More Piper Comanche questions!

FloridaPilot said:
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?
Click to expand...
Doesn't take long. Kinda like any other minor difference.

Although... I was giving a flight review to a former FAA Inspector in a Cherokee with the same overhead trim. We couldn't figure out where the heck the trim was. Then we both did a face palm.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Doesn't take long. Kinda like any other minor difference.

Although... I was giving a flight review to a former FAA Inspector in a Cherokee with the same overhead trim. We couldn't figure out where the heck the trim was. Then we both did a face palm.
Click to expand...

I could imagine that happening you would never think to look there....:D
 
If you have power trim, it’s no different.
 
FloridaPilot said:
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?
Click to expand...

I've grown to prefer it. In the Cherokee series of aircraft with the trim between the front two seats, depending on size, you have to get handsy with your flying companion to adjust trim. That may or may NOT be desirable. :D
 
What versions of the Comanche has cowl flaps? And what exactly are they used for?

Thank you!
 
FloridaPilot said:
What versions of the Comanche has cowl flaps? And what exactly are they used for?

Thank you!
Click to expand...
The only ones I've heard of is with the LoPresti cowling mod. The overall mod is to reduce drag (increase performance). It adds cowl flaps to, as usual, assist in cooling at high power/climb settings.
 
So during take offs which can cool the engine significantly. I haven't flown an airplane with them as of yet.
 
I read that early Bonanza V tail models (Model 35 through 35J) has a CG range of 9.2 Between 76' and 85.2 aft. With these numbers the seats in the back are pretty much useless and/or and put something very light in the back.

The Comanche 250 CG range is 12.5 between 80.5 and 93.0. Much better! You can fit 4 adults, (Fairly light of course) still have to swap fuel though.
 
People say all the time that Bonanza's are better built....is that true? and if so...why is that?
 
Ryan F. said:
I love Comanches. I've owned a Twin Comanche since 2001. I've flown the 180 and 260 singles.

But no one will ever choose a Comanche over a Bo (or PA-30 over a Baron) for any reason other than money. The Beech products are superior. Beefier, more comfortable, better performance.

And, that's the reason I own mine. I get 80% of a Baron for 50% of the acquisition and operating costs. Value proposition. In that regard, it's unbeatable.

Would I like to own a Baron? Very much. Is it in my budget? No.

The spread between the single Comanches and the Beech products is a little slimmer. An older Bo or Debonair is more competitive with the Comanche price-wise. I just don't care for Continental engines, so that keeps me out of a lot of single engine Beech products. Hell, I'm just not a guy that likes singles for IFR traveling machines, period. They're daytime VFR only (or very light, vanilla IFR) for me.

The Comanches are among the best Piper ever produced, though. I'm biased, but I view them as distinctly superior to the Senecas and Arrows which came after. The Comanches were better built and had better performance. The Seneca carries a bigger load but otherwise it's a step down from the PA-30 -- fat wing, high fuel burn, slow. Piper got into the Seneca/Arrow business in order to make and sell a cheaper airplane, not to improve on an older design. It shows. Look at how many Comanches are perfectly preserved and will fly indefinitely into the future thanks to every inch being zinc-chromated at the factory, vs. Senecas and Arrows rotting away everywhere due to corrosion.

So if money's no object, I couldn't steer you away from the Beech products. And I say that as a Comanche zealot. But if you need to find the sweet spot between performance and cost, the Comanche can't be beat.
Click to expand...

Hi Ryan!

I will offer a respectful counterpoint. I would not take a Baron over my Twinkie. I disagree that the Baron is beefier, at least in terms of structural strength. Barons are also not great at carrying ice. Unless it was an '84 or newer, then the engine controls and flaps and gear handles are all non-standard. I will say that they land nicer. Like you, a Baron isn't really in my budget, but if I could afford a newer Baron I could afford a Baby Navajo which is way more airplane than the Baron and one of the nicest flying Piper.
 
