Narrowing it down... Comanche?

Douglas Paterson wrote:
: 3. Maintenance. The Pathfinder wins here, hand's down. Both planes
: utilize the Lycoming O-540, but the Pathfinder's is de-tuned to 235
: horses. The Comanche's is pushed a bit harder, running at 250 horses.
: We burn a bit less fuel, and the engine (should, in a perfect world) last
: a bit longer.
:

: Not sure I buy this--but I am NOT an expert on engines (and obviously still
: learning airplanes). My thought is, the engine is "pushed" however far the
: operator pushes it--if a Comanche 250 is only run at 94% of power (max) and
: cruise at 70.5%, wouldn't that be the equivalent "pushing" and burn the same
: gas as running the Pathfinder at 100% and 75%? Not that I'm suggesting that
: technique would be used, just that it seems like it's more a case of having
: more "available" power than a case of "pushing." Unless 235 is the max that
: engine "should" be used for?

The "detuning" of the PA28-235 Jay mentions is in the compression ratio. The
PA24-250 runs at 8.5:1, vs. 7.0:1 for the 235. That alone makes for hotter cylinders
and higher octane requirements. I don't know if autogas is in your decision-making
process, but the PA24 is definately out for that.

All that said, what you say is correct from my way of thinking. Just because
you have the horses doesn't mean you need to use them all the time. If you run a -250
at 55% rather than a -180 at 75%, it'll definately be happier for it. You don't even
lose a whole lot of speed and you often gain quite a few percentage points in fuel
economy.

: Excellent point. Is there any commonality between Comanche and other, more
: current Piper products? As for knowledge-base for working on them, is the
: Comanche so different as to erase Cherokee experience??

Tire size and the overhead crank for the elevator trim is about all I can
think of that might be common between the two. They're completely different
airframes.

: Agreed (and, of course, apparently any Comanche I get will likely have 90
: gal tanks anyway).

: I've asked on the Comanche boards, but I'll repeat it he anyone have
: climbout figures for the Comanche (or other models for comparison) at
: 10,000' DA (a common DA in the summer here, I'm told)?

That issue right there limits your decision more than most of the other things
you mentioned. At least the Hershey-bar PA-28s tend to blow goats at high DA. The
taper-wings are allegedly a bet better. If you're not willing to sacrifice
significant load or runway flexibility, the PA-24-180 is definately out, as would be
any PA-28 less than 235 that isn't turbocharged. I seem to recall climb rate in a
friend's PA24-250 that was mid-range loaded (40 gallons on-board, 2-people, and 50 lbs
baggage) was about 400fpm at 12k. Only one datapoint I know, but a *takeoff* at such
DA's would burn up a helluvalotta runway loaded.

: However, this is the heart of the matter: bang-for-the-buck. So long as
: I'm not shelling out a lot of bucks on bang I don't need/want/use, I want to
: maximize that (duh!). Look at it this way: from what I've read (and your
: discussion), I can do everything in a 260C you can do in your 235, for about
: the same operating cost--or, I can push it up and use those extra 25 horses
: when called for (and pay for the privelege). Do I have that about right?

... so long as you're willing to do a lot of the work on the PA24, you may
have comparible operating costs. The annuals are a fair bit more involved on them, as
are some of the recurring AD's

-Cory



--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Margy wrote:
Montblack wrote:
("Maule Driver" wrote)

We moved down from CT and built a Deck house and hangar about 8 years
ago at Lake Ridge Aeropark over in Durham. We love it.



What is a Deck house?


Montblack

Hmm, might only be the dwell houses that are more prefab. I've looked
at the dwell before, but not the deck.

The prototype dwell house was built near me. It was open for a tour a
year or so ago, total mob scene, all the Chapel Hill hipsters came, and
the house wasn't even finished after over a year of work (and it's
modular!) and, well, its industrial style wasn't for me.

The house was supposedly designed to make good design affordable to
more people -- but the designers got too caught up in the hype, and
they recently put it on the market for $650,000. (they took the price
off the webpage, but you can find it easily by googling)
http://wieler.com/wielerhouse/

Deck houses are great, the model used to be near me in Cary, NC (now
it's a doctor's office).

