Want To Buy Piper Comanche 260 260b

Good choice in airframes!
 
James331 said:
Good choice in airframes!
Click to expand...
I've done a lot of research on this bird for sure. The Comanche is a very cost efficient airplane for its capacity and capability. I use the term loosely because nothing is cheep about flying unless you are getting paid to fly it! =)
 
Budget? Chances are I can find one if it exists, but thats something I need to know.
 
Last edited:
Hi
ktup-flyer said:
Budget? Chances are I can find one if it exists, but thats something I need to know.
Click to expand...
Trying to keep it under 60k. The units that are on the market I've seen right now have gone crazy on asking prices and basically factory equipped... I have a few "paid" search engines looking also. I am considering a 250 with garmin 430 if I do not find the right bird soon. I am going to be flying around 150-200 hours this summer and fall.
 
ktup-flyer said:
https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1403299/piper-comanche-260b
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...ANCHE+260B&listing_id=2044208&s-type=aircraft
http://www.schomeraircraftcenter.com/inventory.html (3/4 down the page)

Is a Bo out of the question?
Click to expand...
Yeah, Bo's are nice airplanes but out of my starter budget. They are about 20-30k over the pa-24 from what I have been seeing. The one on Controller was my number one choice, it sold this week. =(
 
Last edited:
Travis Schaefer said:
I am in search of a Comanche pa-24 260 or 260b with a low or mid time engine. I prefer the 6 seat for two small kids in the back, but I am open minded. A garmin 430/530 is desired. Must have center stack oriented radios. Ready to make a deal.
Email : traviswschaefer@gmail.com
Call/Text: 254-541-4571 anytime.
Click to expand...

In the North Texas Aviators Facebook group:

For Sale: 1962 Piper Comanche PA-250.

I hope to find a good home for it. I've put on about 112 hours and am looking to partner in another plane to reduce my costs. I just had the annual done. Email or give me a call if you are interested.

Paul Hutton 817-343-0057, 888-340-8200
SPaulHutton@gmail.com

IMG_0245.JPG IMG_0246.JPG
 
The Comanche 250/260 series are wonderful airplanes and one of my favorites, but if you really need 6 seats it may not be the aircraft for you. They are only adequate for a small child at best, and children don't stay small long. You also lose baggage space to those seats if I recall correctly.
 
Second the seats thing...those third row seats are suitable for very small children only.
 
midwestpa24 said:
The Comanche 250/260 series are wonderful airplanes and one of my favorites, but if you really need 6 seats it may not be the aircraft for you. They are only adequate for a small child at best, and children don't stay small long. You also lose baggage space to those seats if I recall correctly.
Click to expand...
The kids are small , but a lance is my second plane next year as well as a pa-30 or a pa-39 This is going to be my commercial/IR/CFI stepping stone. I will be amending the listing in a few, 250 is a option for sure.
 
ktup-flyer said:
Budget? Chances are I can find one if it exists, but thats something I need to know.
Click to expand...

ktup (I always think 'ketchup' when I see your name)........are u 'in the business' or just an avid plane searcherer?
 
I wouldn't bother with a stepping stone purchase with that short of a timeline. The first year annual surprises alone on a new to you, old as hell Comanche will eat your lunch just to get into the selling hassle in a year or two. In the land of "stepping stone airplanes" , antiquey mx airplanes like the Comanche would be at the bottom of my wish list.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I wouldn't bother with a stepping stone purchase with that short of a timeline. The first year annual surprises alone on a new to you, old as hell Comanche will eat your lunch just to get into the selling hassle in a year or two. In the land of "stepping stone airplanes" , antiquey mx airplanes like the Comanche would be at the bottom of my wish list.
Click to expand...
I am opening a flight school. This will be for IR/Com trainer. I will be keeping the Comanche and getting a lance for personal use later.
 
ktup-flyer said:
Why the Comanche over an Arrow?
Click to expand...
Arrows are ok, but relatively slow. The Comanche is faster, has a larger cabin and useful load in Texas heat is two plus half tank if you skip breakfast in a Arrow. Comanche is 4 plus 2 1/2 hours fuel is possible depending on avg pass. You get a lot more out of 4-5 gph more imo.
 
