Narrowing it down... Comanche?

-----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...

Jim Carter wrote:

-----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...


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

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"

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.

Speaking of which, we haven't heard about you and Ron doing any major trips
in the new bird yet? Whassup with that?
(Well, other than OSH, of course...)

You guys taking it down to SNF '06?
--
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.

Jay Honeck wrote:
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.


Speaking of which, we haven't heard about you and Ron doing any major trips
in the new bird yet? Whassup with that?
(Well, other than OSH, of course...)

You guys taking it down to SNF '06?
Well, we've had CRAPPY weekends... We did take it to NC where we
decided to buy and airport lot (www.longislandairpark.com phase II lot
12!) even though we had to land at another airport to pick up a rental
car. We haven't managed to have a decent weekend this year to get back
and now we are into a heavy season at work so I have to work a few
weekends. Those will be the severe clear ones, I'll be off for the
rainy ones (if anyone wants my schedule so they know when to plan their
trips, let me know :-). We have to fly down sometime soon with the
architect so hopefully weather, work and schedules will all come
together at the same time.

We've done a few fly around to no where in particular days, I flew a
reporter and photographer one day (keep you eye out for Teacher
Magazine!) and Ron went up with a friend of ours who is a former U2
pilot and a cfii. Maybe we can get Ron to finish up his instrument
rating at some point!

Next weekend is African Americans in Aviation weekend, so if I pull the
same tough duty I did last year I'll spend the day escorting a few
Tuskeegee Airmen around and making sure they are in the right place at
the right time. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it :-).

SNF would be great, but some of us have to WORK.

Talk to you soon,

Margy

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"

Next weekend is African Americans in Aviation weekend, so if I pull the
same tough duty I did last year I'll spend the day escorting a few
Tuskeegee Airmen around and making sure they are in the right place at the
right time. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it :-).

Cool! Can't be too many of those guys left, so take good care of them.

SNF would be great, but some of us have to WORK.

I know the feeling, although our problem is more child-induced than
work-related. I wish Iowa City's Spring Break would line up with SNF!

It HAS been an awful winter for flying. This past weekend was the first
good one in a long while, and (incredibly -- I'm still pinching myself) we
had 4 days off. (See my post on St. Louis over in .piloting.) Hopefully
you'll get a good stretch of weather soon so that you can fly that architect
up (down?) to your land...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
Next weekend is African Americans in Aviation weekend, so if I pull the
same tough duty I did last year I'll spend the day escorting a few
Tuskeegee Airmen around and making sure they are in the right place at the
right time. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it :-).


Cool! Can't be too many of those guys left, so take good care of them.


SNF would be great, but some of us have to WORK.


I know the feeling, although our problem is more child-induced than
work-related. I wish Iowa City's Spring Break would line up with SNF!

It HAS been an awful winter for flying. This past weekend was the first
good one in a long while, and (incredibly -- I'm still pinching myself) we
had 4 days off. (See my post on St. Louis over in .piloting.) Hopefully
you'll get a good stretch of weather soon so that you can fly that architect
up (down?) to your land...
Down, my theory is every 20 years or so you should move a few hundred
miles south. This area of NC is 5 degrees warmer than DC in the winter
and only 1 degree warmer in the summer. Perfect!

Down, my theory is every 20 years or so you should move a few hundred
miles south. This area of NC is 5 degrees warmer than DC in the winter
and only 1 degree warmer in the summer. Perfect!

Makes the commute a real bitch, though...

Unless you're like Mary, and can still telecommute to her old hospital job
in Wisconsin...

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