More Piper Comanche questions!

Yes, I once owned a Mooney. They are somewhat similar in that both sit very low in ground effect, and must be flown at a very precise airspeed in order to get a satisfying landing. By comparison, there is more room for airspeed sloppiness in the Bonanza.

Look at a Comanche when it is sitting on the ground and note the angle of attack. Then do the same for the Bonanza. You will see that the Comanche sits at a higher angle of attack, which makes it more prone to "balloon" and more likely to land nosewheel first and wheelbarrow if landed hot. None of this is a problem if you get your airspeed right on landing.
 
FloridaPilot said:
What makes a Comanche difficult to land? Is it because it's lower to the ground than a Bonanza?
Click to expand...

That's part of it. The naturally high AOA on the ground (mentioned earlier) is another, plus the generally forward CG. Two people in the front seats with an empty cabin puts you pretty close to the forward limits of the CG envelope.

With flaps fully deployed, you're looking at less than a foot between the trailing edge and the ground.

Most of the PA-24 and PA-30's idiosyncrasies can be summed up in the landing phase. I couldn't even tell you how many landings I have in Comanches -- but I can tell you greasers have been rare, "normal arrivals" have been the standard and even after flying mine for 18 years I still thump it in once in awhile, especially at night when it's hard to get visual references from peripheral vision. To call it "hard to land" is a bit of an exaggeration. To say it's hard to land well enough to impress a passenger is more accurate.

Put people and bags in the back to move the CG aft and it's definitely a bit easier to manage. Also, many owners retract flaps immediately after landing (on the rollout) to improve braking efficacy. That's something I strongly discourage as an instructor, in every other plane I fly, but in the Comanche, you need it, especially on wet and/or short runways. The airplane is really "loosey goosey" and wants to slide around until the flaps start coming up.

When I instruct in Comanches I caution against maxing out the nose up trim on landing, which is easy to do when the airplane is near its forward CG limit. Although it's manageable, the amount of forward force required on the yoke when going around with full power and full nose up trim is significant and can be startling, especially for smaller people (or people with limited upper body strength.)

Some people talk about the "small nosewheel mod." I've never been in favor of this mod and fortunately its popularity has waned quite a bit in the last 10 years or so as more owners realize that a smaller nose wheel reduces prop clearance and provides very little real world benefit, if any at all. Really not worth the small decrease in AOA on the roll. Stick with standard size tires.

Hope this helps,
 
Beautiful paint job on that twin, Ryan.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Flying characteristics are very similar, the 250 has more power, which is always a good thing in my book. Mooney cockpit's tighter, and Mooney seating position is more like a sports car. Depending on the model, rear seat is pretty much for kids. In my 250, I can put 4 adults, but since I have the seat full back, whoever's behind me has to have short legs. My buddy's 260B is much roomier in the rear. If you're tall in the torso, you might find headroom a little lacking in the Comanche. I kept bumping my head in turb, but ditched the headset for in-ear, so now it's not really a problem. Plus, I can wear a hat in winter.

Ask an A&P whether they'd rather work on a Mooney or Comanche. The Mooney is tighter than Elvis's pants. A Comanche 180, they can move in with a roomate.
Click to expand...

So the 260's cabin is much bigger than the 250's? I thought it was the same size just the engine HP was the difference.

Ryan F. said:
That's part of it. The naturally high AOA on the ground (mentioned earlier) is another, plus the generally forward CG. Two people in the front seats with an empty cabin puts you pretty close to the forward limits of the CG envelope.

With flaps fully deployed, you're looking at less than a foot between the trailing edge and the ground.

Most of the PA-24 and PA-30's idiosyncrasies can be summed up in the landing phase. I couldn't even tell you how many landings I have in Comanches -- but I can tell you greasers have been rare, "normal arrivals" have been the standard and even after flying mine for 18 years I still thump it in once in awhile, especially at night when it's hard to get visual references from peripheral vision. To call it "hard to land" is a bit of an exaggeration. To say it's hard to land well enough to impress a passenger is more accurate.

