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

Not sure what all is in play here but having flown many hours in Cirrus, Grumman, a smattering of other planes, and now a handful in the Comanche, I am finding the Comanche is far more violent in turbulence and Gusts to the point that I am going back with an instructor on the next S#!tty day because I am quite uncomfortable.

Up high in smooth air, the PA-24 is amazing. I love it.
Down low in thermals and gusts, it flies like a cube and I dislike it.

Yesterday it was 12G19 which isn't that bad (for me) The drops, wing dips, lifts, etc that go along with that seem significantly more dramatic in this plane than any other plane I can recall.

I had a good cross wind yesterday and I have never had a plane drift as much as this one. Once I was wheels up, the tendency for the plane to "slide" downwind is Impressive.

Normal thermal type bumps seem far more violent and coming in on final (100 kts, full flaps), its getting tossed around morose than I have noticed in other planes.

Not that the "why" really matters. It is what it is and I have to get used to it but I would have guessed being bigger and heavier, this plane would be far less impacted by this stuff.

I do believe the slower roll rate is also a portion of it. Roll corrections are much slower.

If you have time in this collections of planes, I would be curious to get your take.

 

I would expect the Cirrus to ride the best with it's high wing loading and high aspect ratio. The Comanche has the lightest wing loading. When combined with the slower control response, bigger wing, and faster speeds it will get tossed around more than the Grumman.

 

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.

 

The Grumman is around 17.1 lbs per sq/ft
Comanche 250 16.3
Cirrus SR22 23.5

Think about it as standing on a piece of wood supported by a ball full of air. The smaller the plate the more the ball will compress because you are applying a higher load.

 

Maybe this will help? Two extreme cases of weight divided by surface area:

Cannonball: very high loading, hundreds of pounds per square foot. Flies through the air with little deflection due to any turbulence. Lots of inertia, it just keeps going.

Paper airplane: very low loading, tiny fraction of a pound per square foot. Flutters drastically if there's a little puff of air movement.

 

Another good example is the parts store where they have the K&N display of the ping pong ball being supported by the flow of air. Doubt a golf ball would do that.

 

FTFY

 

flying final in a comanche be like

 

It's not that smooth.

 

Flies like a cube? WTHDTM? Like flyin' with this guy?

Mooney comes in at 16.4, and since Piper basically stole Mooney's wing for the Commanche, this makes sense. And yes, the plane is a handful at pattern altitude and lower when it's active. I've just gotten so used to getting my *** kicked that it's second nature.

 

@SixPapaCharlie your comment about sliding wheels down on final made me remember our flight to the Texas Panhandle years ago. Passing duck included.

That story is one of my most favorite flying memories.

 

Whoa Whoa Whoa! The Comanche pilots told me it was the P-51 wing.
You mean I'm not flying a war bird?

I just flying a run of the mill Mooney!
(only with much more cabin space, speed, and utility?)

 

Off brand Moonie wing…oooof!

 

No, you fly a Mooney bird, just with more fuel burn.

 

Bonanza- 18.23
Cuz its not a conversation until the Bo is mentioned

 

are those MGW numbers? Consider the Comanche UL and it's even worse when being flown solo. @SixPapaCharlie are your fuel tanks full?

 

Pretty much. I keep the tip tanks full and just fly off the mains when putting around.

 

F-15E Strike Eagle. 110 or so depending on mission.

Cheers

 

hmm....sounds like a good excuse reason to get the osborne tip tanks.

I didn't realize the Comanche had such relatively low wing loading. I think that's a lot of it, as the 172 I've been flying feels like a cork on the ocean, even compared to PA-28's. The Lance is pretty stable; full tanks definitely makes a difference though.

 

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

 

I wouldn't base your opinion entirely on yesterdays conditions. I was coming back from Hamilton, TX yesterday and the turbulence with the wind and thermals was above average gnarly the whole way. I was rocking and rolling all the way from liftoff until the plane was in the hangar.

