Aviation history is littered with “what-if” questions. What if Fred Noonan had been a better navigator? What if the Hindenberg hadnt approached Lakehurst, New Jersey, with a thunderstorm nearby? What if the Susquehanna River hadnt flooded Pipers Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, factory in 1972-would the venerable Comanche still be a leading light in Pipers line-up?
Despite its relatively high parts count and labor requirements compared to, say, the Cherokee Arrow, there are many good reasons to think so. First hitting the market in 1958, the PA-24 Comanche was a radical departure for Piper-until then, the company had built mostly rag-and-tube taildraggers. Instead, the Comanche was a
thoroughly modern design focused on speed and good looks, and targeting the high-performance piston-single market being tapped by the Beech Bonanza and Cessna 210, among others.
Pipers sleek, roomy all-metal design featured an oval-section fuselage, tapered laminar-flow wing and sharp-edged styling. The looks still turn heads today and a South African company is even building an all-composite look-alike for the kit-built crowd, the Ravin. More important for the discriminating used aircraft buyer, the Comanche lends itself to upgrading, and owners who bring the airplane up to the state-of-the-art tend to hang onto them forever.
Model History
In its first production year, two models were offered: the 180-HP PA-24-180 Comanche and a 250-HP version, the PA-24-250. The 180 had a carbureted Lycoming O-360, while the 250 sported a carbureted Lycoming O-540; either turned a constant-speed prop. Flaps were manual and the gear was (and still is) a simple electromechanical design. The airframes essentially were the same-its possible to upgrade the 180 to the larger engine-although the 250 boasted a significantly higher gross weight: 2800 pounds versus 2550 pounds for the 180. Piper didnt distinguish between the 180 and 250 in its serial number records but total production for 1958 was 336, comparing favorably to the 396 J35 Bonanzas Beech cranked out that year.
The basic airframe proved successful and wasnt changed much during its production run. Still, there were some notable improvements over the years. The early airplanes were equipped with hand brakes. But after 1960, most Comanches were delivered with optional toe brakes.
The original airplane had a 60-gallon fuel system. In 1961, Piper offered an optional 90-gallon system, which gave the Comanche 180 seriously long legs: nine hours, provided the load consisted of only the pilot, one passenger and a little luggage. Range remains one of the Comanches strong points and many have been fitted with even more fuel capacity in tip tanks and fuselage tanks to give planet-crossing ability. In 1961, the gross weight of the 250 was boosted by 100 pounds. Electric flaps replaced the manual ones with the 1962 model year.
Production of both the 180 and 250 ended after the 1964 model year. The 180, which obviously came second to its bigger brother in load carrying and was not selling as we’ll as the 250, was dropped altogether while the 250 was upgraded to the 260. Evolution
The 1965 Comanches are transition airplanes, in that they have the earlier fuselage mated to the later 260-HP engine, albeit with a carburetor. The big engine gives these airplanes excellent climb performance, as much as 1500 FPM. In 1966, the
Comanche B, with a fuel-injected 260-HP Lycoming IO-540-D4A5, a boosted gross weight (now 3100 pounds) and two more seats was added to the lineup, beginning with serial number 24-4300.
These and later Comanches can be spotted by the extra cabin window and rear baggage door on the left side, which doubles as an emergency exit. The airframe dimensions are identical but the internal fuselage structure was changed to accommodate the additional window. The added seats are in the baggage compartment.
The Comanche C was rolled out in 1969, with further refinements, including another gross weight increase and a distinctive “shark nose” cowl starting with serial number 24-4804. The 100-pound rise in gross gave the airplane a hefty 1427-pound useful load. The airplane also gained cowl flaps and an aileron-rudder interconnect. By the time these models were introduced, the Comanches production run was about to end without warning, so this variant is comparatively rare. Turbo and 400 HP
A turbonormalized version of the Comanche C was offered alongside the normally aspirated bird in 1970. Dual turbochargers allow operation at altitudes up to 25,000 feet. The Rajay system essentially had a “second throttle” wastegate control the pilot used to manually set boost at altitude. Piper did the turbo 260 installation properly by providing check valves and a turbo oil sump. Upon shutdown, this allows the oil to drain from the hot turbos instead of remaining inside them and cooking.
A side benefit of the standard turbo installation is that its quieter than the normally aspirated Comanche C. The -N1A5 engine, beefed up to handle the boost pressure and higher temperatures at altitude, is just as robust as the normally aspirated engine; both have a 2000-hour TBO. Also, as with the fuel injection system, earlier airplanes can have a turbo added.
