Narrowing it down... Comanche?

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?

Actually, he *did* consider the Cherokee 235/236. I quote:

"- Several fixed gear/cs prop models fit the bill. I like the numbers of
the Piper Cherokee 235 (PA-28-235/236) line and the Piper Cherokee Six
(PA-32-260/300/301) line. Ultimately, the bang/buck thing has me leaning to
the Comanche. Comments on that position?"

Personally, I LOVE the Comanche. It is, in my opinion, the ultimate Piper
single to own, perhaps with the exception of the Malibu Meridian. In fact,
the first plane I wanted to buy was a Comanche...

However (there's ALWAYS a "however"), the age and complexity of the beast
MUST be considered. It's been out of production for decades, and many of
these airframes are getting VERY long in the tooth. Thus far obtaining
parts has not been a problem, but this situation won't continue
indefinitely. And finding A&Ps who are familiar with Comanches is not
going to get any easier over time.

The later, stretch-bodied PA28-235s (like our Pathfinder) are superior to
the Comanche 250 in some important ways. (All data obtained he
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/i...plane405.shtml)

1. Useful load. We have a 1460 pound useful load -- the highest in class.
The Comanche 250's is very good, at 1110 pounds -- but if you're interested
in hauling four real people the Pathfinder wins.

2. Range. We carry 84 gallons of fuel, which gives us an incredible range.
The Comanche 250 carries 60 gallons, which gives it an okay range.

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.

Also, the fixed gear of the Pathfinder saves you $$$$ at annual each year.
Several A&Ps told me to estimate an extra $1K per year in maintenance costs
associated with the Comanche's retractable gear. Some years you won't spend
that, others you'll spend way more. Over the lifetime of the plane, you
could easily save yourself many thousands of dollars by sticking with
straight legs.

And, of course, the intangible costs of maintaining a plane that is long out
of production come into play. Although the Pathfinder/Dakota series hasn't
been made in 20 years, many of the parts are shared by the currently
produced Archer. And the knowledge-base for working on the Cherokee line is
so similar as to be considered identical in most important ways.

Now let's talk about areas that the Comanche wins.

1. Speed. The Comanche does win in speed, of course. We cruise at 140
knots, while the Comanche cruises at 157 knots. To put this in
perspective, our flight to St. Louis this weekend took us 1:18. In the
Comanche 250, it would have taken us 1:10.

Now, of course, most Pathfinders aren't so quick (ours has been highly
modified by previous owners), but the point is still this: You've got to go
a VERY long ways for minor speed differences to matter.

2. Looks. There is little doubt that the Comanche is a VERY handsome
airplane. Our Pathfinder is as good as it gets for a Cherokee, but a
Comanche looks heavy and authoritative by comparison. If "ramp appeal" is a
priority, the Comanche wins.

3. Climb. You're in a high altitude area, and the Comanche's extra horses,
lower fuel capacity and longer wing may make all the difference to you,
since they give it a 1350 FPM rate of climb. We climb out at around 800 FPM
with four of us and full fuel, and hit 1600 FPM with two of us and "only" 60
gallons on board.

Of course, you can always leave 24 gallons of fuel on the ground and easily
match the Comanche's climb rate, so I guess this is a tie, depending on how
important range is to you.

4. Altitude. The Pathfinder's stubby wing doesn't allow it to touch the
Comanche's 20K ceiling. Of course, without oxygen, neither will you -- and
I've flown over the mountains in our Pathfinder -- so (to me, in Iowa,
anyway) that's a moot point.

The guy who owned our Pathfinder before us upgraded to a Comanche 400, which
is THE Comanche to own, IMHO. Of course, he put over $35K in engine
maintenance alone into it in 2004, so that bird should be regarded as a
"collector's item" in the real world. (Although he *does* fly the pants off
of it, flying it to the Ozarks nearly every weekend...)

Personally, if money were no object, I'd buy the Comanche in a heartbeat.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
2. Range. We carry 84 gallons of fuel, which gives us an incredible range.
The Comanche 250 carries 60 gallons, which gives it an okay range.

Hmmmm... well, what's your burn per hour in cruse Vs. the Comanche and
the fact that it takes less time to cover the same distance. My Comanche
has tip tanks (90 gals total) and I seldom use the tips unless I am
going somewhere that has expensive fuel. The thing is, with 90 gallons
I can fly for almost 6 hours covering almost 1000 Nautical miles....
I don't know about you but I'm ready to stretch my legs after 3 hours!

