Hello from Jim the Newbie

[Steve Marcozzi]

Jim,

I answered your PM, but it's still showing in the "outbox". Let me know if it doesn't come through and I'll send you an email or something.

Thanks,

Steve

[Ojars Balodis]

Hi Jim,

Greetings from Australia and welcome to the world of Comanches. I am tempted to write about my experience
6 years ago in selecting and purchasing my Comanche.
First of all, I love all the Comanche range of aircraft, from the 180 to the 400 and 260C.
The interesting thing is, that we have an opportunity to purchase a specific model " by going back in time " as we
are not limited to one current model, if you know what I mean.
Some of you reading this will possibly disagree with my choice or choices of Comanche, but when you are in Australia
with only around 70 single Comanches in the whole country and rarely one for sale, you inevitably turn to the prospect
of having to purchase one in the USA, dismantle it and ship it over. ( never again )

So you have a choice, due to the number of Comanches for sale throughout the States.

It goes without saying that you are better off paying more money for a better aircraft than buying one because it's
cheaper to start with, only to spend a lot of money to update and fix things later....usually works out more expensive.

As you already know, the airframes are excellent. Avionics are expensive. If you ever look under the instrument panel
of a well equipped Comanche, (and you should), you may find a literal Birds nest of wiring looms etc.
Look for one with good avionics etc such as a Garmin 430W (at least) and a good auto pilot, very important and useful.
Remember, you are buying stuff that has cost a small fortune once to install.

Re the Comanche 180. Great aircraft, economical....but ultimately underpowered for the capability of the airframe. I have flown the
Comanche 180 and taken owners of 180's for a fly in my 1965 260 and they have been impressed with the power and climb rate.

Comanche 400. Awesome machine. Uses more $$$ to go a bit faster. If you examine the engine and installation you would be
forgiven for shaking your head in amazement and thinking you are glad to have an IO-540. Oddly enough, I was crewing for one
of the Glasair teams at Reno last September ( 409mph from an IO-540 twin turbocharged with intercoolers etc ) when I met a fellow
on the airport called Milton Champion who owned a '65 260 and a '64 400. He said the 260 was beautiful to fly, but when he flew his
400, it put a smile on his face !!!! Enough said.

Comanche 260C and Turbo versions. Have also flown both of these in Australia some years back. The fibreglass cowlings can get
somewhat deteriorated if not looked after and the exhaust system appears to be cumbersome, otherwise the guys who have them
reckon they are the best. If you were to fly over the Sierra Nevadas a lot, then the Turbo would be an advantage.

I have also been fortunate to fly the Ravin at Oshkosh from the RH seat a few years ago. Nice concept, VERY little leg room in the back,
entrance door a bit flimsy......buy a Piper Comanche.

And that leads you to a 250 or 260.

Preffered option, either a "straight 260 or a 260B.

I chose to purchase a 65 260 for several reasons. As I said earlier, I like all the Comanches, but when looking
to buy you have a choice of the original design with 2 windows or the 3 window version 260B and C. Hard choice.
In the end I decided I would prefer to own the original design shape from the first production in 1958.
I also felt that because most of the time I fly on my own, if I turned around to look back in a 260B it would
seem a little "lonesome" like looking back into a station wagon.
However for a family the 260B would be perfect and the extra windows make for a brighter interior,

The advantages of the 260 over the 250 are as follows.

10 more HP and fuel injection, reducing carby icing issues. There were some 250's made with fuel injection but
rare.
Better exhaust system. The 250's have a cumbersome system hanging behind the engine wheras the 260's
have 2 individual exhaust systems... much better.

The 260 series have single fork main undercarriage legs which provide less drag and are definately worth a
few extra knots.

The 260 series also had an "improved" cabin airflow system in that the air pick up point was ducted from openings
in the small dorsal fin rather than having 4 vents in the fuselage cabin area. Whether it's any better I don't know.

You can google my Tripacer and Comanche for interests sake if you like. VH-OIB and VH-SWC.

Apart from all that, engine and propellor condition are also important.

Personally, fuel injection and 260hp is the way to go.... if you have a choice.

Cheers,
Ojars Balodis




.

[Mark Anderson]

Ojars,

I agree about your thoughts between carburated or fuel injected. I have had carb ice on many occasions. The carb heat works great but it tends to scare the wife.

