Comanche in Turbulence awful compared to everything I've flown.

[Salty]

If you're looking for stability, think about tight-rope walkers. They don't use those long poles to put the weight closer to them....

Is it easier to lift a wing with the fuel inboard, or outboard?

 

[Lindberg]

It is an acceleration thing. A Cub has as much area in profile as <say> a Comanche, but weighs 40% as much. In the same wind, it accelerates downwind faster after liftoff than the Comanche. At some point (only a few seconds, really), both will accelerate to the lateral velocity of the wind.

I'm surprised Brian thinks the Comanche is bad (?) in this area. I figured it would be great. Same with turbulence.

If we're still referring to liftoff, when using the proper crosswind correction, you shouldn't be accelerating laterally at all, you should be tracking the runway. And in flight you should be moving with the wind, not accelerating in it (save big gusts or wind shear).

 

[Groundpounder]

The Challenger 604/5 has a wing loading of 107. Rode great in the bumps.

 

[luvflyin]

I need to brush up on wing loading. It i snot something I understand at all really.

The Cirrus does have the smoothest ride. It also has the most flex in the wing as far as I can tell which probably helps a little with the bumps.

Think about Va. Why is it slower when you're lighter and faster when you're heavier? That probably relates to this. Do you notice much difference between when it's just you and when you have a plane full of people? Lotsa gas and not so much? I think maybe CG may have some effect. Front of the envelope vs being farther back? I'll read on and maybe get some questions answered myself.

 

[kyleb]

If we're still referring to liftoff, when using the proper crosswind correction, you shouldn't be accelerating laterally at all, you should be tracking the runway. And in flight you should be moving with the wind, not accelerating in it (save big gusts or wind shear).

Yep.

 

[PaulS]

Middle of the country has some wild weather going through today. Wild turbulence up high was supposed to work itself down lower throughout the day. Scott D covered it in his daily briefing this morning. Plus he warned of wild weather too. Sounds like you just hit the turbulence lottery. I wouldn't give up on the plane yet.

 

[Daleandee]

You need to spend more time in LSAs. That will improve the ride in your Comanche about 1000%.

I was thinking the same thing. Mine at gross is only 12.75 on wing loading. Went up today and the winds were not as forecast. Whomever it was that so eloquently said, "You can't trust March" was absolutely correct.

Edit: Years ago I flew Challenger Sport planes that were of the fat ultralight variety. Gross wing loading was 5.36 for the long wing version. Middle of the day flying would really turn up the pucker factor.

 

[TrueCourse]

SixPapaCharlie, does your Comanche have actual “tip tanks” or auxiliary “outboard” tanks?

 

[SCCutler]

Bryan -

Don’t forget that, when you were flying the Grumman, you topped-out at a speed pretty much the same as your pattern speed for the PA24, and when you encounter the shearing wind currents that make up turbulence, you’re doing so ata much greater speed as well. It’s going to feel a lot more like a “punch” at a greater speed. If you believe you’re going to experience the turb, slow down

Next: what are you using for your cruise altitude? Your first priority on most flights is to climb! You have all that power for speed, but also (maybe more so) to climb to a more comfortable (and more efficient) cruise altitude.

With our consistent mission of Addison to Fredericksburg, we’re consigned to flying low until we clear the Bravo southbound, and descending into the lower altitudes early as we arrive from the south; we know it’s sometimes just gonna suck to get jounced around in those phases, but it’s always nice when we climb through that altitude when we transition from the bumpies to the smooth air. Where that occurs will almost inevitably be higher in the warm weather months, but we rarely cruise lower than 8000/8500 or 9000/9500 and, around here, that almost always delivers a pretty smooth ride.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

There's a lil lever in the middle of the panel....labeled "turb boost"....turn that off.

 

[Tobias Göller]

Hi Bryan,

I don't have any experience with the Comanche bud did some flying in Mooneys and in a SIAI Marchett 205 (built in the 60s)... especially the SIAI Marchetti became quite "floaty" as soon as the gear was up. Could be due to it's quite high fuselage that could have been pushed around by crosswinds.

Also, as the airframe was quite stiff it was a rather harsh ride in gusty conditions.

The P28A seems way softer to me (especially the Archer III seems quite a nice ride in gusty conditions).

Can't really tell anything about the Cirrus as I have never flown one so far. It could be that due to it being more flexible the gusts are softened out better so it is less annoying. Pretty sure that's on intent as nobody would spend $1M on a plane that is not comfortable (well, pilots would but the wifeys would for sure disapprove - happy wife, happy life. Unhappy wife, hell on earth )

Regarding the roll rate: I suggest if you would fly with empty wing tanks the roll rate should improve quite a bit. The added weight at the wingtips will make the thing much more inert when rolling.

