newbie w new to me Comanche

S

sid

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
1
Display Name
Display name:
sid
Comanche guy second 250 recently has some funky avionics, need now to pay attn to a topic that's probly pretty threadbare but hey you know how it goes
 
Yeah. You should. Been there done that. Hope it works out. You’re welcome.
 
ba ba baba, baba ba baba, I wanna be sedated...…..
 
Timbeck2 said:
that stuff burns when it hits the vein
Click to expand...

Indeed it does. I had a procedure where they used that stuff, you could feel it burn all the way until it hit your head, then lights out.
 
When that stuff hit my head for my "oscopy" it felt like a millions stars lit off - very peculiar sensation. Then I was GONE. If I had some horrible terminal disease that would not be a bad way to escape the worst of it.
 
Last edited:
I'm shopping for my first plane and have also started considering the Comanche. Were all of them built with the "shotgun panel" where the instrument panel layout was not the newer standard 6-pack arrangement? I would feel better with a more conventional layout but wouldn't necessarily consider it a deal killer if the right plane came along.
 
JRflyboy said:
Were all of them built with the "shotgun panel" where the instrument panel layout was not the newer standard 6-pack arrangement?
Click to expand...
The final production version of the single-engine Comanche was the Comanche C (1969-72), with restyled cowl, extended prop shaft, fuel-injected 260 hp engine, and new instrument panel with lever-type engine controls.

pa-24-260_1969.jpg

pa-24-260_1969_pnl.jpg
 
JRflyboy said:
I'm shopping for my first plane and have also started considering the Comanche. Were all of them built with the "shotgun panel" where the instrument panel layout was not the newer standard 6-pack arrangement? I would feel better with a more conventional layout but wouldn't necessarily consider it a deal killer if the right plane came along.
Click to expand...

A large percentage of the older Comanches have had the panel updated to a standard configuration or an EFIS set up. There is an STC for an new panel from Ron & John's Comanche Service.

There has been a surge of interest in the Comanches in the last few years. I credit the internet as folks have been comparing stats and find out how much they can get for their money with a Comanche. It also has a great community that helps each other out with advice, recommendations, parts, etc.
 
Pilawt said:
The final production version of the single-engine Comanche was the Comanche C (1969-72), with restyled cowl, extended prop shaft, fuel-injected 260 hp engine, and new instrument panel with lever-type engine controls.
Click to expand...

That checks off all the boxes!
 
Kristin said:
There has been a surge of interest in the Comanches in the last few years. I credit the internet as folks have been comparing stats and find out how much they can get for their money with a Comanche. It also has a great community that helps each other out with advice, recommendations, parts, etc.
Click to expand...

I think it's a great all 'round plane. Too bad they had to stop manufacturing them.
 
rbridges said:
I think it's a great all 'round plane. Too bad they had to stop manufacturing them.
Click to expand...

They were expensive to manufacture. By that time, the handwriting was on the wall. Piper was shifting out of unionized Pennsylvania and into non-union Florida. They were not a cheap airplane to build with a lot more parts than a comparable Arrow or Lance. But assuming there is any GA left in 2058, there will still be Comanches flying, 100 years from the first being produced.
 
rbridges said:
I think it's a great all 'round plane. Too bad they had to stop manufacturing them.
Click to expand...
The Comanche is indeed a fine airplane. But in the final analysis it wasn't the flood that did it in.

The 1972 flood was not the first, nor the last, major flood at Piper's Lock Haven plant. After the flood Piper intended to continue the Comanche line with updated single and twin-engine models, addressing cabin visibility and some handling issues. The twin-engine PA-40 Arapaho was test flown and certified, and planned for a 1975 launch. Unfortunately, the changes turned one of Piper's prettiest airplanes into a painfully ugly duckling.

pa-40-160_2.jpeg

A single-engine model with a similar makeover was also planned, but never built.

Ultimately Piper management decided to pare down the catalog to the easier-to-build PA-28 and PA-32 and their derivatives. Comanche production ended not because it wasn't a good airplane, but because it was too labor-intensive and expensive to build. (See also: "Cardinal")
 
Pilawt said:
The Comanche is indeed a fine airplane. But in the final analysis it wasn't the flood that did it in.
Click to expand...