Where bouts in Australia are you? I am traveling to Kiama, NSW this week. My company operates 2 UH-1's on a fire fighting contract based at the Illawarra Regional Airport in Wollongong.

Mark

[Ojars Balodis]

G'Day Mark and everyone,

Nice to hear from you. I am located in Melbourne most of the time. Have a property in Gippsland as well ( Eastern Victoria )
with an airstrip next to lake Glenmaggie. If any of you are planning to visit Australia in the next few years and would like to
do a bit of flying and get looked after, then please feel free to contact me any time.
Can arrange to do some flying into the " Outback ". etc.
Mark, my cell phone no. is 0407 531 640.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Cheers,
Ojars

[Jim Golden]

Ojars,

Thank you for the guidance! Looks like some good advice to me.

I'm still in learning mode trying to garner all I can. Like you said, we can "go back in time" and pick any model we wish. I've been looking into parts costs for them. So far, from what I'm seeing, at least for certificated airplane parts, they don't seem that bad.

I do like the 260's. I really like the 400's but I can't afford one. I've been leaning toward a 250 or 260. But we'll see. I'm having fun just learning from all of you.

On a side note, I have always wanted to come to Australia. My cousin lived over there for two years and had a ball (of course his wife was the one working so he spent the day diving, surfing, playing, etc. He was all over but I think he lived in Perth most of the time...he loved it!) I've also got a friend from there who was a mining engineer. He was telling me how all the doctors had airplanes in Australia (or at least a bunch did) so they could fly out to the remote mining areas and check on people. He said "Outback" is an American term that doesn't really exist: It's actually the Northern Territory. I like the idea of 3/4 of our landmass and 1/12 the population. I'd like to come over there and work a few years, not just visit for a week. Well, maybe someday.

Thanks again!
Jim

[Jerry Fitzgerald]

I own 64 260, Chuck Ney engine and get a true 165Kts. Spent a fortune on her and flies great with all the latest panel upgrades, second to none. Atlas, I am getting somewhat bored with her and if I had it all over to do again I would go with the 400 turbo. Second choice would be a twin.

The 260 is limited, you cant put on an external charger receiver without a STC, no deice available, turbo is a pipe dream, parts r a nightmare to fine, props are limited, and the list goes on.

On the bright side, she flies fast and roomy on X country and she flies slow which is a delight to land. She looks good and everyone loves the Comanche.

The 400 is the plane if u want a mean machine.

[N3322G]

Jim,

There's a 260 with Clifton Aero for sale. It is one of their customers - lost his medical. Haven't seen the details but heard it is nice and maintained by a reputable shop.

[Jim Golden]

Jerry,

Thank you for the info. If you decide to buy a 400 and want to sell me your 260 cheap, I am interested

Really though, thank you for the guidance. I just don't think I can afford a 400. I've looked into the overhaul costs on an IO-720 and it's just too much for me. I don't know if I posted it on here, but I am in the process of getting ready to build the prototype of a kitplane I wish to sell. It will be two seat side by side, baggage behind the seats, low wing, all metal, with the builder's choice of an IO-540/580 up front, or an IO-360/390/400 if they prefer a 4-cylinder. I'm putting the big engine in my prototype, and my numbers show it should nudge 300mph at 10,000 feet. Imagine an Osprey GP-4 made of aluminum and that's about what this plane is. But at any rate, I plan to use that plane for most of my "Top Gun" aspirations. I want a Comanche for a "family truckster" that is still fun to fly.

One of the big drags to me about certificated planes is how limited you are in what you can do with them. As compared to Experimentals where the sky is the limit. I had begun to design a drop in replacement assembly for the horn/stabilator tubes. I think my design is superior in every way. But when I approached the FAA about it, even if I had all of the test results completed and in hand, it could take years and thousands of dollars to get an STC. So if I get a Comanche that needs a horn, it'll be the Aussie horn for me and call it good....even if I think my design was better (single piece 4130 tube with CNC machined 4130 bracket TIG welded one....whole thing is one piece and you can inspect it fully in the plane...)

If I hit the powerball, I'd have a 400. But until then, I think I'll have to "make do" with a six cylinder. I can only imagine however how much fun that "big mutha" must be to push the throttle in on though!

Take care and I'll hope to join you in the air sometime soon,
Jim

[Jim Golden]

Pat,

Thanks for the info! I'll look into it.

Take care,
Jim