Comanche 250 experience anyone?

[Mcstealth]

I have an opportunity to partner in a '64 Comanche 250. It is the carbureted, O-540 engine, four seater. I know nothing about them other than what I just read on Wikipedia. Definitely not my first choice for an aircraft but the opportunity is there regardless. Do you have some thoughts on this bird and would like to share?

[carusoam]

 

c’mon David…

1) go Mooney, or go home! 

2) go Comanche 400, or you left too much power on the table! 

3) can you get a parachute with that? 

4) How good is the partner? 

5) MSers don’t let other MSers make inferior choices… 

6) The carb’d, big Lycoming is OK… but, better with the fuel injection and turbo…

7) If going with a laminar flow wing like the Comanche… wouldn’t you prefer to have the Mooney..?

8) All that FF without the max speed… that’s unamerican and un-Texan….

9) what would your dad say? 

10) I ran out of teasing by line 10…. Send an invite to @M20Doc for an inverse of this post…

 

M20Cs make great forever planes… and probably are more cost efficient than brand P and C….

Let the fun begin…

Go MS!

Best regards,

-a-

 

 

[Fly Boomer]

4 hours ago, Mcstealth said:

I have an opportunity to partner in a '64 Comanche 250. It is the carbureted, O-540 engine, four seater. I know nothing about them other than what I just read on Wikipedia. Definitely not my first choice for an aircraft but the opportunity is there regardless. Do you have some thoughts on this bird and would like to share?

A friend has one.  Compressions all 78 or 79 and engine is beyond TBO without anything more than factory instrumentation.  Consistent 180 MPH.  Not outrageous fuel consumption.  Not as fast as Mooney, but apparently bulletproof.

[BDPetersen]

I’ve heard it called “the best that Piper built”. But is the Mooney connection a myth?

[midlifeflyer]

I flew a 1957 250 for a few years and over 100 hours when I lived in Colorado. Loved (almost) every second of it. Comfortable, fast (on her first flight with me, my wife looked up from reading enroute, looked out the window, and said,  "we're here already?"), decent carrying capacity. I still run up to them when I see one on a ramp. When Piper announced the 3-seat Archer trainer variant at SnF a few years ago, they kept the big announcement under wraps. I went up to them. "Are you bringing back the Comanche?" I asked. "No, but you are like the 50th person to ask that!" Was the reply.

When looking into getting into one, I'd be most concerned about maintenance - both costs and availability of parts. 
 

[GeeBee]

I've flown just about every variant of the Comanche from the 180 to the 400. My favorite was the 260C.  I guess because I courted my first wife in it while she went to San Diego state and I was at San Jose State. Everyone of them is a sweet airplane. You have to respect the 180 because it is underpowered, but the rest of them are really nice well mannered airplanes. The real maintenance bugaboo right now is cracking of the main landing gear struts. It was not such a big deal when there was an STC weld on repair but the guy who did that died, left no one to take his place and struts are getting pretty dear to find. My hangar neighbor had a cracked strut and only the crash at a nearby airport enabled him to scavenge one. Hopefully someone will revive the fix for these struts and keep these magnificent airplanes in the air.

[N231BN]

The gear system as a whole can be a long-term liability. If it has a Dukes gear actuator it's not as bad but can still suffer from cracked gear struts as mentioned above. Make sure it is well looked at during annual and make no hard turns on the ground.

[Guest]

Never heard of a Comanche being scrapped because it’s steel frame corroded, oh wait it doesn’t have one.

Never heard of wing spar or airframe corrosion causing one to be scrapped, oh wait they’re primed at manufacturer.

Never heard of one needing a strip and re seal, oh wait they have simple easy to replace fuel bladders.

Never heard of one loosing a baggage door in flight, oh wait the doors are hinges at the front.

Never heard someone say the cabin is too small.

You can operate a Comanche on grass without worry, it has 600-6 wheels all the way around.

The O-540 is cheaper to overhaul than an IO-360, its simpler and more reliable.

They are well supported by the aftermarket and by Piper.

A well trimmed and rigged 250 will out run and out carry any 4 cylinder Mooney.

They have a number of AD’s, many with terminating action.

They do have an AD requiring measurement of the bolts and bushings in the gear retraction system each 1000 hours.

They have an AD requiring NDT of the stabilator horn each 5 years, or replacement each 10 years followed by 5 year NDT.

There is a new company who have picked up the welding of gear struts, it’s on the Comanche forum.

There is an Australian group manufacturing new stabilator horn as well as gear legs.

[N201MKTurbo]

I have a friend with a Turbo 260 for sale. It is in very good condition. I ferried it from NC last year. You should consider it if you are looking at a Comanche.

[Fly Boomer]

41 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

A well trimmed and rigged 250 will out run and out carry any 4 cylinder Mooney.

So, a well trimmed and rigged 540 will out run a 360?

[GeeBee]

But will a well rigged 180 outrun a 4 cylinder 180hp Mooney. Apples and apples.

 

[Guest]

On 2/5/2023 at 9:50 AM, Fly Boomer said:

So, a well trimmed and rigged 540 will out run a 360?

According to many Mooney owners it’s impossible, nothing can outrun a Mooney.  A Comanche so too big, too draggy and needs a 540 just to keep up.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

But will a well rigged 180 outrun a 4 cylinder 180hp Mooney. Apples and apples.

