More Piper Comanche questions!

[hindsight2020]

Cherokees have the same type of sealed tanks. I think Comanches do too, but I could be wrong. I always hear tank complaints from Mooney folks, but the Pipers are just as problematic, I think.

Um, hell naw. LOL. That's the reason I own the slower Arrow and not the faster 20F in the first place. Vero beach Piper tanks are modular tanks, not integral cavity like the mooney. Huge difference in expense to fix and exposure to leaks. 9 years and two PA-28 samples, ZERO fuel squawks.

Comanches have bladders. Typical performance when it comes to dry cracking and leaks. Meaning they're no worse than Beech or bladdered Cessnas. Keeping a bladder airplane outside with exposure to the sun is one sure way of going through bladders like Comanches go through bungees. Of course you can always fly half tanked and pretend you don't know your bladder tops leaks if you top it off and let it sit. LOL #seenoevil

Opportunity costs abound.

 

[Kristin]

There seems to be a massive amount of misunderstanding regarding the bungees in the Comanche landing gear system. First of all, they have nothing, nada, zero to do with steering and control. Second, they are merely an ancillary part of the landing gear system which will work without them. What the bungees do is two-fold. The main thing is that they reduce the load on the jackscrew transmission when raising the landing gear. Secondarily, they provide some addition pressure to hold the main landing gear at full extension which can help keep the draglinks in their proper over-center position. The first is why savvy owners replace the bungees at each annual. They are only $20 each and they lose a lot of strength in just a year. As they unload the transmission it extends the life of the transmission which can easily cost a couple of grand to overhaul. Bungees are cheap, and transmissions are expensive.

 

[kyleb]

That's the reason I own the slower Arrow and not the faster 20F in the first place. Vero beach Piper tanks are modular tanks, not integral cavity like the mooney.

When you say "modular tanks", do you mean removable? 'Cause I've seen several Piper tanks pulled, taken apart, and reassembled/resealed. Are you saying Mooney tanks can't be removed, or...?

 

[weilke]

So which gear is easier to maintain: The one on the Deb or the Comanche?

Both require maintenance. The Pa24 has the bungees and a mandatory 1000hr AD that requires a knowledgeable mechanic to go through all the components. Also, there is only one shop that now has an approved overhaul procedure for the transmission. This has led to supply isssues in the past when they ****ed into their FAA inspectors wheaties. Make it on average $300/year for required routine gear maintenance.

The Deb/Bo also has a electro-mechanical gear. While there is no mandatory gear overhaul requirement, things can wear and require maintenance. A couple of things that have come up:
- the electric motor. For the 12V version there is an after market overhaul shop that replaces the wear parts for reasonable money. For the 24V version you either have to buy new or find someone willing to reepair it without holding an overhaul manual. There is also a simple dynamic electric motor brake (a device that shorts the winding when the motor is off) that sometimes needs replacement/,repair.
- the transmission. They can do two things: leak stinky gear oil into the space below the cabin or just undergo wear from thousands of cycles. An improperly adjusted gear can wear out tbe 'sector gear' inside of the transmission. That piece is apparently hand carved from blocks of Rhodium by Swiss watchmakers. Just don't break it.
- the pushrods that transmit the mechanical motion to the gear legs have ball&socket rod-ends that can undergo metal fatigue and eventually break They need to be replaced every 20 years or so. 'Saving money' by pushing that off by another year can lead to a bad day.

So while the Beech gear is mechanically simple, just like the Pa24 or Cessna gear it requires regular maintenance by someone who knows what they are doing. Replacing a 24V motor or overhauling the gearbox is a uncommon but pricey event. The rod ends are a couple hours of labor. Harder to put a number to it.

 

[midwestpa24]

Isn't the emergency gear extension in a Bo or Deb somewhat "labor intensive"? Something like 50+ cranks on a handle, or so I've heard. The Comanche emergency extension is pretty basic, release the motor connection, rotate the Johnson bar type handle, gear down. A lot easier to do if flying single handed IMC.

