Comanche 250 experience anyone?

[Shadrach]

A friend of mine had a 250 for about 6 years.  I liked it a lot. The speed was near enough to my F as makes no difference. Fuel burn was in the vicinity of 2.5-3gph more than a 200hp Mooney in typical cruise. This particular bird was not a great load hauler but not bad.  I think it had about a little over 1100lbs, so about ~60lbs more useful than my F model but carried less fuel.  Nice flying plane. Owner insisted that is was not a good short field bird and that maintaining nose high, mains first, full stall landings was a challenge because it ran out of pitch authority before the wing would stall. He suggested this was exacerbated by the position of the nose gear.  I never got to land it so I can't say if it was personal technique or an airframe trait. He usually flew with lead shot in the baggage compartment.  Mx is not bad. Gear bungees every few years. There is an AD on the steel hub Hartzell props but I expect most have been upgraded. 

The difference in roominess between the PA24 and a midbody is not that big of a deal unless you've a physique like Charlie Brown. It's still a low wing single with the typically graceful ingress and egress. It feels roomier though.

I don't love the looks. The squared off, roomy, upper cabin area looks from the outside like a 1950s flat top.  Seeing them on the ramp I imagine if they had names they'd be called Chet or Biff.  They look better in the air. 

 

[bcg]

The guy I bought my C from went into a Comanche. He says the Mooney flies better.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[toomany]

i don't want to get into how much faster a mooney powered by a 360 or other 4 cyl variant  is compared to a 180hp comanche, but i will tell you that if i had to pick between the bravo or the comanche for an ALL AROUND plane it would be the comanche hands down - and i'm not talking about a comanche 180, the 250hp variant is what i'm referencing.  i see 150kts consistently at 15gph and never felt like i couldn't get off a field because i was leaving too much runway behind.  mooney's are great birds, which is why we own one but if the opportunity presents itself to partner on a 250-400hp comanche at a good price i can assure you that you won't be disappointed.  i personally would pass on a PA-24 180hp variant based on how i like to fly, how i  use my comanche and the reasons for which i bought it.   

FYI - before i bought my comanche i researched everything similarly situated and the comanche ticked more boxes than any other option. age is an issue but they're built like tanks, zinc chromated throughout and will provide yrs of service if maintained properly. for what it's worth i'd probably not consider any other piper product unless it was an aerostar or used jet a.  

i perform the majority of work on mine at annual and yearly anual costs are $500-1000 w parts included - it helps to have a friendly IA that'll look over your shoulder while you do all the crawling around.  

my advice to anyone considering a purchase of anything expected to provide a high degree of performance and service is to not get wrapped around the axle on brand names or looks, but use critical thinking and proper analysis to determine what best fits your needs.  this approach has never disappointed me.  

[gmonnig]

I owned a 1960 Comanche 250 for about 6yrs before my current E. It pains me to say but I should’ve never let my Comanche go. I do love my Mooney but the PA24 out performs in every category. I had a lot of speed mods and tip tanks, plus the added 50hp over the Mooney doesn’t make it a fair fight. I cruised at 161ktas on 13gph, climbed at 1200fpm, 1200lb useful, and could go 1000NM with VFR reserves on 86gals. The long range made it such a Time Machine! The extra 300-350NM range over the Mooney was such an unexpected benefit. Plus tankering fuel made fuel costs cheaper. On local flights you could pull back to Mooney speeds and burn the same amount of gas but rarely did that. Went side by side with my buddy’s C-model for a few hours on a trip and was burning the same amount at 145ktas. Also, assuming you didn’t buy a basket case, the Comanche is cheaper on maintenance.

I always thought having an RV10 or a Sling TSI was the perfect all around plane but I actually had that perfect plane all along. It was just in the shape of a 63yr old Piper for 1/3 the price.

[Guest]

This thread is like being in the confessional.  “Forgive me father I own a Comanche “

[midlifeflyer]

42 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

This thread is like being in the confessional.  “Forgive me father I own a Comanche “

More like happy memories for me.

I didn't own the 1958  250 I flew. It was owned by a guy through a corporate entity. Sold minority shares in the entity to up to 4 people. He didn't fly the airplane. He had a Baron. While I was a shareholder, I had it exclusively. We went all over with it.

