Twin Comanche comparisons

There is no difference in the measurements, although the later models
appear to be larger. The limiting factor is the main spar crossing the
cabin. The front of the spar is at the front of the second seats.

There is a myth that the later Comanches were stretched. They were not.
The overall length (excluding the prop extensions on the "C" model
singles) changed only fractions of an inch among the various models.
Adding the third set of windows only made the inside seem larger.

As to comfort of the second seat, at six feet one inch and 230 pounds, I
have been quite comfortable in the back seat of my 1959 single the few
times I have ridden back there. There was plenty of head room for a few
more inches of height. I can only assume that later models were no worse.

There is no practical difference between the cabins of the single and
twin Comanches of the same year.

Hank
Henry A. Spellman
Comanche N5903P


Dico wrote:
Hello There,

I am wondering if someone can point me to a site or give me information
on the cabin sizes between the early Twin Comanches and the later
models that have the extra window. I'm curious as to the leg room a
back seat passenger may have. ie: would someone 6'5" and 250lbs be
comfortable back there?

Thank you,

Dico

Henry A. Spellman wrote:
There is no difference in the measurements, although the later models
appear to be larger. The limiting factor is the main spar crossing the
cabin. The front of the spar is at the front of the second seats.

This is a fact. The cabin dimentions for all Comanches never changed,
other than to ad 5/6th seats to the later singles and twins.

Personally I think the back seat/seats are actually rather spacious
in Comanches. The hard part is actually climbing in and out.

On 28-Jan-2006, "Henry A. Spellman" wrote:

As to comfort of the second seat, at six feet one inch and 230 pounds, I
have been quite comfortable in the back seat of my 1959 single the few
times I have ridden back there. There was plenty of head room for a few
more inches of height. I can only assume that later models were no worse.


The main determinant as to rear seat LEGroom in a Comanche (and in most
modern 4-seat GA airplanes for than matter) is how far back the front seat
is located. If the front seat occupant is relatively short and thus draws
his/her seat forward, the rear seat legroom becomes quite spacious.

--
-Elliott Drucker

I'm also remembering that there wasn't a whole lot of headroom left for
anyone over about 6'2". Unless this guy has long legs and a shorter than
normal trunk for a person 6' 5" tall, I suspect headroom will also be an
issue. He only weighed in at 250 so he might "be all legs", but I'd sure
want to check it out before setting off on a long cross-country.

-----Original Message-----
From:
]
Posted At: Saturday, January 28, 2006 5:29 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
Conversation: Twin Comanche comparisons
Subject: Twin Comanche comparisons


On 28-Jan-2006, "Henry A. Spellman" wrote:

As to comfort of the second seat, at six feet one inch and 230
pounds, I
have been quite comfortable in the back seat of my 1959 single the
few
times I have ridden back there. There was plenty of head room for a
few
more inches of height. I can only assume that later models were no
worse.


The main determinant as to rear seat LEGroom in a Comanche (and in
most
modern 4-seat GA airplanes for than matter) is how far back the front
seat
is located. If the front seat occupant is relatively short and thus
draws
his/her seat forward, the rear seat legroom becomes quite spacious.

--
-Elliott Drucker