Aviation Consumer on single Comanches

[N3322G]

[Scott Ducey]

[David Pyle]

[Mike Foster]

[David Pyle]

[David Pyle]

[Mike Foster]

[David Pyle]

[Zach Grant L1011jock]

[WNflyer]

[Scott Ducey]

[Scott Ducey]

HERE ARE THE OWNERS COMMENTS FROM A RECENT 'AC' REVIEW...

Owner Comments
In 1997, I bought a 1971 260C turbo with 2300 TT, 450 SMOH and a fresh annual for $85,000. The Comanche is truly one of the great bargains of general aviation, affording Bonanza performance at Skylane prices. I file for 166 knots at 8,000 feet running 24.5 squared, and get a knot more for each thousand feet higher. Book cruise is 193 knots TAS, although I’ve been unable to coax it over 185. Fuel burn at cruise averages 15 GPH. The 90 gallon fuel capacity of most newer Comanches make long range flights feasible. The manual Rajay turbos add complexity but also flexibility to power management, and are not difficult to get used to: we lifted off once from Leadville on a hot day at gross weight in less than 1500 feet. The plane’s factory oxygen makes the flight levels available when tailwinds howl, although I haven’t flown it over FL 200.

The bird is a terrific load hauler, with a 1300 pound useful load, about 100 less than a non-turbo. It’s tough to overload, and the W&B envelope is generous. With the 260C’s fifth and sixth seats removed there’s ample space for baggage. These jump seats are useful for small children only, but I have squeezed a fifth adult in sideways. The rear baggage door can be opened from inside for use as an emergency exit.

The Comanche is a joy to fly. Handling is brisk and responsive, with excellent control, feel. Stalls are preceded by vigorous buffeting, with rapid and predictable recoveries. The 260C’s aileron-rudder interconnect doesn’t seem to make the plane fly any differently from earlier models I’ve flown, even though some believe otherwise. It’s a stable IFR platform, an important plus here in Michigan’s snowy Upper Peninsula. It handles ice better than the Arrow and Cardinal RG.

The very low wing and almost taildragger stance of the aircraft make good landings challenging due to pronounced ground effect. Every Comanche jockey has his own theory on landings, so here’s mine: keep the speed below 70 knots at touchdown and try for a low flare. Trying to set it down too quickly results in a bounce, especially with an aft CG. Flaring too high yields a clunker when the thin wing quits flying. (This ain’t no Hershey Bar, after all.) The unusually low wing does make crosswinds more manageable, however, provided little or no flaps are used. Landing a Comanche well takes practice, and I’ve found a monthly session of takeoffs and landings helpful.

Don’t expect a lot of support from New Piper, which seems to regard the Comanche as the black sheep of the family. Parts can be difficult to get, or require long waits. Wanting to replace a bent gear door, my mechanic contacted them and was told there would be a two or three month wait before they could fabricate one; he made it himself at greatly reduced cost. Other ancillary items, such as a rheostat for the instrument lights, are not available at all. Unless New Piper or other aftermarket suppliers get their act together, the situation will only continue to worsen.

One unexpected benefit of my purchase has been the rapid appreciation of the model, which has gone up sharply in value this past year. I’m also impressed by how highly my plane is regarded by other pilots. After transporting a patient recently to Detroit, I ambled over to a new Mooney TLS Bravo to ask the owner how he liked his toy. Before, I could open my mouth he pointed at the Comanche and related how it was always his favorite but that his business partner didn’t want to buy an older plane. Like many other pilots I’ve met on the ramp, he asked me if it was for sale. It’s a crying shame New Piper doesn’t resurrect the Comanche. The plane was clearly ahead of its time, and is still a terrific performer. With LoPresti speed mods (next, year’s project), a Saratoga panel, and a sophisticated turbo system, the plane would sell like hotcakes. Why would anyone want a Bonanza or a Commander then? Are you listening, Vero Beach?

-Dennis C Whitehead
Iron Mountain, Mich.


I purchased a 1958 Comanche 180 in July 1996 for $30,000. The aircraft had 4765 TT with 456 SMOH on the engine and prop and had always been hangared. The paint was an 8 and the interior was a 7.

The previous owner had converted to the ADLOG system for keeping the log books. I have continued this and find that this service is excellent. I am notified of any AD’s before they are published and the books really help keep everything up to date and neat. He also recommended that I join the International Comanche Society. This group has an outstanding magazine and the TIPS book is the bible for Comanche owners. The society provides many outstanding tips, procedures, modifications and solutions to problems. Membership in the organization is a must for all Comanche owners.

