More Piper Comanche questions!

steingar said:
I've read that Piper actually lost money on each and every Comanche they sold, which might explain why they didn't revamp after the flood. Just because the one is so popular doesn't mean you can make the other as well. The Comanche and the Arrow were certainly sold to different markets.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the GA airplane market changed right after the flood?
 
The Comanche/Twin Comanche was more complex and labor-intensive to build than the PA-28/32 series, required its own assembly line and had few if any parts in common with the company's higher-volume, higher-profit products. Basically, the demise of the PA-24/30/39 was the result of the same economic reality and business decision that doomed the Cardinal. The flood probably only accelerated the decision by a few years.
 
Pilawt said:
The Comanche/Twin Comanche was more complex and labor-intensive to build than the PA-28/32 series, required its own assembly line and had few if any parts in common with the company's higher-volume, higher-profit products. Basically, the demise of the PA-24/30/39 was the result of the same economic reality and business decision that doomed the Cardinal. The flood probably only accelerated the decision by a few years.
Click to expand...

I think that you have to put the whole thing in perspective. Piper was essentially two companies when it came to engineering and production. Lock Haven and Vero Beach produced different lines of aircraft that were not much more similar than a Cherokee and a Beech 23/24 series aircraft. Lock Haven was unionized and had a lot of older, higher paid workers. While I am sure that the Comanches took more man hours to produce than the Cherokees, there were a number of factors that when into discontinuing the Comanches. At the time that happened, Piper was looking to move production of the PA-31 series to Lakeland, FL. So really the demise of the Comanche was part of the demise of the entire Lock Haven facility.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I think about 100 of the last 250s were fuel injected, and about the first 100 or so 260s had carburetors. There was an odd transition.

If there was much of a speed difference from the factory between the 250 and 260s, you probably wouldn't notice between individual aircraft. Rigging, weight, etc., all have a bigger effect. I know people with 250s that cruise at 160 kts, and others in 260s that can't seem to get much more than 150-155 kts.
Click to expand...

I believe that all 260's were fuel injected. I have never seen one that wasn't, and as I read the TCDS, the carbureted engine was only available on the 250, though there were some injected 250's.
 
Kristin said:
I believe that all 260's were fuel injected. I have never seen one that wasn't, and as I read the TCDS, the carbureted engine was only available on the 250, though there were some injected 250's.
Click to expand...
TCDS 1A15 says the "standard" engine on the PA-24-260 was the O-540-E4A5, with the IO-540-D4A5 and -N1A5 "eligible" optional engines. But like the PA-32-260 with standard fixed-pitch prop, the carbureted Comanche 260 was available but probably very rarely purchased.
 
If you ever get the chance just listen to the difference between a Cherokee and a Comanche going down a runway on Landing with cracks in it. The Comanche will not sound like someone is banging a kettle-drum everytime it goes over a crack in the runway.
 
Kristin said:
I believe that all 260's were fuel injected. I have never seen one that wasn't, and as I read the TCDS, the carbureted engine was only available on the 250, though there were some injected 250's.
Click to expand...

I was incorrect on the total. According to Wikipedia, 38 Comanche 260s were delivered with carburated engines. The rest were of course fuel injected.
 
So the Comanche needs a 1,000 hour inspection of the landing gear. Will that information be in an owners maintenance records? If it's not run away from the airplane?
 
FloridaPilot said:
So the Comanche needs a 1,000 hour inspection of the landing gear. Will that information be in an owners maintenance records? If it's not run away from the airplane?
Click to expand...

There should be a logbook entry that states that AD 77-13-21, paragraph A has been complied with. Alternatively, it could reference SB 782. If all you seen is a generic entry that AD 77-13-21 has been complied with, the question remains whether it was just the paragraph C visual inspection that is required annually or whether it is the paragraph B that requires changing the bungee cords every three years or 500 hours. Paragraph A is often overlooked. A retraction system that is in poor condition can run up to $10K to entirely rebuild. It takes about 22-24 hours to completely comply with AD 77-13-21. Then there are parts on top of that. Landing gear conduits and transmission are expensive extras that may need to be done as well. The most important is to have someone knowledgeable look at the aircraft before handing over money.
 