Put people and bags in the back to move the CG aft and it's definitely a bit easier to manage. Also, many owners retract flaps immediately after landing (on the rollout) to improve braking efficacy. That's something I strongly discourage as an instructor, in every other plane I fly, but in the Comanche, you need it, especially on wet and/or short runways. The airplane is really "loosey goosey" and wants to slide around until the flaps start coming up.

When I instruct in Comanches I caution against maxing out the nose up trim on landing, which is easy to do when the airplane is near its forward CG limit. Although it's manageable, the amount of forward force required on the yoke when going around with full power and full nose up trim is significant and can be startling, especially for smaller people (or people with limited upper body strength.)

Some people talk about the "small nosewheel mod." I've never been in favor of this mod and fortunately its popularity has waned quite a bit in the last 10 years or so as more owners realize that a smaller nose wheel reduces prop clearance and provides very little real world benefit, if any at all. Really not worth the small decrease in AOA on the roll. Stick with standard size tires.

Hope this helps,
Click to expand...

It does thanks for your time. Is transition difficult for a Pilot that has only flown Cessna, Archers and Cirrus?
 
FloridaPilot said:
It does thanks for your time. Is transition difficult for a Pilot that has only flown Cessna, Archers and Cirrus?
Click to expand...
I'll say no. My answer is because you said you have already transitioned into and flown 3 markedly different aircraft. Transitions tend to get easier with transition experience. You already understand how similar airplanes are, which helps you focus on the few differences rather than feel you are learning from scratch.
 
The 250 and 260 share the same cabin. The 260B & C is rearranged a bit for more room, as the baggage compartment is accessible from the cabin. All the same airframe though.
 
My Mooney will keep up with a Comanche any day of the week, but the Comanche can do it carrying 200 extra pounds, can put adults in the back seat and has a cavernous interior.
 
I did 5 people and bags non-stop from Phoenix to Cabo San Lucas in the Comanche.

They were small people, one was a kid, and bags were limited... but we did it.

Half the baggage area was bags, and the other half contained my mother in law.
 
lblandina said:
Your Mooney can do 160 knots?
Click to expand...

You've gotta push a Comanche 250 or 260 pretty hard to net 160 knots, at least the two I've been in. One of 'em had some "go fast" mods, including wheel fairings.
 
PA-24
If you're going to get a beech get a V tail or a 18
 
The 260s do it just as the book says. Piper was very honest with their figures. That would be 75% Cruise power.
 
I love my Comanche but I have two stories. My brother-in-law has a Mooney 231 (turbo). We fly together sometimes. Below 6000 feet I can beat him, but if it's higher his turbo takes over and I fall back. The other experience is once in solid IFR the controller came on and told a Bonanza that he had a Comanche at his 6 o'clock overtaking him by 10 kts. Would he like higher or lower? The Bonanza pilot replied, "Well we can't have that" and I never heard another broadcast. At least I cost him a higher fuel burn.
 
steingar said:
My Mooney will keep up with a Comanche any day of the week, but the Comanche can do it carrying 200 extra pounds, can put adults in the back seat and has a cavernous interior.
Click to expand...

But what about Fuel Burn I'm sure the Mooney does better?

James331 said:
PA-24
If you're going to get a beech get a V tail or a 18
Click to expand...

Does the V tail have CG problems? I keep hearing that!
 
FloridaPilot said:
Does the V tail have CG problems? I keep hearing that!
Click to expand...
It has idiosyncrasies. Remember that the Model 35 was designed as a four-seater with 2550 lb gross weight. The last V35B had a longer cabin (rear bulkhead moved aft), up to six seats, and 3400 lb gross weight. The allowable CG range gets narrower as weight increases.

Moreover, on the 1961 and later models of all Bonanzas and Debonairs, not just V-tails, all the fuel (other than tip tanks, if any) is stored in the wing leading edges, well forward of the CG. Thus, as fuel is burned, the CG migrates aft. So you might be within CG limits on takeoff, but well out of limits after a couple hours of flying. Older models have some of their fuel in aux tanks further aft, so the issue is somewhat less pronounced.

