Posted In: Welcome Mat
Thanks for the advice, definitely will fly her as is for the moment (Assuming the purchase goes through) and see how it goes.
Makes sense about the wait for new stuff, coming from IT it’s always better to have someone else find the bugs 🙂
And yes love the G5 my training plane had one and it was absolutely fantastic.
I think you’re making a wise decision.
As far as the glass panel goes, I believe you’ll find that the dual G5s will be fantastic; or the Aspen Evolution E5 Dual Electronic Flight Instrument for $4995. The Aspen E5 can be the first piece in building what Aspen calls its Pro panel.
I wouldn’t be in a big hurry to upgrade to “new” products, esp. since the 235 you’re looking at has installed and working systems. My advice is to let new product simmer on the market for a couple of years.
In fact, I would love to have an autopilot and a 430 WAAS in my airplane, but I am not flying enough to justify spending $30 K right now.
Let me know how I can help further.
Happy Flying
Hey Tom,
Thanks for the input I was leaning towards the 235 and as I will be flying in NM a bit the mountain performance is definitely a plus. Also I’m a firm believer in buy your last plane 1st and I think the 235 I can live with for the next 20 years or so. (Obviously with periodic upgrades along the line)
I did see a 235 with a full glass panel for sale and it looked sweet, but at $95K sadly out of my price range.
I’m actually hoping that Dynon https://www.dynonavionics.com/certified/aml.php will get their STC as that could get a full glass panel for a PA-28 for about 30K, which is a great value in my opinion.
But the 235 with 430 WAAS and Autopilot seems to fit me well for now, though if the STC does not come through I might consider dumping the Vac system by sticking 2 G5s in it.
Hi Eric,
I agree with the group. Both airplanes types are great But if you are mountain flying you might give the 235 a little closer examination.I do not have any first hand experience in the Comanche 180, but it seems like a nice trade off in performance and speed. I currently own a highly modified 1964 PA 28-235, and have a friend with a highly modified Comanche 250. Comparing these two airplanes is interesting, the Comanche 250 with Lopresti mods was pushing 175 knots on 16 GPH, and my 235 with many Lopresti speed mods pushes about 143 knots on 15 GPH. However, the useful load on my 235 is 1350 pounds compared to to about 950 pounds on 180 and about 1150 pounds on the 250 the Comanche. Normal unmodified airplanes are approximately 15 knots slower on about 2 or 3 GPH less. Still both of these airplanes are great travelers
I also agree with Scott, Steve , and David. Buy the most avionics your budget can allow. Instrument panel mods are expensive, and if you find a nice one that you like, you can save a lot of money, and let the previous owner take some of the hit on the initial cost of the work. I personally would look for an airplane that has a some what modern autopilot with at “least” ILS/GPS WAAS tracking and altitude hold capabilities. I am currently adding a newly certified TruTrak autopilot to my 235 at a cost of about $5100 plus about $1500 install. This is a great autopilot that far out preforms my Century 21 autopilot.
As far as comfort, mmmm. The 235 has very good head room, especially if you get one with vertical adjusting front seats, and a little more shoulder room than the Comanche..Earlier versions of the 235 have crank out fresh air scoops at each seat that are very effective and provide nice face fulls of air in the. They also have very good outside viewing, especially after Piper added the third window. Mine has a standard cargo door but it will accommodate several very large suitcases. If you fill the fuel tanks you have 84 gallons, and that will keep you aloft about 5 plus hours, way longer than most people want to play. But that equates to 4 average adults and 4 -30 pound suitcases. Can’t do that in the Comanche.
I really have enjoyed my 235, it is a very good performer, just not a hotrod, but much cheaper to operate and insure.
Best wishes in hunt
Tom G
Hi Eric;
I like the Cherokee 235 choice for the reasons you list. I also have to second Scott’s advice of buying the best equipped airplane you can afford. Unless you’re a mechanic or are very mechanically inclined and work with a mechanic, upgrading an old clapped out airplane is usually a financial disaster.
Unfortunately, we haven’t yet accumulated a list of member “preferred” mechanics around the country. You might try the A & P mechanics page on Facebook. Take it with a dose of salt, though as many posters seem to believe they should spoof anything posted.
Hi Guys Thanks for the info.
I’m leaning towards the PA-28-235 as overall it meets my needs and will be cheaper to maintain. I like the Comanche but for my needs I think the more sensible choice is the Cherokee. I already have insurance quotes on the 235 and it’s a reasonable $1,100 a year and needs only 2 hours with a CFI for transition. (Personally I think that’s too little with my current logged time of 67 hours, so will probably get more.)
