How is the Piper Comanche?

Chrisgoesflying

Chrisgoesflying

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 7, 2018
Messages
1,101
Location
Too far north
Display Name
Display name:
Chrisgoesflying
At some point in the future, we will have to move on from our beloved Piper Cherokee to something bigger (and faster). Although that is still a few years out, I love to keep an eye on the market and imagine all the non-stop trips we can make in a faster plane. Although, I want to stress that "fast" isn't my priority, my priority is size, both for comfort as well as hauling capacity.

Right now, we have a Cherokee 140 with the backseats removed. My wife and I aren't very heavy. For weekend trips with the medium/large sized dog and a bag or two of stuff, it's perfectly fine. For longer trips, like our once a year escape the winter to Florida trip, it's a tight fit with the dog, cat and bags in the back. It's doable but just barely and I know, if we had the space, we both would prefer taking a lot more things with us but I want to keep one half of the back empty for the dog's comfort. Once our family grows +1, the Cherokee won't do it anymore for sure.

My obvious next step up would be a Cherokee 6 or Lance and I think I will prioritize one of those once it's time to move ahead with it. However, one plane I also keep coming back to due to value and speed (despite being of secondary consideration) is the Piper Comanche.

Are there any Comanche owners here that can talk about the plane and practicality as a family hauler? The family, at that point, would be two adults, one kid and one medium/large dog and maybe a cat, plus lots of bags. Would that fit in a Comanche? Is the baggage space large (space and weight allowance) enough for several bags so that we wouldn't need the backseats for bags? Or is the Comanche not suitable for that mission and I should really just stick to the PA-32 line of airplanes?
 
Last edited:
An extra 3 inches.... Who wouldn't want that?

When I was 10ish I flew with 3 adults to the great white north for a fishing trip in a 260b model. If I ever come across a c model, It will be awful tempting.
 
We flew the Comanche from Vero Beach Florida with two adults two teenage kids a 100 lb Great Dane a 80 lb boxer and an 11 lb chiweenie along with baggage.

And we just flew to Rough River with two adults, a teenager, a rolling cooler, two overnight bags, a wagon, two barrel chairs, another camp chair, a camp table a whole bunch of soda (48cans) 18 bottles of water, snacks and other assorted things a for the weekend. Also legit 900nm of range.

Edit: at the time the dogs were a bit lighter but still take up the same amount of space
 
Last edited:
I can carry 1200 lbs, 155 knots and everyone has room to man spread. 90 gallons, burning 12 gph means I can go a long way.

It's old and big and fast. It's a true muscle car.
Maintenance isn't inexpensive but it costs more to do more.
 
EdFred said:
We flew the Comanche from Vero Beach Florida with two adults two teenage kids a 100 lb Great Dane a 80 lb boxer and an 11 lb chiweenie along with baggage.

And we just flew to Rough River with two adults, a teenager, a rolling cooler, two overnight bags, a wagon, two barrel chairs, another camp chair, a camp table a whole bunch of soda (48cans) 18 bottles of water, snacks and other assorted things a for the weekend. Also legit 900nm of range.
Click to expand...

Did you stack the dogs on top of each other? I probably have to go see a Comanche to get a better idea of size. When I look at photos, they don't look much roomier than a Cherokee but based on your comment, they must be pretty roomy.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Did you stack the dogs on top of each other? I probably have to go see a Comanche to get a better idea of size. When I look at photos, they don't look much roomier than a Cherokee but based on your comment, they must be pretty roomy.
Click to expand...

They're pretty dang roomy. And that may just be a combination of truth and perception they're very boxy so they don't taper up or down like most planes so it's as wide at the top as it is at the bottom on the inside.

Way more legroom in the back than the pre-73 Cherokees and probably even a little more than the post 73 but not mind blowing or anything.

The other thing I would add is it flies differently than most of the other planes I've flown so it took me about a year to start liking it. Obviously the utility was great the day I got it but it's handling and quirks irritated me for quite a while now I think it's just in a badass piece of machinery and other than maintenance costs I really don't have anything bad to say about it.
 