FloridaPilot said:
People say all the time that Bonanza's are better built....is that true? and if so...why is that?
Click to expand...

Bo's have an attention to detail and quality in the furnishes that you did not get with the Comanche. However, the Comanche is a stronger airframe.
 
Pilawt said:
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:
Click to expand...

Holy $&@@“! I can’t believe I’m gonna say this but I’m not sure about this. My 75 is the 43” and it has mostly the same interior as the C’s and E’s I’ve been in. That pic compares a Mooney to other planes, shouldn’t we be comparing Mooney to Mooney?

Man I can’t believe I’m challenging Pilawt!!!!
 
midlifeflyer said:
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!
Click to expand...

It didn't split, the old one was shutdown, perhaps at the behest of ICS which doesn't like the competition. I reopened a Comanche Forum on Delphi immediately after, which was April 2013, and it has grown to over a thousand members. We are blessed to have a number of Comanche maintenance professionals and other really experienced folk on the forum who are generous with their expertise.
 
FloridaPilot said:
What versions of the Comanche has cowl flaps? And what exactly are they used for?

Thank you!
Click to expand...

The single "C" model and the Twin Comanches have cowl flaps. Lopresti also does. I am not sure about the APP cowling.
 
Question about the Comanche. I know there is no step to get up onto the wing. Does anyone know how high up the step onto the wing is? Also, I will presume that one does not want to step onto trailing edge, flap, of the wing.
 
Kristin said:
It didn't split, the old one was shutdown, perhaps at the behest of ICS which doesn't like the competition. I reopened a Comanche Forum on Delphi immediately after, which was April 2013, and it has grown to over a thousand members. We are blessed to have a number of Comanche maintenance professionals and other really experienced folk on the forum who are generous with their expertise.
Click to expand...

Make it over a thousand +1
 
Ryan F. said:
I love Comanches. I've owned a Twin Comanche since 2001. I've flown the 180 and 260 singles.

But no one will ever choose a Comanche over a Bo (or PA-30 over a Baron) for any reason other than money. The Beech products are superior. Beefier, more comfortable, better performance.

So if money's no object, I couldn't steer you away from the Beech products. And I say that as a Comanche zealot. But if you need to find the sweet spot between performance and cost, the Comanche can't be beat.
Click to expand...

It's really not about the price: Comanche 250's and Debs are around the same price this is what I was looking at:

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...3+DEBONAIR&listing_id=2325230&s-type=aircraft

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...MANCHE+250&listing_id=2307098&s-type=aircraft
 
Rcmutz said:
Question about the Comanche. I know there is no step to get up onto the wing. Does anyone know how high up the step onto the wing is? Also, I will presume that one does not want to step onto trailing edge, flap, of the wing.
Click to expand...

Just guessing, but about 18"-20" or so. There's a handhold there, so the step up is easy. And yes, you do step on the flap. There's an uplock that engages when the flaps are up and makes for a solid step with wing walk applied. I prefer to step over, but lots of folks use the flap.
 
Rcmutz said:
Question about the Comanche. I know there is no step to get up onto the wing. Does anyone know how high up the step onto the wing is? Also, I will presume that one does not want to step onto trailing edge, flap, of the wing.
Click to expand...

You can step on the flap. It is about 18-20" of a step up. When I took my aging mother on a trip, I had one of those plastic, one step stools to help her get in. I drilled two holes in the top and ran a long loop of cord from one hole to the other which allowed me to tie off the end to the hand hold. Then after Mom got on the wing, she could pull up the step stool and stow it. Getting out was the reverse.
 
Thanks for the replies. I currently own a Tiger and considering something else for more xc flying. I a, debating between the Bonanza and the Comanche. My wife has a bit of a knee issue, so have to be careful and try them on first. I have also considered the 182, but the 62-67 models I would consider seem to be overpriced by their sellers for what they are selling.
 
