Piper Comanche 250 vs Mooney M20F which one is better?

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
Who has flown both? What were your experiences like?

The Mooney F has a 200 HP engine, (360 A1A Lycoming) and the Piper Comanche has a (Lycoming IO-540) 260HP. Average fuel burn is drastically different but a little difference in airspeed Mooney travels at: 151 knots whereas the Piper Comanche travels at 156 knots respectively. Not much difference for the amount of fuel burn.

Overall which airplane has the best value?
 
It depends upon which one meets the mission. The Mooney will never meet my mission my ass is too fat. The Comanche, that will meet the mission it has better value.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
iamtheari said:
Just buy a plane and fly it. Your paralyzing perfectionism will never get you anywhere.
Click to expand...

Kinda. I will ask if the OP has sat in or flown either yet? You can ask a billion questions about this that or the other plane (and you have), but eventually u gotta get yer ass in them and find out fo yoself.
 
Better? Are you looking for economical operation (ala F-150) or a bit more capability (F-250) while sacrificing some economy?
 
kyleb said:
Better? Are you looking for economical operation (ala F-150) or a bit more capability (F-250) while sacrificing some economy?
Click to expand...

Isn't this more an MGB vs Buick comparison?
 
kyleb said:
Corolla vs Camry?
Click to expand...

Coupe vs SUV?

Both are great planes. Both are traveling machines. The question is how much stuff/many people do you want to carry and in how much comfort...

Full disclosure: I am proud owner of a Comanche 250. I cruise at 160-165kts TAS between 9,000 & 12,000 ft most of the time on about 12.5gal/hour.

If the winds are right, I’ll go to 14 or 15k and suck on o2




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rgbeard said:
Is this the part of the thread where everyone begins recommending their own airplane?
Click to expand...

RV-10 - Period

Seriously, both of those planes were in my sights at one time. Surely I would be delighted flying either. One capability I’ve learned to value is ‘excess HP’ aka ‘climb rate’

Flying in tough weather with turbulence here and a bit of ice there, the ability to punch up out of trouble or through a layer has some value. Sixty extra horses is nice in those conditions. Something with ‘turbo’ or ‘turbine’ much better.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
eman1200 said:
Kinda. I will ask if the OP has sat in or flown either yet? You can ask a billion questions about this that or the other plane (and you have), but eventually u gotta get yer ass in them and find out fo yoself.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't sat in either, that is why I wanted to know your experiences, But you guys know me by now. I could look and talk about airplanes forever!
 
Best value?
If you plan to upgrade, forget the F, go to the J...it has a much higher price point.



Tom
 
teejayevans said:
Best value?
If you plan to upgrade, forget the F, go to the J...it has a much higher price point.



Tom
Click to expand...

Don’t really understand this. The F and the J are so similar, why pay the extra premium for the J when u can get almost the same plane for significantly less? You accurately stated the J has a much higher price point. I’m not saying DON’T get a J, I just don’t understand how u can say a J is the better value between the two.
 
The Comanche is bigger, faster, burns more fuel, and will almost certainly cost more to maintain long term.

The M20F is probably the best value in traveling retracts. Cheap purchase price, good useful load, decent speed, sips gas, and you’ve got a 4cyl Lycoming out front.

You can carry 4 people in a M20F if you really want to. With how efficient it is, carrying less fuel isn’t as big of a deal.

If cost of operation isn’t a big deciding factor, the Comanche would be my choice as it’s going to haul more, in more comfort at faster speeds.
 
Last edited:
eman1200 said:
Don’t really understand this. The F and the J are so similar, why pay the extra premium for the J when u can get almost the same plane for significantly less? You accurately stated the J has a much higher price point. I’m not saying DON’T get a J, I just don’t understand how u can say a J is the better value between the two.
Click to expand...

You skipped over the caveat “if you plan to upgrade”
Let’s use a more extreme example:
Cessna 150, then ADSB, GTN750, Aspen, autopilot...do you really think you’ll be sell it for enough of a premium comparable to the avionics quality?
You’re going to lose of course either way, but you’ll lose less with a J because they have higher ceiling.


Tom
 
I’ve got about 85 hours in an M20F, about 20 in a Comanche 180, and a few in Comanche 250s. I’ll start off by saying I think both the M20F and the Comanche 250 are fantastic planes and great values. They have their pros and cons.

I found the M20F to be about a 145 knot plane. We ran it ROP and burned 10-11 gph. If run LOP I’d expect around 8 or so but going even slower. The Comanche 250 is around 12 gph or so but does 150-155 so in the end not a huge $/mile difference.

Airframe wise I think the mx is pretty similar, but the M20 has angle valve cylinders. Those cost more and are more prone to detonation. The Comanche has an extra 50 hp which is more useful and there’s a better useful load.

My vote would be the Comanche, but you’ll like either.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I’ve got about 85 hours in an M20F, about 20 in a Comanche 180, and a few in Comanche 250s. I’ll start off by saying I think both the M20F and the Comanche 250 are fantastic planes and great values. They have their pros and cons.

I found the M20F to be about a 145 knot plane. We ran it ROP and burned 10-11 gph. If run LOP I’d expect around 8 or so but going even slower. The Comanche 250 is around 12 gph or so but does 150-155 so in the end not a huge $/mile difference.

Airframe wise I think the mx is pretty similar, but the M20 has angle valve cylinders. Those cost more and are more prone to detonation. The Comanche has an extra 50 hp which is more useful and there’s a better useful load.

