They do take a little practice to perfect landings. However, after about a dozen landings, you get the hang of it. If you've ever landed an SR22, they are very similar. Maintain airspeed, fly her down to the runway and a very small flare close to the ground.

I can grease it everytime.

It's a little hard to give advice without knowing the whole situation, but regardless of the merits of Comanche vs. Bonanza:

*) If a non-airworthy Bonanza is sold the price will be extremely low, so how can the buyer expect to get enough money out to buy another plane? If the money isn't available to fix the Bonanza, how is their money to buy a Comanche? Maybe I am misunderstanding the way the loans / credit works on the deal... Is the Comanche so cheap that the salvage value on an unairworthy Bonanza will buy it?

*) The things on the Bonanza that need to be fixed are known, the ones on the Comanche are unknown. Could be just as much to fix? Anything the buyer can do to find this out will be time well spent.

Its not so much that the Bo cant be fixed I currently have everything to complete her again however what I was looking at was I am still with an old E225 with intended purpose of the plane I would be stopping for fuel where with the Comanche I would have the extended fuel range and the reliability of the Lycoming. I am just looking at where I am best putting my money. but yes the Comanche is a very good deal just some small upkeep things to do and the fact even though I love the look of my polished Bo she is a pain in the rear to keep polished as she is polished alum airframe. but when polished she is a like a mirror. And on the coast where I work is a harsh environment on bare aluminum and a paint job is out of the question right now. Don't get me wrong the Bo has always been my fav plane both looking and flying. I have owned several planes a 74 Cessna 150, 1956 Cessna 172, 1974 AA-1 Yankee, 1968 Arrow PA28-180-R 1955 F35 Bo and now the 1962 Comanche PA24-250. All planes had their good and bad aspects but they all had their good too. I wish I didn't have to sell the Bo and could keep both. but 2 hangers 2 annuals I would end up divorced.

Did I miss it or did you define your mission?

How many people do you usually fly with?

fly to work from TX (F05) to Houma, LA (KHUM) by myself and then most other flights from TX to Chattanooga, TN 3 adults and sometimes 4 in F35 was impossible due to weight and CG very doable in the Comanche by what I am seeing in performance charts and weight and balance sheets. Granted I used to be a lot bigger used to be 317 but now 218 that's an additional 99 that's opened up lol. Thanks to gastric sleeve. and with the Comanche's 86 gal fuel cap that makes it a non-stop flights compared to before having to stop. I sure wish I could keep both.... This is gut wrenching

My first plane was a 1961 Comanche 250. I wanted a Bonanza, but couldn't get the money together in time. Came across the Comanche for about half the price...

The short main gear, laminar flow airfoil, and the stabilator do require you to refine your technique, but I have found that it helped me make better landings in other planes I have owned.

It was a great plane, and while parts were a little more difficult to find from time to time, it wasn't bad.

Here's are the best mods I did to mine while I had it:

- Installed Metco Hoerner-styled wing tips and Knots-2-U flap and aileron gap seals, and wing root fairings. It dropped the stall significantly, and made slow flight about like an Arrow.
- One-piece windshield
- Cherokee upper door latch

K2U and others have numerous other mods if you are so inclined...

Worst issue I had was with the O-540 exhaust. You do have to stay on top of that...

There was another AD on the prop that caused folks grief at the time (about 20-years ago). Those props may have all been replaced by now, but that would be another to check on.

the only caution I'd offer on a comanche is don't neglect the bungees. They are required to be changed every 3 years but I'd just change them every annual for peace of mind. They are cheap and once you get the knack of it, not too hard to change.

When piper designed the comanche they set out to make a plane as good as a bonanza that could be sold cheaper. The succeeded in goal #1 and then they did proceed to sell them cheaper than bo's. The problem is that when you make a plane as good as a bo, it costs as much to build as a bo. Piper was going broke selling comanches, which led to the cherokee, designed solely as a cost-reduction and parts-count-reduction airplane compared to the comanche. As much as the cherokees are crude, the comanche is to the same degree a work of art especially the wing construction.

love both.

Comanche landings no big deal after a little practice. take off/climb performance with 4 200 pounders is amazing. the lyc 540 just chugs happily along. i saw + - 155kts TAS typically.