Another type to consider if you're into that, is Lindal Cedar homes.
My house is based on a Lindal design.

Jay Honeck wrote:
Whoops -- forgot one more thing: Soft field capability. I know several
Comanche owners who won't fly into Amana's grass strip, which is an awful
shame. We fly in there -- and several other excellent grass strips --
all the time.

That's just pathetic. Not being able to go offroad would have been a deal
killer when I was looking at the Bonanza.


I confess to not knowing enough about the Comanche's gear to comment. Is it
that they *can't* or that they *won't* fly into a soft field?


They all can land off pavement. Look when they were designed. Most GA
planes landed on grass/dirt a significant number of times. And it's not
necessarily soft field that concerned me. I wouldn't land my 182 in a
mud hole. The West is a desert, therfore very dry. What's more
important is rough field. Most strips I land on are just plowed with a
road grader and maybe cut a couple times a year to keep the grass less
than 6 inches. They can be pretty bumpy.

On 21-Feb-2006, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

How can retractable gear *ever* be "a wash" with fixed gear? There's just
a
lot more "stuff" in there to be maintained.


My earlier post simply noted that the fuel savings over some number of hours
of flight will offset the higher maintenance and insurance bills. My Arrow
and your pathfinder cruise at about the same speed, but your engine has to
burn about 3 to 4 extra gallons per hour to make that happen. Yes, I know
YOU burn cheaper mogas, but most owners will not go to the trouble and
expense of building their own fuel truck. In any event, mogas is almost
never available at airports along the way. So, conservatively, the fuel
cost savings for retractable gear in airplanes of our performance class (200
HP retractables and 235 HP FG) at today's fuel prices is somewhere between
$10 and $15 per hour. Over a modest 100 hr/year utilization, that comes to
between $1000 and $1500 per year, which is most likely much more than the
extra costs for maintenance and insurance.

Put another way, it takes a lot of extra power to drag that landing gear
around at 140 kts.

Put yet another way, comparing performance of your Pathfinder with a
hypothetical Comanche, the power you don't use to drag the gear through the
air translates to higher speed, climb, and ceiling.

As to the issues posed by the OP: The O-540 powered Comanches have a
reputation as strong climbers, particularly when lightly loaded. However,
if I was based at Colorado Springs and had many westbound missions I would
probably want a turbocharged airplane. Have you considered a Turbo Arrow?

Margy's link is it. It's now called Deck/Acorn homes or something as
the result of a merger a few years ago. It's far from what most would
consider a 'pre-fab home' though.

While you can select a design out of their portfolio, most are built to
custom plans. What they have is a 'look' achieved through the use of a
certain set of construction methods and materials. Now they have a
variety of looks thru mergers with other similar home builders.

Post and Beam construction, mahaghony framed windows, wood decked
ceilings (where the name comes from), cedar siding, etc give the homes a
certain general look but they are built for entirely custom floorplans
and elevations. I call ours "60s contemporary".

Though they look like anything other than pre-fab, they in fact are.
They make a kit for your plans, posts, beams, trusses, stud walls, etc.
The house kit is trucked from MA to your site and built by your local
builder. It's a kit that's assembled like an RV - 51% rule more than
fully adhered. Helps to have a Deck experienced builder.

You should have seen the faces on the community board when they saw what
it was after word got out that we were erecting a 'manufactured home' or
'double wide'.

We love ours and couldn't be happier. Hangar is an entirely separate
metal building.

Margy or anyone interested in stopping by and taking a look, let me know
privately.

Bill

Margy wrote:
Montblack wrote:
("Maule Driver" wrote)
We moved down from CT and built a Deck house and hangar about 8 years
ago at Lake Ridge Aeropark over in Durham. We love it.
What is a Deck house?
Hmm, might only be the dwell houses that are more prefab. I've looked
at the dwell before, but not the deck.
Margy

On 2006-02-21, Jay Honeck wrote:

Whoops -- forgot one more thing: Soft field capability. I know several
Comanche owners who won't fly into Amana's grass strip,

So? I know C172 owners who won't fly into a grass strip. It's not
an airplane limitation! If there's any restriction to flying a PA24
into a grass strip it's that the plane is a bit unwieldy at the low
airspeeds you'd want for a max performance landing. Aileron gap seals
are reported to help that. The gear is strong and ground clearance is
good.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

Douglas Paterson wrote:
"Margy" wrote in message
...