Meanwhile, the ultimate in wretched excess, or perfection, depending on your point of view, has to go to the Comanche 400. It was introduced in 1964 and discontinued only a year and 146 airplanes later. This beast had a normally aspirated, fuel-injected, eight-cylinder Lycoming IO-720-A1A fitted with a three-bladed prop. The airframe is essentially identical to the 250, except the 400 uses the Aztec stabilizer.
The engine gulps huge amounts of fuel (20 to 22 GPH at 75 percent cruise, held in optional 130-gallon tanks), has a TBO of 1800 hours and costs north of 50 grand to overhaul. On the other hand, the 400 offers spectacular performance-at least for 1964-with max cruise in the 185-to-195-knot range.
When compared to a Comanche B, the 400 has a gross weight 500 pounds higher. However, the empty weight is also higher, by 337 pounds. That extra payload has to go for fuel to feed the IO-720, meaning that for flights of more than 300 miles, the 400 actually has less payload available than the 260.
In 1972, there were two single-engine Comanche models still in production-the
260 and turbo 260. Their excellent build quality with total corrosion proofing before assembly and compound curve panels meant that the underlying cost structure was greater than emerging designs from either Piper or its competitors.
Then nature intervened. Tropical Storm Agnes drove the Susquehanna River out of its banks and wiped out Pipers Lock Haven factory. This gave Piper a reason to pull the plug on the airplane, choosing to concentrate on the more-popular, less-expensive and higher-profit PA-28 line, including the Arrow being produced at the Vero Beach site.
Several years ago there was some thought given to resurrecting the design at the hands of the legendary Roy LoPresti, but like the SwiftFury, it came to nothing. LoPresti did create some interesting aerodynamic mods for the airplane, however. Handling
Myths abound about the Comanche being difficult to land smoothly because of a tendency to float during the flare, then settle sharply. Some owners dispute this, others confirm it. Comanche experts tell us the attitude window for a smooth arrival is smaller than that of many modern spam cans, but no different from some high-performance aircraft or taildraggers.
One remedy is to add the Knots2U wing root fillets, which eliminate the vortex striking the stabilator when flaps are used. The International Comanche Society (ICS) reports the best way to learn to land-and fly-this bird is to get some dual from an expert in the type, not the local flight school. Fly it like its meant to be flown, and you’ll wonder what the bar-room chatter was all about.
In flight, handling is responsive and pilots report that the Comanche is a sheer delight to fly. As an instrument platform, its stable and responsive. At busy airports, there’s no problem keeping approach speeds right in the flow.
With practice and gear down, finals for the ILS can be flown at 130 knots and, gear up, even faster. The aircraft can then be slowed in the last few hundred feet to land short and turn off at the first taxiway.
There’s a bit of a tendency to wheelbarrow during crosswind takeoffs, caused by pilots holding down the nose to prevent a premature departure. This, in turn, is due to the airplanes tail-low stance when sitting on its gear. Some pilots pump up the main gear oleos to reduce the tendency, or install a smaller nosewheel tire to reduce the static angle of attack on takeoff. Performance, Loading
The Comanche 180 has less-than-stellar speed but long legs for its class. Burning 8 to 10 GPH, it will cruise at about 140 knots. An American General Tiger with fixed gear goes just as fast and another contemporary retractable, the Mooney M20C or M20E, will outrun the 180. The 180 can climb at 700 to 900 FPM after using more than 2200 feet to clear a 50-foot obstacle. The 250 and 260 are better performers. Speeds are up around 155 to 160 knots at cruise, burning about 12 GPH, Still, these speeds trail contemporary designs of similar vintage and power, such as the P35 Bonanza.
As you would expect from aerodynamics 101, the extra 10 GPH the Comanche 400 burns yields only about 10 to 15 extra knots. The 400 will, however, climb like nobodys business: 1600 FPM. Not many singles can match it.
The 180s load carrying capacity is ample but modest. With a gross weight significantly lower than later Comanches, cabin payload with full standard fuel (60 gallons) is about 660 pounds, making it a three-person airplane. The 250 can haul 750 pounds with full standard fuel, while the 260s and 400 can lift up to 1000 pounds.
