More Piper Comanche questions!

FloridaPilot said:
What are these?

View attachment 66655
Click to expand...
That is the emergency gear extension handle. Also serves as a gear indication, as it moves with the gear. Handle up as in the picture, gear is in the down position. Handle flat on the floor, gear is retracted. Only downside, don't leave your iPad on the floor when you retract the gear. It becomes part of the Comanche mantra,"Positive rate, floor clear, gear up."
 
midwestpa24 said:
That is the emergency gear extension handle. Also serves as a gear indication, as it moves with the gear. Handle up as in the picture, gear is in the down position. Handle flat on the floor, gear is retracted. Only downside, don't leave your iPad on the floor when you retract the gear. It becomes part of the Comanche mantra,"Positive rate, floor clear, gear up."
Click to expand...
One pilot I knew used to rest his hand on the handle during its transition as confirmation.
 
midlifeflyer said:
One pilot I knew used to rest his hand on the handle during its transition as confirmation.
Click to expand...

Yep, you can feel the gear go over-center at the top of the movement confirming they are locked. That is one of the things I like about the Comanche gear, an emergency extension is a non event. Open the floor hatch, pull the lever to release the gear from the transmission, and rotate the hand up. It does take a little bit of force to get them over-center and locked, but isn't hard.
 
On the 'C' the emergency gear mechanism and the extendable handle are located undeneath a little door in the cabin floor.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Yep, you can feel the gear go over-center at the top of the movement confirming they are locked. That is one of the things I like about the Comanche gear, an emergency extension is a non event. Open the floor hatch, pull the lever to release the gear from the transmission, and rotate the hand up. It does take a little bit of force to get them over-center and locked, but isn't hard.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to slow it down to 100mph. It's tough to armstrong the gear down at normal extension speed.
 
Let me ask the Piper Comanche fans this:

How come a Piper Dakota PA28-236 which has the same engine (Lycoming 540) as the Comanche, less useful load and is in fact slower but costs almost Double as a Comanche?
 
FloridaPilot said:
Let me ask the Piper Comanche fans this:

How come a Piper Dakota PA28-236 which has the same engine (Lycoming 540) as the Comanche, less useful load and is in fact slower but costs almost Double as a Comanche?
Click to expand...

Because it comes wrapped in the familiar Cherokee airframe. That makes it appealing to buyers. Plus being several years newer helps too.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Because it comes wrapped in the familiar Cherokee airframe. That makes it appealing to buyers. Plus being several years newer helps too.
Click to expand...

Complex insurance worries, the fear of a gear-up, and long term support concerns also diminish the market value of the Comanche.
 
kyleb said:
Complex insurance worries, the fear of a gear-up, and long term support concerns also diminish the market value of the Comanche.
Click to expand...

(I have no idea) The Dakota has more support than the Comanche?
 
The plane Piper should have built to replace the Comanche is a slightly stretched Arrow with a 260hp IO540.
 
weilke said:
The plane Piper should have built to replace the Comanche is a slightly stretched Arrow with a 260hp IO540.
Click to expand...

Bingo. But they cheaped out and ceded the HP 4-seater market to Cessna and Beech. The Lance was not and is not, an in-kind replacement for the comanche. Too draggy and cumbersome.

Don't get me wrong, the Arrow was a success from a flight training fleet perspective; in that regard so was the seminole. But refined and robust personal XC machines they are not, and I own one for non-commercial use myself mind you. What they are is cheap to maintain and operate, with extremely reliable sub-systems. Which is why I own it.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
The plane Piper should have built to replace the Comanche is a slightly stretched Arrow with a 260hp IO540.
Click to expand...
There almost was a really cool 260 hp Arrow, with a sliding canopy, even. It was an experimental project by Piper's production licensee in Argentina, Chincul, intended to replace the Beech T-34. Per Piper Aircraft - The Development And History of Piper Designs:

