Twin Comanche vs. Mooney/other singles

[E Andersen]

Hi all

When a Twin Comanche

flies 165 knots
burns less than 15 gallons
have 2 engines ( :-) )
is relatively cheap to overhaul (OI-320)

is this the "ultimate" twin? I am considering an airplane that flies in the
165-170 knot range, prefer a twin, if I decide to
go for a single nothing really beats a Mooney J/K but for the same
investment I can get a TwinCo, have I overlooked something?

[Dave Butler]

E Andersen wrote:
> Hi all
>
> When a Twin Comanche
>
> flies 165 knots
> burns less than 15 gallons
> have 2 engines ( :-) )
> is relatively cheap to overhaul (OI-320)
>
> is this the "ultimate" twin? I am considering an airplane that flies in the
> 165-170 knot range, prefer a twin, if I decide to
> go for a single nothing really beats a Mooney J/K but for the same
> investment I can get a TwinCo, have I overlooked something?

For the version with counter-rotating props, you pay a penalty in
service costs for the reverse-turning engine. Don't know how significant
that is.

[Paul kgyy]

There is some scuttlebutt that the plane is a widowmaker, but I don't
know the reason, though an acquaintance of mine died in one. I believe
the NTSB decided that he mismanaged the fuel transfer while flying an
instrument approach in snow, which may have nothing to do with the
flying characteristics.

I think it depends how much you fly it. A twin requires an extra layer
of competence, apart from double the engine maintenance cost.
Remember, if you lose an engine on takeoff and are not current in
engine-out procedures, the second engine will just take you to the
scene of the crash.

[E Andersen]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> There is some scuttlebutt that the plane is a widowmaker, but I don't
> know the reason, though an acquaintance of mine died in one. I believe
> the NTSB decided that he mismanaged the fuel transfer while flying an
> instrument approach in snow, which may have nothing to do with the
> flying characteristics.
>

With respect, you must get that sorted long time BEFORE the end of the
flight. Fuel transfer should not be an
issue is this plane, as far as I know its the simpliest of all, might be
wrong though. I have no experience with
TwinCO at all, only flying some seminoles but I believe the fuel system is
the same.

> I think it depends how much you fly it. A twin requires an extra layer
> of competence, apart from double the engine maintenance cost.
> Remember, if you lose an engine on takeoff and are not current in
> engine-out procedures, the second engine will just take you to the
> scene of the crash.

yes, thats why you need to stay current. I read an article about a guy who
took off below VMC all the time... he ended
up dead when an engine quit on takeoff. I am not a gambler, but everyone
makes mistakes.

[ktbr]

Paul kgyy wrote:
> There is some scuttlebutt that the plane is a widowmaker, but I don't
> know the reason, though an acquaintance of mine died in one. I believe
> the NTSB decided that he mismanaged the fuel transfer while flying an
> instrument approach in snow, which may have nothing to do with the
> flying characteristics.

The TwinCo is not inherently more dangerous than any other twin.
Back in the days when it was a common twin-trainer and the FAA
required more agressive VMC training/demos... when done improperly
in this airplane will result in a flat spin, not recoverable especially
at the low altitudes these were done at back then. After a few spin
accidents the VMC was raised and the FAA modified VMC demo and
training recommendations to enhance safety.

>
> I think it depends how much you fly it. A twin requires an extra layer
> of competence, apart from double the engine maintenance cost.
> Remember, if you lose an engine on takeoff and are not current in
> engine-out procedures, the second engine will just take you to the
> scene of the crash.
>

True enough. Its a great airplane though, I own a Comanche single
but have some time in the TwinCo. The airframe is very solid (as all
Comanches) and the zinc-chromating Piper used back than (unlike
the Cherokees) will make it last forever if properly cared for.
The main thing is that these planes are getting older and so
there are more potential 'dogs' out there. You have to be
careful to make sure you are buying one that has been maintained
and even upgraded over its lifetime.

[The Visitor]

Dave Butler wrote:

> For the version with counter-rotating props, you pay a penalty in
> service costs for the reverse-turning engine. Don't know how significant
> that is.

I have never noticed that with my Seneca.

Years ago when I put on factory remans, the engine was 700 odd dollars
more, or so. Perhaps it has changed now. but for maintenance, no difference.

John

[[email protected]]

Look here:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/ComancheFlyer/messages/?start=Start+Reading+%3E%3E

and here:

www.comancheflyer.com

For information on Twin Comanches (singles too).

