Empty Weight of a 260B

[Joachim Gruber]

Hello everyone,
I'm new to ICS and and Comanches. In fact, I've joined because I am considering purchasing a 260B or C. Currently, I'm looking at a 1968 260B. According to the W&B the empty weight of that airplane is 2,081 lb! That seems very high in my opinion. I've read that these planes left the factory at about 1,730 lb. This means that the one I'm interested in is about 350 lb "overweight".

Would you please let me know how much your 260Bs weigh and what GC they have.

I'm trying to figure out where the extra weight came from over the last 48 years. The plane had a GU landing during its first year (1968). I'm wondering if those repairs could be responsible.

Thanks in advance

[William Hughes]

I have a 1960 250 with minimal but somewhat more modern avionics (90s vintage) and tip tanks. It weighed in at 1,727 on a scale after some reconstructive surgery, removal of old radios (and associated wiring), and adding the tip tanks.

[N3322G]

Joachim - suggest you engage Kristin Winter for assistance in purchase. She can be found off Home page, members services, Pathfinder and she posts here. Very experienced, very bright and very financially pragmatic. A&P/IA, Aviation attorney, ATP and Twin Comanche owner. she always recommends a logbook review first.

[AlanBreen]

I would very much doubt the repairs would cause that much weight increase. A few pounds may be certainly not 300 or so.

I suspect the weight increase will be the result of several things.

No doubt there will have been new items added over the years, things like engine monitors, extra radios, perhaps, tip tanks etc. We did a major panel upgrade a few years ago and discovered several pounds of redundant wiring in the belly from old avionics that had been replaced but much of the wiring harness been left behind.

Has the aircraft been resprayed. Sometimes the respray job is put on top of the old paint, thus adding to the weight.

Perhaps there's been new upholstery fitted which was heavier than the factory fit.

As aircraft age they gain weight bit by bit with little repairs here and there, but probably not to the tune of 300 lb.

One other point to consider is how accurate was the last re weigh? Was all the stuff in the cabin that's not actually fitted to the aircraft removed? Stuff in the seat pockets etc. Was all the fuel removed and only unusable fuel added? It's my guess this is where the majority of you weight increase lies.

Finally how do you know what the factory empty weight was for that aircraft? The stated empty weight in the sample weight and balance calculation shown in many flight manuals is a fictitious figure that rarely ever matches the real life figure.

[Clarence Beintema]

Just as likely to be a mathematical error, in my experience maintainers aren't really good at it.

Clarence

[Joachim Gruber]

Thank you for your responses.
I've seen two actual weight (using scales) documents for this plane done by two different A&Ps in 2 countries, Both got numbers within a few pounds of each other. Therefore, I believe that the numbers are relatively accurate. You're correct in me not knowing the true factory new weight of this particular plane. And yes, I went by what, I presume, Piper states the original empty weight of a 260B was. That's why I wanted to know from members here, what their 260Bs weigh.

I had an appraiser go out and look at the plane. He sent me photos of the plane including irregular diamond shaped patches pop-riveted to the top surfaces of both wings just outboard from the auxiliary fuel tanks. There's no logbook entry documenting or explaining these patches. The whole thing seems way too fishy for me, and I ended walking away from this one.

I'll keep looking.

[AlanBreen]

Those patches are very common on Comanches. The wing skin develops a crack at those points. While many aircraft have had the patches you describe, the recommended practice is to just stop drill the cracks and don't fit a patch. The patches are not a problem and are not a reason not to buy.

A gear up repair is not in my opinion a reason to walk away especially one done so long ago. If there were issues with the quality of the repair they would have shown up by now.

Other than the weight if the patches were the reason for walking away you may have passed up a good aircraft.

[Joachim Gruber]

There were other issues such as: The seat foam was worn out (supposedly one could feel the seat frame through the padding while sitting), the carpet had a huge hydraulic fluid stain on it. The paint was faded, the wing walk was worn through to bare aluminum in some areas, the interior smelled like a dead animal, etc.
I'm trying to attach a photo of the patches I was speaking of. Shouldn't these patches be documented in the logbooks?

[AlanBreen]

Those patches look different from others I've seen. They may or may not be for the issue I mentioned earlier. Those pictures make it hard to properly identify what those patches are for. Could be benign, could be something worse. Yes, you may expect to see a record in the logbooks.

Sounds like an aircraft that needs some TLC. A bit like our twin when we bought it. Provided such an aircraft is basically sound if it is bought for the right price it gives the new owner the opportunity to have their choice of paint scheme, interior colours etc and still own a well priced aircraft.The seats are easily fixed, the stain is almost certainly a leak from the brake master cylinder which isn't hard to fix, it may have been fixed anyway. The smell is probably because it's parked outside and has got wet carpets. Very few aircraft don't leak. New carpets aren't too expensive.

I guess what I am saying is don't judge a book by it's cover. A tatty aircraft can be a good buy. I'm not saying this 260B is a good buy, just don't disregard an aircraft because of it's looks.

Beware of what we call in this part of the world a "Dulux" overhaul. Dulux being a popular brand of paint. Nice looking on the surface but a bundle of nightmares underneath.

[Kristin Winter]

[LeWayne Garrison]

The patches are difficult to assess based on the photo, but they weren't done the way I would have done. That said, minor cracks are very common and wouldn't stop me from buying the aircraft. Neither would worn seat foam. Depending on what's behind the patch, the patches could be redone in a better manner. The logbook issue is true, but every 50 year old airplane will have literally hundreds of undocumented repairs. Have it looked over by someone that knows Comanches and then make your own decision. Truth be told most pre-buy inspections will end without the inspector making a recommendation, and if they do it will almost always be a "do not buy", due to liability concerns. I have seen way too many very good airplanes passed over because the instructor/inspector could find a few isssues. Remember these are old airplanes. There are airplanes that should be walked away from and airplanes that should be scooped up. Get advice, then make your own decision.

[Joachim Gruber]

LeWayne,
Thank you for your thoughts and comments. I realize that most old planes will have issues on PPI, most of which should be repairable/solvable. But, this plane has many issues, and one of them is most likely not easily fixable: It is seriously overweight (nearly 2,100 lb empty). I have since looked at two other 260Bs, both of which weigh less than 1,900 lb. That difference translates into being able to have 3 vs. 4 people on board (with all tanks full). And since fuel bladders like to be "stored" full to prevent cracking, it would have been most inconvenient to drain tanks prior to takeoff every time 4 people were to occupy the plane. The plane had also been flown very little in the last few years. Compressions during the last few annuals were low 60's on 3 cylinders. In retrospect, I don't regret having walked away from that one. Even though I'm itching to get my hands on one, I'd rather be patient than having buyer's remorse, uttering expletives under my breath while draining fuel prior to takeoff.

[Phillip Larson]

I think you made a good call passing up that plane.

I'm wary of any airplane with undocumented maintenance. I've certainly seen more cases of scary pilot/owner maintenance (not legal preventative maintenance, although some of that has been sketchy also), than I have seen maintainers making math errors.

I also agree that by the photo, those patches don't look legal. If they aren't documented properly in the logbooks...then even if they did look legal, they aren't.

[LeWayne Garrison]

Definitely sounds like you made a sound decision on that airplane. The empty weight issue would be a killer. Just remember that despite all the (truthful) comments about undocumented repairs, every airplane I have ever seen of this vintage has loads of undocumented repairs. It's just the nature of the beast. Just have them resolved. Good luck with your search.