The plane is a delight to own and fly. The plane takes turbulence very well. With full tanks and two adults on board, I consistently see 1000 fpm climb rates at near sea level and 25 squared. With two adults you can carry all the baggage you need, however with four adults you are very limited on what extra you can carry. With the laminar flow wing, landings can be interesting. It will stop flying and stall quickly (slam dunk landings). I am disappointed with cruise speed. I was told that I should get about 140 knots cruise, however, I only get about 125 knots at 5500 feet with the engine at 23 squared and leaned to about 8 gph. On a recent trip to take a friend’s Cherokee 180 to be painted, he was able to keep up with me for the total 2 hour flight. In order to see why I was not cruising any faster, I had the FBO do a compression check and he found a cracked cylinder. Upon removal it was discovered that the cylinder had been previously repaired by welding but no entries had been made in the log books. The cylinder was replaced with a reconditioned unit which cost $900. The cruise speed did not improve.

-Enoch Nicewarner
Pineville, La.


Our carbureted 1962 Comanche 250 has been in the family since 1976, when it replaced a nicely restored, much loved Cessna 195. It has been trouble free, fast and user-friendly.

Maintenance: The aircraft is managed, maintained, and flown to the specifications of our Chief Pilot, whose word (as in most family flight departments) is law.

The aircraft was gear-upped by a non-family member in 1977 with appropriate tear-down, prop replacement and cosmetic cleanup. Exit the non-family partner.

Since then, the only major costs have been one replaced cylinder (excessive leaning), a burned out gear actuator (manual extension works easily, just like we practiced!), periodic replacement of vacuum pumps, hoses, etc., and avoidance of the dreaded Hartzell prop AD with a new STCed McCauley three-blade with hub, backing plate, and spinner.

The new prop is great: Takeoff roll is perceptibly (10 percent) shorter and climb performance noticeably (15 percent) improved through our normal ops altitudes of 7000 - 10000 feet. Given the number of Comanche purists in California, the comments from line personnel and other owners have been surprisingly favorable toward our “modified” PA-24.

Performance: We get an initial climb rate of 1500 FPM with no wind, standard day, full fuel, and two FAA standard front-seaters. Climb rates taper to 500 to 800 FPM near the upper end of our usual mission profile. The engine is leaned on an EI Engine Monitor to 175 degrees rich of peak below 7500 MSL and 75 degrees rich of peak over 7500 feet. Normal ops are at 24 inches/full throttle and 2400 RPM with fuel burns in the 12.5 to 13.5 GPH range. Block to block fuel is planned at 15 GPH with airspeeds of 150 to 160 knots depending on altitude.

Comanche approaches are easily flown at 150 knots. With gear operation/extension speed of 128 knots, speed brakes would be nice, but aren’t necessary. Reduce power to 10 inches at the middle marker, drop the gear between the middle marker and the threshold, add full flaps as speed permits, and hold it off until the beautiful wing stops flying. Your smooth landing and respectably short rollout will make even the grouchiest tower happy.

The brakes have been moved to the inside of the mains under an STC. This removes brake parts from the airstream and cleans up the aircraft to the tune of 2+ knots. If my son, cousin, and I ever talk the Chief Pilot into a few LoPresti or Knots-2U mods, a more Bonanza-like approach technique may be needed. Our EI Engine Monitor helps us keep CHT changes to the slow-but-steady pace mandated by the Chief Pilot even with a relatively steep approach.

Safety: Comanche fuel systems have been blamed for a good share of off- airport adventures, according to the Air Safety Foundation’s Comanche Safety Report. The Chief Pilot introduced me to the issue over the Lake Hughes VOR nearly twenty years ago. The right aux had contributed its last fuel to our flight. When the engine became aware of that fact, things became disconcertingly quiet. Immediate application of fuel pump and fullest tank brought prompt relief. The Chief Pilot later found an old-fashioned mechanical kitchen timer which slides conveniently between front and top of the panel. Set at 45 minutes for each aux and then alternating between mains at 30 minute intervals, the old timer helps us keep fuel loads balanced, leaves about half an hour usable in the auxes, and avoids frightening wives and passengers. The egg timer may look funny, but it works and (per Chief Pilot’s orders) we use it. A good way to learn about the fuel system is to carefully read both ASF’s Comanche Safety Report and the International Comanche Society’s “Comanche Tips”. These are must-read parts of any good check-out.