If you're serious about buying or flying any Bonanza or Debonair, get a copy of Flying the Beech Bonanza by John C. Eckalbar. It analyzes, in a sensible and understandable manner, the handling, performance and operation issues of the whole line - including weight & balance. Just the facts, no OWTs.
 
Pilawt said:
It has idiosyncrasies. Remember that the Model 35 was designed as a four-seater with 2550 lb gross weight. The last V35B had a longer cabin (rear bulkhead moved aft), up to six seats, and 3400 lb gross weight. The allowable CG range gets narrower as weight increases.

Moreover, on the 1961 and later models of all Bonanzas and Debonairs, not just V-tails, all the fuel (other than tip tanks, if any) is stored in the wing leading edges, well forward of the CG. Thus, as fuel is burned, the CG migrates aft. So you might be within CG limits on takeoff, but well out of limits after a couple hours of flying. Older models have some of their fuel in aux tanks further aft, so the issue is somewhat less pronounced.

If you're serious about buying or flying any Bonanza or Debonair, get a copy of Flying the Beech Bonanza by John C. Eckalbar. It analyzes, in a sensible and understandable manner, the handling, performance and operation issues of the whole line - including weight & balance. Just the facts, no OWTs.
Click to expand...

Good advice. But on the CG, while not exactly the same slope, the fuel burned comes close to matching the slope of the envelope with decreasing weight (on later models with wing tanks only) So within maybe 20-50 lbs, if you can takeoff, you can land. Very dependent on each plane’s W&B.
 
How many Piper Comanche 260 TC's did they make and how is the performance? It seems like the perfect airplane, Speed, Useful Load and reasonably priced!
 
Pilawt said:
It has idiosyncrasies. Remember that the Model 35 was designed as a four-seater with 2550 lb gross weight. The last V35B had a longer cabin (rear bulkhead moved aft), up to six seats, and 3400 lb gross weight. The allowable CG range gets narrower as weight increases.

Moreover, on the 1961 and later models of all Bonanzas and Debonairs, not just V-tails, all the fuel (other than tip tanks, if any) is stored in the wing leading edges, well forward of the CG. Thus, as fuel is burned, the CG migrates aft. So you might be within CG limits on takeoff, but well out of limits after a couple hours of flying. Older models have some of their fuel in aux tanks further aft, so the issue is somewhat less pronounced.

If you're serious about buying or flying any Bonanza or Debonair, get a copy of Flying the Beech Bonanza by John C. Eckalbar. It analyzes, in a sensible and understandable manner, the handling, performance and operation issues of the whole line - including weight & balance. Just the facts, no OWTs.
Click to expand...

Pilawt, Do they have a similar book for Comanche's?
 
FloridaPilot said:
Pilawt, Do they have a similar book for Comanche's?
Click to expand...
The ICS put some material together years ago. Not quite the Eckalbar book, but good material. I think it's still available with membership. It was in PDF and might be available other places as well.

I'll put a word in for ICS and type clubs generally. They can have their issues and some are definitely better than others, but when I started to fly higher performance types away from the ubiquitous 172/182/PA28 group, my SOP was to join the type club for at least one year to take advantage of their material to learn the type better. Been a member of four at various times and have not been disappointed.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The ICS put some material together years ago. Not quite the Eckalbar book, but good material. I think it's still available with membership. It was in PDF and might be available other places as well.

I'll put a word in for ICS and type clubs generally. They can have their issues and some are definitely better than others, but when I started to fly higher performance types away from the ubiquitous 172/182/PA28 group, my SOP was to join the type club for at least one year to take advantage of their material to learn the type better. Been a member of four at various times and have not been disappointed.
Click to expand...

I didn't know ICS even existed, I will consider joining once I'm able to get into a Comanche. What are some other ones? Thank you!
 