The straight roofline giving the Comanche its distinctive crew-cut looks also reduce visibility upwards, although its not as bad as some airplanes and does provide welcome shade in hot climates. The cabin itself is roomy and comfortable with good width, if a bit drafty and noisy, say some owners. Legroom is good for both pilots and passengers and the cabin is definitely more spacious than the Arrow that followed. The fifth and sixth seats, when available, are suitable only for children or the smallest of adults.
The panel is what one would expect from a circa-1960s airplane, with good space for instruments but early, unrestored models will look dated by modern standards. The early panel layout doesnt conform to the later standard-T configuration, so it may be unfamiliar to recently trained pilots. But the panel-as with most other Comanche characteristics-often has found itself the subject of owner upgrades.Maintenance/ADs
Owners give the maintenance burden mixed reviews. The Comanche is one of the
best-built metal singles available, and it can be we’ll maintained at lower cost than aircraft of lesser performance due to the widespread use of generic parts. There’s also a good supply of aftermarket and PMAd parts for commonly needed items. While the airplane isn’t intrinsically difficult to service, system age cannot be ignored: Even the newest Comanche is approaching 40 years of age.
The aircraft are relatively complex-certainly when compared to, for example, a Cirrus SR22-so they shouldnt be thought of as cheap to maintain. However, with care, costs will be more than manageable and once a system or component is properly repaired, it can be expected to stay that way for a while. The trick-as it is with any older aircraft-is finding a shop or technician experienced in the type. If you find the right person and keep them happy, you’ll be happy.
The landing gear system certainly is not complicated but a review of service difficulty reports indicates its a top sore spot, along with general airframe corrosion, and engine/prop issues. Those familiar with the Comanche maintain major causes of gear-system problems are poor maintenance or rigging by mechanics unfamiliar with it. Pilots who don’t understand the undercarriage and its various procedures, particularly the emergency extension procedure, also are a source of problems.
The ICS can help on both counts, with a list of qualified instructors and shops familiar with the airplane. Aftermarket gear warning systems are also a good investment to supplement the system originally installed.
Recurring ADs on any aircraft can run up the cost of operation, and Comanches are no different. One on the landing gear (AD 77-13-21) mandates replacement of landing gear bungees every 500 hours or three years to prevent landing gear collapse after manual extension. There’s also an AD on the vertical fin attachment (AD 75-12-06). A prop inspection (AD 2005-18-12) is the most oft-complained about, costing over $650 every 500 hours or five years.
Also, a different prop AD (AD 97-18-02) can prove costly for 250/260 owners. As one result, many have opted to replace their old Hartzells for new two- or three-blade Hartzell or MacCauley propellers, which terminates the AD. Apart from the aforementioned ADs, Comanches are unremarkable; most other ADs are minor and/or shotgun directives that apply to many airplanes.Mod, Clubs
There are so many mods available for the Comanche line that probably no two aircraft are alike today. You can modify its engine, its look, its handling, its panel and its features. Check a copy of the Comanche Flyer magazine or the ICS Web site (www.comancheflyer.com) for details. For instance, its possible to retrofit the Lycoming O-540 engine into a Comanche 180 of 1960 or later vintage; there’s at least one published report of this being done on a Form 337, although we don’t know of any shops offering the mod. Aside from the engine and prop, it involves the engine mounts, some baffling, controls and the exhaust system. The result is essentially a Comanche 250 with a low gross weight. Also, the carbureted O-540 found in the Comanche 250 may be upgraded to fuel injection.
LoPresti Speed Merchants (www.speedmods.com) offers, among other mods, the “Wholey Cowl” originally dreamed up for the Comanches resurrection, along with a three-bladed “SynchroPulse” prop. Both are available for the 250 (which requires some additional mods) or the 260. Cowlings are also offered by Aviation Performance Products (www.aviationperformanceproducts.com), which claims that its Eagle XP cowling increases speed, economy and improves maintenance access. The company also offers a stainless steel dual exhaust system. These mods are available for all Comanches except the 400.
Knots2U (www.knots2u.com) also offers aerodynamic mods including a wing fillet helping out the airplanes landing characteristics, a dorsal fin kit, speed brakes and much more. Meanwhile, Met-Co-Aire (www.metcoaire.com). Other popular
modifications include new gear wiring harnesses from Comanche Gear (www.comanchegear.com), one-piece windshields from Webco (www.webcoaircraft.com) and so on. These mods generally are applicable to all Comanches.