Regards,
Jerry

[pgbnh]

I think trade-offs (at least financial ones) include:

1. Higher maintenance costs - 2 x a lot of systems that need fixing
2. Higher insurance costs (until you get LOTS of hoiurs in type)
3. Related to '1' above, but 2x overhaul costs - engine & prop
"E Andersen" > wrote in message
...
> Hi all
>
> When a Twin Comanche
>
> flies 165 knots
> burns less than 15 gallons
> have 2 engines ( :-) )
> is relatively cheap to overhaul (OI-320)
>
> is this the "ultimate" twin? I am considering an airplane that flies in
> the 165-170 knot range, prefer a twin, if I decide to
> go for a single nothing really beats a Mooney J/K but for the same
> investment I can get a TwinCo, have I overlooked something?
>
>
>
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

E Andersen wrote:
> Hi all
>
> When a Twin Comanche
>
> flies 165 knots
> burns less than 15 gallons
> have 2 engines ( :-) )
> is relatively cheap to overhaul (OI-320)
>
> is this the "ultimate" twin? I am considering an airplane that flies in the
> 165-170 knot range, prefer a twin, if I decide to
> go for a single nothing really beats a Mooney J/K but for the same
> investment I can get a TwinCo, have I overlooked something?

I thought about the same thing. I came to the conclusion that I didn't
want double the down time. You now abort twice as many flights. I've
been down almost 2 months with a bad fuel servo, I would hate for that
to happen twice as often. I fly in a lot of remote areas of Mexico and
don't want to double the chance to get stuck on the ground waiting for
an A&P to show up to replace a mag. Can a twin comanche even fly on one
engine?

-Robert

[karl gruber[_1_]]

>
> The TwinCo is not inherently more dangerous than any other twin.
> Back in the days when it was a common twin-trainer and the FAA
> required more agressive VMC training/demos... when done improperly
> in this airplane will result in a flat spin, not recoverable especially
> at the low altitudes these were done at back then. After a few spin
> accidents the VMC was raised and the FAA modified VMC demo and
> training recommendations to enhance safety.


The way I remember it was, that it was extensively used as a trainer and
many were lost on power cuts right after takeoff. I think VMC stayed the
same but the FAA stopped requiring low level power cuts. They also
introduced "Single engine safety speed," which the Twin Comanche was the
first to receive.

Karl

[ktbr]

karl gruber wrote:
>
> The way I remember it was, that it was extensively used as a trainer and
> many were lost on power cuts right after takeoff. I think VMC stayed the
> same but the FAA stopped requiring low level power cuts. They also
> introduced "Single engine safety speed," which the Twin Comanche was the
> first to receive.
>
>
Now that I have not heard about. I do know that the Twin Comanche's
Vmc was raised from 80mph to 90mph. In the interests of safety for
mel training accidents. The laminar flow wing of the Comanche makes
it fast and efficient but less forgiving and it quits flying more
abruptly than some other wings.

I am not sure if the PA39 (the CR version) had the same VMC...

[Newps]

E Andersen wrote:

> Hi all
>
> When a Twin Comanche
>
> flies 165 knots
> burns less than 15 gallons
> have 2 engines ( :-) )
> is relatively cheap to overhaul (OI-320)
>
> is this the "ultimate" twin?

That's a personal choice.



I am considering an airplane that flies in the
> 165-170 knot range, prefer a twin, if I decide to
> go for a single nothing really beats a Mooney J/K but for the same
> investment I can get a TwinCo, have I overlooked something?

Other costs will be a lot higher insurance and possibly forced annual
recurrent training. My S35 gets 170 kts TAS at about 14.5 GPH. But if
you just gotta have 2 engines then go for it. It wouldn't suit my
flying at all.

[Montblack]

("Paul kgyy" wrote)
> There is some scuttlebutt that the plane is a widowmaker, but I don't know
> the reason, though an acquaintance of mine died in one.


IIRC, it was something about stalls forming inside, at the wing root,
instead of more outboard - near the tip. (I might have this one wrong, too!)

http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9711.html
[Piper furnished owners with a free airflow modification kit that included
wing leading edge stall strips, a rudder seal strip, an aileron-rudder
interconnect system, and rerigging of the rudder and stabilator. These
changes were designed to provide better aerodynamic stall warning and
controllability at slow speeds.]


Montblack

[Erik Andersen]

Sure the cost will be higher, but if a twin is my first preference
(handling, safety over water and such). A TwinCo must be one of the cheapest
twins to maintain? I can't imagine a Seneca II can be cheaper, and it burns
more cas as well!?

