Piper’s Comanche 180 – It ticks all the boxes

The Comanche is a fabulous plane – that was frankly just too good to be a Piper.

The Comanche was designed by Howard “Pug” Piper, the son of company founder Bill Piper. It featured advanced design features such as a tapered laminar flow wing and an all moving stabilator in place of the more common fixed horizontal stabiliser and elevator.

The Comanche’s innovative, but labour-intensive design features, made it expensive to build. Then, when Hurricane Agnes flooded Piper’s Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, production facility in 1972— it was all the excuse Piper needed to end Comanche production and replace it with the cheaper and easier to build PA-28 Cherokees.

The Comanche was Piper’s first modern aircraft. In 1957, just the year before the introduction of the Comanche, Piper’s top-of-the-line single-engine model was the fixed-gear, boxy-looking, rag and tube, PA-22 Tri-Pacer.

It is noteworthy that, after decades of churning out high-wing planes, Piper chose a low-wing for its first all-metal plane. One explanation is that Al Mooney, the founder of Mooney Aircraft was flying an early M-20 prototype and landed at Lock Haven because of bad weather. Pug Piper found room in a Piper hangar for the low-wing Mooney and promised to keep it safe while Mooney continued his trip. It’s said that Piper engineers went over the Mooney with a fine-toothed comb – and that’s why the Comanche as the first all-metal Piper, looks a lot like a Mooney, but without the Mooney’s iconic ‘backwards’ empennage.

Under- appreciated

The subject of our review is the ‘baby Comanche’ – the 180 hp model. Some considered it underpowered, particularly compared to the hot-rod 400 hp version ­ which we reviewed last year, but the humble Comanche 180 has proven itself to be a remarkably capable plane in its own right. It deservedly sold well, with 1,184 Comanches 180s being produced from 1958 to 1964.

On 24 November 1959, Max Conrad landed a 180 hp Comanche in El Paso, Texas after having flown non-stop across the Atlantic, from Casablanca on a record-setting 6,966-nm flight. Conrad’s numerous feats of endurance put the Comanches on the map.

Today, the Comanche 180 may not have as strong a following as the V-tail Bonanza, nor is it as common as Piper’s retractable Arrows and Lances. But pilots seeking an economical, comfortable, and durable plane that looks as good today as it did when it was first introduced in 1958, should give a baby Comanche a look.

What they will find is a four-place plane that cruises at 135 to 140 knots, burns 9.5 to 10 gallons of fuel per hour, has beautifully balanced handling, is capable of 700-nm legs, and can pack 650 pounds of payload (2 adult men and 2 women), after the tanks are filled with 60 gallons of fuel.

On the ground

The plane sits low on the ground – like a sportscar. The wing is easy to strep up onto, and thus getting into the cockpit is easier than a Bonanza. A notable feature is that all three wheels are the same size, which makes dealing with tyres and punctures easier, although the nosewheel looks strangely big. But this makes it reassuringly sturdy and able to handle the bumps and holes in gravel farm airstrips.

The Comanche fuselage, wing structure, and tail are common for the 180-, 250-, and 260-hp variations. Owners of 180s are reassured that the same structure that is limited to a 2,550-pound maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) in their plane is also strong enough for the 3,200-pound MTOW of the 260-hp version.

The wing is built around a hefty I-beam main spar. Since the thickest section of laminar flow aerofoils is farther aft in the chord of the wing than non-laminar flow wings, the inner ends of both spars bolt together under the rear passenger seat. This permits a flat cabin floor, much appreciated by owners.

Another reassuring design feature is that, even though Comanches are low-wing planes, the bottom of the spar is well protected. Rarely does the load-bearing portion of the wing, such as the main spar, get damaged in a wheels-up landing. That’s good news for pilots and owners, especially considering that the majority of Comanche accident reports involve the landing-gear.

