Piper Commanche vs Money 201

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 02:04:19 GMT, (Ben Jackson) wrote:

In article ,
O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
I am looking at buying one of two planes: a 1978 Mooney M20J or a 1965
Piper Commanche PA-24-260. I have test driven both and I like the
handling of both. Both are about the same price. The avionics in the
Mooney are slightly better. This is a tough choice.

I considered buying a Mooney (J or upgraded F) for a long time, but
I ended up buying a 1965 PA-24-260. I've climbed all over an M20J,
and flown one for about an hour. I've got about 50 hours now in PA-24s.

Here are some tradeoffs I can think of:

The Mooney cruises faster.

The Comanche climbs faster.

The Comanche has much more interior room and carries a greater load.

The Comanche's baggage area is more accessible, especially in 260B+
models.

I'm 6'4" and fit in both. The Mooney does it with a lot of legroom
under the instrument panel, while the Comanche has a more typical
upright seating posture.

The Mooney has only 2/3rds as many cylinders to maintain.

The Comanche doesn't have cowl flaps (unless retrofitted with an
aftermarket cowling that requires them) or ram-air (though the M20J
doesn't *need* the ram air as much as the F did).

The Comanche's systems are easier to reach, in general. For example,
the original cowling has two large doors. In contrast, the Mooney is
"build around" some of the flight control torque tubes and avoinics
access may have to be through a panel on the cowling.

Both have reliable gear systems and simple mechanical manual extension
systems. The Mooney's can be tested in flight and then retracted
electrically. The Comanche technically has to be on jacks after a
manual extension, though some claim to do it while airborn.

The Mooney uses shock absorbing pucks of rubber in a trailing-link
configuration, while the Comanche uses struts.

The Comanche has greater prop clearance as well as the better shock
absorbing which makes it more suitable for unimproved strips (though
to be fair some Mooneys regulary fly out of such strips, and neither
is as versatile as a C182, or for that matter a Cub).

The Mooney's landing light is in the cowling, the Comanche's are in
the wings.

The Mooney has an all-flying tail (trim pivots the entire thing) while
the Comanche has a stabilator. Both have very positive trim control at
cruise. The travel on the trim control is excessive at low speeds in
the Comanche, IMO. I haven't flown the M20J enough to recall.

The Mooney has a wet wing which is prone to sealing problems (some have
been retrofitted with bladders which reduce capacity a little and
are better at trapping water) while the Comanche has bladders which
can develop leaks (especially if tied down in the sun without full
fuel). If the Comanche's bladders are original they're also very old.

Most Comanches carry more fuel than most Mooneys, but also need it to
get the same range (~13gph vs ~10gph). You can probably go a little
farther (far far beyond my endurance!) in a 86gal (usable) Mooney than
a 64gal M20J, and there are Comanches with tip tanks for a total of
116gal usable.

Old Mooneys and Comanches both have atrocious panels. Some newer
Mooneys have very nice panels. Some of both have been retrofitted.
It does make them hard to compare. Well equipped examples of both
are available, you just have to shop harder for a Comanche.

Both have a loyal following of owners.

Both were made by companies which have "gone out of business" several
times, but parts availability is still reasonably good for both.

(2) Is there any other plane with similar price/performance capabilities
(cruise at better than 160nts, 750+ range) in the same price range
($75K-$100K) that I should consider?

Maybe the Commander 112/114/115. I didn't really hear anything about
them until after I bought my plane, though.


Nice summary, Ben

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)