What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV-10 vs Piper Comanche 260-B

Ivan Kristensen

Well Known Member
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.
P9040001-XL.jpg


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.
Ivan%20%2B%20PA-24%20and%20RV-10-XL.jpg


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....
P9040012-XL.jpg


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?
RV-10%20Cockpit-XL.jpg


The two airplane are similar in many ways but the RV-10 is hard to beat.
P1060652-XL.jpg
 
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.
 
Gee thanks

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!
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
That wing

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.
 
Like many things "it depends."

On a properly, well taken-care of Comanche it takes about an hour to go thru the gear and do the retraction tests.

There are a couple of problem areas with the transmission, conduits (cables that operate the gear), and bungees (they assist the gear and take some of the loads off the transmission) and they need to be replaced every three years.

If they don't get replaced, there are ripple effects that affect the life of other components.

If its kept clean, greased, bungees changed on schedule and assuming nothing is wrong with the items above, then it doesn't cost any more to maintain than fixed
gear.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/tq3yHzjSQzPChYyD6
 
Last edited:
Fly off please... That would be great to do a side by side comparison. It seems to me Richard VanGrunsven was looking at the Commanche for a bench mark. I recall reading somewhere long ago when he was deciding on making a 4 place he had to decide if there was value, when competing against used 4 place high performance singles. You can buy a nice used Comanche for less than an RV-10, which is what Van was concerned about. However it is more than just numbers. Of course the RV-10 is doing all this with gear down and welded... Retract gear is more maintenance (which I think was discussed in above) Bottom line both planes are awsome)

Piper Comanche vs Van's RV-10*
Piper PA-24-C 260 Comanche - Performance Data
Horsepower: 260 Gross Weight: 3200 lbs
Top Speed: 170 kts Empty Weight: 1773 lbs
Cruise Speed: 161 kts Fuel Capacity: 60 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 53 kts Range: 628 nm

Van's Aircraft RV10 - Performance Data
Horsepower: 260 Gross Weight: 2700 lbs
Top Speed: 179 kts Empty Weight: 1600 lbs
Cruise Speed: 171 kts Fuel Capacity: 60 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 55 kts Range: 717 nm

*If I got the numbers wrong let me know

I would say the Comanche does pretty well compared to the RV-10.
 
A different direction

I initially was interested in the Comanche as well for a second airplane. My RV-8 will always be my baby, but I needed a family model too. Ideally I would have a partnership for the second airplane. I went through a couple of potential partners and various airplanes before being blessed with my current airplane and partners. I looked at everything from Mooneys, Comanches, V-tail Bonanzas, C-210, Turbo Lance, Twin Comanches, C-310, Barons, and of course the RV-10. The C-310 and Baron were quickly dismissed for fuel burn and maintenance costs.

My partners and I ended up with a 1974 F-33A with an STC upgraded 300 hp Cont IO-550. I know this site is for promoting, educating, and enjoying Vans airplanes, but this thing is a Cadillac! We paid $95K and have put $30K into it in the first year. We bought it knowing it would need new cylinders. However, there's 4 of us, so it doesn't hurt so bad. Things have settled down with some of the needed maintenance. We love this plane. My family and I are really enjoying it.

1100+ lbs useful load
170-175 kts at 16-17 gph. This should come down 1.0 - 1.5 gph with our planned installation of GAMI injectors.
74 gallons useable, 80 total. About a 700 nm range.
430W, 327 transponder, Century autopilot, decent paint, midnight blue leather interior, enormous baggage area, and provisions for a small 5th and 6th seat. The airplane is voluminous inside. The rear seats recline to almost lie flat and my wife will go sleep there on long legs.

I realize this is not an apples to apples comparison with the -10, the operating costs being the biggest factor, but just throwing out another comparison.

31894110788_e80a0d7bec_c.jpg
 
I just sold a Debonair. Great airplane. Sold it to go back to 2 place.

Never could see how putting the money into an RV-10 was cost effective from a purely $$$ point of view. BUT... we all want what we want, and if you want an RV-10... good for you! :D They are great planes too.

One thing that makes the old birds more attractive now is that Hartzell makes their BA props for many (almost all?) of these aircraft. The other Deb at our airport has one and it is FAST.

Also, with the STC'd autopilot and mini-Dynon type EFISs available now, you can really upgrade the old planes for not much money.
 
