wrote:

The
airframe on the PA24 is about 400lbs heavier than my PA28 IIRC, with only 150lbs more
gross. Sounds like a 3-place retract.

I can't disagree with that. But for many missions, that is just fine.


As far as fuel flow goes, just because you have a bigger engine doesn't mean
you need to cruise with it. With only 60 gallons on a stock PA24 though, it'd be a
little bit short on range.

60 gallons is fine for the Comanche 180. At roughly 10 gph, that is 6
hours, which is much longer than most people want to sit. The early
models of the 250 (1958 through 1960) also had 60 gallons, which is not
enough at 12 to 14 gph, particularly for IFR trips. After 1960,
virtually all the 250 and 260 models had 90 gallons. Many of the pre
1961 aircraft have added tip tanks for an additional 30 gallons and a
gross weight increase of 200 pounds (less for post 1960 models). There
is also a baggage compartment tank available (20 gallons).

I agree with you that the Comanche 250 is a fine machine. It was my
choice. But the OP specifically mentioned a Comanche 180. The 180 also
has its place and, in some circumstances, is a superior choice than a
Comanche 250.

Hank
Henry A. Spellman
Comanche N5903P