Seems like it has a nice avionics set up and some speed mods. and well taken care of.

Link

Looks like a nice plane, but has damage history that would require a VERY THOROUGH pre-buy from someone completely divorced from the airplane.

250 Comanche's are great bird, but you need to learn to walk before you run- they're not a bird for fledgling pilot.

I don't plan on buying my own plane for at least another 2 years and a few hundred hours of flight time renting. I was just looking to see what these things go far to gauge costs. They seem to be all over the place on price.

The last thing I want to do if pilot a plane that I am not ready for.

You should look at getting a C172 or Piper Cherokee as a first airplane.   If you look hard you will find one that will take you through VFR and IFR training while allowing you to safely build hours and experience.

Compared to the rentals I was using, my plane is much nicer, better maintained, better avionics and outstanding autopilot.  It also runs LESS than 65% per hour to fly than the rentals in my area.  That is including all fixed cost and engine/prop escrow.

If you are serious about flying and think you will want to keep up with it I think ownership is a good option.   I wish I would have realized that sooner.  I pulled up my last year of renting and realized that I spent over $20,000 in 12 months renting their beat up aircraft.  That would have paid my entire portion of my aircraft (fractional ownership).

Or if you're as big as you say you are, a 182RG will carry you through training and into ownership. Just don't forget to put your gear down.

ETA: It is something you can do. When I bought mine, it took me a while to believe that I owned an airplane. Another thing, when I bought my Jeep new, I couldn't eat for three days. "What the fuck did I just do!?" The buyer's remorse hit me hard. I still have the Jeep and I'm ok with it. When I spent a weekend deliberating over whether to buy the airplane I had some anxiety. When I called the guy and said "I'll take it!" I immediately felt incredibly happy and I still do, years later. I think it's how it would feel to be married to the right woman. At the same time, when the engine quit at 200 ft on me, I immediately considered the airplane to no longer belong to me and to then belong to the insurance company and focused entirely on doing what I understood to be the best course of action to survive.

The 172 seems a little snug for me, but I can fit and I don't get uncomfortable after an hour.

The 172 is a little snug. My right  knee basically rest on the trim knob.

I think BiLLofRights also suggested the 182RG. The plane fits all my specs and missions, I don't know why I keep looking at the Comanches. That's me being having a  hard head I suppose.

I know that feeling you are talking about. It will make you sick.

Looks like a decent plane.  Engine is timed out, I don't care how good it runs.  Two blade prop should give for some fun vibrations in flight .  Nice paint, someone spent some money on that.

and quit looking at 182RG's, what did I tell you!  

It will also need a avionics upgrade in 4 years, Will need to be ADS-B compliant by Jan 1, 2020

Personally, I wouldn't be terribly excited about this one. It seems a bit over priced to me. I wouldn't be concerned about its accident history. That accident occurred nearly 50 years ago. I'd say it's been thoroughly vetted since then but a typical pre-purchase inspection should reveal any problems. As someone previously stated, the engine is ready for overhaul already. It really should have a 3 bladed prop for improved climb performance and quieter, smoother operation. The Eagle xp cowling and single piece windshield are nice improvements and the paint and interior look pretty good by picture but I can tell you from experience that paint and interiors never look as good in person as they do in the pictures.
The rest leaves much to be desired. The radios are decent but the rest of the instrumentation is lacking and their layout is abysmal. The panel is in drastic need of updating.
Ive always had a personal rule that has served me well in preserving my life in GA flying. I won't fly single pilot IFR without an HSI. That aircraft lacks one. The attitude indicator is where it ought to be but the altimeter and DG sure as hell aren't. The layout could be improved by just swapping the location of those two instruments but that's a sorry fix. It's past due for an updated panel. Look at how far out of view the rpm and manifold pressure are. That aircraft might technically qualify as being instrument certified but in actuality would be a nightmare. It's got no digital fuel flow analysis nor digital egt/cht readout. So it'd be tough to get peak performance out of that plane without running the risk of burning up a valve.
I love Comanches but for the price I think better options will come along.

It seemed high, I wasn't sure if I was missing somthing.

If you want an airplane that will haul a reasonable load, go reasonably fast and is roomier than average, look at Cessna 182's (fixed gear) or a Cherokee 235.

Both will fly around 135 knots with a hippo in the cabin and are simple enough that you could train in one, although the learning curve will be somewhat steeper to to having a constant speed propeller and cowl flaps.

I was thinking the same thing.  A 182 or Piper 235.   Fixed gear is likely best while training and building time. It is one less thing to worry about, will keep insurance and maintainence costs down and significantly lower workload.  