Rcmutz said:
Thanks for the replies. I currently own a Tiger and considering something else for more xc flying. I a, debating between the Bonanza and the Comanche. My wife has a bit of a knee issue, so have to be careful and try them on first. I have also considered the 182, but the 62-67 models I would consider seem to be overpriced by their sellers for what they are selling.
Click to expand...

Another one you might look into, depending on your budget, is a Cardinal. Easy ingress as is, and having two doors means you can assist your bride if need be. The RG's are real nice birds. My wife has some "issues" from a life with horses, so if the time comes when the Comanche gets too difficult, I'll probably look for a Cardinal RG.
 
FloridaPilot said:
What is the approach speed for a Comanche? 80kts?
Click to expand...

80 MPH. 80 kts and you'll float a loooong way.
Oops, sorry. I fly my approaches at 120 kts, a little fast but it takes interpolation out of timing (but yhen, with GPS who times anymore?) though it does bump it up a category. Flies like it's on rails though. Drop gear at the FAF and you get a nice 500fpm descent without touching anything else. Trim in 90kts when gear's down at the FAF. Slowing it down for landing is no problem, full flaps, prop forward, trim in 80 mph. Flying a pattern is 90kts downwind, gear down midfield, 80 base, trim to 80 mph final, about 75 over the fence, but that close I go more by sight picture than airspeed.
 
Last edited:
the V-35 is rock solid with the yaw damper....mine is. But, I didn't see the big deal without it either.
 
hindsight2020 said:
We were doing some research for the Arrow upgrade this weekend and we just can't make the average C33A/E/F33A work with the loadout of our family and our upgrade desires (2+1+ton-o-bags, with the front pax seat unoccupied). The 35s gives the wife airsickness and I refuse to babysit the pedals (what's next, downgrade to carb heat?! LOL). Beyond frustrating, since we love the Bo cruise numbers, but eye opening to see a piddly Arrow do a better job at a 540# payload mission than a Bo.

What you need to understand about CG is that shift range is not as important a metric as you think it is. This is because it is the shift behavior of the aircraft as it loses fuel that matters most. Then and only then does CG range become a metric of consequence. In the case of the 33/35 Bos, what I discovered is that at least for the 33s, the empty weight CG location is already too far aft. Combine that with the aft-shifting trend of the Bo due to the tanks being significantly forward of the EW CG, and you are then likely to fall aft of the CG when light weight even though you took off legally when heavy. If you have a backseat/bag centric mission like mine, it's a non-starter. The V tails are lighter on the tail so the CG is a bit forward vice the 33s, so they're slightly better on that front. Still no cigar for me. The search continues. The A36 works for me though on the balance front, but then I looked at current prices, and walked away from the entire thought exercise. LOL

The comanche doesn't have that problem. It is a standard piper in that the tanks are pretty aft of the EW CG, which means the CG shifts forward. That lends itself to a more pax friendly loadout. The volumetrics in the comanche imo are slightly more comfortable on the width, at the expense of the headroom which is inferior imo; Bos are steeples in comparison.



Again, I don't consider a 225 IO470 Debbie a peer of the comanche 250/260 series, I lump those with the Arrow and the comanche 180. Frankly, stock debbies are pigs. C33A would be the only one one of the straight tails that would be somewhat comparable. In reality, what you need to be comparing Comanches 250/260s to are N-P 35 Bos with the 260 IO470. That's the peer benchmark imo.
Click to expand...

I think the Comanche is a nice upgrade from the Arrow compared to the Bo. They are reasonably priced now!
 
Chip Sylverne said:
80 MPH. 80 kts and you'll float a loooong way.
Oops, sorry. I fly my approaches at 120 kts, a little fast but it takes interpolation out of timing (but yhen, with GPS who times anymore?) though it does bump it up a category. Flies like it's on rails though. Drop gear at the FAF and you get a nice 500fpm descent without touching anything else. Trim in 90kts when gear's down at the FAF. Slowing it down for landing is no problem, full flaps, prop forward, trim in 80 mph. Flying a pattern is 90kts downwind, gear down midfield, 80 base, trim to 80 mph final, about 75 over the fence, but that close I go more by sight picture than airspeed.
Click to expand...