Of course those of us who own Comanches are naturally biased, but many of us view the Arrow and Seneca which followed the Comanche line to be a downgrade from Piper -- cheaper build, prone to corrosion, no beefy spar box, and far less efficiency (the hallmark of the Comanche at the end of the day -- lots of speed for the burn.) Proponents of the newer generation would say they're more comfortable and may be able to carry more load. And they've had a longer production run to boot.

I definitely prefer teaching/checking in the Seneca to the Twin Comanche; it's a much better training platform than the TwinCo. But 20 years of PA-30 ownership have left me very favorably impressed with the aircraft for the purpose of personal travel.
 
The Comanche is, in many ways, the best of the Mooney and Bonanza melded into one. Efficient speed, stability, comfort. The Twin Comanche is probably the best personal twin ever built - I'd much rather have one than a Baron.
 
I work with a few Comanche owners. Great plane. My only real complaint is that they're a little short on headroom. I am 6'2" with I guess a slightly longer torso than normal, and I have to recline the seat past normal to have enough headroom. And even then, it seems the top of the side window is a bit low, making it hard to see out for traffic above, or for the runway when turning onto base.
 
RussR said:
..it seems the top of the side window is a bit low, making it hard to see out for traffic above, or for the runway when turning onto base.
Click to expand...

I'm 5'7" and think the windows on a Comanche are narrow slits. Piper (and/or STC's) eventually fixed the gaping cowl opening, but the windows... aargh.
 
N1120A said:
The Comanche is, in many ways, the best of the Mooney and Bonanza melded into one. Efficient speed, stability, comfort. The Twin Comanche is probably the best personal twin ever built - I'd much rather have one than a Baron.
Click to expand...

Well, that makes one of us. I love the TwinCo, but I'd take a Baron in a heartbeat. It is a superior aircraft, no questions asked. The only downside is money. I can afford to operate the Twin Comanche. I might be able to afford running the Baron year after year, but I like spending my money on other things too.
 
N1120A said:
...The Twin Comanche is probably the best personal twin ever built - I'd much rather have one than a Baron.
Click to expand...

I agree with the second part of this. Never understood why anybody would want to have two engines and then jam themselves into the confines of a Bonanza cabin.

About that first part, me, @Ted DuPuis, @Radar Contact and maybe a few others here would consider them there fightin' words. :fingerwag:
 
Ryan F. said:
Well, that makes one of us. I love the TwinCo, but I'd take a Baron in a heartbeat. It is a superior aircraft, no questions asked. The only downside is money. I can afford to operate the Twin Comanche. I might be able to afford running the Baron year after year, but I like spending my money on other things too.
Click to expand...

I can afford to run either one. I'd much rather fly the better engineered plane.

GRG55 said:
I agree with the second part of this. Never understood why anybody would want to have two engines and then jam themselves into the confines of a Bonanza cabin.

About that first part, me, @Ted DuPuis, @Radar Contact and maybe a few others here would consider them there fightin' words. :fingerwag:
Click to expand...

Much rather have a PA39T and go just as fast (or extremely close) and burn less than half the gas.

Bonanzas are plenty comfortable, as are Barons.
 
RussR said:
I work with a few Comanche owners. Great plane. My only real complaint is that they're a little short on headroom. I am 6'2" with I guess a slightly longer torso than normal, and I have to recline the seat past normal to have enough headroom. And even then, it seems the top of the side window is a bit low, making it hard to see out for traffic above, or for the runway when turning onto base.
Click to expand...
That's weird because I'm six foot three and have to wear XLT because I have a long torso and I have zero issue with the window and currently have non reclinable seats. The only time I've ever hit my head on the headliner was during some massive turbulence and I didn't have my seat belt strap down tighten up.
 
N1120A said:
...Bonanzas are plenty comfortable, as are Barons.
Click to expand...

The only Bonanza that is truly comfortable is a Twin Bonanza.
The rest of them are barely better than economy class. Without the little bag of pretzels.
 
Ryan F. said:
Of course those of us who own Comanches are naturally biased, but many of us view the Arrow and Seneca which followed the Comanche line to be a downgrade from Piper -- cheaper build, prone to corrosion, no beefy spar box, and far less efficiency (the hallmark of the Comanche at the end of the day -- lots of speed for the burn.) Proponents of the newer generation would say they're more comfortable and may be able to carry more load. And they've had a longer production run to boot.