 

[Kristin]

With the exception of the relative difficulty in doing an emergency gear extension, I have to admit that the Beech system is a superior bit of engineering. It has a particularly brilliant, simple system for having and operating inner gear doors. Beech gets the nod here, but I have yet to buy an aircraft on the basis of its landing gear system.

I have about 1500 in various Bo's and Debs. I like them overall, but on someone else's dime. The nicer flying Bo's are the old ones, but you get a particularly byzantine panel arrangement which is resistant to modernization. I love the '84 and newer panels on the Bo, but now you are talking real money. For much less money, I have about the same performance with two engines, longer range, and my Twinkie only carries slightly less. The cargo door is a plus for the Bo.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

so...you think my door is sexy?

 

[FloridaPilot]

- the pushrods that transmit the mechanical motion to the gear legs have ball&socket rod-ends that can undergo metal fatigue and eventually break They need to be replaced every 20 years or so. 'Saving money' by pushing that off by another year can lead to a bad day.

I'm no expert on Beech products but it sounds like a recipe for a gear collapse which happens to be a few for sale like this one:

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...BONANZA+36&listing_id=2324218&s-type=aircraft

 

[FloridaPilot]

I'm still trying to understand the situation with a Debonair vs Comanche. Both seem like wonderful airplanes but if the Debonair is easy to land and easy to fly I keep hearing that it's for experienced pilots only. Pilots that have a lot more than my 100 hours of flight time. Why do you think that is the case?

Which airplane would be ideal for a person learning complex airplanes?

 

[hindsight2020]

Both require maintenance. The Pa24 has the bungees and a mandatory 1000hr AD that requires a knowledgeable mechanic to go through all the components. Also, there is only one shop that now has an approved overhaul procedure for the transmission. This has led to supply isssues in the past when they ****ed into their FAA inspectors wheaties. Make it on average $300/year for required routine gear maintenance.

The Deb/Bo also has a electro-mechanical gear. While there is no mandatory gear overhaul requirement, things can wear and require maintenance. A couple of things that have come up:
- the electric motor. For the 12V version there is an after market overhaul shop that replaces the wear parts for reasonable money. For the 24V version you either have to buy new or find someone willing to reepair it without holding an overhaul manual. There is also a simple dynamic electric motor brake (a device that shorts the winding when the motor is off) that sometimes needs replacement/,repair.
- the transmission. They can do two things: leak stinky gear oil into the space below the cabin or just undergo wear from thousands of cycles. An improperly adjusted gear can wear out tbe 'sector gear' inside of the transmission. That piece is apparently hand carved from blocks of Rhodium by Swiss watchmakers. Just don't break it.
- the pushrods that transmit the mechanical motion to the gear legs have ball&socket rod-ends that can undergo metal fatigue and eventually break They need to be replaced every 20 years or so. 'Saving money' by pushing that off by another year can lead to a bad day.

So while the Beech gear is mechanically simple, just like the Pa24 or Cessna gear it requires regular maintenance by someone who knows what they are doing. Replacing a 24V motor or overhauling the gearbox is a uncommon but pricey event. The rod ends are a couple hours of labor. Harder to put a number to it.

IOW, go with 14V beech on the gear front.

BTW, excellent summation of the gear particulars on both airplanes.

When you say "modular tanks", do you mean removable? 'Cause I've seen several Piper tanks pulled, taken apart, and reassembled/resealed. Are you saying Mooney tanks can't be removed, or...?

Correct. Mooney doesn't have modular tanks. They seal the wing cavities, which one of the sides is the wing spar that flexes in flight and on every landing, and the process of resealing this cavity is notoriously expensive and difficult due to space. Piper modular tanks bolt into the spar and don't flex with the spar to the degree a wet wing does. They're also easier to remove and reinstall, giving easy access to wing spar. It's simply a better and cheaper system imo. Mechanics would agree. As pilots, my wallet agrees. To each their own.

