I never found it difficult to land at all...matter of fact, I thought it was easier to land than a 172...especially in gusty conditions....the 172 can be very squirrly. If I had to do my CPL checkride again, I would definately prefer the Comanche over the 172. I had to do it in a 172...on a gusty day...the spot landing was difficult to say the least
The Comanche is solid and it goes where you point it. I usually carried a little power over the numbers, then reduced power just before touch down. One thing you might notice is the Comanche has a little bit of a nose high attitude while on the ground. Sometimes the nose oleo strut would get stuck in the fully extended position, even after landing...this could make a good soft field landing a challenge...especially for a checkride
. After pulling off the runway, stabbing the brakes will usually unstick it. With the nose strut fully extened it feels like a tail dragger lol.
Have fun getting to know this plane. I always thought the Comanche had the atmosphere and feel of a 60s muscle car. That wing...ours didn't have tip tanks, so looking outside, could almost picture a P-51's wing
I think you will find the old square yokes quite nice, especially on long trips. Get it trimmed out, then you can just rest your arm over the yoke...quite comforable. If I am not mistaken the cabin felt a little roomier than the Cherokee style cabins.
As far as FSX simulations, I thought RealAir's SF-260 is very similar, especially when full of fuel. It has basically the same engine and wing design. I could use the Comanche's power settings and landing profile and apply them to the RA SF-260 with very good results.
"The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." - Douglas Adams