I'm flying in the photo. John Little is a local photographer who would take photos at local airports. Still doing it. Just happened to catch me and Jan coming home to KAPA from a Colorado Pilots Association trip to Socorro, NM for the Festival of the Cranes back in November 2007.

[toomany]

id never ask forgiveness for owning my comanche. - best airplane i've ever bought 

[Pinecone]

10 hours ago, gmonnig said:

I owned a 1960 Comanche 250 for about 6yrs before my current E. It pains me to say but I should’ve never let my Comanche go. I do love my Mooney but the PA24 out performs in every category. I had a lot of speed mods and tip tanks, plus the added 50hp over the Mooney doesn’t make it a fair fight. I cruised at 161ktas on 13gph, climbed at 1200fpm, 1200lb useful, and could go 1000NM with VFR reserves on 86gals. The long range made it such a Time Machine! The extra 300-350NM range over the Mooney was such an unexpected benefit. Plus tankering fuel made fuel costs cheaper. On local flights you could pull back to Mooney speeds and burn the same amount of gas but rarely did that. Went side by side with my buddy’s C-model for a few hours on a trip and was burning the same amount at 145ktas. Also, assuming you didn’t buy a basket case, the Comanche is cheaper on maintenance.

I always thought having an RV10 or a Sling TSI was the perfect all around plane but I actually had that perfect plane all along. It was just in the shape of a 63yr old Piper for 1/3 the price.

Hmm, my 252/Encore does 175 KTAS on 10.3 GPH, has an 1119 UL, and can go 1500 miles with IFR reserves.

I have 104 gallon capacity, so can also tanker fuel when I find it cheap.

[gmonnig]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

Hmm, my 252/Encore does 175 KTAS on 10.3 GPH, has an 1119 UL, and can go 1500 miles with IFR reserves.

I have 104 gallon capacity, so can also tanker fuel when I find it cheap.

That has to be the highest useful load of any Mooney! I love the Encore but it’s just out of budget. You can buy 2-3 Comanche 250s for the cost of one 252. My wife and I saw a 231 with long range tanks the other day and she seemed intrigued by it. I’ve never owned a turbo aircraft but I do miss the smoothness of a 6cylinder! And the TSIO-360 is a very smooth engine! Time to hit Barnstormers and TAP.

[Pinecone]

Maybe with ancient radios and high time engine.

Turbo is nice.  I fly in the teens.  Above the haze and clouds most times.  Smooth air.   No traffic.  Most GA is below 10,000.  And the other stuff is above 25000.  So you get a lot of direct.

Lost the vacuum system and the gyros.

Mine is a 252 with the update/upgrade to Encore.  So lower empty weight.

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, gmonnig said:

That has to be the highest useful load of any Mooney! I love the Encore but it’s just out of budget. You can buy 2-3 Comanche 250s for the cost of one 252. My wife and I saw a 231 with long range tanks the other day and she seemed intrigued by it. I’ve never owned a turbo aircraft but I do miss the smoothness of a 6cylinder! And the TSIO-360 is a very smooth engine! Time to hit Barnstormers and TAP.

It is but Mooney ULs of 1100+ are relegated to just a few Eagles and Encores.  However, the early Fs do quite well.  Mine has UL of 1060lbs which means 676lbs in the cabin with full fuel (64gals).  If I were eligible for the late model 200hp mid body 2900lb GW increase, I'd be at 1220lbs useful. 

In terms of range/payload flexibility, I can take more weight a longer distance, than several of the C182s on the field...I just don't say it in the pilot lounge for fear of disrupting the delicate aviation bullshit time/space continuum... It's for the same reason that I hesitate to say that my buddy's Comanche 250 had nothing on my F in terms of payload/range flexibility and less max range. Never let real numbers ruin someone's religious beliefs about an airplane. It's a losing proposition.

[gmonnig]

46 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

It is but Mooney ULs of 1100+ relegated to just a few Eagles and Encores.  However, the early Fs do quite well.  Mine has UL of 1060lbs which means 676lbs in the cabin with full fuel (64gals).  If I were eligible for the late model 200hp mid body 2900lb GW increase, I'd be at 1220lbs useful. 

In terms of range/payload flexibility, I can take more weight a longer distance, than several of the C182s on the field...I just don't say it in the pilot lounge for fear of disrupting the delicate aviation bullshit time/space continuum... It's for the same reason that I hesitate to say that my buddy's Comanche 250 had nothing on my F in terms of payload/range flexibility and less max range. Never let real numbers ruin someone's religious beliefs about an airplane. It's a losing proposition.