 

[skmoore63]

Correct. Mooney doesn't have modular tanks. They seal the wing cavities, which one of the sides is the wing spar that flexes in flight and on every landing, and the process of resealing this cavity is notoriously expensive and difficult due to space. Piper modular tanks bolt into the spar and don't flex with the spar to the degree a wet wing does. They're also easier to remove and reinstall, giving easy access to wing spar. It's simply a better and cheaper system imo. Mechanics would agree. As pilots, my wallet agrees. To each their own.[/QUOTE]

Very well said. The Mooney (I have a '65C model) has some kidney panels through which a tank reseal is done. If you have small hands and an extra elbow on each arm it is easy. There are some folks who specialize in this work but some dedicated owners have done the work under supervision of an A&P/IA. The previous owner of my bird had the bladder tanks installed which are expensive but can last a long time if you do what others have said - primarily keep them filled after each flight and fly regularly.

I walked into my mechanic's hangar during an annual when he was working under the instrument panel and didn't know I was there - I learned some new profanity listening to him! But my Mooney is super-reliable, handles more like the jets I fly at work, and has a pretty good glide ratio. Insurance is cheaper than what I pay for my Nissan pickup. Maintenance has been minimal after the first two years (previous owner didn't fly very much). I fly a lot of IFR, it's a good platform although a little neutral in roll stability.

The Piper Cherokee tanks are much better designed for maintenance. I personally prefer the flight characteristics of the Mooney over the Cherokee, haven't had the chance to fly a Debonair or other straight-tail Bo but hear they fly really nice. The V-tail flies well but I was taken aback by the tail wag in turbulence. The one I flew didn't have a yaw damper, has anyone flown a V with one? How much difference does it make?I haven't flown the Commanche either, it is a very pretty bird though - and it does have a lot more room for pax. My M20 is a great one or two person aircraft - I am 6'3" and am very comfortable, but only a small child could sit behind me. The back seat is okay for short flights with short folks.

 

[Ryan F.]

Good conversation. For anyone wondering, this isn’t a “because of X the best choice is Y” conversation. These are all normal factors to consider when weighing the merits of various aircraft. One isn’t necessarily better than another.

For my mission and needs I would always a take a single or Twin Comanche over any Mooney or other small cabin single. I’d also take a Twin Comanche over any single, no matter how high performance, no matter whether it is equipped with BRS, etc. A friend (professional pilot) at work has access to a Columbia 400, twin turbo, an honest 200 knot airplane. Quite the machine, but to me not for serious traveling in weather or over mountain ranges. That’s a day VFR machine only. That’s just my personal risk threshold. I’d rather spend more to go slower and have the redundancy of the second engine and other systems.

To me where it gets interesting is how the Comanche completes across the board in both categories (single and twin). It’s not the best in any given category, but to me it’s always the most compelling total package for the price. Sort of how the Cessna 182 gained such great popularity in its segment. For people who want to do 130 knots and carry a decent load, the 182 is hard to beat. The Comanche is like that in the performance category. For the total package, and the price, it’s just darned hard to beat. You can find individual things other ships in similar price categories do better - go a little faster, go a little farther, carry a little more stuff - but usually at a pretty good compromise in the other categories. The Comanche doesn’t compromise much, anywhere. Just an excellent, all around performer which tends to hurt the wallet much less than its competitors.

If I could move into a late model Baron tomorrow for a huge price increase, I’d do it. A deiced B58 blows any Twin Comanche out of the water, but as far as cost is concerned it isn’t even in the same universe. Things would have to be very different for me financially, for that to happen.

 

[midwestpa24]

I'm still trying to understand the situation with a Debonair vs Comanche. Both seem like wonderful airplanes but if the Debonair is easy to land and easy to fly I keep hearing that it's for experienced pilots only. Pilots that have a lot more than my 100 hours of flight time. Why do you think that is the case?