I also agree with getting the avionics you want already in the plane and the 235 has what I would need for IFR (WAAS GPS, AP) and it has ADSB out and a descent audio panel.
Thanks for the feedback on skywagons, it’s appreciated, my only hiccup on the 235 is why the current owner is selling after 3 months.
As for the auto fuel STC I know it’s a small percentage of ownership, but at my planned 200 hours a year that’s a $4,000 savings based on current AvGAS prices in TX. So at least it pays for a hangar.
Lastly can anyone recommend a good Piper guy for a pre buy if I do go for the 235?
Welcome, Eric! Glad to hear that you’ve been bitten by the aviation bug.
I can’t speak to the specifics of the Comanche (maybe Steve Ells will chime in), but I do have a few general thoughts on your list.
1. Make sure you buy an aircraft that’s equipped with what you want already installed. It’s MUCH cheaper to buy an aircraft equipped nice GPS, autopilot, engine monitor, ADS-B, etc. than it is to buy a simple VFR airplane and install each of them yourself.
2. For your mission (XC cruiser, 2 people, good instrument platform), you’ve identified a couple of good options. Any of the Piper aircraft you mentioned will do a nice job. A PA-28-180 Cherokee or -181 Archer would also probably fit the bill; as would early Arrows.
3. Lots of opinions on auto fuel usage but I will say this – in the big picture of aircraft ownership, fuel costs are but a small portion of the total outlay. I wouldn’t consider this as a deciding factor.
4. The more you can fly, especially when you’re training, the better. From my perspective as an instructor, plan on lessons two times a week at a minimum (even if you don’t fly because of weather/maintenance/etc., you can do ground work). Sounds like you’re planning to do this. Great. Frequent flights will save you a huge amount of time.
5. A $60k budget seems reasonable. You may have to make some tradeoffs to get the avionics you want (less horsepower, older airframe, higher-time engine, etc.). Do remember that the first couple years of ownership tend to be expensive as you work out the kinks with a new bird. Set aside 20-25% of the purchase price. There’s nothing sadder than watching a newly-purchased aircraft sit because the owner blew his/her wad and doesn’t have money to fix some relatively small maintenance issue that crops up a few months after purchase.
Another thing that you will want to work into your equation is insurance, especially for your first year or two.
For a zero (or low-time) private pilot, your insurance on a PA-24-180 Comanche, or really any retractable, is going to be pretty steep. That’s even true if it’s a high-performance complex (PA-24-250). Consult a broker for up-to-date costs but my guess would be in the $2,500-3,000 per year range for full coverage. As you gain time and certificates, that will decrease somewhat, but a retract is nearly always going to be more expensive to insure than a comparable fixed-gear aircraft.
Though you will also pay more for a PA-28-235 / 236 versus, say, a Cessna 172 or Cherokee 140, the difference won’t be as huge. A PA-28-235 is still a lot of aircraft for a low-time pilot, so expect premiums to be $1,500-2,000. Drop below 200hp with fixed gear and that number is likely to be $1,000-ish.
And now, a question for you which might help guide your decision – where will you be flying?
If you’re in the Mountain West where you’ll consistently be operating out of high-altitude airports (>5,000’ or so), the horsepower is a real benefit – some might even say necessity. There’s a reason the Cherokee 235/236 and Cessna 182s are so popular in the Rockies.
On the other hand, if the majority of your flying is in the flatlands, a 180hp or 200hp bird will do just fine and will still give 120-knot-ish performance at cruise. Four-cylinder engines are going to be cheaper to operate and maintain. The 180hp Lycoming is a great engine (I’m biased as I fly behind one).
RE: damage history. You will want to order the FAA records CD for any aircraft you’re seriously considering (https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/copies_aircraft_records/). Major repairs should be documented with a 337 form which details parts and methods used in the repair. If they’re not, that can open a big rabbit hole, into which you will pour a bunch of money.
One more item to note – the commercial requirements have recently changed and a complex is no longer required for either the practical test or commercial certificate training. You won’t need a complex for the CFI ride, either. You do still need 10 hours of training in either a complex, turbine, or technically-advanced aircraft (TAA) per 61.129(a)(3). It’s not difficult to rent an aircraft for those ten hours if you don’t have one already.
I have dealt with Skywagons a few times and my experience was positive. They didn’t seem pushy and were straightforward about what an aircraft was (and wasn’t).
Hope that helps!