"Chincul have also developed what was known as the Chincul Cherokee Arrow which was built for the Argentine armed forces training division in 1978. It was the PA-A-28R-260T Cherokee Arrow III with a 260 hp Lycoming AEIO-540 engine, side by side seating for two under a canopy and a 7.62 mm gun. The prototype was s/n AR28-7703285 registration LV-X67 and was previously LV-MCS. The Air Force didn't want it, so it was converted back to a Turbo Arrow III and registered LV-WCT and sold."
​
Piper_Chincul_PA-28_Arrow.jpg
 
weilke said:
The plane Piper should have built to replace the Comanche is a slightly stretched Arrow with a 260hp IO540.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The real answer is they should not have replaced the Comanche!
 
midwestpa24 said:
I disagree. The real answer is they should not have replaced the Comanche!
Click to expand...

Had they been making money on comanches, they would have relocated production to FL. The PA28/32 required considerably less labor to produce.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I disagree. The real answer is they should not have replaced the Comanche!
Click to expand...

weilke said:
Had they been making money on comanches, they would have relocated production to FL. The PA28/32 required considerably less labor to produce.
Click to expand...

You beat me to it.

The Arrow and Seneca were not upgrades to the Comanche. They were an easier and less expensive to produce model for Piper. Many believe the flooding in Lock Haven was a convenient excuse to shut down the Comanche line in favor of the new, cheap Arrow and Seneca.

Having flown the Comanches and many of the Arrows and Senecas, it's hard to believe that the latter are any competition at all to the Comanche. Other than the Seneca's ability to haul a bigger load, Piper's next generation of aircraft were a substantial downgrade. I know I'm biased as a Comanche owner, but not that biased (see my comments on Beechcraft vs. Piper.)
 
weilke said:
Had they been making money on comanches, they would have relocated production to FL. The PA28/32 required considerably less labor to produce.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the Comanche wasn't making money. Management just had too much riding on the their "new and improved" models and were trying to make those sell to recoup design and certification costs.
 
There was an effort after the flood to revive the Twin Comanche, at least. The PA-40 Arapaho was a rework of the PA-39 Twin Comanche with many of the old PA-24/30/39 issues addressed: The main landing gear was longer; a taller cabin with windows greatly enlarged, and huge ventral and dorsal fins added, along with rear fuselage strakes. The Arapaho first flew in 1973 and was certified in 1974. Three prototypes were built; one was lost in spin tests. It was intended to be introduced as a 1975 model, but Piper canceled the project, blaming the economic recession.

What wasn't mentioned is that, compared to the PA-30/39, the Arapaho was just plain ugly.

Screen Shot 2018-08-28 at 8.10.00 AM.png
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
There was an effort after the flood to revive the Twin Comanche, at least. The PA-40 Arapaho was a rework of the PA-39 Twin Comanche with many of the old PA-24/30/39 issues addressed: The main landing gear was longer; cabin windows greatly enlarged, and huge ventral and dorsal fins added, along with rear fuselage strakes. The Arapaho first flew in 1973 and was certified in 1974. Three prototypes were built; one was lost in spin tests. It was intended to be introduced as a 1975 model, but Piper canceled the project, blaming the economic recession.

What wasn't mentioned is that, compared to the PA-30/39, the Arapaho was just plain ugly.

View attachment 66738
Click to expand...

Didn’t they have counter rotating props?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Ryan F. said:
You beat me to it.

The Arrow and Seneca were not upgrades to the Comanche. They were an easier and less expensive to produce model for Piper. Many believe the flooding in Lock Haven was a convenient excuse to shut down the Comanche line in favor of the new, cheap Arrow and Seneca.

Having flown the Comanches and many of the Arrows and Senecas, it's hard to believe that the latter are any competition at all to the Comanche. Other than the Seneca's ability to haul a bigger load, Piper's next generation of aircraft were a substantial downgrade. I know I'm biased as a Comanche owner, but not that biased (see my comments on Beechcraft vs. Piper.)
Click to expand...

As to your first paragraph, it wasn't an excuse, it was a business decision. There is no doubt the arrow line was more profitable for Piper than the expense of manufacturing the Comanche. Ditto for the Seminole versus the Apache and the Seneca vs the Aztec.