Kristin said:
A retraction system that is in poor condition can run up to $10K to entirely rebuild. It takes about 22-24 hours to completely comply with AD 77-13-21. Then there are parts on top of that. Landing gear conduits and transmission are expensive extras that may need to be done as well.
Click to expand...

The same is true of the Bonanza landing gear. While it is mechanically simple, there are bushings that can wear out, rod-ends that need replacing and the occasional gear motor and gear transmission overhaul.

To some extent, those are just items that come with any retract. The Cessnas have things like hydraulic hoses and the pump that require replacement and overhaul. And then there are some big $$$ chunks of metal that you just dont want to break or crack.
 
weilke said:
The same is true of the Bonanza landing gear. While it is mechanically simple, there are bushings that can wear out, rod-ends that need replacing and the occasional gear motor and gear transmission overhaul.

To some extent, those are just items that come with any retract. The Cessnas have things like hydraulic hoses and the pump that require replacement and overhaul. And then there are some big $$$ chunks of metal that you just don't want to break or crack.
Click to expand...

From what I'm reading the same applies with the Comanche.

During the 1,000 hour inspection (Or pre buy) The landing gear has to be inspected VERY carefully and dissembled to check the bolts and bushings to make sure they aren't worn.
 
FloridaPilot said:
From what I'm reading the same applies with the Comanche.

During the 1,000 hour inspection (Or pre buy) The landing gear has to be inspected VERY carefully and dissembled to check the bolts and bushings to make sure they aren't worn.
Click to expand...

As I said, there is little difference. You have a metal bushing sitting out in the weather and swing it back and forth 10,000 times it may wear out of specs. On the Comanche, the AD forces you to inspect the system every X hrs, on the Bo those are just recommendations in the maintenance manual. The result is the same, at some point stuff wears (or is messed up by well-meaning but marginally competent mechanics). If you own the plane for less than 5000hrs, you may not have a gear bill and believe that your gear is 'bulletproof', but that's just the fallacy of conclusions drawn from small samples.
 
FloridaPilot said:
From what I'm reading the same applies with the Comanche.

During the 1,000 hour inspection (Or pre buy) The landing gear has to be inspected VERY carefully and dissembled to check the bolts and bushings to make sure they aren't worn.
Click to expand...

You are not going to disassemble the landing gear on a pre-buy, but someone who knows Comanches can tell if there amount of wear is significant enough to warrant that the 1000 hour inspection be conducted sooner rather than later. If sooner, it obviously affects the price one might be willing to pay for the plane. About half the time, when doing a pre-buy on airplanes that haven't been maintained by a Comanche knowledgeable maintenance shop, i find that the 1000 hour inspection was not actually done in the last 1,000 hours. Sometimes it is outright fraud, but more often it is because the IA doesn't read the AD and just looks to see how it has been complied with in the past. They look back at the last half dozen or so entries and they see that the bungees have been replaced every three years in accordance with the AD, and assume that is all there is to it.
 
I believe comparing a Comanche to a Debonair is a pretty good comparison after reading the POH on both, (Minus any speed mods) They both can do about 160kts and over 800 pounds useful load. I did notice that the Deb has more landing gear parts so more things are likely to fail. Now I have to get into both to make a fair comparison.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I did notice that the Deb has more landing gear parts so more things are likely to fail.
Click to expand...

The number of parts means nothing. On the contrary, while the number of parts may be higher, the way they are tied together in the Beech landing gear reduces the problems that could come up. Everything in the Bo gear rotates or pivots relative to the next part in the chain. There are few parts that rely on gliding or sliding against each other (really only the uplock cables in their conduits and they carry little weight). If everything is lubed and serviced by a knowledgeable mechanic and if the little fabric boots that protect against dust and water ingress are kept in good shape, the Beech gear will go years without a need to replace anything. The only thing that will really wear out based on number of gear-cycles are the brushes on the gear motor.
 
