How is the Piper Comanche?

I owned a K35 Bonanza for several years, and have recent experience in a '65 Comanche 260. Some random thoughts:

Comanche cabin is significantly wider. It's just plain comfortable.

Visibility from a Bonanza is better - much better.

Older Comanche panels are crazy. Older Bonanza panels are crazier.

My Bonanza was very easy to land, and land well. There are three secrets for consistent good landings in a Comanche. Unfortunately no one knows what they are.

Handling of the PA-24-260 in the air is very good. Handling of the K35 in the air is exceptional.

Automotive analogy, overall fit, finish and feel: PA-24-260, a nice, high-end Chevrolet. K35, a BMW.

Comanches have Lycomings; Bonanzas have Continentals. If I were shopping today, that would tip the scale in favor of the Comanche for me.
 
Fuel to avoid a fuel stop only saves time if your passengers can ride that long. My flying range is usually passenger-limited rather than plane-limited. More comfortable planes can use more of their range. And comfort is, of course, subjective. Some people love the rear cabin of a PA-32 or Seneca, others hate it. Some people love the middle seats in a 310, others hate them. Some people enjoy climbing into the front of a PA-46, other people aren’t weird and insane. But it does seem like nobody has anything bad to say about the interior of a Comanche.
 
kyleb said:
Only having one door stinks.

There. I said it.

And the windows are small,
Click to expand...

Yup, it's my one deal-breaker with Piper. Could probably overlook it for a Comanche, though.
 
Thing is, for me, it's easier to get in and out from the pilot side through the pax side door than it is from the pax side.
 
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...

The FBO Charter company I used to instruct for loved the 250/260 Commanche's for this. They specialized in prisoner transports and with the 90 Gallon tanks they could make most round trip runs with out refueling. This saved them a lot of money since they got their fuel at the home airport at wholesale price, since they ran the fuel island also.
The 160+ kts was a plus also,

I did my CFI checkride in one of their Commanche's and then started instructing for them.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
brcase said:
The FBO Charter company I used to instruct for loved the 250/260 Commanche's for this. They specialized in prisoner transports and with the 90 Gallon tanks they could make most round trip runs with out refueling. This saved them a lot of money since they got their fuel at the home airport at wholesale price, since they ran the fuel island also.
The 160+ kts was a plus also,

I did my CFI checkride in one of their Commanche's and then started instructing for them.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...

Obviously instruction didn't include knowing how to spell the name of the plane you were instructing in.
 
brcase said:
The FBO Charter company I used to instruct for loved the 250/260 Commanche's for this. They specialized in prisoner transports and with the 90 Gallon tanks they could make most round trip runs with out refueling. This saved them a lot of money since they got their fuel at the home airport at wholesale price, since they ran the fuel island also.
The 160+ kts was a plus also,
Click to expand...
piper_line_1963_06.jpg
 
EdFred said:
Obviously instruction didn't include knowing how to spell the name of the plane you were instructing in.
Click to expand...
I'm fan of the jeep version of the Comanche. It rubs those guys the wrong way too
 
EdFred said:
Obviously instruction didn't include knowing how to spell the name of the plane you were instructing in.
Click to expand...

Apparently, my English teacher cringes every time she thinks about people actually reading my righting:) (started to correct that and then decided not to)

Brian
 
brcase said:
Apparently, my English teacher cringes every time she thinks about people actually reading my righting:) (started to correct that and then decided not to)

Brian
Click to expand...
I fale to sea anything rong
 
C3flyer said:
I'm fan of the jeep version of the Comanche. It rubs those guys the wrong way too
Click to expand...

I owned and drove one of those for 20+ years and over 250,000miles. Apparently it didn't teach me how to spell it either.

I think the side emblem that fell of somewhere after 200,000 miles is still hanging in my garage.

Brian
 
brcase said:
I owned and drove one of those for 20+ years and over 250,000miles. Apparently it didn't teach me how to spell it either.

I think the side emblem that fell of somewhere after 200,000 miles is still hanging in my garage.

Brian
Click to expand...
Nice!
I bought my '88 at 16 yeard old. About 15 years ago. Still have it and plan to start restoring it this year!
 
Question: Is it possible to change a Comanche 180 to a Comanche 250 by changing the engine? Is there an STC for that? What about the other way around, a stock Comanche 250, can that one be changed to a 180 by putting a Lycoming 0360 upfront?
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Question: Is it possible to change a Comanche 180 to a Comanche 250 by changing the engine? Is there an STC for that? What about the other way around, a stock Comanche 250, can that one be changed to a 180 by putting a Lycoming 0360 upfront?
Click to expand...
The internet says yes, there is an upgrade STC.
 
Yes and probably. I know of 180 to 250, don’t see a problem going the other way for the early Comanches, probably not for the 63’s and later. The 180 was a very nice, efficient, well balanced plane. When they put the 250 in it became nose heavy, but a faster, more of a hauler.
 
Reason I'm asking is, if I found an accordingly priced 250 with a run out engine, I would squeeze out whatever life is left but once it's time to pull the plug, I was wondering if strapping a 180 HP engine is an option. That would give me options, if no O540 is available or prices are too high at the time, I could go for an O360 and still keep flying, slightly slower, but that's fine by me.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Reason I'm asking is, if I found an accordingly priced 250 with a run out engine, I would squeeze out whatever life is left but once it's time to pull the plug, I was wondering if strapping a 180 HP engine is an option. That would give me options, if no O540 is available or prices are too high at the time, I could go for an O360 and still keep flying, slightly slower, but that's fine by me.
Click to expand...

You'd be disappointed in performance if you downgraded.
 
EdFred said:
Just get an Arrow III at that point.
Click to expand...

All numbers in CAD: An Arrow III with a low time engine: $230k. A Comanche 250 with a high time engine: $65k (off market deal I came across). A overhauled O360 plus labor to strap it on: ~$60k so total of $125k, nearly half of the Arrow III. Would the Comanche with 180 HP be half the plane the Arrow is?
 
There's a reason the 180 was developed first and became a 250 and not the other way around. The 180s are dog s*** on takeoff.

Would you put a Ford 2.3 in a full size F-150 that had a 5.4 in it to try and haul a trailer?
 
Other than the obvious, is there any real difference between the FI 260's and carb'd ones? Speed/fuel burn/etc
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Lol, not true. I’ve seen STC’d Cherokee 160s that have been converted back to 140s in the past.
Click to expand...
Why in the world would someone do that? It’s still an O-320, so it’s not like they’re getting back some signficant weight. Maybe they weren’t happy flying with adequate horsepower and decided it was better to go with marginal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top