 

It would be close, the the little difference is off set by the other positive features in my opinion.

[Fly Boomer]

2 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

According to many Mooney owners it’s impossible, nothing and outrun a Mooney.  A Comanche so too big, too draggy and needs a 540 just to keep up.

It's like asking a guy who just bought a new car "How do you like it?".  Never going to hear one say "Meh, I made a big mistake".

[Mcstealth]

9 hours ago, carusoam said:

 

c’mon David…

1) go Mooney, or go home! 

 @M20Doc 

 

I'm ashamed I even asked.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Mcstealth said:

I'm ashamed I even asked.

Don’t worry, even if you make the “wrong choice” you’ll be able to stay.  They haven’t banished me yet!

[EricJ]

I have a couple hangar neighbors with them and they like them, although they do seem a bit finicky about some things and I'm often glad I have the Mooney instead.

I was helping one of the neighbors by holding a wrench on a fastener in the nose gear well, and got a good look at the nose gear mechanisms.   It looked like how I'd think all retractable nose gears should be designed, especially compared to a Mooney.    There's a lot more room to work on things around the engine than on a Mooney as well.   Some other stuff seems worse, which is to be expected.

[carusoam]

16 hours ago, BDPetersen said:

I’ve heard it called “the best that Piper built”. But is the Mooney connection a myth?

There is a Mooney connection to that…

 

Do we know anyone working or worked in a Piper plant?

We know somebody whose dad worked in the Mooney plant….  

 

Getting to know a single airframe takes a lot of time…

If you have the skills to know a lot of airframes… they call you doc! 

 

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Jeph357]

I just got one back up in the air after being in a hangar for 10 years a few months back for my buddy we both got checked out in it, and have another friend that has one. It's 5-8 knots faster than my E but its burning 3-4-5 gph more. They fly great in my opinion.  I dislike the hand brake on the earlier models(which is my only experience in them) but theres an stc for that. I love my Mooney but wouldn't turn one down. I have free rein to fly it whenever I'd like. Gross is a couple hundred lbs  more with tip tanks. 

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, Jeph357 said:

I just got one back up in the air after being in a hangar for 10 years a few months back for my buddy we both got checked out in it, and have another friend that has one. It's 5-8 knots faster than my E but its burning 3-4-5 gph more. They fly great in my opinion.  I dislike the hand brake on the earlier models(which is my only experience in them) but theres an stc for that. I love my Mooney but wouldn't turn one down. I have free rein to fly it whenever I'd like. Gross is a couple hundred lbs  more with tip tanks. 

That hand brake being the only brake taught me a lot about how little I needed them.

[Jeph357]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

That hand brake being the only brake taught me a lot about how little I needed them.

True

[Minivation]

I was involved in a very comprehensive annual on a 24-260B a few years ago and had the opportunity to get to know the plane inside out.
Mechanically the airplane is solidly built, with the only real focus points being the stabilator and MLG structure. Others pointed those out already.
One thing I will say with confidence is working in the engine compartment (and avionics) is A LOT easier than the Mooney! 
Early examples come with hand brakes which I'm not very fond of, but later ones come with the pedal brakes we're all familar with.

Commanches are not as efficient as Mooneys but they make up for that with cabin space and better technical support IMO.
Handling characteristics are a lot more forgiving, especially during landing, but you still want to nail your airspeeds.

My hangar neighbor at KPVG used to own a PA-24 and he loved it.
 

[M20F]

Comanche beats Mooney in every category except price/efficiency imho.  If I could have found one for the same price as my F would have bought one.  Fantastic planes.  

[toomany]

i own a '62 250 and absolutely love it.  i've had it for about 20 yrs now and will probably never sell it.  mine is beyond tbo on a factory new engine back in the late 90's and it still has consistent 78/80 or higher comps on most cylinders.  i fly it from a grass strip  (my friends call it the half pipe) and it takes fast tail wind landings (up hill of coarse) in stride. it'll fly w anything that'll fit inside of it - i've had 4 medium to big guys in it w over 50 gallons of fuel on high density days and it flys like our bravo w 2 guys and the same amount of fuel.  single or two up ops w half fuel and its a home sick angel.  mine has the 15 gal aux tanks outboard of the mains and it'll fly for 5+ hrs w ample reserve at 23-24/2300-2400 at about 15 gph.  it does have a long list of ad's but if it's been maintained by a reputable IA it'll have most of, it not all, done except for recurring tail horn and gear.  my gear trans started making noise about 10 yrs ago so i took it apart and cleaned and lubed it well and no problems since - i always help the gear up w the manual lever to save the tranny and put my hand on it when deploying to feel for any grinding or inconsistencies.  they are great planes as i'm sure you've gathered from the responses - i get 1-2 letters a year asking if i want to sell it. in fact the owner that sold it to me called me 4 yrs afterward and told me he wanted it back and that he couldn't find a comparable bird - he was a retired united guy. 

[Shadrach]

On 2/5/2023 at 9:54 AM, GeeBee said:

But will a well rigged 180 outrun a 4 cylinder 180hp Mooney. Apples and apples.

 

We had a beautiful 180 on the field.  I literally flew circles around him at 3500' but I have 20hp on him.