FloridaPilot said:
I didn't know ICS even existed, I will consider joining once I'm able to get into a Comanche. What are some other ones? Thank you!
Click to expand...
The Bonanza Society is a very good one. Lots of excellent material. Most types have an organization of one kind or another, even the common ones. In addition to those two, I've been a member of the Mooney and Cirrus organizations.
 
steingar said:
Mooney does way better. Awesome useful load for an aircraft with an 0360. But they are tight inside unless you're a midget like me.
Click to expand...
Mooneys are more of an issue for wide people rather than long people.

Performance wise, Mooney's claim to fame is definitely more bang for the fuel buck.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The Bonanza Society is a very good one. Lots of excellent material. Most types have an organization of one kind or another, even the common ones. In addition to those two, I've been a member of the Mooney and Cirrus organizations.
Click to expand...

I'm a member of ABS and Cirrus. I was referring to Piper Comanche in particular. I was a Piper Magazine member for a bit but I didn't enjoy the magazine much.

I'm a wide person but you cannot say ALL Mooneys the Ovation, Acclaim and Bravo fits really nicely.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I'm a member of ABS and Cirrus. I was referring to Piper Comanche in particular. I was a Piper Magazine member for a bit but I didn't enjoy the magazine much.

I'm a wide person but you cannot say ALL Mooneys the Ovation, Acclaim and Bravo fits really nicely.
Click to expand...
There's a Delphi forum which used to be pretty active. I think it ended up splitting in two with some internal fighting. I haven't been on it for along time, but my friend Kristin hosts one of them at https://forums.delphiforums.com/Comanches

Edit: Wow, my login is still good!
 
FloridaPilot said:
I'm a member of ABS and Cirrus. I was referring to Piper Comanche in particular. I was a Piper Magazine member for a bit but I didn't enjoy the magazine much.

I'm a wide person but you cannot say ALL Mooneys the Ovation, Acclaim and Bravo fits really nicely.
Click to expand...
I hate to tell you this, but the cockpit dimensions of the Ovation Ultra I sat in at Oshkosh were about the same as my 55 year old Ranger. I've flown my instructor's Ovation, and it's tight with him and I. Even modern Mooneys aren't ideal for those wide of beam. That said, you don' get more bang for the buck out of anything.
 
steingar said:
I hate to tell you this, but the cockpit dimensions of the Ovation Ultra I sat in at Oshkosh were about the same as my 55 year old Ranger. I've flown my instructor's Ovation, and it's tight with him and I. Even modern Mooneys aren't ideal for those wide of beam. That said, you don' get more bang for the buck out of anything.
Click to expand...

Even the leg room? I thought the legroom was amazing. I need to check the cabin specs on both.
 
steingar said:
I hate to tell you this, but the cockpit dimensions of the Ovation Ultra I sat in at Oshkosh were about the same as my 55 year old Ranger. I've flown my instructor's Ovation, and it's tight with him and I. Even modern Mooneys aren't ideal for those wide of beam. That said, you don' get more bang for the buck out of anything.
Click to expand...
From what I've read, the cabin with of the early C, E F and G models were 41" wide. Went up to 43.5 in later years of those models and continued into the J and beyond.
 
Yeah, tons of leg room for tall guys. My CFI towers over me, and he fits just fine in my '62C. You'd have to be a real beanstalk to not fit a Mooney, Al Mooney was a tall guy. Like I said, not for those gifted with girth.
 
I don't know about those Mooney's. The factory workers were known for putting the tails on backwards. What else could they have done wrong? :rofl::stirpot:
 
midlifeflyer said:
From what I've read, the cabin with of the early C, E F and G models were 41" wide. Went up to 43.5 in later years of those models and continued into the J and beyond.
Click to expand...
The fuselages were all the same width. Differences in measurement from year to year are attributable to interior trim and upholstery, armrest locations, etc. Look how they measured from the dished-out portion of the molded sidewall in this 1974 Mooney brochure:

Mooney width.jpeg
 
Does all of the Comanche's have that 1970's car window trim on the ceiling? does it take a little time to get use to it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top