Either of these planes would likely serve your needs for years until you just wanted something faster or larger.   You would probably still save money over renting.  Rentals in my area go for close to $200/hr for a 172 or comparable plane.  I fly my Archer for $75/hr wet which includes escrow for annual/prop/engine.  I would think a 182 could be flown for $110/hr or thereabouts.  A lot of this price depends on engine time.  For example, if an engine is 2000 hours from TBO and will cost $30,000 your escrow/hr for engine 30,000/2000= $15/hr.  If you buy an engine almost timed out which has, say 400 hours left before TBO your escrow would be 30,000/400=$75/hr.    Now, you don't have to put back any money/hr for an engine if you prefer to just drop a $30,000 check down when the time comes.  If you have partners in the plane an engine escrow makes sense because everyone pays the share towards the engine according to their individual engine usage.  My point is that when you look at planes you need to pay close attention to the engine times.  

For now, I would stick with the 172 rental until you figure out if you will be flying long term.    When daydreaming or browsing aircraft online you may want to keep it 182 or Cherokee 235.  A high performance retrac may be a little faster and sexier but is very dangerous to fly as a low time pilot.  There is a reason that Cirrus and Bonanzas are called "Doctor killers".

I'll respectively add my 2¢ opinion. If you can fly a Cherokee 235 or a Cessna 182 then you can fly a Comanche. Learning how to fly a constant speed prop is a 1 day event. Learning to fly a retractable gear is easier than learning a constant speed prop. It's just a switch. It's up or its down. You just can't forget about it. But that's not a new concept in flying. You can't forget about switching tanks either.

As for aircraft performance...  A Comanche is nothing scary. It's fast but an aircraft's cruise speed doesn't get you killed. It's what the plane does when it gets too slow that gets ya. The stall speed of a Comanche is 1 knt faster than a 235 and 1 knt slower than a 182. And it's stall characteristics are at least as tame as theirs. It mushes along and starts to rumble and vibrate while the red stall light shines bright and the horn honks at you. Then the break is nothing more than the nose drooping down. It's not terribly sharp. Nothing sudden. No rolling tendencies.

But look at the other performance attributes the aircraft provides. Cessna 182 and Cherokee 235 range in stock configuration with full fuel is about 800nm for the 182 and 450nm for the 235. Their useful loads are near each other as well in the 1300-1400 lb area. If you get long range tanks in the Cessna the range goes up but payload goes down because there's no change in the wing.

The Comanche has a similar useful load of 1300-1400 lbs but has a range of about 1000 nm. If you get the tip tanks it actually increases its useful load by more than the tank weight and the fuel within it! Now you can go 1200 nm nonstop hauling a little more shit then you did before while maintaining vfr fuel reserves! I'm not quoting exact numbers for all these aircraft because it varies between the different models but Comanche tip tanks are generally considered a free range increase because of the reduction in tip vortice drag the tank provides the wing.

To summarize, the Comanche is much like a 182 or 235 in low speed handling (personally I think better)  but it's top end performance combined with load hauling capability is incomparable. It easily outshines anything else in its class. It's all in the wing.

From a purely maintenance perspective, I would not waste another minute looking at that aircraft.


http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=129036


shows a Comanche with that N# as having been  “Written off (damaged beyond repair)” in a 1967 accident.   Back then, repair standards were pretty loose.   Labor was cheap, parts were cheap (relatively speaking)  Most everything got fixed.   Being written off suggests it was a very substantial accident.  

Did it get sent back to Piper in pieces for repair?  I highly doubt it.   I'll bet some shop or mechanic bought it from the insurance company for scrap value and rebuilt it with whatever they could scrounge.

Was it rebuilt using factory spec'd jigs?  I doubt it.   I've done hundreds of aircraft inspections and found all kinds of tricks people used to hide damage, wrong parts, and to conceal squirrelly flying problems.   I once rebuilt a C-210 that had 3 degrees of washout in one wing, and six degrees in the other wing.   Someone jury-rigged the trim system to hide it.

This Piper is an aircraft, that when taken to a knowledgeable and honest shop for an annual, could easily bite you in the ass for $75,000 to repair hidden damage, illegal repairs, unapproved parts, etc.   I've seen this happen to a dozen new owners, with everything from a C-172 to a KingAir 200.   Some of these aircraft were eventually scrapped as the best financial solution, with the new owner taking a huge loss.   And don't expect a repair shop to run to court with you when trying to sue the seller.   That isn't how they make money to stay afloat, and they don't want the negative publicity generated by the seller's lawyers.

