
If you like the flying characteristics of the Comanche, a 260B has considerably more legroom in back than the 250.

As far as conversion, I know of one airplane that was done on field approval, I don't think it would be worth the hassle. It involves fabrication of a steel cradle to hold the new seats, and structural changes to remove the package tray. The owner's name was Dale Vandever, but he's since flown west.

Easier to just find a nice 260B or C. Those also come with "toy" 5th and 6th seats, but are good only for very, very young pax.
Click to expand...
Thanks chip! Thats what i suspected regarding the bench seat retrofitting not being economical. Ill def start looking into 260Bs.
 
The 260 will cruise at 160 KTAS at 75% power burning about 14 gph. Wider cabin than Arrow's. Built well. The legendary Lycoming IO-540 at 260 hp easier on the wallet than more powerful versions of this engine.
 
I think you meant MPH....it will not do 160 kts with a 260HP. Best a 260HP will do is 140 kts and 15-gph.

btw....the IO-540 is not 260 HP.....the 0-540 is 260HP.
 
I would avoid the Seneca 1. The ailerons are different, and it flies like a truck. Roll is ponderous, esp below 90 mph. SE operation by the book looks okay but is VERY VERY much weaker than the that in the continental powered TSIO-360 EB1Bs.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
I think you meant MPH....it will not do 160 kts with a 260HP. Best a 260HP will do is 140 kts and 15-gph.

btw....the IO-540 is not 260 HP.....the 0-540 is 260HP.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ, we run 160 kts at 14 gph in the 250 Comanche all day long. The 180 Comanche we used to fly was 140 kts at 9 gph. The 260 Comanche does indeed have the fuel injected IO-540.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-24_Comanche
 
I would consider a beech Travelair ,you can get the burn down to 14 gph if your not in a hurry,plenty of room on the back. Should fit into your budget price.
 
Hindsight2020, Also take a good look at the Rockwell Commander 112, 114, 115. Huge cabin, the 114 with similar engine to the 260 Comanche will true out at about 160 KTAS. Impressive looking airplane if you can find one.
 
Last edited:
Piperboy said:
Hindsight2020, Also take a good look at the Rockwell Commander 112, 114, 115. Huge cabin, the 114 with similar engine to the 260 Comanche will true out at about 160 KIAS. Impressive looking airplane if you can find one.
Click to expand...

I think the only Commander that will give you 160kts is the turbo version. Normally aspirated is realistically in the 140-150 range.
 
Looks like a Lance is your best option. I flew an Arrow II before Lance. Try to find a T tail lance as they come at discounted price. I did that back in 2008 and I found a T tail NA Lance at a decent price and I am quite happy with the plane
 
mscard88 said:
All with full gear? :D

You fly a Bronc Shep?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I had occasion to fly the OV-10. Not the fastest plane in the inventory, but a hoot to fly.
While in SEA I did transition training in the OV-10, the A1-E/D and the O-2, so I could volunteer for rescue missions.
Loved the "Spad", absolutely loved the "Spad".
 
Shepherd said:
Yeah, I had occasion to fly the OV-10. Not the fastest plane in the inventory, but a hoot to fly.
While in SEA I did transition training in the OV-10, the A1-E/D and the O-2, so I could volunteer for rescue missions.
Loved the "Spad", absolutely loved the "Spad".
Click to expand...

A-1 one of my favorites. When I was at Osan 73-74 they had O-2s (22 TASS I think) that were replaced with a squadron of OV-10s that came from Thailand as SEA was winding down. Every once in a while Marine OV-10s would fly into Osan.
 
blueskyMD said:
Looks like a Lance is your best option. I flew an Arrow II before Lance. Try to find a T tail lance as they come at discounted price. I did that back in 2008 and I found a T tail NA Lance at a decent price and I am quite happy with the plane
Click to expand...

