RV-10 vs Piper Comanche 260-B

[Ivan Kristensen]

In 1990 I bought a 1968 Comanche 260-B, I flew it 1500 hours before selling it in 2002. Yesterday I saw it for the first time, at the Orillia On.airport, since I sold it.
The airplane still looks great with the paint job I put on it in the late 1990's. I also overhauled the engine and added several new instruments in the panel.


Here is a picture of possibly the two best 4 place single engine GA aircraft available today and I am privileged to having owned and spent in excess of 1000hrs in both.


Here is a picture of what today seems like an archaic instrument panel. I put in a HSI, an Apollo GPS and an all cyl CHT/EGT monitor. At the time I thought it just could get much better. Little did I know....

Today I have what I believe to be one of the best glass cockpit set-ups available in my RV-10. again, could it get much better than this?


The two airplane are similar in many ways but the RV-10 is hard to beat.

[scsmith]

The right seat in the Piper does not have brakes?

Is that a GX60 GPS? I just bought an old 1959 C-182 that has one of those, so I guess I need to learn how to use it.

Camanches are really nice airplanes.

What kind of cruise speeds did you get with the Comanche 260 compared to the RV-10? Remember it folds its wheels up, too.

[grubbat]

Thanks for sharing Ivan. Last thing I need to hear right now is from a former Comanche 260 driver telling me how the RV-10 is a better ride..... even if it is the truth.

My 1965 straight 260 is an honest 160kt machine. The wing is such a source of pride and the useful load of 1500lbs coupled with 90gals of fuel makes it a fun traveler. The only reason I’m not building or flyin a RV-10 right this very minute is the $150,000.00 cost difference. Nevertheless, a RV-10 would be a nice ride!

[Plummit]

We were coming back to SoCal from Oregon a year ago and Approach kept calling traffic coming up from behind. It was a Comanche that was ever so slowly gaining on us. I had the -10 firewalled around 10500 feet and he kept getting closer. I have never been out-done by a Comanche so I wrote down his N number and looked him up when I got back.

It was a Comanche 400 powered by a Lyc IO-720 400hp, 8-cyl engine. Specs show he was probably burning 23 gph at that speed!

-Marc

[MConner]

A year ago I looked long and hard at the Comanche 260 and the TwinCo vs the -10. While the Piper?s is performance was impressive, there is half a century difference. Especially in the avionics.

The look, feel, simplicity, low maintenance and shedding the FAA strait jacket all made my decision. I know it is a lot of money but I sure am glad I bit the bullet and paid it forward. I can?t take it with me.

[rocketbob]

I can sum it up: the Comanche handles nicer than the 10, is similar in speed, is roomier, magnitudes less expensive to acquire, but are old.

[Kyle Boatright]

Originally Posted by rocketbob

I can sum it up: the Comanche handles nicer than the 10, is similar in speed, is roomier, magnitudes less expensive to acquire, but are old.

I also looked at Comanches before building the -10. The biggest thing I didn't like was the outward visibility. I guess I was spoiled by the bubble canopy on my -6, but flying around in the Comanche, it felt like I was peering through the slits on a Sherman tank or something. The -10 has really good outward visibility.

[rocketbob]

You do give up visibility for looks, definitely.

[grubbat]

There is something about hummming along at 12,500ft and looking out at that beautiful wing doing its thing. And rough air penetration is a bonus.

[scsmith]

Do annuals cost a lot because of the retracts?