Owned a 180, 250, pa30. Plenty of used parts, structure was rust proof coated at factory, good cabin size, strong gear if maintained correctly, I’ve always preferred lycoming, easy access to engine, plenty of gas, no spar ad’s I’m aware. I’ve also owned a 210, 35J, 182RG. Would always choose best plane available, but all else being equal, give me a Comanche.
 
EdFred said:
We flew the Comanche from Vero Beach Florida with two adults two teenage kids a 100 lb Great Dane a 80 lb boxer and an 11 lb chiweenie along with baggage.

And we just flew to Rough River with two adults, a teenager, a rolling cooler, two overnight bags, a wagon, two barrel chairs, another camp chair, a camp table a whole bunch of soda (48cans) 18 bottles of water, snacks and other assorted things a for the weekend. Also legit 900nm of range.
Click to expand...
What is a barrel chair?
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Did you stack the dogs on top of each other? I probably have to go see a Comanche to get a better idea of size. When I look at photos, they don't look much roomier than a Cherokee but based on your comment, they must be pretty roomy.
Click to expand...

The baggage area in the Comanche is bigger than the dog crate the boxer and dane shared. The chiweenie did ride on a lap, but that's only because he gets a bit chippy with the dane at times.

More about that trip here

GeorgeC said:
What is a barrel chair?
Click to expand...

They are a camp chair but they do not fold down as much as your standard straight back camp chair. Each one probably takes up twice the room of a regular camp chair. The ones we have are high backs as well, so pretty bulky when folded up.
 
A well-maintained example is a dream to own and fly. A poorly maintained one is a potential nightmare, more that most airplanes because of parts availability of stuff like gear trans, motors, conduits and main gear trunions.

Find a good one and expect a case of perma-grin.
 
Once you fly in the Cherokee 6 with the middle row removed you'll never want to go back. Rear passengers can stretch their legs fully and you can take so much stuff. I take 4 people plus my mountain bike and all their bags for a week vacation. It's going to be REALLY TOUGH to downsize in the future. The elbow room with the wide cabin alone makes me never want to downsize....Comanches are great planes but if you're serious about long trips with family, you can't beat the comfort of the PA32. :)
 
FlyingMonkey said:
Once you fly in the Cherokee 6 with the middle row removed you'll never want to go back. Rear passengers can stretch their legs fully and you can take so much stuff. I take 4 people plus my mountain bike and all their bags for a week vacation. It's going to be REALLY TOUGH to downsize in the future. The elbow room with the wide cabin alone makes me never want to downsize....Comanches are great planes but if you're serious about long trips with family, you can't beat the comfort of the PA32. :)
Click to expand...

I watch your videos on Youtube and I know you haul a whole lot of stuff in your 6. I really liked your trip down to Mexico. We're going this fall, but fly commercially - a bit too far for the Cherokee all the way from the great white north lol. I think I'll have to try both planes. I know someone who owns a 6 locally. No Comanches locally that I know of. Luckily I'm a few years away from having to change planes. The Cherokee will do just fine for the immediate future. I'm just starting to reconsider if we really need that much space. We will hopefully top out at one child and will eventually keep our winter stuff in Florida and our summer stuff in Canada, hence the long trip we will only need to carry the stuff we need for the trip. Other than that, we only do weekend trips. Which kinda makes me think, maybe speed is more important than room.
 
They say you don't know what you have till it's gone. This is true. I had a Comanche 250 and did not realize the true versatility of the "Beast". I sold it to move up to a 310, which fell through. Now I have a Mooney. I like the Mooney but loved the Comanche. I could squeeze 161kts out of it, 1200lb useful load, 1000nm range and climbed nearly as good as a 310. The PA24 was not bad on maintenance either. Get a PA24 260B or C though. The rear individual sets are on tracks and have a lot more legroom than the rear bench seat 250/250. Having access to the baggage area is nice on the B/C, especially if you haul skis or snowboards.
 
Gmonnig said:
They say you don't know what you have till it's gone. This is true. I had a Comanche 250 and did not realize the true versatility of the "Beast". I sold it to move up to a 310, which fell through. Now I have a Mooney. I like the Mooney but loved the Comanche. I could squeeze 161kts out of it, 1200lb useful load, 1000nm range and climbed nearly as good as a 310. The PA24 was not bad on maintenance either. Get a PA24 260B or C though. The rear individual sets are on tracks and have a lot more legroom than the rear bench seat 250/250. Having access to the baggage area is nice on the B/C, especially if you haul skis or snowboards.
Click to expand...