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.

They are both 2000 TBO, I'm not sure that makes a lot of difference. I'd
rather have the extra horses myself. Even at 250HP the O-540 is very
conservativley rated (compared to the Malibu engine for example)

All your other pros + cons are pretty much right on the money though.

2. Range. We carry 84 gallons of fuel, which gives us an incredible
range. The Comanche 250 carries 60 gallons, which gives it an okay range.

Hmmmm... well, what's your burn per hour in cruse Vs. the Comanche and
the fact that it takes less time to cover the same distance. My Comanche
has tip tanks (90 gals total) and I seldom use the tips unless I am
going somewhere that has expensive fuel.

I was using the 60 gallon tanks of the stock Comanche 250 for comparison
purposes. If you've got 90 gallons, you've got the Pathfinder beat!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[my comments interspersed into Jay's excellent post]

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:EtnKf.787927$_o.592992@attbi_s71...

[snip]


However (there's ALWAYS a "however"), the age and complexity of the beast
MUST be considered. It's been out of production for decades, and many of
these airframes are getting VERY long in the tooth. Thus far obtaining
parts has not been a problem, but this situation won't continue
indefinitely. And finding A&Ps who are familiar with Comanches is not
going to get any easier over time.


Well, sounds like you've described the bulk of the used GA fleet, no?
Not trying to be too much of a smartass, but in my price range & mission
needs, I'm looking at mid-60s to early-70s nearly exclusively.... This is
my first airplane; it may or may not be my last, but "indefinite" parts
availability is low on my priorities list right now.... Mistake?

The later, stretch-bodied PA28-235s (like our Pathfinder) are superior to
the Comanche 250 in some important ways. (All data obtained he
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/i...plane405.shtml)

1. Useful load. We have a 1460 pound useful load -- the highest in class.
The Comanche 250's is very good, at 1110 pounds -- but if you're
interested in hauling four real people the Pathfinder wins.


OK, that argues against the 250 (though, the numbers I saw were 1,210#
useful--wonder why the difference?). However, the 260C (to use the other
extreme) shows a useful of 1,427# (same source as for the 250), close enough
for me to consider the same.

2. Range. We carry 84 gallons of fuel, which gives us an incredible
range. The Comanche 250 carries 60 gallons, which gives it an okay range.


As another poster pointed out, there's a mod for 90 gallons--which,
apparently, virtually every PA-24 out there has had over the last 35+
years....

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?

Also, the fixed gear of the Pathfinder saves you $$$$ at annual each year.
Several A&Ps told me to estimate an extra $1K per year in maintenance
costs associated with the Comanche's retractable gear. Some years you
won't spend that, others you'll spend way more. Over the lifetime of the
plane, you could easily save yourself many thousands of dollars by
sticking with straight legs.

This seems like an extremely valid point, one with which I've been
wrestling. In my original round on this board (long before I'd looked at
specific models), I addressed this question. One person who helped me
(Elliott Drucker, news:cDIvf.287$sa4.102@trnddc07) gave me some data that
seems to indicate that, on a 100/yr flying schedule, it's about a wash. I
know a Comanche will burn more gas (and likely cost more in mx) than
Elliott's Arrow, but the same logic applies. Do you have a different
experience or have you heard differing war stories?


And, of course, the intangible costs of maintaining a plane that is long
out of production come into play. Although the Pathfinder/Dakota series
hasn't been made in 20 years, many of the parts are shared by the
currently produced Archer. And the knowledge-base for working on the
Cherokee line is so similar as to be considered identical in most
important ways.


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??

Now let's talk about areas that the Comanche wins.

1. Speed. The Comanche does win in speed, of course. We cruise at 140
knots, while the Comanche cruises at 157 knots. To put this in
perspective, our flight to St. Louis this weekend took us 1:18. In the
Comanche 250, it would have taken us 1:10.

Now, of course, most Pathfinders aren't so quick (ours has been highly
modified by previous owners), but the point is still this: You've got to
go a VERY long ways for minor speed differences to matter.


Agreed. I look at this the same way as the engine discussion above,
though--it's a capability to be used (or not), as the mission or whim
dictates.