Yeah when I last visited this question it came right back down to a Lance or Comanche 260B, as the bench seat comanche just doesn't cut it for us. I'm partial to the 32 because I'm not convinced the Comanche will make an easy airplane to support the way PA-28s and 32s are. I value ease of mx of my Arrow and the PA-24 just doesn't rub me the right way in that regard. My AP has a PA24-250, excellent performance, but my Arrow does circles around it when it comes to systems support and parts procurement. That's important to me. The "antiquing" approach to that airplane mx turns me right off.

I'm not cool with the siamese mag setup of the Lance engine, especially if I'm going to shy away from twin ownership. So I'm in a bit of wait and see mode to see what they roll out to retrofit that thing. So for now I'm stuck with the Arrow. Thankfully my mission load and distance hasn't increased, so I think I'll be alright for the next couple of years.

I haven't seen much of a discount on T-tail Lances to tell ya the truth, and based on my experience with the seminole, I'm not too keen on making aerodynamic compromises when it comes to aircraft control authority, especially for gratuitous reasons as Piper did (aesthetics) on the Lance/Arrow. But that's a "my money, my monkey" preference, nothing wrong with those who fly T-tails. Thanks all for the feedback.
 
IIRC....not all Lances are of the siamese mag variety....do check this before writing them off.
 
hish747 said:
I think the only Commander that will give you 160kts is the turbo version. Normally aspirated is realistically in the 140-150 range.
Click to expand...

The 114TC - turbocharged 260 hp version - will cruise at 75% of power at 20,000 feet at 200 knots true.
 
Of course everyone is a fan of their own bird, but real numbers in my 6-260, with all the speed mods, and a STOL kit.. I see ~160 mph TAS at 8500, within 300lbs of gross, burning ~14gph..

It's dang sure not sporty to fly, but with 1600lbs of useful, I can load the wife and 3 kids, full fuel, all their baggage for a week, and fly longer than anyone wants to be in the plane with the 84 gallons onboard.

2595c2b66d09cb9f91b857a1d0e071fa.jpg


And the cabin is like a minivan...

ef050c93aa9f5815a94305fa328344f2.jpg
 
Last edited:
JCranford said:
What constitutes the big engine? I might hafta come crawl around in your 185 some time!
Click to expand...

My C-180 has a carbureted 520. With little 850s and a stock tailwheel high power cruise is in the 180mph range at 1000' msl. With 29" Bushwheels and baby Bushwheel it cruises around 150mph at mid weights at 1000' msl using 24/2400. Plenty fast for me. And it's a great short field performer.

A Cessna 206, T206, or 210 would fill the bill for what you want. Big, fairly fast, and very capable.
 
My wife could use some more "rear cabin" as well.....boom, zing, pow!
 
Jmtodd1976 said:
Of course everyone is a fan of their own bird, but real numbers in my 6-260, with all the speed mods, and a STOL kit.. I see ~160 mph TAS at 8500, within 300lbs of gross, burning ~14gph..

It's dang sure not sporty to fly, but with 1600lbs of useful, I can load the wife and 3 kids, full fuel, all their baggage for a week, and fly longer than anyone wants to be in the plane with the 84 gallons onboard.

2595c2b66d09cb9f91b857a1d0e071fa.jpg


And the cabin is like a minivan...

ef050c93aa9f5815a94305fa328344f2.jpg
Click to expand...
Looks to me like you have a bit more room than a minivan. Very impressive and great picture of a happy journey.
 
That is a fact.. It's really the only plane that made any sense for our family of five..

Here is a picture loaded to the gills when we went to pick it up.. Everything behind the second row is loaded with logs, books, accessories, and luggage..

fe23e5dc1deb9856b8d7752abc073836.jpg
 
Stewartb said:
My C-180 has a carbureted 520. With little 850s and a stock tailwheel high power cruise is in the 180mph range at 1000' msl. With 29" Bushwheels and baby Bushwheel it cruises around 150mph at mid weights at 1000' msl using 24/2400. Plenty fast for me. And it's a great short field performer.