In 1977 the FAA decided that the landing gear failure rate was so abysmal that it incorporated an entire section on landing gear maintenance from the aircraft service manual into a repetitive airworthiness directive (AD 77-13-21). This AD requires inspections and refurbishment of landing gear wear points every 1,000-hours.

The landing gear uses a single bi-directional electric motor controlled by the landing gear switch. There are two flexible conduits to transmit motion from a cross-shaft to the main landing gear actuating linkages in each wheel well.

There are a lot of moving parts in the gear system, but when properly maintained, it’s strong and reliable. A mechanic experienced with the Comanche landing gear system is indispensable to owners.

The Cabin and Cockpit

The subject of our review is ZS-CXH, a remarkably low time 1962 Comanche 180, that has just 2440 hours total time – and 283 hours since the engine’s only major overhaul.

The average Comanche PA24-180 weighed 1,535 to 1,550 pounds when it left the factory. Standard maximum takeoff weight is 2,550, but as will be seen, the tip tank modification adds a further very useful 200 lbs to the max all up weight.

The cabin, in true Piper and Beechcraft single-engine fashion, is accessed by climbing up on the right wing. In the Comanche this is low enough to the ground so does not need a step. Then you step down to the floor on the co-pilot’s side slide across to the left seat.

The cabin is comfortable ,and unlike Bonanzas, is wide, measuring 45 inches wide by 47 inches tall,. The windows and windscreen are low, like a 1950s hot rod. Although some claim poor visibility, Comanche pilots don’t seem to notice. Knots2U, manufactures STC-approved Arapaho windscreens, which gives better ahead and vertical visibility.

The baggage compartment is large and is located behind the rear seat. It is accessible through a 20-inch by 20-inch door and can handle 200 pounds (except for serial numbers 24-1 through 24-102, which are limited to 100 pounds). The baggage compartment is large enough to accommodate 2 children’s seats in the same sized Twin Comanche and Comanche 260, making it a 4 plus 2 seater.

For the early models the flaps were manually actuated to: 9, 18, and 27 degrees down, by a large floor-mounted lever. In 1962 this ‘Armstrong’ system was replaced by electric flaps. Similarly, in early models both main wheel brakes were simultaneously applied by a single pull-type lever immediately below the throttle knob, until 1961 when toe brakes became standard. The nosewheel steering only covers a 40 degree arc, which creates quite a large turning radius.

Pre-1961 instrument panels are non-standard—there’s room for avionics on the extreme left and right, while the middle is occupied by a shock-mounted floating panel with a scattering of instruments anchored by a pair of huge gyros. From 1961 the panel was updated to include a centre-stack avionics rack and a conventional six-pack grouping. Being a 1962 model, ZS-CXH has a standard six-pack panel.

Flying the Comanche 180

An AOPA review notes that, “Every Comanche 180 owner praised the plane’s flying qualities. All control surfaces are well balanced, and normal flight ops rarely require anything more than fingertip pressures. That said, it’s important to realize that the stabilator is powerful, and Comanche pilots soon learn to carefully turn the ceiling-mounted pitch trim knob to relieve pitch pressures, which are moderated by an anti-servo tab. Once trimmed in cruise, well-rigged Comanches move along as if on rails.”

Some have tagged the Comanche 180 as a “ground-hugger” because the laminar flow wing trades low-speed lift for less drag in cruise. Yet the handbook cites a good 1,370 feet to takeoff and climb over a 50-foot obstacle at sea-level at MAUW. Once you reach Vy, the best rate-of-climb speed, of 96 mph (83 knots) with the gear up, gives 910 fpm.

The Comanche airframe is slippery, and if pushed, the humble 180 can scoot along at up to 145 KTAS at a typical FL65 with the ‘balls to the wall’. This slipperiness requires Comanche pilots to plan descents as the airspeed can quickly slide into the yellow arc. Fortunately the bulletproof Lycoming O-360 four-pot banger is not particularly vulnerable to shock cooling.