Tobias

 

[PaulS]

Going to be pretty turbulent again today in South Central area. This is supposed to be mixed up, muddled up, shook up winds.

 

[Tobias Göller]

Hi,

Going to be pretty turbulent again today in South Central area. This is supposed to be mixed up, muddled up, shook up winds.



View attachment 105634

Seems like a perfect environment to do scientific testing whether what I wrote is accurate or not...

Flying for the sake of science... results, please

Tobias

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

What’s the next plane you’re dreaming of at the moment? That’s the real meat of this thread, not wing loading, turbulence, etc.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

SixPapaCharlie, does your Comanche have actual “tip tanks” or auxiliary “outboard” tanks?

Aux inboard. No tip tanks.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

What’s the next plane you’re dreaming of at the moment? That’s the real meat of this thread, not wing loading, turbulence, etc.

Oh I'm hanging on to this until the kids are out of the house. Everyone is just going to have to hang on down low.
Then I'm kind of thinking my last plane will be an RV

 

[eman1200]

..Then I'm kind of thinking my last plane will be an RV

why?

 

[midwestpa24]

Aux inboard. No tip tanks.

Pretty sure you mean aux "outboard" on a Comanche. The inner mains carry 30 gallons each, the aux outboards carry 15 gallons each. Unless there is some variant I'm not aware of. Tip tanks were available before Piper started putting the aux outboards in 1961(?). I think some people even put the tips on later aircraft that already had aux tanks, although I can think of no reason why I would want 8 hours of gas onboard, aside from the gross weight increase the tip tank installation gets you. My personal tank doesn't have that kind of range.

 

[danhagan]

why?

1. He wants to be a stud like the rest of us RV aviators
2. Even "cooler" than the Tiger guys hangin' an elbow out during taxi
3. Forces you to learn the overhead break
4. Irritate other owners telling them you were horsing around at 18 MP 2000 RPM at 105-110 knots and 4.6 GPH burn
5. Same as above but doing 167 knots indicated at 8 GPH 9000 MSL
6. Gentleman acro
7. Low cost avionics upgrades
8. Don't need to haul 3 empty seats after kids have left the nest

 

[eman1200]

1. He wants to be a stud like the rest of us RV aviators
2. Even "cooler" than the Tiger guys hangin' an elbow out during taxi
3. Forces you to learn the overhead break
4. Irritate other owners telling them you were horsing around at 18 MP 2000 RPM at 105-110 knots and 4.6 GPH burn
5. Same as above but doing 167 knots indicated at 8 GPH 9000 MSL
6. Gentleman acro
7. Low cost avionics upgrades
8. Don't need to haul 3 empty seats after kids have left the nest

It wasn’t a general “why are RV’s awesome” question, it was a why does HE want one.

 

[Shepherd]

Bryan, Come to NY.
I'll let you fly the PA-17. It will give you a whole new appreciation for the Comanche.

 

[schmookeeg]

1. He wants to be a stud like the rest of us RV aviators
2. Even "cooler" than the Tiger guys hangin' an elbow out during taxi
3. Forces you to learn the overhead break
4. Irritate other owners telling them you were horsing around at 18 MP 2000 RPM at 105-110 knots and 4.6 GPH burn
5. Same as above but doing 167 knots indicated at 8 GPH 9000 MSL
6. Gentleman acro
7. Low cost avionics upgrades
8. Don't need to haul 3 empty seats after kids have left the nest

Perhaps he meant a Winnebago, and the reason being he will no longer want a medical or to maintain basic med?

 

[Tobias Göller]

Hi,

Bryan, Come to NY.
I'll let you fly the PA-17. It will give you a whole new appreciation for the Comanche.

I have flown L4/J3 and PA18 quite a lot... is the PA17 worse or similar to those in regard to gusts?

Tobias

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

why?

We got the big fast plane because the Cirrus is likely going to be sold this year.
We are planning lots of family flying trips over the next few years.

Once the family is down to 2 people I want to go back to flying something fun.
This plane is great and will do anything I ask of it but with regard to plain old fun flying, and tooling around, I want something a little more nimble.
The Grumman was nothing but fun. RVs are fun but also fast.

I am happy to be in possession of a XC plane that will haul a lot quickly but it's a mini van. At some point, you gotta get the Corvette.

 

[Jay Urish]

We got the big fast plane because the Cirrus is likely going to be sold this year.
We are planning lots of family flying trips over the next few years.


I am happy to be in possession of a XC plane that will haul a lot quickly but it's a mini van. At some point, you gotta get the Corvette.

Corvette??!!!? Have you ever checked out the Comanche 400? 8cyl. dude.....