Which airplane would be ideal for a person learning complex airplanes?

Either model would make for a decent first complex airplane. The bigger issue is lower time pilots. Insurance companies aren't usually fond of lower time pilots stepping up to higher performance complex aircraft. They like to charge higher premiums and have larger requirements for dual time in type before they want to cover you.

 

[weilke]

IOW, go with 14V beech on the gear front.

Currently I own both. The 24V gear is noticeably faster. The 12V takes its sweet while to crank itself up.

 

[weilke]

My M20 is a great one or two person aircraft - I am 6'3" and am very comfortable, but only a small child could sit behind me. The back seat is okay for short flights with short folks.

You are obviously lying because Al Mooney was 7 ft tall and he fit just fine.......


Glad to finally read a write-up on the Mooney from an owner who is willing to acknowledge the couple of warts the type undoubtedly has.

 

[weilke]

I'm still trying to understand the situation with a Debonair vs Comanche. Both seem like wonderful airplanes but if the Debonair is easy to land and easy to fly I keep hearing that it's for experienced pilots only. Pilots that have a lot more than my 100 hours of flight time. Why do you think that is the case?

Which airplane would be ideal for a person learning complex airplanes?

Both are fine.

The Bo is more forgiving of sloppy landing technique. Even if you touch down a couple of kts fast you are not going to porpoise. If you get a couple of kts slow, it just settles down rather than the 'ker-plonk' motion of a Pa24.

I transitioned to a Pa24 as a student pilot. It's not something you should be afraid of. Fly the plane on the numbers and it is no harder to fly than anything else in the same league.

The main advantage of the Pa24 over the Be33 series is imnho the Lycoming engine. Just fewer engine related issues to worry about.

 

[Ryan F.]

I'm still trying to understand the situation with a Debonair vs Comanche. Both seem like wonderful airplanes but if the Debonair is easy to land and easy to fly I keep hearing that it's for experienced pilots only. Pilots that have a lot more than my 100 hours of flight time. Why do you think that is the case?

Which airplane would be ideal for a person learning complex airplanes?

Both are fine.

Concur... this is not worth overthinking. For the purpose of gaining proficiency in a complex airplane, any of the discussed ships would be fine.

 

[eman1200]

You are obviously lying because Al Mooney was 7 ft tall and he fit just fine.......


Glad to finally read a write-up on the Mooney from an owner who is willing to acknowledge the couple of warts the type undoubtedly has.

You actually believe a Mooney is a one-seater?

 

[FloridaPilot]

You are obviously lying because Al Mooney was 7 ft tall and he fit just fine.......


Glad to finally read a write-up on the Mooney from an owner who is willing to acknowledge the couple of warts the type undoubtedly has.

I thought Al Mooney was 6 foot 5?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

he musta been very small....

 

[FlySince9]

I've been following this thread but don't remember if this was already addressed so don't bite my head off if it has:

The Comanche rolled out of the factory with the panel nothing close to today's 6 pack arrangement. What would it cost to make it so. An STC is needed as well, right?

 

[Pilawt]

The Comanche rolled out of the factory with the panel nothing close to today's 6 pack arrangement.

The Comanche 260C (1970-72) had a more modern panel arrangement.

 

[hindsight2020]

The Comanche 260C (1970-72) had a more modern panel arrangement.

Pfft, that pic looks like could have grabbed it out of T-A-P this month......
#antiquing #aintnobodygottime4dat

 

[weilke]

I've been following this thread but don't remember if this was already addressed so don't bite my head off if it has:

The Comanche rolled out of the factory with the panel nothing close to today's 6 pack arrangement. What would it cost to make it so. An STC is needed as well, right?

I dont believe it requires an STC. 'Just' a re-cut panel and the hundred or so hours of work to fabricate new wiring looms, vacuum tubing etc. And once you do that, you may well go whole-hog and upgrade to Glass and a complete Garmin stack. And if you do that, you might as well do paint&interior.




