Hi Chuck;
I have owned a C 182 (1966 182J) and now I own a Piper PA 24 Comanche with a 180 hp engine. Sometimes known as the “Baby Comanche.”
My 182 was a good and stable airplane and I owned it while I was a tech rep/writer for the Cessna Pilots Association. I flew it for about three hundred hours. Very stable and for me easy to fly. I sold it.
A few years later a neighbor offered me his Comanche. I didn’t know as much about it but after doing my research I found it to be a good buy and that it fit my mission profile. I usually fly alone so the 180 hp was not as big hindeanace
I’ve thoroughly enjoyed my Comanche and although it was built almost 60 years ago, I have found that there’s a thriving and supportive Comanche community out there and that there are a few Comanche specialty shops around the country.
If there’s an Achilles Heal for the Comanche, it’s the importance of maintaining the landing gear system. Not that it’s a weak system but that it must be kept tight and slop free. It’s not as hard as it sounds. Most of the wear parts are replaceable bushings and bolts so it’s not hard to do; but to do it right takes time and some special tools. A complete inspection and repair is due by airworthiness directive every 1000 hours. It’s not abnormal to have the 1000 hour landing gear signed off without it having been properly done. A qualified and competent Comanche mechanic can remove the parts, measure them, install the new parts, re-install everything and then rig the gear in approximately 20 man hours. The AD is 77-13-21 R1.
Lycoming engines are tough as nails and if they are in good shape they run for a long time.
Some folks gripe about the difficulty of getting up on the wing of the airplane, then getting down into the seat from the wing; I’ll admit, it’s a bit of a pain but once I’m in my Comanche is a very comfortable airplane. I get around 130 knots from my 180 hp engine and burn 9.5 to 10 gallons per hour. I haven’t spent any money on drag reduction mods but I don’t think I would have any problem getting another 8 knots without spending large amounts of money.
You can read about one of my trips here: https://www.piperflyer.org/destination/item/1040-steve-and-papa-s-summer-trip-eastbound.html
and another Comanche related article here: https://www.piperflyer.org/piper-models/piper-singles/piper-pa-24-comanche/item/1010-pa-24-comanche-buyer-s-guide.html.
Read those, and get back to me if you have more questions.
new guy
-
ParticipantParticipant
I have considered the PA-32 in all stripes (Lance, Saratoga, and the ‘6’). After a lot of reading, consulting with G/A friends, and more reading, some of the best advice I’ve heard is “…buy what suits 90% of your mission needs…”. The. C182 would certainly do that, as would a PA-32…but the prices on both airframes are pretty stellar lately. And it is definitely a seller’s market. After having read that the Comanche has more cabin room, greater speed, and greater payload, it’s kind of hard to look at the Skylane the same way. Not knocking the venerable Skylane, it’s a great aircraft.
ParticipantHi Chuck,
I see you’re looking at single engine Pipers with retractable landing gear. Have you thought about a PA 32-300, also known as a Cherokee Six?
The “Six” has a larger cabin, the large baggage door and more useful load than the two airplanes you mentioned. Part of the reason it has a higher useful load is because the landing gear retraction and extension mechanisms, pumps, motors and lines are eliminated. The “down and welded” landing gear also means reduced maintenance costs, all other things being equal.
Not quite as fast but few realize that a 20 knot difference in cruise speed only makes a few minutes difference in flight time during a two hour flight. Here’s an example: Let’s imagine a Cherokee Six cruises at 130 knots, while the Comanche 250 cruises at 150 knots. Difference in flight time over a 250 nautical mile leg is: 15 minutes.
I own a Comanche 180. I love it and believe my Comanche is the best flying airplane I’ve ever owned. That said, it’s critical to have the landing gear system MAINTAINED. Which means you need to take it to a Comanche savvy mechanic for the landing gear and airframe pre purchase inspection. It’s not enough to put a Comanche on jacks and see that the landing gears goes up and down. There are a lot of wear points in the actuating mechanism (they can all be restored to factory new specs by the installation of relatively inexpensive new bushings and bolts) but a little wear in this one and a little in that one ratchets up the possibility of a landing gear malfunction or gear collapse during a high speed turn. It’s a good system and the parts are available to keep it airworthy, but the inspecting mechanic must know what to look for. The other Comanche area of concern is the tail (airworthiness directives).
The PA 24 wing is a laminar flow airfoil, built for speed not for low speed lift like the more conventional airfoil on the Lance.
I know about the desired to fly instead of drive to visit family. I am grateful when the weather is good enough to permit me the 55 minute flight versus the 3 hour and 10 minute drive to my sister’s place.
Just my thoughts; I’m willing to share more.
SteveParticipantGreetings all. I’m new to general aviation, sort of. I’m an airline guy, with a G/A background from years ago, and now just jumping into the deep end of aircraft ownership. I’ve been shopping for a Lance, but have recently been attracted to the Comanche series. I’m looking at a PA24 over on the South Carolina coast, and am in need of a pre-buy inspection. Also, most of my flying needs will more than be adequately met by the Comanche The Lance has one big thing going for it…it’s side loading door. I’m acquiring the A/C primarily to fly over and visit with my Mom. It’s a 6.5 hr drive, and a 1.7 to 1.8 hr flight to the airport served by her small community in North Mississippi, KUOX. The nature of the long drive simply precludes me spending enough time with her, and her with her grand children. A lot of my flying will be with 3 seats filled, and about 25% of the time, all four seats filled. The Lance is attractive due to it’s extra cargo capacity for weekend out of town overnights. I have a wife, and 2 daughters, so you can imagine the bags, clothes, shoes, etc that the girls like to lug around. Perhaps you can see my problem. I’m sure I’m not the first pilot to struggle with this issue. So, couple of questions for the brain trust here.
>Operating costs PA-32R vs PA-24/250 (both non-turbo)
>I can afford both aircraft, but the Comanche is 35K less, with higher quality paint, interior, avionics, and a slight speed advantage)
>both a/c have about 800 hrs left on the engine. The Lance 5000TT, the Comanche 4000TT
It almost seems a toss-up to me I like the utility of the Lance, but there’s a lot to like about the Comanche. BTW, I’m 6’1″ 200lbs, and my wife & daughters are all about 5′ 10″, so we are full size peeps.
I appreciate any insight on helping me to navigate the issues.
Regards,
Chuck Buchanan
Atlanta, GA
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