 

[Tobias Göller]

We got the big fast plane because the Cirrus is likely going to be sold this year.
We are planning lots of family flying trips over the next few years.

Once the family is down to 2 people I want to go back to flying something fun.
This plane is great and will do anything I ask of it but with regard to plain old fun flying, and tooling around, I want something a little more nimble.
The Grumman was nothing but fun. RVs are fun but also fast.

I am happy to be in possession of a XC plane that will haul a lot quickly but it's a mini van. At some point, you gotta get the Corvette.

Same here.... we have a small P28A-151 for hauling stuff and the family. It's not super-fast but it's fast enough not to be annoyed all the time (108kts). In Europe, most legs are shorter anyways.

I'm not 100% sure about your decision of selling the Cirrus - for IFR the chute is a big plus if things go bad.

At one point when the kids are out... let's see. I am still looking for a grumman myself - but they are very rare where I live.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

I'm not 100% sure about your decision of selling the Cirrus

Cirrus belongs to my dad. He is thinking of hanging it up.

 

[Bill]

Cirrus belongs to my dad. He is thinking of hanging it up.

Why not sell the Commanche and buy him out?

 

[charheep]

Perhaps he meant a Winnebago, and the reason being he will no longer want a medical or to maintain basic med?

Not until he puts a "thinking about an RV/motor home" post

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Why not sell the Commanche and buy him out?

He will get $300k for that Cirrus. I'll never be able to afford that.

I picked up the Comanche for a used Grumman plus $5000

#DadWorksHarderThanMe

 

[Tobias Göller]

Cirrus belongs to my dad. He is thinking of hanging it up.

Hmmm. Sad to hear but otoh that day will come for many of us, too.

But... that could mean you have bought a plane with too few seats. If he hangs it up you might have another passenger quite often... so... Cherokee Six could have been ideal

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

So.....maybe you're not fly'n it right? lol

You should see if they have those Comanche clinics to teach you how to fly it .....kinda like the Bonanza guys.

 

[Bill]

He will get $300k for that Cirrus. I'll never be able to afford that.

Bad deal

I picked up the Comanche for a used Grumman plus $5000

Good deal

 

[Tobias Göller]

He will get $300k for that Cirrus. I'll never be able to afford that.

I picked up the Comanche for a used Grumman plus $5000

#DadWorksHarderThanMe

The cirrus is expensive to buy (especially at the moment). And... it's less a question of IF you can afford it. It's more a question: Is it worth the money for YOUR LIKING.

If I looked very hard, I am sure i COULD afford 300k for a plane. Probably more easy than I think right now.

But I don't want to spend that much money into something I only use 150-200h per year. I already have a Job. No need to work harder for my bank.

#YourDadHasMaybeWorkedHarderThanYouButYouHaveTheFunnierYoutubeChannel

 

[Tobias Göller]

Bad deal

Not for the seller

Good deal

Maybe not so much for the seller, too

It's mostly a question of market. If you're in the market for something (and the seller finds out) you end up paying higher prices. It's the same with old car. My alfa romeo (1984 year) technically does not have any worth today. It's useless. It's loud. The heating is not really up to the task here.

But if you find a buyer who wants it... he'll pay USD20k or more easely.

 

[steingar]

A Comanche is a just a Mooney with a bigger frontal area and a bigger mill out front. I think the same guy designed the wings for the Comanche and the Mooney, come to think of it. Only trouble I've had in turbulence is the Mooney refuses to slow down. Mooneys go down or slow down, but they just don't do both at once. Then again, the thing cruises in the yellow arc at 75% power. A nice problem to have.

 

[Tobias Göller]

A Comanche is a just a Mooney with a bigger frontal area and a bigger mill out front. I think the same guy designed the wings for the Comanche and the Mooney, come to think of it. Only trouble I've had in turbulence is the Mooney refuses to slow down. Mooneys go down or slow down, but they just don't do both at once. Then again, the thing cruises in the yellow arc at 75% power. A nice problem to have.

Maule MX7-235 also cruises next to the yellow arc... and it's still not very fast

 

[steingar]

Maule MX7-235 also cruises next to the yellow arc... and it's still not very fast

Just has a low yellow arc. Mine starts at 160 mph. Pretty good for something flying behind an O360.

 

[Tobias Göller]

Just has a low yellow arc. Mine starts at 160 mph. Pretty good for something flying behind an O360.

145mph... and I do respect it (we have quite a lot of bumpy weather over the alps...)

 

[steingar]

145mph... and I do respect it (we have quite a lot of bumpy weather over the alps...)

I don't respect mine that much, nor does anyone else in the Mooney community. The only way to keep a Mooney out of the yellow on descent is to drop the gear. But Mooneys are stout, so most of us just don't worry about it overmuch.