My vote would be the Comanche, but you’ll like either.
Click to expand...
And if you run the Comanche at 145 knots, the fuel burn is probably exactly the same no?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
 
I'd go with the Comanche, all things being equal.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I’ve got about 85 hours in an M20F, about 20 in a Comanche 180, and a few in Comanche 250s. I’ll start off by saying I think both the M20F and the Comanche 250 are fantastic planes and great values. They have their pros and cons.

I found the M20F to be about a 145 knot plane. We ran it ROP and burned 10-11 gph. If run LOP I’d expect around 8 or so but going even slower. The Comanche 250 is around 12 gph or so but does 150-155 so in the end not a huge $/mile difference.

Airframe wise I think the mx is pretty similar, but the M20 has angle valve cylinders. Those cost more and are more prone to detonation. The Comanche has an extra 50 hp which is more useful and there’s a better useful load.

My vote would be the Comanche, but you’ll like either.
Click to expand...

How was getting in and out of both? They are pretty much low to the ground\sports car type airplanes. How was slow flight and landing in both?
 
FloridaPilot said:
How was getting in and out of both? They are pretty much low to the ground\sports car type airplanes. How was slow flight and landing in both?
Click to expand...

you'd know the answer to all these questions if u just got yourself in either one...….C'MON, FP!
 
FloridaPilot said:
How was getting in and out of both? They are pretty much low to the ground\sports car type airplanes. How was slow flight and landing in both?
Click to expand...

Just fine. They’re both crisp and sporty feeling planes. Nothing abnormal or concerning.

The hockey puck suspension in the Mooney makes greaser landings harder than average, but oh so satisfying when you get them.
 
I own a 250 and my best friend owns a Mooney M20C (sorry not the F). If I slow to M20C speeds, my fuel burn is about the same as the M20C. 140kts at about 9.5gph at 5500ft. We flew in formation to Rockford last month so I could get the Aussie horn installed on my plane. It was a great side-by-side comparison, single pilot but I was carrying quite a bit more fuel. The Comanche has a bigger interior and is easier to get in/out of. The Comanche carries 200lb of baggage and the Mooney is 120lbs. Biggest difference is climb, Mooney’s aren’t know for their awesome climb performance (save the Ovation). The 250 was climbing at 1200-1400fpm at 120mph, the Mooney was about 700-800fpm at 120mph. Now, I have a lot of speed mods on my plane and can do 160kt true all day and I think the M20C is a 140-maybe 145kts with speed mods. I log about 75hrs a year in the mooney and close to 150 in my Comanche, they are both great planes! I think the Mooney lands better/easier and all speeds are 5mph less than the 250 in the pattern. Neither plane has a bad handling characteristic. The Comanche is kind of in a league of its own, but I am bias.

If you want to pick a fight, tell an RV10 driver that a Comanche will beat it in an 800mile race carrying more payload. The only argument is that it’s an old airplane and must cost a lot in maintenance?
 

Attachments

  • 19BC8C92-BA9D-4D86-BCDF-68717FAE18BF.jpeg
    19BC8C92-BA9D-4D86-BCDF-68717FAE18BF.jpeg
    153.2 KB · Views: 88
Most F models will walk away from my C a little quicker than I walk away from 182s. My C is considered a 140 knot plane, while the F is generally a 150 knot plane with 64 gal (LOP, that's about 7 hours versus the 5:30 in my C). We all carry baggage in the back seat, too. At least the high baggage door makes it easy to stack to the ceiling--where is the baggage door in a Comanche?

Interestingly, when I flew hurricane relief supplies after Florence, I was the only single I saw on the signin sheet with more than 400lb payload. I reached RDU after a 3 hour flight at 9500, then only descended to 7500 and went 20 min past the field before being turned back inbound, which gave me almost 650 lb payload and the ability to deliver it an hour away and return before fueling.
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, just as threads like these will never reach a conclusive answer.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I’ve got about 85 hours in an M20F, about 20 in a Comanche 180, and a few in Comanche 250s. I’ll start off by saying I think both the M20F and the Comanche 250 are fantastic planes and great values. They have their pros and cons.

I found the M20F to be about a 145 knot plane. We ran it ROP and burned 10-11 gph. If run LOP I’d expect around 8 or so but going even slower. The Comanche 250 is around 12 gph or so but does 150-155 so in the end not a huge $/mile difference.

Airframe wise I think the mx is pretty similar, but the M20 has angle valve cylinders. Those cost more and are more prone to detonation. The Comanche has an extra 50 hp which is more useful and there’s a better useful load.

My vote would be the Comanche, but you’ll like either.
Click to expand...

Ted hit the nail on the head. I was looking for a M20F for a long time also loved Comanche’s ( needed up buying a Bonanza J35) As far as Speed goes the extra knots in the Comanche will make a difference if your flying from Florida to say Philly but not if your average trip is Tampa to Orlando. As Ted said you will like both, the Comanche is bigger inside but the F is stretched so it has more room than the older M20s but you can’t make a bad move here. Best of luck.
 
Not really related to the original question, but do Comanches and/or Mooneys have any life-limited parts that would make someone think twice about buying a high time airframe?
 
Wrench978 said:
Not really related to the original question, but do Comanches and/or Mooneys have any life-limited parts that would make someone think twice about buying a high time airframe?
Click to expand...

Mooneys don't. Don't know about Comanches, but I haven't heard of any for them.
 
Wrench978 said:
Not really related to the original question, but do Comanches and/or Mooneys have any life-limited parts that would make someone think twice about buying a high time airframe?
Click to expand...
landing gear needs attention regularly....bungees get replaced every 3 years for the Comanche.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top