BeechTalk - BT - Bonanza F35 vs Piper Comanche PA24-250

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Apr 2016, 12:34

Username Protected wrote:

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

I'm aware, but I felt that I wanted an injected engine and the H35 only has an O-470. I Also understand, though have not confirmed, that overhauling the pressure carb on that O-470 is getting difficult.

That said, there are certainly examples of <=H35 airplanes which have 470s and even 520 engines.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Apr 2016, 12:45

Username Protected wrote:

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.
Frank

My logbook shows about 200 hours in PA24s with only 35 of those hours being as CFI. Of all the landings I made, only two stand out. One was as a student during my BFR, the instructor pulled the engine and the resulting landing could've broken rivets, but didn't. Without power, the landings are VERY firm. The other was at max gross landing weight (oh, did I forget to mention you can takeoff at a weight higher than its legal to land? Humm, forgot to mention that.) after a long descent. I kept some power on, but still it was a thumper.

I've said before, and I'll say again, 90% of Comanche landings are just fine. The last 1 out of ten will humble you and you'll have no idea why or how to avoid it next time. I don't have that problem in the Bonanza. 99.99% of my Bonanza landings (from the first day I've owned it) are great. I've let pilots with nothing more than 172 experience land the Bonanza and they do just fine.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Apr 2016, 16:29

Quote:

I've said before, and I'll say again, 90% of Comanche landings are just fine. The last 1 out of ten will humble you and you'll have no idea why or how to avoid it next time.

Now that you mention it, there was one last week that I wish I could have back . . . . :whiteflag:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Apr 2016, 20:11

Username Protected wrote:

Quote:

I've said before, and I'll say again, 90% of Comanche landings are just fine. The last 1 out of ten will humble you and you'll have no idea why or how to avoid it next time.

Now that you mention it, there was one last week that I wish I could have back . . . . :whiteflag:

Don't beat yourself up about it. Any Comanche pilot who says he always makes smooth landings is a liar because he's either lying about his landings or lying about being a Comanche pilot.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 19:03

Now that you mention it, there was one last week that I wish I could have back . . . . :whiteflag:

[/quote]

Don't beat yourself up about it. Any Comanche pilot who says he always makes smooth landings is a liar because he's either lying about his landings or lying about being a Comanche pilot.[/quote]

Really funny you say that about the landings. Once I was taught to carry just a bit of power over the numbers, and shave ~2 kts off for every 100lbs under gross (see ICS tips manual), I was greasing the landings left and right and feeling like a pro ... until that one thumper every ten or fifteen or so that would make me scratch my head and have no clue what happened! That low posture has to have some impact on ground effect too, a laminar wing that close to the ground? But what a short/soft field bird light on fuel and one notch (9 degrees) of manual flaps.

If it wasn't for the form, fit, & function specifically handling and payload on my new to me A36 (and my new job$) I would still have my Comanche. I tried a Saratoga, then flew a 36, then said "no bread truck for me" and have been LOVING my Bo. For your mission the 260 would be great.

+1 on the maintenance comments above, Webco and others are awesome. I miss my Lycoming, new cylinders at 500 hours is unheard of in that world. I asked a couple of the old guys how to run that Lycoming, wide open was the only answer I got! OK oversimplifying, but you know what I mean. Lots of salvage parts out there too, although prices have been creeping up. ICS is great, they did a trip to Cuba recently I almost showed up to in my 36 (my membership hasn't even expired yet!)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 May 2016, 16:57

Have owned my 260B for a little over two years now and about 225 hours. I normally cruise at 155kts true burning 12.5GPH ROP :duck:

. I normally just keep enough fuel in the Aux tanks to keep the bladders wet. When I do go full fuel I still have 677lbs of payload. Mostly tanking fuel to offset high cost away from home base. Its a great flying airplane. Wider than the Bonanza but you lose a lot of headroom and when in the pattern this is very noticeable. With the aux's empty my payload is right at 879lbs, that's with still be able to fly four and a half hours with vfr reserves. As far as landing if you don't stay on speed 85mph over the numbers for me and you flare a bit high your gonna know it. Friday night in Tulsa was not pretty. :oops:

If your fast it'll float forever.
If the aircraft has been well cared for the stab AD is not that big of a deal. Have got a while to go before the 1000 gear AD is do but Comanche Gear has a lot of useful info when it comes to maintaining the landing gear. IT HAS TO BE DONE RIGHT AND BY THE BOOK! The comments on the fuel sumping are dead right. I don't know who came up with this idea but he should be whipped in my opinion. Part's have not been a problem.
It's a great cross country machine. It's not a Bonanza and has none of the pizazz that Bonanza's do. I'd sure love to have the double doors of an A36.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 May 2016, 21:14

Username Protected wrote:

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.

Having flown the PA24-180,-250,-260 none have required any flaps for takeoff, except for soft or short for ops.
I use a container under the plane for sumping fuel. Not really an issue.
Not sure what nuts and bolts are so hidden on the PA24 vs the Bo.
I do agree on the landings for the PA24, especially with a forward c.g.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Apr 2017, 18:06

Subscribed... :oops:

I'm having Comanche lust.
Hope I don't get kicked off island.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Apr 2017, 18:46

I've flown both and maintained both. Comanche climbs like a scalded dog compared to most Bonanzas, but is slower than those powered with a 470/520/550. Side by side with an M-35, the M was about 6-7 knots faster on the same horsepower (250). Comanche killed it in climb. Maintenance wise, they will be similar on a year to year basis except for the ADs. The Comanche gear AD can be expensive and the 500 hour stabilator inspection runs at least 4-5 hours: the prop AD on the F can be costly. As others have said, the 0-540 is a superior engine to the 225. You won't have the CMI cylinder mortality issue but beware of camshaft problems if it has sat for a long time. All considered, I would probably go for the Comanche in this instance.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Apr 2017, 18:49

Username Protected wrote:

I've flown both and maintained both. Comanche climbs like a scalded dog compared to most Bonanzas, but is slower than those powered with a 470/520/550. Side by side with an M-35, the M was about 6-7 knots faster on the same horsepower (250). Comanche killed it in climb. Maintenance wise, they will be similar on a year to year basis except for the ADs. The Comanche gear AD can be expensive and the 500 hour stabilator inspection runs at least 4-5 hours: the prop AD on the F can be costly. As others have said, the 0-540 is a superior engine to the 225. You won't have the CMI cylinder mortality issue but beware of camshaft problems if it has sat for a long time. All considered, I would probably go for the Comanche in this instance.

Good data, thanks!
I feel like I've done the Beech (C33 and BE95) route and ready to just try something different.