-----Original Message-----
From: kontiki ]
Posted At: Monday, February 20, 2006 5:47 AM
Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
Conversation: Narrowing it down... Comanche?
Subject: Narrowing it down... Comanche?

Douglas Paterson wrote:
--Stuff snipped--
Among the Comanches: after toying with the idea of the 400, I
calmed
down.
The 180s seem like a steal, but the useful load is marginal and
I
worry
about the climb-at-altitude. So, I'm down to the 250/260/260B/260C
decision--but I'm holding off on that for the moment.

Before I burn too many brain bytes or go too far down the rabbit
hole,
I'm
hoping for either confirmation or contradiction of my thought
processes
here. If you've read this far, you must have at least SOME opinions
to
share...! Thanks for any help or advice you have to give.

It sounds as though you have done a pretty thorough job of analyzing
and
summarizing the situation. I did a similar thing a couple of years ago
and
ended up bying myself a Comanche 250. I don't regret that decision and
still
today I think the PA24 is an excellent bang for the buck. However, if
you
are one of those people that aren't willing (or knowledgable enough)
to do
some minor maintenance or learn about the systems on your own airplane
you
are better off buying a newer airplane (a LOT newer!). As long as you
are
performing the proper maintenance and understand the essential systems
the
PA24 is a solid airplane made to fly for many thousands of hours, haul
a
good load at speeds obtainable only by much high priced competitors.

Pipers systems are well known and not that hard to work on. The
International
Comamche Society is an excellent source of technical information as
well
as
people you can help you resolve all the issues about owning the
Comanche.
[Jim Carter]
I have to agree about the maintenance point Kontiki was making
-- if you aren't going to "get involved" with your aircraft stick to
something newer and more plentiful (I'm not implying the PA24 isn't
plentiful).

I noticed you indicated a sweet spot for the PA28-180, but
didn't talk about the 235, why was it eliminated or was it not
considered?

Personally I'm partial to the Navion, I secretly believe that
you can disassemble a 172 and carry it as baggage in the passenger
compartment -- those things are huge. (But man that Meyers/Interceptor
400 is a sexy bird). Again however, it is not the plane for a pilot that
farms out all the maintenance and it is a bit of a classic so there
aren't that many (young) mechanics around that know them very well. On
the other hand, the American Navion Society has a good club and lots of
information. Kind of like the Cardinal Flyers, Cessna Pilots Assn,
American Bonanza Society, and on and on. If you're interested, stick
with something that's still fairly popular, and don't mind getting your
hands dirty, there's lots of help available -- just look at the
responses you got from this newsgroup.

Blue skies...