Narrowing it down... Comanche?

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"

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?

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)

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

Good stuff snipped

Good points -- thanks for clarifying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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/