I definitely prefer teaching/checking in the Seneca to the Twin Comanche; it's a much better training platform than the TwinCo. But 20 years of PA-30 ownership have left me very favorably impressed with the aircraft for the purpose of personal travel.
Click to expand...

I have trained numerous folks in the Twinkies and been a check pilot in them as well. I much prefer them to the Seneca. The Seneca I is just a pig to fly and doesn't land much better than the Twinkie. For training, an Apache, Geronimo, or an Aztec would be top of my list though.
 
Kristin said:
I have trained numerous folks in the Twinkies and been a check pilot in them as well. I much prefer them to the Seneca. The Seneca I is just a pig to fly and doesn't land much better than the Twinkie. For training, an Apache, Geronimo, or an Aztec would be top of my list though.
Click to expand...

Yes, like you I've been teaching in the PA-30 for a very long time; nearly 20 years now. It's been about 1/3 TwinCo, 1/3 Seminole and 1/3 Seneca for me, with smatterings of the Cougar (GA-7), Navajo, and a few others. I've always tended to do a lot of multi instruction, now I tend to do more than my fair share of multiengine checkrides -- in all of the same twins in which I taught for all those years.

The Seneca is absolutely a "pig" to fly, just like its single engine compadre, the Arrow. Absolutely hate the way they fly. But that isn't an issue when training or checking. The challenge with the TwinCo from a training perspective is its low speed flying characteristics. A Vmc demo in the PA-30 is a much touchier affair than it is in the Seneca or Seminole. It's certainly doable, and safely to boot, but the margins are much closer. From a "bad maneuver recovery" standpoint the evaluator or CFI has eons of time to jump in and solve the problem with the Seneca/Seminole. Not so with the PA-30.

The TwinCo is designed to go fast on not very much fuel. It's excellent at that task, and its single engine performance isn't bad either. The cost for that is what I mentioned above which is why I view the other aircraft in the list to be superior for training. But, would I kick a PA-30 out of bed for this task? Of course not, but even I, a long-time owner and fan of the series, can recognize its strengths and weaknesses.
 
Ryan F. said:
The Seneca is absolutely a "pig" to fly, just like its single engine compadre, the Arrow. Absolutely hate the way they fly. But that isn't an issue when training or checking. The challenge with the TwinCo from a training perspective is its low speed flying characteristics. A Vmc demo in the PA-30 is a much touchier affair than it is in the Seneca or Seminole. It's certainly doable, and safely to boot, but the margins are much closer. From a "bad maneuver recovery" standpoint the evaluator or CFI has eons of time to jump in and solve the problem with the Seneca/Seminole. Not so with the PA-30.
Click to expand...

The Arrow has better aileron authority than the Senecas. As it was the first complex I ever flew, I have a soft spot in my heart for the old "Hershey Bar" Arrow. The Seneca II's and up have a bit more aileron authority, but they are not great. The Seneca I is dangerous in a gusty crosswind. That plane has tried to kill me on a couple of occasions. The Twinkie does not let you go as far with a student as other airplanes, I grant you that, but it doesn't bug me much. It bugs me even less when I Zach taught me his trick of putting my fist on my right knee to block the aileron. That works well and the Vmc demo is a more lazy loss of directional control. The students never twig to what I am doing as they used to sometimes when I would block the rudder a bit.
 
eman1200 said:
what about the later Senecas, III and up?
Click to expand...

A slightly better mannered pig. The Seneca I had ailerons designed for the Cherokee Six. They were adequate for that purpose, but when you put 400# of engine on each wing, they were wholly inadequate. With the Seneca II, Piper changed the hinge point to underneath the wing so that the down aileron would now give a somewhat Fowler effect and that improved the authority of the ailerons, but didn't completely cure the problem.
 
Agree with Kristin. A little nicer in terms of handling. Not materially, really, for the purposes of evaluation. But that is very low on the totem pole in terms of the value proposition. What you're really looking for in this category of use is low airspeed flying characteristics and the Seneca is excellent for this. Not so much for my personal favorite, the Twin Comanche.

To be clear, I do like the Seneca. It is just fine for training, practical tests, and personal travel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top