Jim Carter wrote:


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...



There are quite a few Navion mechanics around and they aren't that
complicated, so once a mechanic who knows how to ask questions has worked
on a few for a bit they get fairly good at it. If you can find a Navion
with a new engine conversion (520 or 550) you have a really decent plane.

Margy


"Bit of a classic"... "[not] many mechanics around that know them very
well"...

Both items that make me tend to shy away. No doubt that they're good
planes--and, they sparked my interest, making me ask--but, again, as a
first-timer, I feel like staying "mainstream" is a way of controlling
variables (to a degree), hopefully making for a smoother experience.

Thanks for the thoughts--exactly what I was hoping for!

Doug
We bought a Navion as our first.

Margy

"Margy" wrote in message
...

We bought a Navion as our first.

Margy

I offer no criticism of that--but, it's not for me. Big deal? Probably
not--you apparently had no problems. However, I'll err on the side of
caution here (if that phrase applies). If I decide down the road that the
Navion would've been a better choice, I can start this process all over
again--a litter wiser & better-prepared, I would hope.

Thanks for the input.
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:KkEKf.789422$_o.284954@attbi_s71...

How can retractable gear *ever* be "a wash" with fixed gear? There's just
a lot more "stuff" in there to be maintained.


Elliott answered this pretty thoroughly in another post, in the same vein as
the earlier thread. So, obviously, the actual maintenance will be more on
swing-gear vs fixed--but, the "wash" in question refers to the balance saved
in gas (or, as may be the choice, the extra performance to be had). Sorry
if I was unclear.


Whoops -- forgot one more thing: Soft field capability. I know several
Comanche owners who won't fly into Amana's grass strip, which is an awful
shame. We fly in there -- and several other excellent grass strips -- all
the time.

I think the argument "probably" (keep in mind I'm the newb here) applies to
*all* retracts vs fixed of comparable construction. All things being equal,
fixed gear are (will always be) more stout than their retractable
counterparts, no? I assume it's this issue that those owners fear (whether
justified or not). As other posters have pointed out, there are plenty of
fixed-gear drivers who won't touch grass. I'm forced to admit that I'm one
of them--exactly zero of my rental agencies have permitted off-pavement
operations. Will I land on grass once I have my own wings? Maybe--if the
airplane I ultimately buy is suitable, if it's not a huge insurance issue,
and if I can find a suitably experienced instructor (CFI or otherwise) to
teach me the finer points... then, sure, if I've somewhere to go that's
grass, why not? The capability to do so is reasonably important--you make a
good point. I'll defer to other posters' opinions that the Comanche is
well-enough suited. As for how often I'll actually *do* so, that's an open
question....

Thanks!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

wrote in message
news:guIKf.12759$p13.2805@trnddc08...

On 21-Feb-2006, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

How can retractable gear *ever* be "a wash" with fixed gear? There's
just
a
lot more "stuff" in there to be maintained.


My earlier post simply noted [...]

What he said! Thanks again....


As to the issues posed by the OP: The O-540 powered Comanches have a
reputation as strong climbers, particularly when lightly loaded. However,
if I was based at Colorado Springs and had many westbound missions I would
probably want a turbocharged airplane. Have you considered a Turbo Arrow?

Considered, yes (among other tc models). Frankly, I'm scared of turbo--it
seems like for every story of increased capability at altitude, there are
three stories of huge maintenance bills, overhauls well short of TBO, etc.
The Comanches have a 20K ceiling and a reputation as good climbers (though
I'm still looking for hard numbers in the above-8K'-DA regime), and bring a
lot of versatility to the table. Bang-for-the-buck again....

Am I being overly (unjustifiably) cautious here?

Thanks!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)