Leaving you with a $200,000 Comanche that you can sell for $110,000 on a good day.




Beware of the mission creep.



J

 

[Ryan F.]

I've been following this thread but don't remember if this was already addressed so don't bite my head off if it has:

The Comanche rolled out of the factory with the panel nothing close to today's 6 pack arrangement. What would it cost to make it so. An STC is needed as well, right?

Nope, in my case I redesigned the panel exactly the way I wanted and had a new one laser-cut to match. It ended up being a pretty good design. I'm still using it 16 years later.

Here's what my panel looked like when I bought the plane:



Note the non-standard arrangement, although at least there was still a center stack in the right location. Also the engine gauges, fuel, etc. are all about where they should be, on the right. And Piper adopted standard locations for the gear handle (shaped like a wheel) and flap (shaped like a... flap). All things considered, it wasn't bad, for 1966. In 1967, with the C model PA-30, they moved everything to the standard six-pack configuration.

But the ADI next to the DG blows, and who knows why the VSI ended up all the way on the upper right side of the pilot side panel.

Anyway, here's what it looks like now, two panel upgrades later, with the same panel design I came up with back in '02. The most recent change was the GTN 650/Flightstream 510, the GTX 345, the G5 and, not visible, a new multi-function digital clock to replace the old, flakey Davtron.

It's really screaming for that G5 HSI, eh... ?



It was not cheap replacing the panel.

 

[FloridaPilot]

I dont believe it requires an STC. 'Just' a re-cut panel and the hundred or so hours of work to fabricate new wiring looms, vacuum tubing etc. And once you do that, you may well go whole-hog and upgrade to Glass and a complete Garmin stack. And if you do that, you might as well do paint&interior.




Leaving you with a $200,000 Comanche that you can sell for $110,000 on a good day.




Beware of the mission creep.



J

With all of the annuals, extra maintenance and upgrades. It's pretty difficult, (If not impossible) to get your money back on the sale. The people that are actually buying airplanes either really love aviation, crazy or a little bit of both....

 

[FloridaPilot]

How is the seating in the Back of a Comanche 260C Can two adults fit back there?

 

[SCCutler]

How is the seating in the Back of a Comanche 260C Can two adults fit back there?

You mean row 2, or third row?

The second row is pretty nice in the Comanche (seats are a little low for some, but I think they're fine).

If I had a 260C (and I tried before I bought my Bo, but the Cs hold their value very well!), I'd just remove the third row. Tight, but more importantly, inappropriate to even use for more than toddlers.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

seats are typical for the back of a Cherokee bench.

 

[weilke]

How is the seating in the Back of a Comanche 260C Can two adults fit back there?

The second row seating is good. The ''third row' is just for show and only for children or instagrammers.

 

[FloridaPilot]

You mean row 2, or third row?

The second row is pretty nice in the Comanche (seats are a little low for some, but I think they're fine).

If I had a 260C (and I tried before I bought my Bo, but the Cs hold their value very well!), I'd just remove the third row. Tight, but more importantly, inappropriate to even use for more than toddlers.

Thanks for the response, I was referring to just the second row, third row I probably won't use.

So here is my plan,

I'm picking the Comanche 260C over the Deb because:

# Lycoming Engine I'm looking for reliability here over the Continental. I know that it depends on the maintenance. From what I have read the older Lycomings are hard to beat for reliability.

# Useful load It's important to me because I would like to have options when I carry, plus I weigh over 200 I like to have the option of flying
with full fuel instead of swapping you will never regret having too much fuel.

# Less maintenance headaches (This is speculation)

# I can carry almost 4 people if necessary.

# It's reasonably fast (150-161 kts)

This will be my first airplane as an owner, I understand insurance is going to be high first starting out but I'm going to counter act that by flying 40 hours in
an Arrow for my IFR. Hopefully that will improve my insurance rates.

