My new airplane has a weird propeller. What's the deal?

RussR said:
Man, it's like everybody's buying Comanches these days. A few weeks ago I went up to go get one with another buyer, and did his insurance-required training over the next few days.

@SixPapaCharlie , I think his times and such were similar to yours, but he didn't have the Cirrus time you have. What is insurance requiring for your checkout? He needed 10 hours.
Click to expand...

Hi Russ! Yep, Avemco required 10hrs dual and I had zero retract and no high performance endorsement.

Jason
N5725P
 
Congrats!! Beautiful plane!

Are you planning to change the plane’s N# or to change your screen name? :)
 
So.....will you train given all that extra speed? ...that's blistering fast. o_O
SixPapaCharlie said:
Thanks. Yeah, this looks like it will do everything I ask of it.
90 Gallons, 1180 Useful, 155 Kts, and a significant ceiling and climb over the Grumman.
I have a list of upgrades I want to make over the next couple years. If I find myself bored and rich, I am told I can add tip tanks and add 200 lbs more useful load and 120 gallons.
Click to expand...
 
midwestpa24 said:
I'm pretty sure its in the fine print on Comanches. You are not allowed to change the N#. The Comanches all left the factory with N####P numbers, because they are the Perfect airplane. :p
Click to expand...


I guess he could change both to six charlie papa....
 
It is wonderfully ironic that in the very funny ad @SixPapaCharlie put up for his Grumman he claimed a family of four could live in it. The Comanche is one of the few aircraft I'd describe as having a cavernous interior. A goo idea to have a Comanche knowing mechanic, I do believe the gear to be a trifle idiosyncratic (this coming from a fellow who's gear has rubber donuts and is run by a Johnson bar).
 
Great looking airplane that has the wing in the correct location ...:)
 
RussR said:
Man, it's like everybody's buying Comanches these days. A few weeks ago I went up to go get one with another buyer, and did his insurance-required training over the next few days.

@SixPapaCharlie , I think his times and such were similar to yours, but he didn't have the Cirrus time you have. What is insurance requiring for your checkout? He needed 10 hours.
Click to expand...

10 hours as well
 
steingar said:
It is wonderfully ironic that in the very funny ad @SixPapaCharlie put up for his Grumman he claimed a family of four could live in it. The Comanche is one of the few aircraft I'd describe as having a cavernous interior. A goo idea to have a Comanche knowing mechanic, I do believe the gear to be a trifle idiosyncratic (this coming from a fellow who's gear has rubber donuts and is run by a Johnson bar).
Click to expand...

I already budgeted for a landing gear overhaul. It is in good working order but it hasn't had as much attention as it deserves.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I already budgeted for a landing gear overhaul. It is in good working order but it hasn't had as much attention as it deserves.
Click to expand...

The gear system itself isn't all that bad. Its a relatively simple system using an electric motor driving push/pull cables and using bungees as an assist mechanism. The keys are to replace the bungees regularly, I think ours gets done every other annual, and make sure the cable conduits are well maintained and lubricated.

I guess I should know this, but what part of the world does 6PC frequent.
 
midwestpa24 said:
The gear system itself isn't all that bad. Its a relatively simple system using an electric motor driving push/pull cables and using bungees as an assist mechanism. The keys are to replace the bungees regularly, I think ours gets done every other annual, and make sure the cable conduits are well maintained and lubricated.

I guess I should know this, but what part of the world does 6PC frequent.
Click to expand...

He's one of them thar Texans. I've heard he's all hat and no cattle if you catch my drift.
 
YEEEEEHHHAWWWWWWWWW!!


(I assume that's how every Kentucky conversation starts out)
 
yep, sure is nice looking. congrats!!
...but why did they put gumps on the panel?....pretty sure every one of us can recite that mantra in our sleep
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
It better be for real. I just wrote a big check to the current owner and another to the insurance company.
That zero retract time kicked me in the pocket book.
Click to expand...

I just joined a club near me trying to avoid that scenario.

I specifically chose this club because they have 2 Commanche and 2 Remos GX (both airplanes I am considering when it comes time to replace the Yankee I sold). I don't want to get a retract with 0 retract time or a Light Sport with 0 light sport time.
 
Congratulations! Looks like a sweet bird. Shame about the tail being on backwards. More panel pics so we can help you spend your money. Or save some money by swapping parts with this 310 near here.
 
I transitioned from a Grumman Yankee to the Questair with 280 hours TT. My insurance has gone up every year since then despite having 1500+ hours, instrument, TW, Commercial, and multi ratings.
 
Blatham489 said:
Not just any Scimitar, if I recall that is a special version for Comanches (pictured vs the stated 182 RG) and those paddles supposedly increase ram air pressure ahead of the air intake, boosting power slightly.
Click to expand...
Do they claim a ram air improvement? If they do, it will be really tiny. Ram pressure at 162 MPH is one inch Hg. Big deal. And that's at static, no flow. Start the flow into the intake and it drops. Aircraft induction intakes are typically more flush with the cowling and angled the same to avoid the pulsating airflow off the prop messing up the airflow though and induction system that can mess up fuel/air homogeneity and cause uneven intake pressures between cylinders.