Also on the “must read list”: the Comanche Society’s updated Pilot Operating Handbook. Most Comanches were delivered when POH’s were pretty slim. ICS decided to do something about that and now markets a modern format POH befitting the bird’s high performance character. Read, understand, and apply that the new POH says about your Comanche and you’ll enjoy a significantly greater return on your aircraft investment.

My only reservation with the Comanche as in instrument ship is her panel. Our Comanche has a “scatter panel” which made transitioning from my 210, a partnership 340, and friend’s V-35B “interesting”. Could it be that all those high-timers are losing it on instruments because of an inappropriate scan? Several STCs are available to replace the Comanche’s scatter panel with a T- panel arrangement. I train diligently in the Comanche. Nevertheless, I recommend that any pilot who plans to really fly a PA-24 convert his or her aircraft to a T-panel. The Chief Pilot (who has more actual IMC time in 7860P than I have logged in total) comments: “Quit whining and fly the airplane.”

-Merl Ledford
Visalia, Calif.


My 1961 Comanche has the 180 HP Lycoming. I bought it in Alaska in 1990, and now operate from an airpark community located in southwest Florida.

Even in this hot climate, 180 horses can legally and safely haul almost a half ton of useful load. I have departed my strip (2640 ft.) with four persons, 60 gallons of fuel, and light baggage with a ground temperature of 91 F. without worry. I credit the excellent takeoff performance to a McCauley Black Mac three-blade prop, which I installed in 1991. It is far smoother and perceived to be quieter than the Mac 2-blade it replaced. It cost $5,900 then and included a dynamic balancing.

Maintenance items since purchase: Bushings and other wear items in the landing gear: $600, landing gear transmission $275, left side fuel cell $700 (when we pulled it out for inspection, the manufacture date of 1961 was stenciled on it.)

With self-annuals, and avgas nearby at $1.69 a gallon, my costs are lower than most. I use the operating savings to improve the airplane at each inspection. I have upgraded to digital radios, added a gear warning system that sounds when the flaps are lowered and the gear is up, now sold by Knots 2-U. (a simple and well engineered device, this should be standard fare for every retractable.) Other improvements include Metco wingtips, Flight Life stainless steel brake discs, a Concorde recombinant gas battery (never needs water) all new fire-shielded fuel hoses, and Pulselites, which work very well with the wingtip-placed landing lights. Other worthwhile upgrades on the wish list are gear fairings from Knots 2-U or LoPresti, a 1-piece windshield and 1/4 inch glass all around, fairings for ailerons, flaps and wing root, and Whelen wingtip strobes.

I use the Comanche for business and pleasure, routinely flying to Miami (55 minutes) or Dallas-Ft.Worth, (8 hrs). I cruise at 2200 and 25”, true airspeed 150 MPH at 7,000 ft. burning about 9 GPH. If I remember to lean while taxiing, lead fouling with 100LL is not a problem. With no filter, I change oil at 25 hour intervals, using straight 80 weight Aeroshell W; I never find more than a few grains of carbon in the screens. With almost 1100 hours since overhaul, compression is from 72 to 75, and oil consumption of 1 quart every 8-10 hours. While I usually fly VFR, I try to keep current “just in case” and the Comanche is a stable instrument flyer. Many Comanche owners fly hard IFR almost daily, and think nothing of crossing the Gulf of Mexico from Texas to Florida. It’s a solidly built bird. Look in the belly and aft of the baggage bulkhead and all of the metal that you see is zinc-chromated; mine still has “Reynolds Aluminum” stamped on the inside of the skin panels. Later Pipers and almost all Cessnas are a nightmare for corrosion if stored outdoors or near the sea. A Comanche owner does not lie awake at night worrying about corrosion.

The International Comanche Society is not only an owner’s group but the local chapters hold fly-ins and special events all over the country. There are a fair number of Comanches in Europe, Australia and even South Africa. It’s not unusual to find overseas members flying their Comanches to the U.S. to attend an annual meeting.

The Technical Director of ICS, Maurice Taylor, was the manager of Comanche production through its life, and nobody knows more about this breed than Maurice. The Society has published books and videotapes with tips on maintenance and operation., and an excellent full color monthly magazine comes with membership. Many Comanche owners are retired airline pilots and mechanics, and more than a few have started a second career making PMA’d and STCs parts for the line. I have never been down for a lack of parts; there are more than 4,000 Comanches still around, and there is a brisk business in replacement parts made of newer materials.