The wheels can be extended at up to 150 mph (130 knots) to reduce speed and keep the power up during descent, although most Comanche owners try slow to 120 mph (104 knots) to reduce wear on the gear doors and actuating system.

ZS-MXY has 2 x 15 USG tip tanks, which are a popular option, especially for those who want to only use Avgas, whose suppliers may be few and far between.

As noted, having tip tanks increases the Comanche’s max all up weight by 200 lbs. A commentator on the Comanche Forum writes; “There is no downside to tip tanks on a Comanche other than changing a landing light.  I installed Osborn tip tanks about 10 years ago and love them. When full, the tanks weigh 200 lbs and the tanks’ STC ups the gross weight by the 200 lbs. Fly a tip tank Comanche with empty tips and you have an extra 200 lbs. useful load. The extra weight and drag of the tanks is offset by the winglet effect of the tanks and the plane actually goes 1-3 mph faster.”

Installing tip tanks is also a good reason to switch to LED landing lights. “The bulbs should outlive me.  The biggest speed increase comes from not spending an hour making a fuel stop.  Each tank holds 15 gallons, so your endurance is increased by nearly 3 hours.”

Much has been written about Comanches being hard to land smoothly as they tend to unexpectedly stop flying and drop out the sky. The combination of a laminar-flow aerofoil that stops flying abruptly, the wing having a positive angle of incidence, and a large nose wheel, result in a plane that gets light on the gear during takeoff. Most of the problems with hard landings are caused by poor speed control and failing to add enough nose-up trim on short final.

A common view is that the baby Comanche is easier to land than the larger-engined, later-model Comanches because of the lower weight of the four-cylinder engine.

Owning a Comanche 180

The baby Comanche is powered by Lycoming’s tried and tested four-cylinder, 180-horsepower O-360 A1A engine with a genuine TBO of 2,000 hours. This engine is renowned for its durability, and in the USA, when flown ‘on condition’ it is not uncommon for these engines to still be running strong at 3,000 hours if well maintained and flown regularly. Parts are plentiful, and the systems are simple.

The original prop was a two-blade Hartzell, which has been subject to a couple of expensive airworthiness directives. These propellers are subject to a recurring—and expensive—500-hour inspection. McCauley sells a replacement two-blade propeller with a 2,000-hour TBO for a little over $7,000. Three-blade props are readily available.

At first glance there seems to be an almost endless list of airworthiness directives (ADs) that apply to Comanches, but this is misleading. Only a few still apply. In addition to the 1,000-hour landing gear AD already mentioned, there is also an AD requiring the replacement of two bungee cords (rubber bands) on the undercarriage every three years or 500 hours, whichever comes first.

The other critical maintenance item is the stabilator control system. Piper issued a service bulletin in 2005 calling for the inspection of some of these parts within the next 100 hours.

Conclusion

The Comanche is a great value plane to buy and own. Compared to more modern light four place singles, such as the Mooney, Cessna’s Cutlass RG and Cardinal RG, and the Piper Arrow, the Comanche 180 is the lowest-priced. But it’s also the oldest. Yet because of its great build quality and strong structure, and because of Piper’s decision to apply primer paint on all the aluminium airframe parts before final construction, PA-24 airframes have resisted corrosion well.

The combination of great looks, sportscar-like handling, moderate operating costs, an easy-to-maintain engine, and good point-to-point speeds, tick all the key boxes and make the baby Comanche a very desirable plane for pilots seeking a thoroughbred from the days when beauty and shape were wisely combined with form and function.

Box:

Comanche 180: Hits and Misses:

Hits			Misses
•                 Economical to operate			•                 Not easy to get into and out of
•                 Sturdy airframe			•                 Visibility somewhat limited
•                 Simple systems			•                 Landing gear maintenance needs experience
•                 A lot of bang for the buck			•                 Limited high altitude performance when fully loaded
•                 Excellent handling qualities			•                 Higher-than-average insurance costs
•                 Good support and owners’ club