Having said all that,  there are very few 50 year old aircraft still around that haven't had some accident damage.   You really need an expert to look really hard at the airframe, and look really deep.   I've had to tell several owners that their aircraft has been landed gear-up, which they denied vehemently, until I pointed out the signs  Often, it is very minor things that can reveal unreported damage, like slightly newer paint, or a splice in lines or wiring.   An old aircraft with new paint is always a huge red flag to me.

Good luck.

I agree with all you said, but as anyone whose ever owned a plane will tell you, it's all about insurance.

Insurance on retract planes for low-time pilots costs damn near as much as the plane and when you add in the 'sporty' aspect- like with a Comanche 250- it goes up even more.

THAT'S why I recommended a 182 or Cherokee 235.

That's an excellent point. I always forget the insurance aspect. Insurance companies have always gone relatively easy on me since I'm an airline pilot. That and the fact that insurance on our Comanche has always been a bargain compared to the various Barons, 310s, 337s, 414s, and a de-miled jet my family has owned over the years.
I'd imagine there'll be a noticeable jump in rates between a 182 and any retractable gear aircraft for a low time pilot.

How many hours does someone need before the rates drop down?

I also just did a quick search on Cherokee 235's and they seem to be a lot less expensive than 182s, I wonder why?

That's one of my biggest worries when buying a plane. Spending all that cash and finding out the plane was shit.

Same reason a bayliner is cheap

Oh the piper guys are gonna kill me on that one

Oh snap


I did see a full LoPresti kit would add 15kts. Which would put the Cherokee 235 at the same cruise as a Comanche albeit doing it with fixed gear.

The aero kit is probably like 100k though lol

The Cessna name commands a premium in the used market.  Generally you will get more airplane for less when going with a Piper over a Cessna.  Both fly well and would serve you well.  

A nice Piper Dakota (later model Cherokee 235) would be hard to beat.  You will usually find one with less time and better avionics than a similarly priced C182.  

Also, an additional 15 knots on a 235 puts the aircraft above its max structural cruise speed (135knts) solidly in the yellow arc. And that's just at 150knts. You can do it but only in smooth air. Where as the Comanche's yellow arc doesn't start until 156 knts. This is one reason why a lopresti kit isn't all that amazing on a 235. Because as soon as you encounter any turbulence you have to slow to 135knts anyway. When you're flying a Comanche (never consider a 180hp model) and you encounter turbulence you have to slow to 156 knts.

As for insurance, you'll just have to shop around. Factors that can affect your rate are total flight time, time in type, certificates and ratings (the more the better), where you go for initial/recurrent flight training, participation in aviation safety programs (AOPA wings program as an example). When my family owned a Cessna 414 we received a better rate by attending yearly recurrent flight training in it at either SimCom, Flight Safety, or Simuflight.

Places like that won't have a program for anything you'd be shopping for but if you ever did buy a Comanche you'd want to attend the Comanche Flyer Foundation 3 day training course. It's awesome. They teach you everything there is to know about your plane. Their instructors all have a ton of Comanche experience and you train in your aircraft with them each day. When you walk out of the program you can fly the shit out of your airplane. Insurance companies look very favorably on such training.

One of the problems with Comanche's and this includes a lot of the piper's out there is the stabilator AD. Where the problem is the AD only covers the stabilator attach bolts need to be stainless. Piper has a few service bulletins that covers the rest of the assembly but no one really does anything with them because a service bulletin isn't required compliance on part 91 aircraft.
The stabilator torque tube is steel, stabilator attach bolts need to be stainless per the AD.
Now the AD doesnt cover the stabilator torque tube collar is aluminum and susceptible to cracks, should be removed and dye pen inspected and nothing drives replacing the collar bolts with stainless ones. I replaced steel torque tube collar bolts in a twin Comanche last year because the steel bolts had corroded down to less than 75% diameter inside the tube, which cannot be seen without removing the stabilator.
The stabilator torque tube bearings are sealed but can be disassembled and repacked. That requires complete disassembly and removal from the aircraft. Spraying some oil on it is not sufficient, penetrating oil will only wick in and wash away the emulsified grease. I have yet to find any that were not full of rusty crud.
Also splicing in a repair skin on those stabilators is a no no, called out in the maintenance manual so watch out some are out there, a freind of mine has sent away more than 1 customer beacause of some one doing this. This all applies to many of the piper models out there. Many pictures of the things I mentioned cracked collars and rusted bolts. And no torque tube collars are available anymore as far as I know.

If the parts aren't available anymore how do you fix it?