How was insurance?
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Which kinda makes me think, maybe speed is more important than room.
Click to expand...

A slower airplane with a better range can get there quicker than a "faster" airplane with shorter legs. The ability to safely skip a fuel stop is a powerful flight planning tool.

PA-32s (84+ gal.) and PA-24s (many 90 gal., some even more) shine in this department.
 
charheep said:
How was insurance?
Click to expand...
Better than the Mooney m20e. Both values set at $75k (way under valued but I was ok with it). 1300hr pilot, nearly all complex high performance time, IFR and the Comanche was $1400yr, Mooney M20E $1800yr. When I bought my current plane a year ago, i already had 125hrs in the type, including Acclaim time. I assumed the mooney would've been cheaper than the high performance 250. I was wrong though. Been waiting a week for my new coverage where I have increased to $90k hull, even though the thing is worth $115k....
 
Pilawt said:
A slower airplane with a better range can get there quicker than a "faster" airplane with shorter legs. The ability to safely skip a fuel stop is a powerful flight planning tool.

PA-32s (84+ gal.) and PA-24s (many 90 gal., some even more) shine in this department.
Click to expand...
True! Long range fuel is the best speed mod!
 
kyleb said:
Fixed.
Click to expand...

bce062b876541e223c856b6150f88981_large.png
 
I love my Bonanza, wouldn't take for it (now), but if I'd found the right Comanche when I was shopping, I'd have it today. When I thought I had a shot at a sweet C-model PA24, I was floating - but it fell through.

Robust, quick, efficient and (can't hide it) wider than a Bo by a useful measure. Well worth considering!
 
A few things to consider:
There is a single engine Comanche and a Twin Comanche.
Both have pretty much the same fuselage, just one with an engine in front and another with 1 engine on each side.
Headroom is very limited and it is tight.
I could not comfortably fly it.
The newer Comanches allow some more room, but not much.
For reference i am 6’6”, 275lbs.
 
I had a 260C and sold it a while ago when I stopped traveling as much. I really, really, regret selling it.

Maintenance costs were normal for a complex/HP plane which is to say a lot more than a cherokee. I upgraded from a cherokee 180 and the maintenance was noticeably higher. But very much in line with all planes with those features.

In 8 years it had a 100% dispatch rate.

It takes a bit to learn to land it elegantly. Key: nail the speeds on final, it is a slippery plane.

Very stable IFR platform.

...and tons of fun to fly.
 
TimRF79 said:
A few things to consider:
There is a single engine Comanche and a Twin Comanche.
Both have pretty much the same fuselage, just one with an engine in front and another with 1 engine on each side.
Headroom is very limited and it is tight.
I could not comfortably fly it.
The newer Comanches allow some more room, but not much.
For reference i am 6’6”, 275lbs.
Click to expand...

You didnt lean the seat back. My buddy is 6'7" and fits just fine. Headroom is an issue if you have seat in the full upright position, but not if you go back one or two notches.

"These New Balances are the most uncomfortable shoe!"
*dumps rock out*
"Ooooh never minds"
 
EdFred said:
You didnt lean the seat back. My buddy is 6'7" and fits just fine. Headroom is an issue if you have seat in the full upright position, but not if you go back one or two notches.

"These New Balances are the most uncomfortable shoe!"
*dumps rock out*
"Ooooh never minds"
Click to expand...
People say this but it’s not true in my experience. Maybe they don’t have original seating (or the ones I’ve sat in don’t)

My knees are in yokes way.

Tilting seat back doesn’t work because you either roll shoulders/neck forward to see out or stare at ceiling. Or you sit at an angle so one arm reaches the yoke

I rolled the seat back to the rear of the track (where it can not be locked in place) and hit my head on the shoulder harness anchor

etc

Believe me I’ve tried to fit because I have a buddy with one and it’s fabulous to fly.

signed, shorter than EdFred’s buddy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top