"pgbnh" > wrote in message
. ..
>I think trade-offs (at least financial ones) include:
>
> 1. Higher maintenance costs - 2 x a lot of systems that need fixing
> 2. Higher insurance costs (until you get LOTS of hoiurs in type)
> 3. Related to '1' above, but 2x overhaul costs - engine & prop
> "E Andersen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi all
>>
>> When a Twin Comanche
>>
>> flies 165 knots
>> burns less than 15 gallons
>> have 2 engines ( :-) )
>> is relatively cheap to overhaul (OI-320)
>>
>> is this the "ultimate" twin? I am considering an airplane that flies in
>> the 165-170 knot range, prefer a twin, if I decide to
>> go for a single nothing really beats a Mooney J/K but for the same
>> investment I can get a TwinCo, have I overlooked something?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Took my multi training in a sweetheart TwinCo and took my instrument
ride in it also, back when gas was cheap. Oh, to be 18 again and flying
that hotrod....

It's quite a bit heavier on the controls than most Mooneys, but it felt
to me like the TwinCo had a bit more room.

It will fly very well on one engine if it's not loaded out to gross -
sure can't say that about very many of that vintage. Piper took the
Comanche 250 split the power into two engines, but used twin 160s like
it should've been done. On some they even hung turbos... Jeeze those
would rip up the sky in the lower teens.

Never flew the CR model because they came later.

We often didn't feather the props during engine out simulation but used
zero thrust settings instead. This was because of engine shock cooling
and nothing else.

Take-off departure stalls were not fully prosecuted during training
because of the long prop shaft extensions on the front of the engines.
There was a directive from the flight school not to let the stall break
because of the extra stress induced from the high rpm and high
gyroscopic forces that would be exerted on these magnesium alloy (I
think) shaft extensions. I seem to remember them being almost a foot
long.

One of ours had the full set of tanks including tips - that thing would
fly forever in economy cruise. I really think you could exceed crew duty
limits on one flight.

But, like I wrote before...Oh to be 18 and flying that hotrod again...

[NW_Pilot]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> E Andersen wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> When a Twin Comanche
>>
>> flies 165 knots
>> burns less than 15 gallons
>> have 2 engines ( :-) )
>> is relatively cheap to overhaul (OI-320)
>>
>> is this the "ultimate" twin? I am considering an airplane that flies in
>> the
>> 165-170 knot range, prefer a twin, if I decide to
>> go for a single nothing really beats a Mooney J/K but for the same
>> investment I can get a TwinCo, have I overlooked something?
>
> I thought about the same thing. I came to the conclusion that I didn't
> want double the down time. You now abort twice as many flights. I've
> been down almost 2 months with a bad fuel servo, I would hate for that
> to happen twice as often. I fly in a lot of remote areas of Mexico and
> don't want to double the chance to get stuck on the ground waiting for
> an A&P to show up to replace a mag. Can a twin comanche even fly on one
> engine?
>
> -Robert
>


I like mexico...... It's 9:00am Sir you need fuel? Yea, No fuel till 4pm can
have by 11am for $20.00 hahaha just love it down there. Or we don't know
ware the fuel truck drive has gone come back tomarrow.

[Robert M. Gary]

NW_Pilot wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> I like mexico...... It's 9:00am Sir you need fuel? Yea, No fuel till 4pm can
> have by 11am for $20.00 hahaha just love it down there. Or we don't know
> ware the fuel truck drive has gone come back tomarrow.

Inside information. NEVER walk up to the fuel guy and ask him for fuel.
You ask him about the day. You ask him about his family (in Mexico you
always ask about family before discussing business). Then, you can ask
about fuel. They consider Americans to be insulting when they just walk
up and start doing business.

Tipping is also highly encouraged. The fuel guy at Loreto sits behind a
desk and will actually wiggle the tip cup as you speak with him. No one
expects large amounts of money, usually a dollar will do. Same for the
airport official.

-Robert

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"E Andersen" > writes:

> When a Twin Comanche [...] is this the "ultimate" twin? I am
> considering an airplane that flies in the 165-170 knot range, prefer
> a twin [...]

If you fly in bad weather a lot, issues other than maintenance or fuel
fees may come to dominate your thinking: redundancy of engines (of
course), redundancy of accessories (pumps, generators), availability
of de-icing, excess power for escaping icing or high altitude cruise.

- FChE

[Robert M. Gary]

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> "E Andersen" > writes:
>
> > When a Twin Comanche [...] is this the "ultimate" twin? I am
> > considering an airplane that flies in the 165-170 knot range, prefer
> > a twin [...]
>
> If you fly in bad weather a lot, issues other than maintenance or fuel
> fees may come to dominate your thinking: redundancy of engines (of
> course), redundancy of accessories (pumps, generators), availability
> of de-icing, excess power for escaping icing or high altitude cruise.

Much less accidents in the twin because you'll so rarely get off the
ground. ;) Twice as many mag checks fail, twice as many fuel
servos/carbs need O/H....

-Robert