It makes sense you have to get your speeds down perfectly from what you are saying.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Nah, they're both are nice upgrades from the Arrow. As to reasonably priced, I don't find 260Bs and Cs to be priced as you describe. The ones on the market are overpriced AD-pencil-whipped junk (especially the Bs) and the Cs are hen's teeth. The 250 is not a bona fide contender for me, as the volumetrics of the back seat and luggage area are inferior than the Arrow for my family.

I'm really disappointed the Bos are so balance challenged for my mission. So it's back to the drawing board for me. For those that can make that work, the Comanche and short Bo alike are a real sweet spot against the opportunity cost of trying to get into an SR-22 imo.
Click to expand...

You are probably looking at something more higher in costs then......Tradeoffs I tell ya!
 
@FloridaPilot

Since you’re looking at 250/260 Comanches and talking about concerns of egress, have you considered a Commander 114 or Socata TB-20?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
FloridaPilot said:
People say all the time that Bonanza's are better built....is that true? and if so...why is that?
Click to expand...

Well, one area is the landing gear. Any RG airplane which uses bungees is sort of a poor man's alternative out of the gates. Again, I say that as a huge Comanche fan.

Kristin's point about "beefiness" is well taken. It's true that in terms of aerodynamic load, it's hard to beat the Comanche. The darned things are built like a tank, that's true.

But overall, I don't think Beech will ever need be worried about Piper creeping up on them in the craftsmanship department, LOL. Compare a Baron to a Twin Comanche and it's fairly obvious. I do love my TwinCo, though.
 
Ryan F. said:
Well, one area is the landing gear. Any RG airplane which uses bungees is sort of a poor man's alternative out of the gates. Again, I say that as a huge Comanche fan.

Kristin's point about "beefiness" is well taken. It's true that in terms of aerodynamic load, it's hard to beat the Comanche. The darned things are built like a tank, that's true.

But overall, I don't think Beech will ever need be worried about Piper creeping up on them in the craftsmanship department, LOL. Compare a Baron to a Twin Comanche and it's fairly obvious. I do love my TwinCo, though.
Click to expand...

I used to get into the Beech vs Piper "build quality"argument with my Beech owner hangar partner all the time. He's owned a series of Beech singles starting with a Deb and ending with a gorgeous V-tail he sold last year. I've owned five different Pipers. Mine don't leave empennage parts in the slipstream. ;)

Piper built planes with an eye to the cost and the price it had to charge. They aren't as nicely finished as a Beech piston. But they didn't cost as much either, then or now. They were good value. Still are, if you find the right one.
 
FloridaPilot said:
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?
Click to expand...

My first Cherokee had the trim on the ceiling, and my Aztec has it up there too. I have electric trim on the Aztec, but find I use the ceiling trim handle for fine tuning in cruise.

I really like it in that location, and can reach for it to use it without having to lean forward or look at it.
 
Pilawt said:
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:

View attachment 66377
Click to expand...

It's not the width at the elbows that's the issue for me. It's the cabin top curving in on the Mooney, vs the more upright, slab sided Pipers that causes me to prefer the latter for comfort. Some say Mooneys are built for tall people, but they seem to fit better for tall people with long legs and shorter torsos.
 
Last edited:
I've been casually looking for a bigger plane and I keep coming back to Twinkies. I need a true 4 passenger typical mission 250nm. With my PA28 annuals have been around $3k and I love the O-320....so simple to maintain. What is a typical annual cost on the PA30? Thanks
 
GRG55 said:
I used to get into the Beech vs Piper "build quality"argument with my Beech owner hangar partner all the time. He's owned a series of Beech singles starting with a Deb and ending with a gorgeous V-tail he sold last year. I've owned five different Pipers. Mine don't leave empennage parts in the slipstream. ;)

Piper built planes with an eye to the cost and the price it had to charge. They aren't as nicely finished as a Beech piston. But they didn't cost as much either, then or now. They were good value. Still are, if you find the right one.
Click to expand...
what did the bungee cords cost to replace every three years or so....?
 