Hi, It sounds like you have a very definitive plan. You’re looking at two different airplanes. The Comanche is a very sweet airplane. I own a 1960 PA 24 with a 180 Lycoming engine. It has a useful load of around 980 pounds and sixty gallon fuel tanks. I see 132 knots at 9.5 gallons per hours. Initially it seems like there are a lot of ADs on the airframe, that can be deceiving. Once the ADs are caught up, there are only a couple of repetitive ADs. The most critical is the landing gear 1000 hour inspection. It is absolutely critical that you have a Comanche savvy mechanic do this inspection since it seems that landing gear mal-functions are the biggest problem with Comanches. My belief is that if the gear is checked every annual by a Comanche gear competent mechanic the gear will provide excellent service.
I took a brief look at the logbook pages on the website link and did not see a gear problem in the
The Cherokee PA28-235 has a larger useful load and carries more fuel, but it has two additional cylinders (compared to the 180 Comanche) to fee. I don’t have personal experience with the PA28-235 so my performance estimates are out of a Dakota Owners Manual. The performance charts seem to indicate that you can get 130 knots out of it with a fuel burn of around 11.8-12 gallons per hour. One advantage is the fixed landing gear. Another advantage is the auto fuel STC. The only alternative to 100LL avgas for the Comanche is Swift UL94 and it’s hard to find. The Cherokee can use non-ethanol car gas via a STC from Petersen Aviation (www.autofuelstc.com).
I suggest you contact an insurance broker to determine which will be less expensive to insure.
Both have a single door on the right side of the pilot/copilot row of seats. I’m not sure about the size of the cabins but I expect the Cherokee may have a slightly larger cabin. Later iterations, known as Cherokee Sixes had a larger baggage door. The one you’re considering does not have that large baggage door.
Both engines are as close to bulletproof as you can get in a carbureted air cooled Lycoming engine.
Both airplanes are capable of the XC trip you described.
You might consider the Comanche as a well mannered and good looking sedan while the Cherokee 235 is a small SUV.
I know the guys at Skywagons and they seem to be reputable fellows.
Let me know how I can help further
Happy Flying
Don’t assume that just because a plane is flown regularly that it is in good condition. Any plane you are considering buying needs to have a good, in depth pre-buy inspection. In the end, that will save you a lot of money and heartache. In the case of the Comanche, a mechanic well versed in the PA24, that works on them regularly, would be the person to do the work. A solid recommendation as to who that person is from several Comanche owners will help to find that individual or shop.
Dave G.
Hello All,
I’m not a current owner, but am looking at getting my 1st airplane in the next few months and I have narrowed down the choice between a PA-28-238 Cherokee or PA-24-180 or 240 Comanche, and would like some advice as to which ultimately I should go for.
My story is that I’m 40 in IT and have decided to change careers and pursue my dream of flying professionally. I successfully got my PPL in April in a C172 and have taken a few flights since and am thoroughly hooked. Now as I want to work through all of my ratings up to CFI and doing the maths on aircraft ownership I am now looking at getting my 1st plane.
My Mission and requirements will be:
1. Stable IFR platform I can complete my IR and commercial rating in.
2. Capable XC cruiser that can take 2 people (me and a passenger) and some luggage comfortably. (I am anticipating at least 1 XC trip per month of over 300 Miles and some even longer) So decent performance would be a plus.
3. If I can, get something that is Auto fuel STC capable this is not a hard requirement, but a nice to have.
4. I am anticipating of flying about 200 to 300 hours a year (I know his is a lot)
5. Budget would be up to 60K, but would like to stay below as much as possible.
At the moment my plan is to consult part time to continue to get some income and fly at least 2 or 3 weekdays a week for at least 2 hours (I know this is a lot) to build PIC and XC time. Then train full time with a CFI or Solo 2 days per week for at least 4 hours per day. So saying that something reliable and comfortable would be a must.
Now I came across this example of a 235 and am getting some more information on it, but my 2 concerns are, one it had a gear collapse in 1966 that I can’t find repairs for in the logbooks, and teh current owner has only owned it for 3 months.
The other one that came up recently on another Piper forum is a PA-24-180. I have talked to the owner and he is a CFI that is upgrading to a twin and regularly flies the Comanche so it should be in good condition.
https://www.piperforum.com/threads/cream-puff-comanche-180-for-sale.15804/
So I guess in a way I’m asking advice on which to go for a 235 that will most likely be cheaper to own and maintain or a Comanche (Which I know needs some specialized maintenance work) that appears to have been taken good care of.
Apologies for the long post and thanks in advance for any feedback and comments.
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more
Login below or Register Now.
Already registered? Login.