In an airplane, it is impostant to recognize there are many parts. Some where based on cycles of use, so,e where on hours of use, some wear on calendar time, and some wear on combinations, or all three. For example, seat material wears on cycles plus calendar time, plastic will wear based upon calendar time, parts that contact other parts if properly lubed will wear on cycles, but if not lubed properly, will probably wear on cycles and calendar time depending on how much corrosion takes hold. Dry Vacuum pumps will wear on hours of use. Cylinders wear on hours of use and perhaps calendar time if not used due to corrosion setting up. Etc. so, when looking at an airplane, one needs to keep this in mind as you examine various components of the plane, from engine, to avionics, to systems, etc.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I believe comparing a Comanche to a Debonair is a pretty good comparison after reading the POH on both, (Minus any speed mods) They both can do about 160kts and over 800 pounds useful load. I did notice that the Deb has more landing gear parts so more things are likely to fail. Now I have to get into both to make a fair comparison.
Click to expand...

To get a complete comparison, check speeds down low and up high, say 12,000 or so. IMX, the Deb/Bo's are generally faster down low on the same horsepower, but slower up high. I believe that is the Comanche wing showing off its stuff.
 
Sumps? Just one, accessible from the pilots seat. You open the sump drain and cycle the fuel selector to each tank for a few seconds. You can either then look at the fuel puddle on the ground for water bubbles, or aim the drain hose into a container and check that. A bit of a pain, because the discharge tube is under the airplane's centerline. I use a clear pyrex dish with a plastic cover. Push it under and pull it out with the towbar. Kinda iffy if there's a good breeze on the ramp.
 
Someone sent me this you tube video on the Comanche:


It was nicely done but something didn't seem right during 2:50 in the video he said: "If I can load it into my Honda Accord it can load in my Comanche" Then he went on to say: "With a 90 gallon capacity Comanches can do 1200 miles" I know that is bladder busting distance but is it true?
 
Leaned aggressively, without reserves and measured in statue miles, yeah, you probably could come darn close. 13 gph @155kts 86 usable. Wouldn't recommend it though. My buddy has a 260B with 90 gals in the wings plus tips for 120 gals total. That's 9 hour airplane.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Leaned aggressively, without reserves and measured in statue miles, yeah, you probably could come darn close. 13 gph @155kts 86 usable. Wouldn't recommend it though. My buddy has a 260B with 90 gals in the wings plus tips for 120 gals total. That's 9 hour airplane.
Click to expand...

Where did he buy his? 260 anything seems hard to find!
 
He's had it for 25 plus years. You find a good airplane, you hang onto it.
 
expensive is a relative term. To a canary, a cat is a monster.....

Your question should be: expensive relative to _________ .

@Banjo33 @Kristin own one. They've made many posts regarding costs on here if you do a search. A co-worker of mine owns one as well. My impression of his ownership experience is that they are more expensive than a single comanche to maintain, but the biggest takeaway for me was the nickle and dimey nature of the mx. Something is always breaking. This is age related, not inherently a design problem. A distinction without difference to me but there ya go.

You could probably do well if you budget 17K/yr/100hrs all-in (sans hangar, or financing if you're one of those). People say it's closer to big engine single mx costs (Lance et al), but that hasn't been my buddy's experience so far, which yeah 5K is probably closer to it than a six banger twin like an Aztec/310/Baron (25K/yr/100hr airplanes).

Personally I think a 260B/C is a better value, but if engine duplicity is your thing, then that's about economic a jump you can make. It is certainly much closer to the single Co than a Seneca is to a lance when it comes to mx premium. Engines are pretty much the reason for that.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
expensive is a relative term. To a canary, a cat is a monster.....

Your question should be: expensive relative to _________ .
Click to expand...