 

Bryan: The wing loading on the Comanche is pretty easy to increase. Take some Weights like the plates you put on a bar bell and place them along the wing as close the leading edge that you can get. Buy a caulk gun and some liquid nails or other high adhesion construction adhesive and spread the it along the wing. Be sure to put down a few lines of it running parallel with the wing one behind the other. Put the weight plates on the adhesive and let them dry for 48 hours. Its best if you tape them down with gorilla tape or duct tape to prevent shifting until they dry. It will increase your wing loading dramatically and turbulence will not be your issue anymore.

Bonanza is 18.8 which leads me to the next point. Bryan should have bought a bonanza.

 

Pretty close to my ride except move the decimal point one place to the left. And then make it smaller.
9.8 lb / ft^2

 

Try flying an RV9 like mine. Wing loading in my plane is 13.6 with just me in it and full tanks. I’m like a leaf in the wind!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

You're working your way there.......a Bonanza is in your future. lol

 

Was this you?

 

B-1B. 244 psf.

 

X3 Skier said: ↑
F-15E Strike Eagle. 110 or so depending on mission.

Cheers

Standard brick, big side down. Nominally 4" x 8" and 4 lbs

18 psf

 

Just like Goldilocks and the three bears my Archer is just right at 15 psf. Those sweet tapered wings just float you down to the runway. No problem!

 

100kts full flaps on final is way too fast. 80 mph not knots)and 70 over the fence. Gusty x-wind like today (14 g 25 at 30 deg) I'll go no more than 90mph and half flaps. Always retract flaps on roll out. At that speed I'm surprised you can keep it on the runway.

If you're getting hammered, slow the eff down. if you're getting blown off the centerline, that ain't the airplane 's fault.

 

And Cherokee Six, 19.5 psf. I thought that glide profile looked familiar ...

 

Stall speed with full flaps is 80 knots?

I think you’re going way too fast on final.

 

I flew a Grumman around the area on Friday. It was quite bouncy down low. But if you think 13-15 psft is light wing loading, try a Cub....

I don't understand this comment. When you're in the air, all planes have the exact same tendency to "slide" downwind with the airmass. If you don't want to go downwind, point more upwind. But this isn't a cause of turbulence.

 

Good callout. Bryan, you are holding aileron into the wind on takeoff roll, right?

 

This. If you're referring to the actual liftoff from the runway, then make sure you've got your crosswind correction in. I've never flown a Commanche, but maybe it is more tolerant of forgetting that, so you're not noticing a big side load until you liftoff?

 

Too fast on final.
Burn the tip tanks off first. Think of the weight waaaay out there and the leverage it has on the wing/ fuselage. May not have anything to do with the ride in turbulence. If and when it gets rough, I slow way down. I have limited Comanche time, but I thought it really flew nice and smooth compared to my 180! I really like flying it, control forces seem so much lighter than I'm used to.

 

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.

 

With it’s lower wing loading, longer wing, less response in roll(especially with tips), it did get tossed around more, but found the Comanche had advantages in that once it got in ground effect with its lower ground clearance and the abrupt loss of lift at stall(laminar flow wing) it enables a secured touchdown. I agree the ride down final might be a little “hairy”, but I felt the last 5 ft was very secure “if” you continued to fly the plane and keep it the right attitude. I always thought I could handle landing in windy conditions in a PA 30/24 better than my 210 or V35.

 

Manual shows my 250 @ 15.7 @ 2800. Maybe a little dodgy @ 2100 lbs, but I’m generally going somewhere, never thought about the pattern handling. No tip tanks however.
Do agree w/flap retraction once down ( manual ) - just notice how low to ground the trailing flap edge is @ full.

 

Interestingly, the manual for my Cherokee Six recommends running the inboards nearly to empty first, then using the tip tanks (in this airplane the tip tanks can be used for takeoff and landing). It also recommends filling the tips first when refueling.