19 Apr 2024, 23:11 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Comanche 400 advice Posted: 21 Jan 2023, 10:58 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/05/14 Posts: 2849 Post Likes: +2869 Company: WA Aircraft Location: Fort Worth, TX (T67)
Aircraft: 1969 Bonanza E33C
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'll ask the question from the perspective of ignorance.
There are thousands of 180, 250, and 260 hp Comanche's out there. It doesn't require Superman to fly them. Other than being more nose heavy, what's so different about the 400? Why can't you just throw 50 pounds (or a hundred or...) in the back and go fly it like a surprisingly powerful Comanche 250? Nothing, we’re not talking about a space shuttle.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Comanche 400 advice Posted: 21 Jan 2023, 11:12 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Other than being more nose heavy, what's so different about the 400? Torque and power. In certain regimes, notably nearing stall, going full throttle can put enough torque into the system to make it exciting. Everything related to torque, such as rudder input, is more critical. I would want my instructor to have 400 time, or at least some high powered warbird time (like T6, T28, etc) so they understand power and torque effects. That all said, a 400 is still a Comanche and it will fly fine with near turbine smoothness (particularly if the fuel injectors are balanced). Despite the extra power and fuel capacity, it doesn't actually go that much faster or further than a 260. It is a bit of a unicorn, so you will need to be mindful of certain parts that are unique to the airplane like fuel cells, cowling, prop, etc. You won't own it as much as you will curate it like a flyable museum piece. I have about 1000 hours in a 260B. Comanches are nice airplanes, good performers, but have quirks. Far too many of them end up gear up, too, for whatever reason. If I needed to go back to the piston single retract class, I'd be looking for a nice 260B again. All Comanche owners need to know Webco in Newton, KS, for parts. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Comanche 400 advice Posted: 21 Jan 2023, 12:06 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/02/10 Posts: 7252 Post Likes: +4520 Company: Inscrutable Fasteners, LLC Location: West Palm Beach - F45
Aircraft: Planeless
|
|
Honestly, a plane like a 400 is a simple ego trip like a 56TC. I'm not saying that in a bad way, but it's probably important to recognize it for what it is. It doesn't really add anything to the mission other than being what it is.
Even when they were producing these birds, it was the rough equivalent to super-mega-firebird-XLR...the old firebird chassis that is over engined, under braked and under handled. and there were probably a half-dozen other airframes that could do the same mission with less drama.
As someone pointed out, these birds require caretaking, in addition to maintaining. It isn't like you're going to call Piper and say "Yes, connect me to the Comanche 400 desk please".
As I said, if that's the program, cool, good on him, but understand what it is you're getting involved with.
Best, Rich
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Comanche 400 advice Posted: 21 Jan 2023, 12:32 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/17/18 Posts: 2500 Post Likes: +3475 Location: Alamogord, NM
Aircraft: PA-30 Twin Comanche
|
|
100-150lbs in the baggage area helps a lot when landing. No flaps is easier too when learning. Treat it like taildragger when flaring.
If you need to go around, only use about half throttle until you can get the trim caught up.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Comanche 400 advice Posted: 21 Jan 2023, 12:32 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/27/09 Posts: 257 Post Likes: +79 Location: Santiago, Chile (SCTB)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
|
|
I owned a Comanche 250 for 20 years before transitioning to the B55. I still regret selling her and the Comanche still is my preferred airplane to fly. The 400 is evidently nose heavier than the 250, but other flight characteristics and aerodynamics are very similar. It is a beast to fly and it is not unusual to observe 185-190 KTAS in the 400 (the 250 cruises at 155 KTAS typically). It suffers from some overheating if you are not careful with airspeed in hight performance climbs.
The NACA airfoil is extremely efficient but suffers from abrupt stalling, making landings a little less forgiving compared to any of its counterparts. It takes some practice to consistently land her like a gentleman. I only used full flaps when at maximum weight, as more than 10 degrees flap will induce you to land with the nose wheel first, a big no-no for Comanches as a porpoising is guaranteed. I would say the most complex part of transitioning to the Comanche are landings.
Pilot visibility is somewhat limited with the beautiful squared windshields. There is a STC to install Cherokee-like windshields, but that would deface such a beautiful design, in my opinion.
Whatever passes through the main door will not put the airplane out of CG limits provided the MTOW is observed. The plane is really a cargo machine if you don't have to take off with full tanks. My 250 had about 5 hours of autonomy, way more than my bladder.
It takes some time to get used to the stabilator trim, but after some time it is fun to raise your hand to the ceiling every now and then.
Emergency landing gear operation os also a difficulty, as once deployed manually for training you must have the plane on jacks to re engage the system properly.
