I noticed you indicated a sweet spot for the PA28-180, but
didn't talk about the 235, why was it eliminated or was it not
considered?
Actually, he *did* consider the Cherokee 235/236. I quote:
"- Several fixed gear/cs prop models fit the bill. I like the numbers of
the Piper Cherokee 235 (PA-28-235/236) line and the Piper Cherokee Six
(PA-32-260/300/301) line. Ultimately, the bang/buck thing has me leaning to
the Comanche. Comments on that position?"
Personally, I LOVE the Comanche. It is, in my opinion, the ultimate Piper
single to own, perhaps with the exception of the Malibu Meridian. In fact,
the first plane I wanted to buy was a Comanche...
However (there's ALWAYS a "however"), the age and complexity of the beast
MUST be considered. It's been out of production for decades, and many of
these airframes are getting VERY long in the tooth. Thus far obtaining
parts has not been a problem, but this situation won't continue
indefinitely. And finding A&Ps who are familiar with Comanches is not
going to get any easier over time.
The later, stretch-bodied PA28-235s (like our Pathfinder) are superior to
the Comanche 250 in some important ways. (All data obtained he
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/i...plane405.shtml)
1. Useful load. We have a 1460 pound useful load -- the highest in class.
The Comanche 250's is very good, at 1110 pounds -- but if you're interested
in hauling four real people the Pathfinder wins.
2. Range. We carry 84 gallons of fuel, which gives us an incredible range.
The Comanche 250 carries 60 gallons, which gives it an okay range.
3. Maintenance. The Pathfinder wins here, hand's down. Both planes utilize
the Lycoming O-540, but the Pathfinder's is de-tuned to 235 horses. The
Comanche's is pushed a bit harder, running at 250 horses. We burn a bit
less fuel, and the engine (should, in a perfect world) last a bit longer.
Also, the fixed gear of the Pathfinder saves you $$$$ at annual each year.
Several A&Ps told me to estimate an extra $1K per year in maintenance costs
associated with the Comanche's retractable gear. Some years you won't spend
that, others you'll spend way more. Over the lifetime of the plane, you
could easily save yourself many thousands of dollars by sticking with
straight legs.
And, of course, the intangible costs of maintaining a plane that is long out
of production come into play. Although the Pathfinder/Dakota series hasn't
been made in 20 years, many of the parts are shared by the currently
produced Archer. And the knowledge-base for working on the Cherokee line is
so similar as to be considered identical in most important ways.
Now let's talk about areas that the Comanche wins.
1. Speed. The Comanche does win in speed, of course. We cruise at 140
knots, while the Comanche cruises at 157 knots. To put this in
perspective, our flight to St. Louis this weekend took us 1:18. In the
Comanche 250, it would have taken us 1:10.
Now, of course, most Pathfinders aren't so quick (ours has been highly
modified by previous owners), but the point is still this: You've got to go
a VERY long ways for minor speed differences to matter.
2. Looks. There is little doubt that the Comanche is a VERY handsome
airplane. Our Pathfinder is as good as it gets for a Cherokee, but a
Comanche looks heavy and authoritative by comparison. If "ramp appeal" is a
priority, the Comanche wins.
3. Climb. You're in a high altitude area, and the Comanche's extra horses,
lower fuel capacity and longer wing may make all the difference to you,
since they give it a 1350 FPM rate of climb. We climb out at around 800 FPM
with four of us and full fuel, and hit 1600 FPM with two of us and "only" 60
gallons on board.
Of course, you can always leave 24 gallons of fuel on the ground and easily
match the Comanche's climb rate, so I guess this is a tie, depending on how
important range is to you.
4. Altitude. The Pathfinder's stubby wing doesn't allow it to touch the
Comanche's 20K ceiling. Of course, without oxygen, neither will you -- and
I've flown over the mountains in our Pathfinder -- so (to me, in Iowa,
anyway) that's a moot point.
The guy who owned our Pathfinder before us upgraded to a Comanche 400, which
is THE Comanche to own, IMHO. Of course, he put over $35K in engine
maintenance alone into it in 2004, so that bird should be regarded as a
"collector's item" in the real world. (Although he *does* fly the pants off
of it, flying it to the Ozarks nearly every weekend...)
Personally, if money were no object, I'd buy the Comanche in a heartbeat.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"