We love this plane. My family and I are really enjoying it. I realize this is not
an apples to apples comparison with the -10, the operating costs being the
biggest factor, but just throwing out another comparison.
Wow you are so young in the picture... :D
Nice plane and a 4 way partnership makes a lot of sense.
 
Ha! That?s funny. That?s actually my boy. I was born long ago! Yeah the 4 way partnership is working out great. It?s everyone?s second airplane in our group. So that makes it easy scheduling wise.
 
The Commanche’s styling is looking dated now - but still a very pretty aircraft. I found it quite heavy in terms of handling. As much as I like the load carrying capabilities of the 10, I can’t help thinking if only it had a tailwheel variant. For me, the Bonanza wins on looks, but it needs a stick instead of a steering wheel. And nobody need know it has a nosewheel when the gear’s up!

In reality I would happily settle for any of them for a family run around!
 
Last edited:
PA-24 vs RV-10

Piper Comanche vs Van's RV-10*
Piper PA-24-C 260 Comanche - Performance Data
Horsepower: 260 Gross Weight: 3200 lbs
Top Speed: 170 kts Empty Weight: 1773 lbs
Cruise Speed: 161 kts Fuel Capacity: 60 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 53 kts Range: 628 nm

Van's Aircraft RV10 - Performance Data
Horsepower: 260 Gross Weight: 2700 lbs
Top Speed: 179 kts Empty Weight: 1600 lbs
Cruise Speed: 171 kts Fuel Capacity: 60 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 55 kts Range: 717 nm

*If I got the numbers wrong let me know

I would say the Comanche does pretty well compared to the RV-10.

So here are the numbers from the two airplanes I have personal experience with:
1968 Comanche 260-B C-FTOP
Horsepower: 260
GTOW: 3100 lbs
Empty Weight: 1915 lbs.
Useful load 1185lbs
Cruise Speed:165 kts. @ 14GPH (In those day we hadn't learned to run LOP)
Fuel Capacity: 90 gal
Range:1060 nm (No wind, zero reserve)

2010 Vans RV-10 C-GMDV
Horsepower: 260
GTOW: 2700 lbs
Empty Weight: 1682 lbs.
Useful load 1018lbs
Cruise Speed:168 kts. @ 11.2GPH (LOP)
Fuel Capacity: 60 gal
Range:900 nm (No wind, zero reserve)

I am basing the above numbers on a cruising altitude of 10000ft. Cost, Range and useful load is where the Comanche wins out, but in every other category and overall the RV-10 is clearly the winner IMO.
 
So here are the numbers from the two airplanes I have personal experience with:
1968 Comanche 260-B C-FTOP
Horsepower: 260
GTOW: 3100 lbs
Empty Weight: 1915 lbs.
Useful load 1185lbs
Cruise Speed:165 kts. @ 14GPH (In those day we hadn't learned to run LOP)
Fuel Capacity: 90 gal
Range:1060 nm (No wind, zero reserve)

2010 Vans RV-10 C-GMDV
Horsepower: 260
GTOW: 2700 lbs
Empty Weight: 1682 lbs.
Useful load 1018lbs
Cruise Speed:168 kts. @ 11.2GPH (LOP)
Fuel Capacity: 60 gal
Range:900 nm (No wind, zero reserve)

I am basing the above numbers on a cruising altitude of 10000ft. Cost, Range and useful load is where the Comanche wins out, but in every other category and overall the RV-10 is clearly the winner IMO.

And a a 50 year old airframe with retracts and an FAA strait jacket on changes to avionics and airframes? Not even apples and oranges.
 
And a a 50 year old airframe with retracts and an FAA strait jacket on changes to avionics and airframes? Not even apples and oranges.

There are lots of differences, but to each his own. The Comanche provides a really good value in transportation. A lot of very rational people would choose the Comanche or an equivalent Bo over the RV-10, given the $100k cost difference. We buy/build RV's (and own Comanches) because we're passionate, not because any of it makes sense or can be reasonably justified.
 
Last edited:
And a a 50 year old airframe with retracts and an FAA strait jacket on changes to avionics and airframes? Not even apples and oranges.
Being the manufacturer and maintenance shop, able to do modifications and use your own fabricated parts or "experimental" parts (engine, prop, avionics, EFIS), with less FAA restrictions, is priceless (and less expensive to own because of that). Resale of RV's had proved to be excellent.