Maintenance wise, the landing gear requires bungees being replaced on schedule. It is a cheap insurance as it contributes to maintaining the gear locked down. A worn bungee will increase the odds of a gear colapse in a cross-wind landing. Inspect the conduits that actuate the mechanism upon purchase, as they are a source of problems too. The stabilator axe is also a source of problems because of corrosion. It is an expensive fix compared to the rest, which is very economical to maintain.
Besides that flying a Comanche is a joy.... and very efficient too (I doubt with your friend's IO-720 though).
The Comanche has a wonderful owner's association called Comanche Flyer. It provided me with invaluable information to keep my bird, just like BT does.
Enjoy the flying.
Some pictures of my late bird:
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Comanche 400 advice Posted: 21 Jan 2023, 12:44 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/21/11 Posts: 512 Post Likes: +592 Location: Northside of Atlanta
Aircraft: RV-6 & RV-10
|
|
Nice looking Comanche. I considered buying into a partnership that had one. Several things ended that quest, but the ones that stood out were: 1) The visibility. That windshield looks very jet age modern, but I'd prefer more visibility. 2) The pimp-tastic interiors. Who thought bright red, electric blue, etc were good interior colors? Arrgh.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Comanche 400 advice Posted: 21 Jan 2023, 12:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/10/18 Posts: 108 Post Likes: +182 Company: Sugarbush Soaring Association
Aircraft: Gliders and others
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 1800 hrs of Comanches single and twin, the 400 isn’t just a plane and you figure it out in… you will significantly increase your chances of damaging yourself or the aircraft Like Mike I worked for a Comanche “dealer” specializing in the whole line and flew many hours in all models. I agree with Mike - the model needs pretty specific knowledge and skills, nothing exceptional but different enough to cause problems for the uninitiated. The 400 has some real specific differences. It’s a beast and I loved. As a good CFI, one always has to know the aircraft and student. Regards, Tom
_________________ Tom Anderson Sugarbush Soaring Warren-Sugarbush Airport 0B7 @towpilot helpyouthsoar.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Comanche 400 advice Posted: 21 Jan 2023, 13:03 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I wonder what altitude the lines cross between a turbo 260 and a 400. Pretty high, oxygen altitudes. My brother has a turbo 260C and to go ~180 KTAS is probably about 15,000 ft. So if you want non oxygen altitude punch, the 400 is the Comanche, but get used to 20+ GPH fuel flows. Think of the 400 like a 404 cu in V8 in a 1970s sports car. A lot of muscle, maybe too much, and easy to get in trouble with. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Comanche 400 advice Posted: 21 Jan 2023, 13:32 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/18/10 Posts: 304 Post Likes: +242
Aircraft: bonanza 35j
|
|
My mechanic/instructor/ friend/ piper dealer, owned one for 40 years. Mainly flew at 11,000-12,000 for low power settings but good speed. Always kept the old original oil filter, he thought the new paper filters contributed to the high engine temperature. High temps and fuel burn kept the plane as high altitude cross country bird. He owned every Piper made, the 400 he kept till he died. Plane ownership is not about practically. 8 cylinders in an air cooled engine is not practical.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Comanche 400 advice Posted: 21 Jan 2023, 13:43 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/01/19 Posts: 741 Post Likes: +340
Aircraft: In market
|
|
Username Protected wrote: in addition to the Comanche flyers group you might want to check out Mooney space. M20Doc owns one and is pretty active. He’s also got a good shop and maintains Comanches as well.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Comanche 400 advice Posted: 21 Jan 2023, 14:03 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/02/09 Posts: 1340 Post Likes: +404 Company: Nantucket Rover Repair Location: Manchester, NH (MHT)
Aircraft: Cessna N337JJ
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I wonder what altitude the lines cross between a turbo 260 and a 400. Pretty high, oxygen altitudes. My brother has a turbo 260C and to go ~180 KTAS is probably about 15,000 ft. So if you want non oxygen altitude punch, the 400 is the Comanche, but get used to 20+ GPH fuel flows. Think of the 400 like a 404 cu in V8 in a 1970s sports car. A lot of muscle, maybe too much, and easy to get in trouble with. Mike C.
How fast could a 400 go at 15,000 and what would be the fuel burn?
Do you know if they will run LOP? If they can GPH probably would be that bad.
being the largest displacement in small piston singles it makes sense that it CAN burn a lot of gas but if you run a 260 at 75% and a 400 at 50% or about 200 hp would they go the same speed at the same GPH?
Again being a large engine it would make sense that it would be expensive to overhaul but not far off from turbo 540s. Airpower shows new IO-720-A1Bs are $205K and a new TIO-540AE2A found in a Piper Malibu are $196K. I know most people don't buy new engines but I wanted to make it apple to apples.
Getting its power from displacement rather than boost the power to weight ratio and power per cube is lower so I think it would be reasonable to think a 720 would live a longer life and less maintenance throughout its life.
What do you think?
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|