For a time recently, renowned attorney F. Lee Bailey-who souped up the PA-30 Twin Comanche into the Bailey Bullet-even contemplated remanufacturing single-engine Comanches. The result, in his words, using modern avionics, instrumentation, soundproofing and environmental systems, would have been a “better than new” Comanche costing less than a brand-new, comparable single.
Alas, wiser heads-along with, perhaps, a healthy respect for general aviations economy-sidelined the project. Maines Oxford Aviation (www.oxfordaviation.com) still has the Bailey Bullet, along with STCs for numerous mods, including two-inch gauges, 130-amp alternators, air conditioning and more.
The point is the Comaches list of mods, modifiers and parts resources is long and best accessed from involvement with the ICS and its members and publications. Speaking of ICS, owners tell us the group is an exceptionally good resource for Comanche owners. It offers a magazine as we’ll as other resources and can be reached at 405-491-0321 or via the Web site at www.comancheflyer.com. The ICS also offers a technical support service when you and your mechanic need someone to talk to.Owner Comments
I own a 1959 PA-24-180. Its been in my family for 20 years. The 180 is a delightful plane to fly; when lightly loaded, its the best handling of all the Comanches. Ive flown 250s and 260s owned by friends; the larger engines deliver the performance desired for regular flying in the western mountains. The 180 carries the load for comfortable efficient transportation for a pilot with one passenger on a four-hour, 500 NM trip. Mine delivers book rated performance, 139 knots cruise, and flies best below 8000 feet MSL. Ive used it for business trips around CA, AZ, NV, OR and WA, and for vacations in Baja operating from dirt strips.
Comanches are inexpensive to acquire, even when substantially updated. Its necessary to bring the “stock” aircraft to currency if the owner is planning regular IFR use; this can be expensive. The STCd dual exhaust is a must have, the “old school” panel needs replacement, the gear must be fully overhauled and the prop replaced.
Once updated, the Comanche compares favorably in performance and operating cost criteria against alternatives half the Comanches age. I find the increased performance from retractable gear worth the annual expense related to the gear maintenance component. Annual inspection, exclusive of upgrades and anticipated or scheduled repairs cost me $2500 at Oakland Aircraft. Its surprising how easy parts availability is for this 50-year-old machine. The Comanche is a great plane for those who like to fly in tough economic times.
C. Bruce Godfrey,
Berkeley, California
I have about 150 hours in my first year of ownership of a 1962 Comanche 250 with a Turbo STC. So basically it is identical to a factory 260TC as the Rajay Twin Turbos/fuel injection and engine are all the same. Factory turbos were not produced until 1969-72.
In addition to local flying, I try to fly at least once a month on a 1100 NM trip (from KS to CA or KS to FL) and needed to do those as quickly as possible without spending a tremendous amount of money. Doing my research between a Comanche, 210 or Bonanza, I found that the Comanche and Cessna 210s were similarly priced but were about 15 percent cheaper to purchase than the same year and performance/equipment Debonair/Bonanza 33s.
I owned a Cherokee and flew it for three years and 450 hours. Knowing I needed to go long distances, I had asked several IA/A&P mechanics which airplanes in my budget (below $50k), in an early to mid-60s vintage would be the lowest. All of them said that the Cessna 210 would not be the cheapest and would most likely be in the shop more than it would be available to fly. I was warned of landing gear issues as we’ll as corrosion and in-air breakups. I thought this was very odd since I live in Wichita, Cessnas home. I got pretty much the same response when asking about Bonanzas. Then, of course, Beechcraft parts are more expensive than similar parts from Cessna or Piper.
When I inquired about the Comanche I got the occasional, “They have an AD for 1000-hour inspections of landing gear, side braces and replacement of $38 bungees,” but I like Lycoming engines, they are pretty sound aircraft, they have zinc coating and you never hear of corrosion on them. They seem to have no more ADs than the 210 or the Bo, and the only in-flight breakups you hear about are when some guy tries to fly through a thunderstorm or something.”
As luck would have it, I was able to buy not only a Comanche 250 but a turbo at that. This plane had a new T-panel installed with a six-pack instrument layout. It also has a five-inch panel mounted GPS/MFD.
My 62 model only has a 2900-lb gross weight (300 lbs less than the C model). Due to plenty of extra equipment and the turbos, my useful load is just about 1000 lbs. At gross weight, I can get 155-157 knots from sea level through 5000 feet. Below 5000, the manual wastegates arent engaged, so performance is the same as a normally aspirated 250/260.