For 2 seats side-by -side or tandem there are not many GA aircraft to compare to the RV-7/14 or RV-4/8, so that helps decision to built. Most builders love working with their hands, process and learning.
 
Last edited:
I own a 260B Comanche and it is fantastic, stable, speedy, safe and has a huge CG range. No cowl flaps or cooling problems. And maintenance isn't too bad if kept up with.

Jim
 
Because we're passionate......

A lot of very rational people would choose the Comanche or an equivalent Bo over the RV-10, given the $100k cost difference. We buy/build RV's (and own Comanches) because we're passionate, not because any of it makes sense or can be reasonably justified.

Kyle,
You hit the nail right on the head with the above statement.

"We buy/build RV's (and own Comanches) because we're passionate, not because any of it makes sense or can be reasonably justified."
 
Indicated vs True

Descending out of 17,000ft at VNE (not recommended), the RV-10 would need to keep indicated airspeed around 148kts or less due to the weaker structure. It is true air speed limited to 200kts.

On the other hand, the stronger yet older (50yr) Comanche could descend at 201kts INDICATED which trues out to around 270kts.

Once the -10 gets down to around 8500ft, it'll will be back in the hunt..... unless the Comanche has already landed, refueled, and robbed the courtesy car. (I hate it when that happens!)

Happy New Year!
 
Those are really great planes but the thing that really separates the certified vs experimental world is the yearly inspection. My condition this year was a whopping 51 dollars, cost of a KN filter. 30 plus years of owning a certified plane, never had an annual that cheep.
 
Descending out of 17,000ft at VNE (not recommended), the RV-10 would need to keep indicated airspeed around 148kts or less due to the weaker structure. It is true air speed limited to 200kts.

On the other hand, the stronger yet older (50yr) Comanche could descend at 201kts INDICATED which trues out to around 270kts.

Once the -10 gets down to around 8500ft, it'll will be back in the hunt..... unless the Comanche has already landed, refueled, and robbed the courtesy car. (I hate it when that happens!)

Happy New Year!


Weaker structure? Hardly. It is more about flutter margins...
 
400 engine

Twin turbo 400 from the factory at KCHD. Piper only made a handful of the twin turbos, BTW. I do not what to know it’s GPH FF.
 

Attachments

  • 6D6CC396-4E09-4284-A361-2C409F18ECAA.jpeg
    6D6CC396-4E09-4284-A361-2C409F18ECAA.jpeg
    759.2 KB · Views: 194
  • BD412B97-3DD2-432E-860E-A01EC40A52AB.jpeg
    BD412B97-3DD2-432E-860E-A01EC40A52AB.jpeg
    642.9 KB · Views: 204
Twin turbo 400 from the factory at KCHD. Piper only made a handful of the twin turbos, BTW. I do not what to know it’s GPH FF.

A normally aspirated io-720 has a 34 gph FF at TO power, about 23.5 gph at 75%. If it is turbo normalized at 400 hp, 34 GPH continuous wouldn't be out of line...
 
I stand corrected. Let’s modify that to be TAS limited. Comanche still gets the courtesy car. 😜

I don’t think so. Since both airplanes cruise nearly the same speed on the same power, their drag must be comparable too. To descend at faster than 200 knots true, the Commanche will need a steeper angle of descent. Which means it can’t start the descent until later. So while the -10 is coming down at 200 ktas the Commanche is still cruising at 160, then, finally making a very steep and fast descent. Figure in a higher climb rate (-10 has a higher power to weight ratio) and slightly faster cruise, and I think the -10 driver will get the car. Would make for an interesting fly-off, tie down to tie down.
 
cirrus gets the car

My money is on the other Cirrus pilot arriving there before both the Comanche and the RV-10, so she will get the car. :D
 
My money is on the other Cirrus pilot arriving there before both the Comanche and the RV-10, so she will get the car. :D

Given the price of a new Cirrus ($750K plus), I would think the Cirrus driver would have a car waiting for them.
 
Car

Whoever gets it, just be sure to bring it back like you found it.
 

Attachments

  • 87452AAC-B59E-4365-B071-F9155B848D95.jpeg
    87452AAC-B59E-4365-B071-F9155B848D95.jpeg
    107.4 KB · Views: 177
RV-4 versus Comanche 250.

Just for an anecdotal piece of input...