Travis Schaefer said:
Arrows are ok, but relatively slow. The Comanche is faster, has a larger cabin and useful load in Texas heat is two plus half tank if you skip breakfast in a Arrow. Comanche is 4 plus 2 1/2 hours fuel is possible depending on avg pass. You get a lot more out of 4-5 gph more imo.
Click to expand...

The pre 66 Comanches have considerably less legroom than stretch pa28s, I know because I've looked into Comanches in order to upgrade from the arrow and have sat and measured. Thats why they're so cheaper than post 66 Comanches, which didn't change in overall internal dimensions and actually have less climb rate due to heavier empty weight, yet they go for more. The reason is the bench seat lip sits too far forward on the spar, whereas the individual seats in the post 66 are placed more aft and open up extra vertical room with the open baggage compartment layout, which is also how they accommodate the midget 5/6 seat option. I encourage you to go sit in a bench seat Comanche then a individual seat one and find out for yourself. Market speaks for a reason. Comanches are indeed wider at the elbow, arrows were kept at 42 inches on purpose so as to not compete with the Comanche.

Comanches have 50 to 60 hp more than an arrow. Of course they are faster, what a ludicrous comparison. No hyperbole needed to make that case though. I too live in Texas, sw Texas in fact, and I have 968 pound useful. Thats, yep you guessed it, four FAA adults and full tanks. Or in the case of my real world mission, 2+1, indiscriminate amount of luggage in the back, full fuel which is 5 hours of endurance which takes me 580nm with ifr reserves, and 700fpm amortized climb rates to 9k with surface temperatures around 95f, and still hover around 200# undergross. Hardly a 2 seater plus half gas before breakfast in Texas, like you portray.

Arrow vs Comanche for a comm trainer flight school operation, based on your opinion of the arrow I'm gonna let you find out for yourself.
 
hindsight2020 said:
The pre 66 Comanches have considerably less legroom than stretch pa28s, I know because I've looked into Comanches in order to upgrade from the arrow and have sat and measured. Thats why they're so cheaper than post 66 Comanches, which didn't change in overall internal dimensions and actually have less climb rate due to heavier empty weight, yet they go for more. The reason is the bench seat lip sits too far forward on the spar, whereas the individual seats in the post 66 are placed more aft and open up extra vertical room with the open baggage compartment layout, which is also how they accommodate the midget 5/6 seat option. I encourage you to go sit in a bench seat Comanche then a individual seat one and find out for yourself. Market speaks for a reason. Comanches are indeed wider at the elbow, arrows were kept at 42 inches on purpose so as to not compete with the Comanche.

Comanches have 50 to 60 hp more than an arrow. Of course they are faster, what a ludicrous comparison. No hyperbole needed to make that case though. I too live in Texas, sw Texas in fact, and I have 968 pound useful. Thats, yep you guessed it, four FAA adults and full tanks. Or in the case of my real world mission, 2+1, indiscriminate amount of luggage in the back, full fuel which is 5 hours of endurance which takes me 580nm with ifr reserves, and 700fpm amortized climb rates to 9k with surface temperatures around 95f, and still hover around 200# undergross. Hardly a 2 seater plus half gas before breakfast in Texas, like you portray.

Arrow vs Comanche for a comm trainer flight school operation, based on your opinion of the arrow I'm gonna let you find out for yourself.
Click to expand...
Arrows are 42"? That's the same as a 182. Your useful is a couple hundred lbs less, but still isnt bad.
 
ktup-flyer said:
For a flight school, though.
Click to expand...
hindsight2020 said:
The pre 66 Comanches have considerably less legroom than stretch pa28s, I know because I've looked into Comanches in order to upgrade from the arrow and have sat and measured. Thats why they're so cheaper than post 66 Comanches, which didn't change in overall internal dimensions and actually have less climb rate due to heavier empty weight, yet they go for more. The reason is the bench seat lip sits too far forward on the spar, whereas the individual seats in the post 66 are placed more aft and open up extra vertical room with the open baggage compartment layout, which is also how they accommodate the midget 5/6 seat option. I encourage you to go sit in a bench seat Comanche then a individual seat one and find out for yourself. Market speaks for a reason. Comanches are indeed wider at the elbow, arrows were kept at 42 inches on purpose so as to not compete with the Comanche.