Thanks Tom I had already planned that I will change the bungees every yr at annual matter of fact the plane has only been sitting since nov 14 when he died in his accident. I plan on changing them before I even ferry the plane home for a through annual. The former owner was an A&P -IA and I know he was through but with my but on the line so am I if you know what I mean.

Don't put much stock into this. You show me a bunch of IA's who annual their own plane and I'll show you a bunch of guys who are more likely to pencil whip it.

Sounds spot on.

As someone who's flown a lot of both (though I have more BE35 hours since I own one), I can say that almost everything in this thread, and particularly Mike's post is right on the money.

Speed - about the same

Comfort - the BE35 wins, easily. Particularly since you can't access the baggage compartment on the PA24-250 while in flight

Engine - If we're talking E225 vs. O-540 or IO-540, The Lycoming is much more bullet proof.

Handling - Preflight - PA24 has nothing useful to inspect. all nuts and bolts are hidden which is great for a fast preflight but horrible for finding anything. The sump is an atrocity, you need two people to do it, one to lie under the airplane with the container and the other in the airplane pulling the lever and switching tanks.

Handling - Takeoff - Similar except the PA24 uses 15 degrees of flaps for all takeoffs so its another thing to remember to pull up.

Handling - Cruise - Both are well balanced and easy on the controls.

Handling - Descent - ICS still teaches (at least they did when I took the course) to not pull more than 2"MP per minute due to "shock cooling." APS teaches that shock-cooling is a myth. When you own the engine, you can decide which is right.

Handling - Landing - WOW, big difference! The Comanche wing flies nicely into the stall and then it just doesn't. Not one bit. If your flare is not exactly an inch from the runway, you're going to have a hard landing. It's also necessary to be dead on speed. 87 mph (not knots) from downwind to touchdown and you have a 90% chance of doing well. Anything else and THUD. The Bonanza is WAYYYYY more docile. By the way, a Comanche with VGs is very different on landing. I had the nice experience of flying a PA24 before and after VG install and it was like flying two different airplanes.


Honestly, I'd choose the PA24 over a H35 or lesser unless the BE35 has something other than an E-series engine. A lot will depend on panel. If the panel has been upgraded to a 6-pack in one, that's probably the one I'd choose.

Daniel, the H35 doesn't have the e-series engine. It has a 470. Mine is an injected 470.

The O-540 is heads and shoulder better than the E series motor. Parts and prop options. The Comanche owners club is a fantastic resource. There are aerodynamic mods that really do increase the airspeed significantly when installed together. Based on your stated purpose, an excellent choice.

[quote="Daniel Katz"][quote="Mike Brannigan"]Tricky to land well. That stabilator won't fool any of your passengers into thinking you're Chuck Yeager.

Comfort - the BE35 wins, easily. Particularly since you can't access the baggage compartment on the PA24-250 while in flight

Handling - Takeoff - Similar except the PA24 uses 15 degrees of flaps for all takeoffs so its another thing to remember to pull up.

Handling - Landing - WOW, big difference! The Comanche wing flies nicely into the stall and then it just doesn't. Not one bit. If your flare is not exactly an inch from the runway, you're going to have a hard landing. It's also necessary to be dead on speed. 87 mph (not knots) from downwind to touchdown and you have a 90% chance of doing well. Anything else and THUD. The Bonanza is WAYYYYY more docile. By the way, a Comanche with VGs is very different on landing. I had the nice experience of flying a PA24 before and after VG install and it was like flying two different airplanes.


As a recent Comanche 260C owner, and still learning it, I generally agree. As for comfort, however, the Comanche cabin is wider than a Bo and has lots of lateral room. (I'm not sure why you would want to go into the baggage compartment in flight so I don't see that as a drawback. )

Takeoff flaps are optional, at least for the 260; POH says 0-15 is normal. The consensus among Comanche pilots seems to be to use 0 except on a short field, high density altitude, etc.

Landing, here the Comanche gets a bad rap. It does take some getting used to, but so far I have found it to be easy to land smoothly. Just keep it on speed. Of course, every once in a while you flare a little high and get a real arrival, but practice mostly cures that.

In short, 3 months in I'm happy with the purchase.

Frank