All in all, the Comanche outperforms most more expensive airplanes and is rugged and simple. All of them have virtually bulletproof Lycomings up front and robust, corrosion-resistant construction. The cabin is wider and taller than Mooneys of the same vintage (I’m 6’5"). I think it the most economical four place single you can get, and while the prices of other airplanes have steadily risen, the Comanche remains an excellent buy. Mine was minimally maintained by its previous owner, and although it wasn’t pretty, it has been reliable and solid.

-Via e-mail

[quote][/quote]

[Scott Ducey]

AND HERE IS THE ONE THAT DAVE REFERRED TO THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN 2004...

Reader Feedback
After flying into a 40-knot headwind westbound from Virginia in my Piper Arrow, watching the traffic on the interstate moving faster than my plane, I decided to look for a faster single-engine airplane. I had previously flown in a single Comanche and a twin Comanche and liked both planes. Without a twin rating I did not want to consider two engines.

The single Comanche seemed to be a good purchase at the time. The choice was between a fully restored airplane and a fixer upper. My wife and I selected the latter. In August 1997, we purchased N8582P, a 1965 PA-24-260. The initial price was $44,000. Our first work on the plane was done at J. A. Air Center at DuPage Airport. We redid the panel, adding a Bendix/King KLN89B, Strike Finder, S-Tec System 30 autopilot, NAT intercom, Shadin fuel flow indicator, JPI

EDM monitoring system and we converted one KNX 170B to a MAC 1700. Cameron Interiors on the field installed a new leather interior.

Our first annual in July 1998 was an expensive one, $8700. We did the AD 77-13-21 which involved inspection of gear component bushings and bolts, cleaned the flap tracks and installed new nylon rollers, replaced the brake pads, replaced the Lord mounts, installed a missing fuel strainer access panel and fuselage doublers plate in fuselage belly. We have added several speed mods including flap and aileron gap seals, a Knots 2U wing fillet, wing root faring, windshield Cowler and gear lobe fairings.

In May 2002 we had our airplane painted at Dial Eastern States Aircraft Painting at Cadiz, Ohio. We had the good fortune of meeting Craig Barnett of Scheme Designers at Sun ‘N’ Fun just a few weeks before we had the painting done. His design turned out very well and we have received several awards at Oshkosh and at the International Comanche Society (ICS).


If you want to go fast, climb like hell and you’ve got the money to pay for the gas, the IO-720-powered Comanche 400 is just the thing.
Flying the Comanche is a dream. The airplane is very stable in IFR conditions. We routinely flight plan for 155 knots but will see 160 to 162 knots at lower altitudes. We generally fly at 10,000 to 14,000 feet which gives us 55 to 60 percent power. Our endurance, however, is great these altitudes. Even without tip tanks, we can count on five to six hours at 155 to 158 knots. Comfort is good. The cabin is wide enough for my son and I, both of us being over 200 pounds, to sit shoulder to shoulder without feeling cramped.

Costs are what you would expect for a high-performance retractable. Insurance is a big factor with ever increasing cost for less coverage. We paid $3300 for our last premium with a 1000-hour and a 500-hour pilot, both instrument rated. Annuals run between $2500 and $3500 depending on what we add extra.

Parts have not been a real problem. There are several good resources. I can recommend Webco in Newton, Kansas. Altus Aircraft Services (www.altusaircraft.com) in Oklahoma has been a valuable contributor to the ICS. I strongly encourage anyone thinking about a Comanche to check with the ICS. This is an older airplane and needs some special consideration.

-Bill and Susan Harryman
Marion, Illinois


I purchased my 1958 PA24-250 Comanche, N71HK, in July of 1978, so I have owned it for just 26 years now. When I purchased this Comanche, it had the Johnson Bar brakes. I lusted for toe brakes until 1989, when I had new rudder pedals/toe brakes installed on both sides. That is a fine modification to the aircraft.

I typically fly around 3500 feet to 4500 feet with a manifold pressure of 21 inches and 2300 RPM. I lean to 11.5 to 12 gallons per hour. This gives an indicated airspeed of 160 MPH. A look at my records shows an oil consumption rate of a quart about every seven hours.

I have a private pilot license with 760 hours total time, 646 hours retractable time and 588 in the Comanche. The Comanche has been typically insured for a hull value of $48,000. Premiums have run in the $1400 range. After having the new instrument panel installed, I increased the hull value to $54,000 and my insurance premium increased to $1903.

Annual inspections typically run $1,200 to $1,500, depending on what things I might add, such as the EDM EGT/CHT/fuel flow instrument. The engine now has 2745 hours total time and 1855 hours since major overhaul.