As to your second paragraph, it's not hard to believe, because nobody believes it. Even as an arrow owner as I've said it before, I have yet to hear a single person argue that on a performance, fit, handling or finished basis, the pa-28 line is in any way shape or form superior to the Comanche line. What it was, was cheaper and more profitable, and you have to be biased to argue the comanche is superior on that particular front.

The point of the prior poster was that there were ways to improve the arrow line to close the gap with the comanche benchline without introducing the opportunity cost of comanche manufacturing. But as I remarked earlier, that too was a business decision made in order to not cannibalize sales away from their lance offering. In doing so they ceded the personal HP 4 seater cruiser to beech imo, and the rest is history. That is why I'm looking at 260/285 engine Debbies as replacement for my arrow mission, and not a lycoming equipped airplane like I would prefer. The level of support based on production numbers is simply more favorable, so much so I'm willing to entertain the added cost of craptastic engines like the 520 (though i would probably lean to the 260 hp variant of the 470 as a more desirable engine to own long term). If piper had retracted the Dakota, I'd never utter such a thing. World of what things are vs world of what things should be type of thing.
 
hindsight2020 said:
As to your first paragraph, it wasn't an excuse, it was a business decision. There is no doubt the arrow line was more profitable for Piper than the expense of manufacturing the Comanche. Ditto for the Seminole versus the Apache and the Seneca vs the Aztec.

As to your second paragraph, it's not hard to believe, because nobody believes it. Even as an arrow owner as I've said it before, I have yet to hear a single person argue that on a performance, fit, handling or finished basis, the pa-28 line is in any way shape or form superior to the Comanche line. What it was, was cheaper and more profitable, and you have to be biased to argue the comanche is superior on that particular front.

The point of the prior poster was that there were ways to improve the arrow line to close the gap with the comanche benchline without introducing the opportunity cost of comanche manufacturing. But as I remarked earlier, that too was a business decision made in order to not cannibalize sales away from their lance offering. In doing so they ceded the personal HP 4 seater cruiser to beech imo, and the rest is history. That is why I'm looking at 260/285 engine Debbies as replacement for my arrow mission, and not a lycoming equipped airplane like I would prefer. The level of support based on production numbers is simply more favorable, so much so I'm willing to entertain the added cost of craptastic engines like the 520 (though i would probably lean to the 260 hp variant of the 470 as a more desirable engine to own long term). If piper had retracted the Dakota, I'd never utter such a thing. World of what things are vs world of what things should be type of thing.
Click to expand...

You have all the support you need in Clifton, TX. Clifton Aero is one of the best Comanche shops in the country. These are not hard aircraft to keep in the air if you can find a mechanic that knows them well. You are lucky that you don't have to go far.
 
Kristin said:
You have all the support you need in Clifton, TX. Clifton Aero is one of the best Comanche shops in the country. These are not hard aircraft to keep in the air if you can find a mechanic that knows them well. You are lucky that you don't have to go far.
Click to expand...

Are there some others? Who can I contact in Florida to get a pre buy?
 
So is there a difference in airspeed between The Comanche 250 and 260? I know once is fuel injected and one isn't but some 260's have a carburetor too? Noticed the 260's are all across the board in price. I've seen some that are 100k and some of them are 55k with about the same avionics.
 
All 260 models are injected, I believe.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
The Comanche 260 appeared in late 1964, followed about a year later by the Comanche 260B (the first one with the third side window and optional third-row seats). Carburetor was standard and FI optional, even on the 260B.

E0096A81-3576-478D-A223-DD121FBC483E.jpeg
 
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...

So there's not much of a difference between a 250 and 260 except useful load? Speed wise? I always thought the more useful the slower you are.
 
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.
 
Pilawt said:
The Comanche 260 appeared in late 1964, followed about a year later by the Comanche 260B (the first one with the third side window and optional third-row seats). Carburetor was standard and FI optional, even on the 260B.

View attachment 66798
Click to expand...

Jeff,

Do you happen to have a POH for the Comanche B or C?

Thank you!

FP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top