I noticed there aren't many for sale out there, should I hire a competent Comanche expert? What are some gotchas to look out for when looking besides the obvious gear up landings very high time engines past TBO..etc

Are there maintenance shops out there that specialize in Comanches? I'm going to join the forums this weekend.


Thank you!

 

[weilke]

A 260c can carry 4 adults and luggage. You may have to limit the fuel you carry. Do your W&B.
Also, work yourself up to flying the plane at capacity. Dont do your first fully loaded flight with a CFI unfamiliar with the plane and at night.
Despite having six seats, it's not a six adult plane. On a good day and with careful planning you could do a shorter flight with all six seats filled. However, if the flight is short enough that you would cram six in the plane, why not shuttle the party in two flights ? More flying for you.

 

[n9144p]

I raised three kids with a 260B Comanche. We took one of the last row seats out but left the other one. My kids would actually fight for that last little seat in back. Getting to it was hard, but once in, the room (for a kid) is okay, they could look down at scenery behind the trailing wing edge and they said it was a lot quieter. We stack luggage in the removed seat space. Worked great. As far as instrument panels go, I did mine about 6 years ago just before the glass options started being common. One often overlooked thing is the center of the panel (at least on my Comanche) has some structure interference that won't allow deep radios. So you need to plan a little left or right of dead center for most radio stacks. Took 3 weeks of down time.
Before:

Recently

 

[Kristin]

Thanks for the response, I was referring to just the second row, third row I probably won't use.

So here is my plan,

I'm picking the Comanche 260C over the Deb because:

# Lycoming Engine I'm looking for reliability here over the Continental. I know that it depends on the maintenance. From what I have read the older Lycomings are hard to beat for reliability.

# Useful load It's important to me because I would like to have options when I carry, plus I weigh over 200 I like to have the option of flying
with full fuel instead of swapping you will never regret having too much fuel.

# Less maintenance headaches (This is speculation)

# I can carry almost 4 people if necessary.

# It's reasonably fast (150-161 kts)

This will be my first airplane as an owner, I understand insurance is going to be high first starting out but I'm going to counter act that by flying 40 hours in
an Arrow for my IFR. Hopefully that will improve my insurance rates.

I noticed there aren't many for sale out there, should I hire a competent Comanche expert? What are some gotchas to look out for when looking besides the obvious gear up landings very high time engines past TBO..etc

Are there maintenance shops out there that specialize in Comanches? I'm going to join the forums this weekend.


Thank you!

Someone just posted one for sale on the Airworthy Comanche Forum.

 

[FloridaPilot]

Can you get Gami injectors installed in a Comanche 260 like all of the Bonanza's?

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Can you get Gami injectors installed in a Comanche 260 like all of the Bonanza's?

Yep.

 

[n9144p]

Yes you can install Gami's. Helped me save about 1 gph - and I can run LOP if I want, but usually just go faster.

 

[weilke]

As far as instrument panels go, I did mine about 6 years ago just before the glass options started being common. One often overlooked thing is the center of the panel (at least on my Comanche) has some structure interference that won't allow deep radios. So you need to plan a little left or right of dead center for most radio stacks. Took 3 weeks of down time.

Very nice clean look.

Some favor the 'B' over the ''C' . They are rumored to be slightly faster, but I don't have any data on that. Either way, a well maintained Comanche is probably the best balance of speed, cost and maintenance available.

 

[FloridaPilot]

Yes you can install Gami's. Helped me save about 1 gph - and I can run LOP if I want, but usually just go faster.

Your engine looks really clean. Did you recently get it overhauled?

 

[FloridaPilot]

Very nice clean look.

Some favor the 'B' over the ''C' . They are rumored to be slightly faster, but I don't have any data on that. Either way, a well maintained Comanche is probably the best balance of speed, cost and maintenance available.

I believe you are correct, The "B" model is a bit faster but the "C" has more useful load, (I believe by 100 pounds).