As a tip to anyone who would like to try it, I flew the Comanche trimmed for an approach speed of 80 MPH, gear and flaps down. With the airplane trimmed like this, I put a mark next to the trim setting bug. Now, if my landing approach is looking normal as I come down final (which is the typical scenario), I will set the trim bug next to this mark. With 18 degrees of flaps the Comanche carries a nice speed, about 90 MPH, down final. When I add full flaps (27 degrees), she slows to 80 MPH and the rest is up to me.

My Comanche has been hangared since I bought it. I’m sure this has helped immensely in keeping it looking nice. The Comanche had apparently been painted not too long before I bought it. It still looks pretty good.

I was looking for a Mooney when I saw the Comanche for sale. A review of the numbers on a Mooney I could afford in 1978 revealed that the Comanche could carry four people, baggage and full fuel. The Mooney could not. And, of course, the Comanche has more room for the persons on board as well as a larger instrument panel.

I have flown with four people, full fuel and baggage, non-stop from Dallas Redbird airport to New Orleans Lakefront airport. We cruised at 9500 feet. This is about a 450-statute mile trip and took 2.75 hours. Fortunately, my airplane is so old; most of the ADs don’t apply. I will periodically have to deal with the recurrent prop AD and have chosen to do that rather than going to the three-blade prop that seems to have problems of its own.

The International Comanche Society is a great organization. It has an excellent monthly magazine plus many publications to aid in aircraft maintenance and flying. Updated owner’s manuals are available for all models, so there is a lot of good information available for operating the Comanche. Parts have not been a problem for my Comanche, but I have not needed many, either.

-Vittorio K. Argento
Cape Coral, Florida


I am an ATP and A&P/IA in Southern California and I like working on Comanches, both singles and twins. They are a well-built, strong aircraft that is as straightforward as you can get with a high-performance aircraft and certainly better built than the recent offerings. The Comanche has a reputation for having a lot of airworthiness directives and while the list is long, most of them are for non-repetitive items and the routine ones are relating to gear inspections and internal wing, flap and stabilator inspections. Usually, if an airplane has been cared for, there are few problems. Parts are available, so that aspect is not a problem and with LoPresti and Knots2U and the excellent support of Webco, I find the Comanche is not difficult to maintain.

The flying characteristics are excellent; stable with good speeds and strong, which, in heavy weather, is comforting. I’ve noted. for example, that the Saratoga is a 3600-pound aircraft. The single Comanches are a little less than that. The Saratoga has a single wingspar which is wrapped at the base for extra strength and the Comanche has a tough main spar, a minor spar and a stiffener across the rear of the wing. While I’ve never seen one, I’ve heard lore about Comanches becoming inverted in thunderstorms and actually bending at the fuselage but the wings staying intact and the occupants flying out of the storm to tell the tale.

I rarely see any corrosion in Comanches. While I am in Southern California and we don’t often see corrosion out here, even the airplanes from the east coast are clean. There is a recommendation that the stabilator be removed occasionally to find any corrosion r from paint stripper getting into the support tube in the stabilator. I’ve done this inspection and I’ve never seen any corrosion in the tube.

The weakest link in the Comanche is the wiring out to the squat switch and landing gear contact switches. This is configured so that the wiring bends into an S every time the gear is raised. This is a Piper design flaw rather than a Comanche flaw and there is a gentleman named Matt Kurke who builds replacement wiring that routes the wiring differently and stops the bending of the wires.

The Comanche is a solid, durable airframe that’s stable and outperforms other competitive aircraft with comfort, endurance and quiet. The Cessna 210 is not as well built. The Mooney is faster, but noisier and less roomy. The Beechcraft is almost the same cabin dimension but a higher price. The affordability and reliability of the Comanche keeps appealing to buyers. It can be modified to for greater speed and endurance and with panel upgrades equal to or better than any competitor.

I couldn’t compare them to the Cirrus or the Diamond, yet when a Comanche is damaged it takes sheet metal repair in the field to repair it. The Cirrus and the Diamond have to go to a specialist due to their composite construction.

-Patric Barry
Barry Aviation
Laguna Hills, California

[WNflyer]

Actually David referred to the 1998 article that he has a hard copy of. My reference was the 2004 article. Sorry about including a subscriber only link.

Randy

[Alan Cheak]

All of thes comments are excellent. I suggest that we prompt AC to post pictures of Comanches in there April article with modern panels, n paint to show the plane in the best light.

Alan