I did a 2-ship XC trip this Spring with a buddy of mine in a 58' Comanche 250. Michigan to NYC to FL back to Michigan. He's a fuel miser and any leg over 1 hour was done at 10k'+. My 160hp, FP, RV-4 at WOT and LOP at those altitudes was within 2-3mph of his cruise (burning half the gas :D). I don't recall his power settings.

In the decents though, I would give myself about 700-800fpm which would usually work out to redline TAS (on the GRT EFIS) and I'd start down a few miles before him. He would decend at his redline giving him about 1300-1400 fpm. I would run away initially but we would always get in the pattern at the same time. EVERYTIME. In the decent, he would typically have about 15-20 knots groundspeed advantage on me.

Just food for thought.

And as for the Cirrus dorks? On a trip to FL from Michigan a few years ago, I heard a Cirrus SR-22 (big engine) ask Jax Center what that airplane was behind him that was catching him at 9,500'. The little 160hp RV-4 never felt so good :cool:
 
Though not required

I always add a little more gas than when I picked it up. Feels good to pay it forward.
Had a dude borrow the car, kept it all day, brought it back empty, and didn’t buy any fuel for his plane as well. Didn’t know anything g about southern hospitality and guess he thought we were idiots for giving it to him. Can’t believe there are human pilots like this but I’ve seen em. It’s a shame. Of course us plan folks from Dixie don’t know nuthin.

Whoever gets it, just be sure to bring it back like you found it.
 
A cirrus story

On a flight a couple years ago, flying south to Santa Barbara at 11K through the Central Valley we were talking to center. Over the course of over an hour, we heard all the controllers call out “traffic, experimental RV, 10 miles, same direction, same elevation” to another aircraft following us. The distance did not change the entire flight.

My wife finally googled the N number. It was a 2015 SR22 Turbo! Never smiled so big in my life.
 
Love my 260B. I've managed to haul an 8ft long box inside. Mine has most available speed mods and will do 160kts running LOP 11.7GPH.
 
260B

Bob, how long have you had the 260b? I thought you were restoring a 250.
The 1965 260 I had was a screamer as well. Sorry to let it go but the Star is a jealous mistress.


Love my 260B. I've managed to haul an 8ft long box inside. Mine has most available speed mods and will do 160kts running LOP 11.7GPH.
 
I owned a V35A Bonanza while building my RV-4. One flight I was cruising along with a bunch of RV's going to a Vans fly-in in Oregon and they were talking about fuel burn, bragging 7.5 per hour etc. They ask me what my fuel burn was with a grin. I told them "3.5 gallons per seat"
 
I don’t think so. Since both airplanes cruise nearly the same speed on the same power, their drag must be comparable too. To descend at faster than 200 knots true, the Commanche will need a steeper angle of descent. Which means it can’t start the descent until later. So while the -10 is coming down at 200 ktas the Commanche is still cruising at 160, then, finally making a very steep and fast descent. Figure in a higher climb rate (-10 has a higher power to weight ratio) and slightly faster cruise, and I think the -10 driver will get the car. Would make for an interesting fly-off, tie down to tie down.

I don't think that's how it works. . Start your descent to accommodate 500 fpm for comfort, just don't pull the power back until you are approaching red line (if smooth air) or top of the green if it's expected to get bumpy. Enrichen the mixture as you get lower to keep the same EGT. No need to start a later descent than the RV-10. If you have a tail wind, I'll hold out for 750 to 1000fpm, depending if the other people may have ear clearing issues. You just have to pull the power back further.
 
I don't think that's how it works. . Start your descent to accommodate 500 fpm for comfort, just don't pull the power back until you are approaching red line (if smooth air) or top of the green if it's expected to get bumpy. Enrichen the mixture as you get lower to keep the same EGT. No need to start a later descent than the RV-10. If you have a tail wind, I'll hold out for 750 to 1000fpm, depending if the other people may have ear clearing issues. You just have to pull the power back further.

I think you misunderstood the thread. It’s about ‘racing’. Agreed, to get these kind of airspeeds you’d be seeing very uncomfortable descent rates.
 
Bob, how long have you had the 260b? I thought you were restoring a 250.
The 1965 260 I had was a screamer as well. Sorry to let it go but the Star is a jealous mistress.

I bought it in Feb. of this year. 250 restore is a back burner project.
 
Back
Top