Comanches have 50 to 60 hp more than an arrow. Of course they are faster, what a ludicrous comparison. No hyperbole needed to make that case though. I too live in Texas, sw Texas in fact, and I have 968 pound useful. Thats, yep you guessed it, four FAA adults and full tanks. Or in the case of my real world mission, 2+1, indiscriminate amount of luggage in the back, full fuel which is 5 hours of endurance which takes me 580nm with ifr reserves, and 700fpm amortized climb rates to 9k with surface temperatures around 95f, and still hover around 200# undergross. Hardly a 2 seater plus half gas before breakfast in Texas, like you portray.

Arrow vs Comanche for a comm trainer flight school operation, based on your opinion of the arrow I'm gonna let you find out for yourself.
Click to expand...

I am not knocking the Arrow. It just slightly is out of margin for my intended use. The plus side on the arrow is maintance is a breeze and hourly cost is less. Trust me, I have spent countless hours pouring over data and other variables to narrow the field... Here is a video that cought my eye on the Comanches...
 
You will likely not find a 250/260 with the rear 'kid' seats - its a 4+2 airplane but you lose any cargo carrying if you have the +2 seats - and your insurance will go up if you use them.

The only ones I've seen with effective +2 seating are the B and C models.

You also need to see the loading with any airplane you use that way - the comanche gets at least 20 knots and prob 25 knots TAS on the Arrow - with a HUGE increase in payload.

My C model has 910# of payload with only the main tanks filled. That's 3 hours plus an hour reserve - or about 500 nm down range still air with 900# inside of it - thats a HUGE payload and range - plus the speed.

Speed, range or payload - pick any two - except in the Comanche or Bo - and maybe the Commander and Trinidad / Tobago series -

Also - with the Comanche if it fits it flies from a W&B perspective - the other airframes are finickier . . .
 
Good luck finding a -B model under $60k - if you do - even with a 430/530 you'll need to upgrade to ADS-B eventually - which will add anywhere from $3k-10k depending on what you got -

ALWAYS find an airplane equipped the way you want and need it - its much cheaper than upgrading.

Joe First Corollary of Aircraft Purchasing: The last owner upgrades the avionix.
 
Sorry to thread drift...where is the flight school going to be? And is that N146JF in your profile?
 
No, Tyler Pacha, just saw the phone number realized it was local and the plane looked familiar.
 
Yea, got my license at CTFT. Your name sounds familiar, friends with Josh?
 
FYI for the two of you... I'll be at an event Saturday June 10 over at KILE if you want to pop over and say howdy!
 
Travis Schaefer said:
If Trejo Yes, I started flying with his uncle back in the mid 90s.
Click to expand...
Yes, Trejo, feel like I've heard him mention your name a few times.
AggieMike88 said:
FYI for the two of you... I'll be at an event Saturday June 10 over at KILE if you want to pop over and say howdy!
Click to expand...
Wish I could, but I'll be busy setting up a birthday party for the wife, thanks for the heads up though Mike!
 
hindsight2020 said:
Comanches have 50 to 60 hp more than an arrow. Of course they are faster, what a ludicrous comparison. No hyperbole needed to make that case though. I too live in Texas, sw Texas in fact, and I have 968 pound useful. Thats, yep you guessed it, four FAA adults and full tanks. Or in the case of my real world mission, 2+1, indiscriminate amount of luggage in the back, full fuel which is 5 hours of endurance which takes me 580nm with ifr reserves, and 700fpm amortized climb rates to 9k with surface temperatures around 95f, and still hover around 200# undergross. Hardly a 2 seater plus half gas before breakfast in Texas, like you portray.

Arrow vs Comanche for a comm trainer flight school operation, based on your opinion of the arrow I'm gonna let you find out for yourself.
Click to expand...

My 180hp Comanche has out hauled and out paced a 200hp Arrow many a time! :0)
34dmmbp.jpg
 
Last edited:
ktup-flyer said:
Arrows are 42"? That's the same as a 182. Your useful is a couple hundred lbs less, but still isnt bad.
Click to expand...

I don't care what the spec sheet says. A 182 is wider than an Arrow/Cherokee by a noticeable amount. I have 150+ hours in Cherokee variants and would rub shoulders. In the 182 I fly now, there's a gulf of room in the middle.

I'm pretty sure the reason a 172/182/Cherokee/Arrow all are technically listed as 42" wide is because they are being measured at different spots. In reality the 172 is the most cramp upfront. The Cherokee variants would be next and then a 182 is by far the widest as far as practical use upfront.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top