Have you looked at a Socata TB20? I think it'd fit your mission well. 50" wide cabin (both front and back seats), 2 doors, no CG issues, 86 gal of fuel in 2 tanks, no cowl flaps, trailing link gear for smooth landings and high wing load for smooth flight. Absolutely dirt simple to fly really.

I always set cruise at 65% power on the IO-540, at that power setting I'll get 154 true between 8500-10500 burning right at 13gal/hr. Not the fastest I know, but not bad either. Mine has a useful load of ~1100#, I've seen some closer to 1200. So you can haul 4 with more range than I can handle before needing a break.

Biggest complaint I've heard on the Trinidad's is headroom in the cabin (I'm 5'10" and have no issues, my 19yr old son is 6'1" and also no issues in front or back seats) and parts cost/availability (again I've not had any problems). The G2 version has a little more headroom in the cabin, but are a couple kts slower from what I've heard.
 
Ryan F. said:
Well, one area is the landing gear. Any RG airplane which uses bungees is sort of a poor man's alternative out of the gates. Again, I say that as a huge Comanche fan.

Kristin's point about "beefiness" is well taken. It's true that in terms of aerodynamic load, it's hard to beat the Comanche. The darned things are built like a tank, that's true.

But overall, I don't think Beech will ever need be worried about Piper creeping up on them in the craftsmanship department, LOL. Compare a Baron to a Twin Comanche and it's fairly obvious. I do love my TwinCo, though.
Click to expand...

I'm new to complex airplanes but when you say craftsmanship, are you talking about how it was built and the material being used....just trying to understand here.

I live in Florida so corrosion is a big problem and I haven't seen a corroded Comanche yet...everything else though, Bonanza's Cessna's...etc
 
BarryCooper said:
I've been casually looking for a bigger plane and I keep coming back to Twinkies. I need a true 4 passenger typical mission 250nm. With my PA28 annuals have been around $3k and I love the O-320....so simple to maintain. What is a typical annual cost on the PA30? Thanks
Click to expand...

Barry, I noticed you sent this to me as a PM too, so here's my answer...

My annuals range from $1000 to $2500, usually, and that includes work done. I had a $2500 annual last year which was on the pricey side for me, but that included some light maintenance including replacing brake pads, finding a small hydraulic leak, some rigging and control cable tensioning. Some other stuff too which escapes my memory at the moment.

I have a few items which I've been nursing along such as mags (they're due for overhaul), new ignition harnesses and the valve cleaning SB which somehow I never knew about in all these years of ownership, but is due every 400 hours or so. I'm doing the SB now and will do the mags sometime later in the year. Those are just normal costs of ownership for any plane. When you own a twin you get to do certain things in 2s or 4s instead of 1s or 2s.

The PA-30 is the bang-for-the-buck light twin. There are cheaper twins (think Apache) but they don't offer much in return for the investment except multi time for timebuilders. The TwinCo gives you 160-165KTAS on 16-17 GPH, the ability to carry four "normal" sized people and full fuel, and the lowest overall operating costs for the performance. With tip tanks the range is outstanding. I still consider adding the tips to my bird; it's the one thing I've always regretted when I selected this particular PA-30.

The MGW service ceiling is an honest 5000-6000' MSL depending on the usual factors of weight, temperature, etc. I'm comfortable at MEAs over the Rockies as my drift down performance usually gives me a dozen airports to pick from within 100nm of any given possible failure point.

As I've alluded to elsewhere I certainly wouldn't mind the size, power and performance of a deiced BE58, but can't justify spending double the operating costs (not to mention the initial investment which would be at least 2-3x more than a comparable TwinCo.)

Hope this helps,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top