Lets say a Cessna 310, It does make sense that maintenance costs are more than a single engine airplane because two of everything. Would a twin Comanche be a worth it jump from a single Comanche? Is the extra maintenance costs worth it to upgrade?
 
FloridaPilot said:
Lets say a Cessna 310, It does make sense that maintenance costs are more than a single engine airplane because two of everything. Would a twin Comanche be a worth it jump from a single Comanche? Is the extra maintenance costs worth it to upgrade?
Click to expand...
Nobody can answer that for you. You have to define what it is you're looking for in an upgrade.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Lets say a Cessna 310, It does make sense that maintenance costs are more than a single engine airplane because two of everything. Would a twin Comanche be a worth it jump from a single Comanche? Is the extra maintenance costs worth it to upgrade?
Click to expand...
It’s more than twice the maintenance costs.... but safety comes with a price...right? ;)
 
I own a debonair with the 225 hp model. I also live in Florida, I’m based at PGD. I can haul 4 200lbs people and 43 gal of gas. Granted I can’t haul any bagage, but ive made trips to the keys with close to those weights.

I’d love to own a 260hp Deb as I give up about 10 knots and probably a little climb rate. But the ability down here to purchase Rec 90 non ethanol gas at currently $3.30 a gal sure makes it nice. I cruise around 145-150 knots.

I don’t know anything about the Comanches, I’m sure they are fine. When I was looking I was looking at v tails and Mooney’s. I just ended up finding a Debonair that was in the condition and price that worked for me.

Where are you located?
 
dmcummins said:
I own a debonair with the 225 hp model. I also live in Florida, I’m based at PGD. I can haul 4 200lbs people and 43 gal of gas. Granted I can’t haul any bagage, but ive made trips to the keys with close to those weights.

I’d love to own a 260hp Deb as I give up about 10 knots and probably a little climb rate. But the ability down here to purchase Rec 90 non ethanol gas at currently $3.30 a gal sure makes it nice. I cruise around 145-150 knots.

I don’t know anything about the Comanches, I’m sure they are fine. When I was looking I was looking at v tails and Mooney’s. I just ended up finding a Debonair that was in the condition and price that worked for me.

Where are you located?
Click to expand...

I would love to hear your story!

I'm at 48X Manatee Airport, I have been to Punta Gorda Airport many times during the EAA pancake breakfast. I haven't flown into there yet.

Some Comanches can do 4 adults and Bags. Some "C" models can do 155-160 Knots and haul 1400!

Deb or Comanche from what I hear are good airplanes.

Can you do 74 gallons of Gas in the deb?
 
I have a older Deb, 1960, with the 2, 25 gal mains, and 2, 10 gal aux tanks. I have 63 or 64 gal usable. I considered tip tanks, and they would be nice, but not worth the extra cost for me. After 3 or 4 hours I’m ready for a break.

The newer ones have two 40 gal tanks with I suppose 74 useful.
 
dmcummins said:
I have a older Deb, 1960, with the 2, 25 gal mains, and 2, 10 gal aux tanks. I have 63 or 64 gal usable. I considered tip tanks, and they would be nice, but not worth the extra cost for me. After 3 or 4 hours I’m ready for a break.

The newer ones have two 40 gal tanks with I suppose 74 useful.
Click to expand...

dmcummins said:
View attachment 67220

Here is my slightly updated, but still old panel.
Click to expand...

Beautiful bird you have there! Let me know when you are in the area again. I will buy some fuel for you. I frequent KSPG as well and I run at Vinoy park all the time in Saint Petersburg!
 
I received my packet in the mail for ICS. I'm excited to get into more detail about Comanches. I'm looking at a B or C model 260. In no rush to buy as of yet but I want to be detailed enough to know what I'm talking about while talking to sellers. I'm going to get a pre-buy but I want to eliminate all of the time wasters. I'm also going to look at Debs too because I like both airplanes and wouldn't mind anyone of them. Again, not buying anytime soon just learning as much as I can before I buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top