A Cessna 206, T206, or 210 would fill the bill for what you want. Big, fairly fast, and very capable.
Click to expand...

But none of these can be had in the OP's budget.

He could probably find a basic C-180 in his budget, but all the others you mentioned are going to double it and then some.


OP, I'm in the same boat, and have been looking into the very same airplanes for quite some time. I've got a C-182, which I love, but I have a wife and 3 little ones, so I'm gonna need 5 seats. For me, the -32 is really the only long term single engine option. For you, however, the Comanche seams to fit the bill since you mentioned you don't necessarily need to haul the loads that the -32 is capable of. If I didn't need the most useful load I can get, I'd go with a Comanche all day. They still have pretty nice load hauling ability, the B and C models look pretty darn roomy, and they are a good bit faster.

Personally, I don't like what I've heard about the PA-32 260 climb performance and ceiling. I'm used to a 1000 fmp initial climb with a load in the C-182, and a good bit more when I'm lightly loaded. I don't go above 8000 msl often, but with a big comfy machine like that, I'd like to make some trips into the Rockies. The Six 260 ain't gonna cut it for that. With that said, the Six 300 is about the only thing that would work for me. I don't think I will ever afford a Lance or Toga.
 
Last edited:
OkieFlyer said:
Personally, I don't like what I've heard about the PA-32 260 climb performance and ceiling. I'm used to a 1000 fmp initial climb with a load in the C-182, and a good bit more when I'm lightly loaded. I don't go above 8000 msl often, but with a big comfy machine like that, I'd like to make some trips into the Rockies. The Six 260 ain't gonna cut it for that. With that said, the Six 300 is about the only thing that would work for me. I don't think I will ever afford a Lance or Toga.
Click to expand...
The 260 climb is OK when heavy....it climbs more like a loaded 172. I never flew a 300, folks claim it flys like a new machine....maybe an additional 200 fpm?

I had mine up above 10k feet....it was ok, but climb performance was very anemic up high. Unless you're flying a twin or a turbine....a fully loaded single isn't going to give you that +1,000 fpm you're expecting.

Unless you spring for a turbo'd version....I'd rule out a trip into the Rockies.
 
The STOL kit on mine helps a bit with with climb rates I suspect, have only flown one other 6-260, and it was no where near as loaded as mine is nearly all the time..

I've never struggled to get to 8500 or 9500 which are kind the sweet spot I've found for this old girl, even heavily loaded..

That being said I did take the same consideration around flying into the rocks and realized that it would be 1 or 2 trips a year and that wasn't going to make the decision for me.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
I wouldn't spend extra on speed mods....too expensive for the benefit IMHO.

My 260 saw 135-140kts true....with a 1,550lb payload. That extra 15-18 kts ain't gonna mean much. Maybe an extra 10-15 minutes saved for the normal 1hr flight. The extra HP in the 300 is nice for extra climb fpm though on hot heavy days.
Click to expand...

If you go for a Six get a 300. Climb and cruise improvement.

Faster climb is important. You get to the cooler air faster, especially nice on summer days when the temps are warmer density altitude is higher. Plus you get to your higher cruise speed faster.

Who the heck makes one hour flights on a trip? At least on a regular basis. After you unload the car, load the plane, pre-flight the plane, you should have just driven there. The 300 will save you 45-60 min on a 3 hour flight; speed and getting to cruise quicker, plus a slight edge with headwinds.

The best flying travel tip, teach them to pack light. My wife would give in at times, but I made the kids haul all their stuff as they got big enough; commercial, driving or GA. That taught them to pack light. :D The four of us can travel in a SR22 for a week long trip with no problems.
 
wayne said:
If you go for a Six get a 300. Climb and cruise improvement.

Faster climb is important.
Click to expand...

Is there that much of a difference between the 260 and 300 SIx? The price difference is quite steep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top