2. Looks. There is little doubt that the Comanche is a VERY handsome
airplane. Our Pathfinder is as good as it gets for a Cherokee, but a
Comanche looks heavy and authoritative by comparison. If "ramp appeal" is
a priority, the Comanche wins.

Not really a factor. Ramp appeal is all well and good, but at the end of
the day, I'm paying for performance, not looks. Bottom of the priority
list. [However, if I end up with a Comanche, I'll be sure to send you a
photo embossed with "My Piper looks better than your Piper!," since you
mention it.... ]


3. Climb. You're in a high altitude area, and the Comanche's extra
horses, lower fuel capacity and longer wing may make all the difference to
you, since they give it a 1350 FPM rate of climb. We climb out at around
800 FPM with four of us and full fuel, and hit 1600 FPM with two of us and
"only" 60 gallons on board.

Of course, you can always leave 24 gallons of fuel on the ground and
easily match the Comanche's climb rate, so I guess this is a tie,
depending on how important range is to you.

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)?


4. Altitude. The Pathfinder's stubby wing doesn't allow it to touch the
Comanche's 20K ceiling. Of course, without oxygen, neither will you --
and I've flown over the mountains in our Pathfinder -- so (to me, in Iowa,
anyway) that's a moot point.

Capability again. While I don't anticipate a *lot* of time on O2, living
next door to the Rockies implies that having it will be a good idea. I've
got a little hill in my back yard that's 14,110' tall... what mountains are
you overflying in Iowa??


The guy who owned our Pathfinder before us upgraded to a Comanche 400,
which is THE Comanche to own, IMHO. Of course, he put over $35K in engine
maintenance alone into it in 2004, so that bird should be regarded as a
"collector's item" in the real world. (Although he *does* fly the pants
off of it, flying it to the Ozarks nearly every weekend...)

Personally, if money were no object, I'd buy the Comanche in a heartbeat.

If money were no object, I'd by the 400 in a heartbeat! Sounds like you
like the Comanche but made a dollars-and-cents call on the Pathfinder.

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?

If so, that leaves acquisition cost. Seems like the 260C is running ~$15K
more than the 235 (VERY unscientific polling of classifieds, "average"
asking prices, etc.). That's money tied up in a capital investment, not
"spent," so as long as the payments don't bury me, I'm not overly concered
about that.

Thanks, Jay, for the thoughts & advice. This is *exactly* the sort of
discussion I was hoping for.

--
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)

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?

Agreed, if you don't run at 100% this is a moot point. But, all things
being equal, a detuned engine *should* last longer than one that's running
hotter and harder.

This seems like an extremely valid point, one with which I've been
wrestling. In my original round on this board (long before I'd looked at
specific models), I addressed this question. One person who helped me
(Elliott Drucker, news:cDIvf.287$sa4.102@trnddc07) gave me some data that
seems to indicate that, on a 100/yr flying schedule, it's about a wash.

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

Excellent point. Is there any commonality between Comanche and other,
more current Piper products?

I don't believe there are any common airframe parts, but I could be wrong.

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?

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.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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.

It won't ever be a wash but $1000 a year is ridiculous for maintenence.
Even if you fly a Cessna RG. My Bo is in the shop now because I am
catching up on a few things while I don't need it. The gear springs are
being replaced($25 each) and new snow/ice covers are being installed($30
each). That'll be about it for a long time. If the gear motor needs to
be overhauled that's $500. Beech reccommends that every 4000 hours.




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.

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?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
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?

There is nothing inherent about the Comanche landing gear that
would prevent it from using a turf runway. When you start talking
about a "soft" field... how soft? The "softness" of the field
would be of equal concern to any tri-cycle gear airplaine with
small wheels.

The hight of any grass or brush on the runway would be more
of a concern to a retract because of the gear doors hanging
down. I know that Mooneys are notorious for not being very
friendly to fields with vegitation because the doors are so
close to the ground when the gear is down.

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 2006-02-21, Jay Honeck wrote:
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?

Won't, I wager. I know a friend who takes his twin Comanche into a
(fairly rough - really, graded cow pasture) airfield. The single
Comanche has proportionately much stouter gear than the twin (same gear,
but the twin is heavier). The real issue with the twin Comanche is the
prop tips go green in modestly long grass because there's very little
prop clearance.

But for small retract gear planes with rough field capabilities, I don't
think anything beats the Bonanza. Very stout gear and decent sized
wheels, and reasonable prop clearance.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net