You have to buy from aircraft salvage hopefully their parts are better than yours. A lot of general aviation's problem is product support and a dwindling spares supply.
With a known problem like a cracked cast aluminum torque tube collar? You will be likely be parked until one can be found.

The infamous Comanche stabilator horn airworthiness directive is an issue that has been epically blown out of proportion. A few Comanche stabilator horns were found with cracks due to overtorquing the mount bolts. To this day not one single Comanche has suffered an inflight control join failure. But now the FAA has a repetitive AD out on it that requires you to check the horn for cracks every 500 hours. But there is an "alternative method of compliance" (AMOC) that eliminates this AD. It's called the Australian horn. A company in Australia builds an overbuilt version of the horn that, once installed, is a fix and forget lifetime correction. Most people just comply with the 500 hour inspection because it's not that big of a deal. But if they ever found cracks in your horn and it needed replacing then the Aussies have a readily available fix.
As for making sure the correct bolts are used in the mounting of any horn, factory made or Australian, well that's the purpose of a pre-purchase inspection and making sure you hire quality wrench-turners and not idiots to work on your plane.
But, again, there hasn't been one single recorded horn failure in the history of the Comanche.

Eta:

That's really cool how they have that Comanche school. I bet you learn a ton.

I did notice that, I wonder why?

With the tech we have, as in CNC machining, the FAA really needs to allow for machine shops to make parts like this. I mean how much more QC you want than a part made on a CNC machine?

I like those types of fixes. Problem solved, problem staying solved.

I was completely thrown off that there is an AD for the horn/collar. Just looked it up and noticed it doesn't cover twin Comanche, I have only had to mess with the twins so you caught me by surprise.

They do you just need FAA PMA approval and then you can crank em out.

That sounds like an expensive approval, or is it a streamlined process?

This is the federal government we're dealing with here, man. Worse yet, the FAA. Nothing is streamlined. These people live for paperwork and beurocratic red tape.

This plus the liability/insurance.  Then you have to figure how many crappy A&P's will pencil whip it vs. buying your expensive part.  How many do you need to sell to recoup the cost?

I always wondered why the engine tech is the way it is.

I know this much, the big move that some want  to diesel IMO isn't the right direction at all.

The diesel thing would be good, as jet A generally is quite a bit cheaper than avgas, plus the burn rate is lower.  

I meant from an engineering stand point. a common rail system sitting like a GA aircraft does is a recipe for disaster.

lol, it's still aviation, so its om topic

A friend of ours just bought this 260 yesterday. It's a very clean plane with a low-time engine, good paint, good interior, modern panel lay out ready for upgrades but perfectly useful as is. He payed about 65,000. This is a perfect example of why I wasn't super excited about the one you posted. This one will be much easier to improve upon for a reasonable price than the one you listed.

I'm not excited about the Commanche in the OP.  Its engine might be running great right now, but request the oil analyses and I betcha the trends are all going the wrong way.  1600 hours and 24 years takes a toll.  I wonder how many of those hours were even in the last year?

The 530 is nice and all but it isn't the WAAS version.  That means you're still behind the game for 2020 ADS-B out compliance.  For $82K I would expect a WAAS source at the minimum, even if it didn't yet have a 1090ES transponder onboard.

Run those numbers through Vref and I'll wager it's over-priced by quite a bit.

But back to you being a big guy and considering 182s...

5 years ago I bought my first plane (still own it, flew yesterday) a C-182E.  It is ALMOST the perfect airplane for me.  Let me explain:

First, the good points.  Like you, I am a big pilot (though I've lost a LOT of weight since then).  The wide-body 182s (E-variant and later, 1962 model year on) is GREAT for us.  I've flown my bird from Ohio to California with somebody in the right seat and never felt crowded.  Usually stick a cooler between the seats for inflight refreshment.  Also, my bird has the Horton STOL kit, this gives it stupidly awesome low-speed handling characteristics.  Even other pilots are amazed at what my bird can do at low air speeds.  I can do slow flight with ZERO indicated airspeed and hold altitude (at least until the oil gets too hot)!  Useful load of 1,136 pounds is nice, too.  I have flown with 4 real-sized dudes (not non-existent FAA standard persons) and overnight bags without issue.  I've accumulated ice in it twice (which is 2 times more than I ever wanted to experience) and it behaved well while I got my ass out of those conditions.  Been as high as 14,500' going over the mountains into PHX (on oxygen, naturally).  Handled crosswinds that I would never recommend to others.  Hell, I even killed a coyote with it (not a typo).  Fixed gear 182s are SUPERB aircraft.  They are ideal for fairly low-time, large-sized pilots who want real performance while retaining that tame Cessna feel you got from your 172 trainer.