Above 5000, start dialing in the turbos, maintaining MP at 25-26 inches. I have gone as fast as 187 knots at 14,000 feet, running 2400 RPM and 25 inches. I usually burn about 14 GPH on long trips but I use 15 for flight planning. I have experimented with running lean of peak (LOP), which cost me 4-7 knots but fuel burn drops to about 12.4-12.7 GPH.
don’t ask me how I know, but the plane takes off 300 lbs over gross weight just as easily as below gross weight and with plenty of power to spare, even on hot August days.
From my first year records, hourly maintenance works out to about $29 per hour or less, including the annual, all ADs and miscellaneous maintenance flying 150 hours per year. So, with $3/gallon fuel and 13 GPH LOP ops at 75-80 percent equals $39/hour for fuel. Add it all together and I get $68/hour, plus any reserves.
I still cannot believe that I own such a capable airplane for such a paltry price. The Comanche 250 Turbo is as fast as many twins, it flies high to get over weather or for a good tailwind. It can carry four normal or three very large people, 90 gallons of fuel for 1000 NM legs and is an extraordinarily stable IFR platform.
Tony Scarpelli,
Wichita, Kansas
you’ll no doubt hear from many rabid Comanche enthusiasts for this issue. As a 20-year owner of three different Comanches, allow me to throw my hat in the ring.
I traded a wood-wing Mooney (disassembled, on a flatbed trailer) plus $8000 cash for a 1958 Comanche 180 the week I graduated from Air Force pilot training in 1979. I was smitten immediately with its good looks, roominess, useful load and crisp handling qualities-all compared to my own Mooney and later models. The Comanche cruised at 155 MPH, about 10 MPH slower than a M20C but faster than my 57 M20. It could lift four adults and full fuel, if you didnt squint too hard at the numbers, and was a sheer delight to fly. The only things it needed to make it the perfect mount were toe brakes, center-stacked radios and about 50 percent more power. For the next three years I leased my Comanche to the Holloman AFB Aero Club for $30/hour dry. The rental fees nearly paid off my loan by the time I sold it; we never had any significant maintenance issues.
A few assignments later found me at Tyndall AFB near Panama City, Florida. The Aero Club had several Cessnas and even a Baron to choose from, but no real cross-country machine for single-engine members. The club manager agreed to let me lease a retractable to the club for commercial training and cross-country trips, and I knew exactly what to look for. My second Comanche was a 65 260 I found in Concord, California, for $28,500, about $6000 below bottom retail in 1992. Thats how bad the paint was! Green primer showed through all the painted surfaces; the wings leading edges had big chunks missing where Bondo from previous patches had chipped out. It had been on its belly back in 72, but the repairs looked good. The autopilot and radios were original, but the engine, prop and landing gear transmission had been recently overhauled. It was an ugly duckling but it flew fast and straight, as long as the autopilot was off.
I left Concord at 1600 PST on a Monday and delivered the Comanche to Lowe Aviations paint shop in Macon, Georgia, at 0900 on Tuesday, right on schedule! Following gorgeous new paint, Metco wingtips and a chrome spinner, I had a radio shop remove the autopilot and replace the old Narcos with MX300s.
The Tyndall Aero Club rented it for $75/hour wet and I kept half of that. The club members loved it, especially us fighter pilots. It was the only club airplane the tower allowed to fly the fighter overhead pattern-160 knots to the initial at 1000 feet, snap into a 3G break over the numbers (72 degrees bank) to downwind, gear down at 110 knots, half flaps and 90 knots around the final turn, over the numbers at 70 knots with full aft trim.
I still own and fly the 180 in pretty much its original condition-no GPS or autopilot but the MX300s are still going strong. The biggest maintenance item Comanche owners face is the landing gear AD that calls for replacement of fittings, bearings, bushings and a whole host of hardware every 1000 hours or on condition, whichever comes first. I just had that done this year and it aint cheap. With bungee replacements every three years and a transmission overhaul about every 10 years, the Comanches landing gear gives predictable and trouble-free service over the years.
The lightweight starter and Bogert copper cables STCs are two must-haves for any Comanche; they make warm starts a non-issue, period. The Ashby glareshield mod makes the co*ckpit look much more modern but its a pain for any avionics work..
Of all the Comanches, the 260 is the best value. Ive belonged to the International Comanche Society for almost as long as Ive subscribed to Aviation Consumer. Both should be a top priority for any prospective Comanche owner.
Gary Peppers,
Cape Coral, Florida