We had an older 182. After an oil change we'd run it up briefly with the cowl off to check for any oil leaks. It ran terribly with the cowl off and the carb airbox getting that direct pulsating blast off the prop right into it. Put the cowl on and it ran smoothly.

In the '70s Ford marketed their Torino with its "Ram-Air Intake." Supposedly improved performance. Yeah, right. At 60 MPH the ram pressure would be almost unmeasurable. Along with the turbulence off that bluff front end. I wonder why we don't see this principle anymore??

upload_2021-12-21_20-29-24.jpeg
 
Dan Thomas said:
Do they claim a ram air improvement? If they do, it will be really tiny. Ram pressure at 162 MPH is one inch Hg. Big deal. And that's at static, no flow. Start the flow into the intake and it drops. Aircraft induction intakes are typically more flush with the cowling and angled the same to avoid the pulsating airflow off the prop messing up the airflow though and induction system that can mess up fuel/air homogeneity and cause uneven intake pressures between cylinders.

We had an older 182. After an oil change we'd run it up briefly with the cowl off to check for any oil leaks. It ran terribly with the cowl off and the carb airbox getting that direct pulsating blast off the prop right into it. Put the cowl on and it ran smoothly.

In the '70s Ford marketed their Torino with its "Ram-Air Intake." Supposedly improved performance. Yeah, right. At 60 MPH the ram pressure would be almost unmeasurable. Along with the turbulence off that bluff front end. I wonder why we don't see this principle anymore??

View attachment 103004
Click to expand...

The 1966‐72 Pontiac GTO had the Ram Air intakes in various designs. While the power wasn't vastly different on a static dyno, the main benefit of the Ram Air intakes was being able to draw in a cooler intake charge from the hood scoops as opposed to the hot engine bay air that most intakes did.

We don't see the principle in modern cars because they are all fuel injected and electronically controlled with intakes that draw cool air from the fender well or the front grill. They are also made of plastics and composites that don't absorb heat as easily as the old steel carburetor air breathers.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Do they claim a ram air improvement? If they do, it will be really tiny. Ram pressure at 162 MPH is one inch Hg. Big deal. And that's at static, no flow. Start the flow into the intake and it drops. Aircraft induction intakes are typically more flush with the cowling and angled the same to avoid the pulsating airflow off the prop messing up the airflow though and induction system that can mess up fuel/air homogeneity and cause uneven intake pressures between cylinders.
Click to expand...

The pre-J Mooney induction tracts were not well designed, the ram air added a couple inches in cruise flight and made a real difference. That was corrected on the J, and ram air only added about 1/2" or less, it was so little that we never used the ram air. In fact, there is a mod that allows sealing off the ram air intake, we did that on one of the annuals.
 
Welcome to the club!
I have the same prop. Best thing about it is it's a no ad. LoPresti called that the "synchro-pulse" prop, and yes it was supposed to force more air into the intake and cooling ports of the LoPo cowl. And add 5 knots. But every LoPo model adds 5 knots. Add them all, and you get a 300kt Comanche.

There are 2 keys to not "plonking" landings. The first is nail 80 mph(not kts!) On final. The second is to put 50lbs of ballast in the baggage compartment. And you'll want to learn to reach for the flap lever real quick after touchdown to keep it on the ground in any sort of crosswind.
 
Oh, and don't "flare"! you'll balloon big time. Just ease it back and hold it off, hold it off, hold it off until she sets down, then retract the flaps. I use full flaps pretty much all the time,unless there's a big-time xwind.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Oh, and don't "flare"! you'll balloon big time. Just ease it back and hold it off, hold it off, hold it off until she sets down, then retract the flaps. I use full flaps pretty much all the time,unless there's a big-time xwind.
Click to expand...

The Comanche and Mooney have very similar wings, and land in a similar way. I know this will stir up trouble, but I rarely full stall land the Mooney, and I know Comanche pilots who land the same way as well.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
It better be for real. I just wrote a big check to the current owner and another to the insurance company.
That zero retract time kicked me in the pocket book.
Click to expand...

You're gonna love that airplane. Very docile in the stalls, climbs like a homesick angel, get there quick at 155kts at 14 gph or bore holes on the sky at 120 kts and 10.5 gph.
Best shop in TX is Clifton Aero. Tim Talley. I had him pre-buy one for me. Knew it had an undocumented belly in by how belly rivets were placed. Knows those birds like the back of his hand.
 
Bill said:
The Comanche and Mooney have very similar wings, and land in a similar way. I know this will stir up trouble, but I rarely full stall land the Mooney, and I know Comanche pilots who land the same way as well.
Click to expand...

No doubt. My buddy has 260B and rarely uses full flaps and likes a more "authoritative" landing. But his approaches also tend to be a bit flatter as a result. I like the steeper full-flap because I can stay a little higher on the approach. Personal preference. But the real point is don't be fast!
 
Blatham489 said:
Not just any Scimitar, if I recall that is a special version for Comanches (pictured vs the stated 182 RG) and those paddles supposedly increase ram air pressure ahead of the air intake, boosting power slightly.
Click to expand...
Yea it’s for the LoPresti cowling
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top