Now, the points I regret.  First, those old birds have all had their fuel bladders replaced (run if you're looking at one with originals).  That drops your useable fuel from the original 64 (out of 65 total) to just 54 gallons!  Flight plan at 13 gph (which I admit is conservative but that's how I fly, conservatively) and your range is now 3:15+IFR reserves.  In fairness, my bladder wants a break after 3 hours anyway but still more range is nice especially when you're solo and have an empty drink bottle to piss in (always bring wide mouth bottles in your cooler...).  Also, 130 knots is fast enough until you're bucking headwinds, then you'll want a lot more speed.  So about now you're probably thinking, "Yeah, so a 182RG would be better then, right?"  Sure, they're great and I've flown one for my complex endorsement but still, they are expensive.  Your best bet, and what I still wish I'd have bought in the first place, is a 210D or later that your pre-buy mechanic goes over the gear mechanism WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB.  The 210Ds up until the last year they had struts can be had for a song because everybody wants the strutless ones ("L" variant and later, IIRC).  Sure, ditching the struts increases the speed even more but it's a lot more money.  Also, the 210 is a fuel-injected engine, my 182 has a carb and I have gotten carb ice more than once.  I just recently had a carb temp sensor put in and it is quite revealing!

In summary, if I could go back in time 5 years I'd tell myself to find a STOL equipped 210D-K.  You owe it to yourself to at least shop those options.

yeah that's one clean plane. very nice.

what are the rules of recovering your seats and re doing your interior?

wow thanks for the detailed advice.

I have plenty time to buy and there are so many choices out there.

I am still trying to decide if I want to mess with  retractable landing gear or not. I did some flight planning and on a normal trip I would only save 10 minutes going 150kts vs 135kts. On my longest trip I would save a 1/2 to 45 minutes, That's still not bad because that long trip would be broken up into two 2 hour legs.

Insurance rates being lower is also a plus.

Does a 210 handle similarly to a 172/182? I heard they are nose heavy.

Almost run out engine.  Some buyers look at that as a plus, since they can rebuild the engine to their satisfaction.  But price the overhaul that you want, and factor that into your offer.  I think the price seems high, but I don't follow Piper prices.  You could get an older, nice Bo for that money.

There are many upholstery shops that can do whatever you want. Flammability and fume emission rules are extremely relaxed to nonexistent for GA aircraft. It's just a matter of picking out what you like and cutting a check.

That's good to know.

That seems to be a common theme with this plane.

First, ignore that "nose-heavy" crap all the low-horsepower pilots spew at you.  You don't need that kind of negativity in your life!  People told me the same thing about the 182 - that the 6 cylinder engine made it "nose-heavy" and that made landings harder.  An hour of pattern work later it was a non-issue.  See, airplanes come with this fancy thing called an "elevator trim wheel" that counteracts any "nose-heaviness" it might have (within allowable CG, naturally).  If you must, you can keep a 5-gallon water bladder or a case of oil in the baggage compartment for when you fly solo.  When I flew to California I knew I'd be traversing a lot of desert so I opted for the water.  YMMV.

That extra 15 knots means little if you disregard winds.  But what about those days where you're bucking 40-knot headwinds?  Especially in the winter flying westbound.  Now it is a difference of 90-knots ground speed versus 105 knots ground speed, that's a noticeable difference.

As to insurance rates - those numbers drop fast as you accrue your first 500 hours (I'm over that number now).  When I first got my bird insurance was expensive but it is not as big deal today.  The biggest driver after hours is hull value (so buying a cheaper plane equals cheaper insurance) and number of seats (so even though some 210s can seat 6 you would save dollars to keep only 4 seats in it at least until you've built up plenty of time).  I'd encourage you to find a controller.com ad for a fixed gear 182 you like and a 210 you like then email both of those links to your aviation insurance agent and ask for quotes.  Then divide the price for each airplane by the quote to get a "plane price per insurance dollar" ratio - you might be surprised how similar those numbers are.

Where insurance gets stupid is for multi-engines.  I've had that quoted...after I stopped vomiting I was just about cured of my desire to own a twin.

I definitely found the 210 to be heavier on the controls than a 182. And a 182 more than a 172. And a 172 more than a 152. But it's a good heaviness. It always makes it feel like a more solid aircraft. I always felt like a 210 was a near ideal IFR platform. As Morne said, it's not an issue. A little pattern work and you're used to it.

that's good to know. I am not sure how long it will take me to get to 500 hours.

I guess I am still caught up on RG being a Mx night mare. The 210 numbers sure do look very impressive though.

Above everything else, safety is my priority.