I know the F had a pretty good useful load too. Hell, if my E had a 2900lb gross weight, I too would have a 1225lb useful load. I know everything is essentially the same between the E&F with the exception of the 10” extension and more fuel. So what else was done for the weight increase? My 250 had a max gross of 3000lbs (12lb/hp), my E is 2575lbs (12.8lb/hp) and a F with 2900lb (14.5lb/hp). I can only imagine that climb rate at MTOW. I love the hotrod feel of the baby Mooney but the extra useful load and fuel of the F would be nice too. 

[Shadrach]

On 3/8/2023 at 4:16 PM, gmonnig said:

I know the F had a pretty good useful load too. Hell, if my E had a 2900lb gross weight, I too would have a 1225lb useful load. I know everything is essentially the same between the E&F with the exception of the 10” extension and more fuel. So what else was done for the weight increase? My 250 had a max gross of 3000lbs (12lb/hp), my E is 2575lbs (12.8lb/hp) and a F with 2900lb (14.5lb/hp). I can only imagine that climb rate at MTOW. I love the hotrod feel of the baby Mooney but the extra useful load and fuel of the F would be nice too. 

None of the F’s are eligible for 2900lb gross weight increase. The difference between an F and the E is 5” extra knee/foot room for the rear seat passengers and 5” extra in the baggage compartment. All F models (2740lb) have 165 LB gross weight increase over the E model (2575lb). So max gross is 2740lbs just like most of Js. I flight plan at 150kts. Sometimes I do better, sometimes I do worse (high summertime DAs). 

The  F model’s ideal mission is as an economical mid-range family airplane. Mine will take 800lbs of people and stuff 500 nautical miles in a bit over 3hrs and burn less gas than most SUVs. 

It’s not the fastest, nor the most comfortable, nor the best load hauler. What it is, is a pretty practical compromise of all of those attributes. I’ve also found it to be a robust airframe that handles turf and short strips reasonably well. 
it’s good enough to make a man get religious about his airplane…

I’m sure it would feel pretty doggy at 2900 pounds in the summertime. I think it’d be fine in the winter.

[Guest]

Every airplane has good and bad traits.  I’ve had two E models and two Comanches, two RVs, all of them are unique and different filling different needs and wants.

We all eventually find the one we want.

[Hank]

2 hours ago, M20Doc said:

We all eventually find the one we want.

"If you can't be with the one you love, then love the one you're with"

[toomany]

or become mormon and have more than one 

[Fly Boomer]

3 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Every airplane has good and bad traits.  I’ve had two E models and two Comanches, two RVs, all of them are unique and different filling different needs and wants.

We all eventually find the one we want.

Some want two or three.

[EricJ]

10 minutes ago, toomany said:

or become mormon and have more than one 

It's good beer!

[laytonl]

I last flew a Comanche 50 years ago and still remember the flights in it. It was fast, comfortable, and looked cool through the eyes of a 17 year old.

 I was the typical airport kid, who worked for the FBO owner/CFI/mechanic.  I washed and fueled airplanes and helped him in the maintenance shop.  He would let me fly airplanes over to Montgomery Al to have radio work done on his airplanes as well as owners airplanes.

My checkout in the Comanche consisting of the owner squatting on the wing and pointing out the starter switch and the gear selector and saying  “raise the gear when you takeoff and don’t forget to let it down when you land”.  Does this count as a high performance endorsement?

I got to fly a lot of different airplanes while in high school, including a Stearman.  He did check me out in the Stearman though (3 trips around the pattern).

those were different times,

Lee

[carusoam]

Beer, Mormons, and Brand P…

We may have left the reservation…

 

I always wanted to ask @toomany how many is too many?

But, I think I have the answer now…  

 

Best regards,

-a-

[toomany]

5 is too many - actually 1 is too many some days.  

[Jeph357]

On 3/8/2023 at 3:37 AM, midlifeflyer said:

I didn't own the 1958  250 I flew.

Ive flown in 5258P and 5259P. 59p got killed on the ramp though....

[Jeph357]

https://youtu.be/pgSa2KYQhGw

[Jeph357]

 

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, Jeph357 said:

 

Wow! How sad. Fortunately, 57P is still out there although it doesn't seem to be flying much.