Twin comanche, just looked at one

[E Andersen]

Hi guys

Just looked at a 1964 TwinCo with all the bells and whistles, no GPS though,
but 2 glodeslopes, fresh annual and a lot more good stuff in it. It has a
STEC50, any ideas how good this is? The aircraft have 9000+ hours on the
airframe, doesnt look like it though, so it appears to me to be a used, but
not abused aircraft. Any considerations?

The plane can be bought for around 60.000

/E

[Gig 601XL Builder]

E Andersen wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> Just looked at a 1964 TwinCo with all the bells and whistles, no GPS
> though, but 2 glodeslopes, fresh annual and a lot more good stuff in
> it. It has a STEC50, any ideas how good this is? The aircraft have
> 9000+ hours on the airframe, doesnt look like it though, so it
> appears to me to be a used, but not abused aircraft. Any
> considerations?
> The plane can be bought for around 60.000
>
> /E

How many hours on the engines?

[E Andersen]

Right 936 / Left 1391

Prob RT 79 / left 1391



"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>E Andersen wrote:
>> Hi guys
>>
>> Just looked at a 1964 TwinCo with all the bells and whistles, no GPS
>> though, but 2 glodeslopes, fresh annual and a lot more good stuff in
>> it. It has a STEC50, any ideas how good this is? The aircraft have
>> 9000+ hours on the airframe, doesnt look like it though, so it
>> appears to me to be a used, but not abused aircraft. Any
>> considerations?
>> The plane can be bought for around 60.000
>>
>> /E
>
> How many hours on the engines?
>

[Mark Hansen]

On 02/21/07 14:49, E Andersen wrote:
> Right 936 / Left 1391
>
> Prob RT 79 / left 1391
>

Why not just provide the link to it, like you did in the other
thread?

<http://www.aircraftdealer.com/aircraft_for_sale_detail/Piper_Twin_Comanche/1964_Piper_Twin_Comanche_PA30-428/10656.htm>

[Jim B]

You really need to get in touch with these people: International Comanche
Society http://www.comancheflyer.com/

Talk to a few A&Ps about TwinCo's. In addition to the ICS, there are
several TwinCo owners & A&P's that post regularly at
http://www.piperchat.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=e16c68400a6ad4b3934dca4a8dd6a392

Purchasing any airplane is a complicated undertaking. If that airplane is
an older twin, your job just became much more demanding. You really need to
research all the airframe, engine, and accessory AD's, SB's, life-limited
parts, service difficulties, and common failures then apply what you learn
to some very thorough logbook research. A single recurring AD on an
otherwise seemingly inexpensive airplane could cause you to wish you never
saw the airplane in the first place. The ICS can lead you through the
"gottcha's" BEFORE you sign the check.

On a twin of that age and advertised at that sale price, I would set aside
NO LESS than an additional 50% for additional repair and maintenance that
you may incur during your first year of ownership.

Are you multi-rated? Have you investigated insurance? Has the airplane
been flying recently? Part 91? 135? Why is the owner selling? Has it been
hangered?
Good luck.
Jim

[E Andersen]

> Why not just provide the link to it, like you did in the other
> thread?
>
>
> <http://www.aircraftdealer.com/aircraft_for_sale_detail/Piper_Twin_Comanche/1964_Piper_Twin_Comanche_PA30-428/10656.htm>
>

My fault :-) just a bit tired after a long drive

[E Andersen]

> On a twin of that age and advertised at that sale price, I would set aside
> NO LESS than an additional 50% for additional repair and maintenance that
> you may incur during your first year of ownership.


yeah, I am aware of that, I was more concerned about the airframe, 9000
hours sounds like a lot, I dont know

[[email protected]]

On Feb 21, 6:19 pm, "E Andersen" > wrote:
> > On a twin of that age and advertised at that sale price, I would set aside
> > NO LESS than an additional 50% for additional repair and maintenance that
> > you may incur during your first year of ownership.
>
> yeah, I am aware of that, I was more concerned about the airframe, 9000
> hours sounds like a lot, I dont know

You should also look at the Delphi forum for Comanches.

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

It may ask you to log in, but the membership is free and it is a very
active forum on all things Comanche.

Regards,
Jerry

[Jim Burns]

There are many things to think about when buying an airplane but a couple
that concern airframes are:
1: you can't make it younger
2: you can't make it straighter (reasonably)
Money can fix just about everything else, but no amount will never roll back
the TTAF meter.

As the fleet of GA airplanes gets older there are more and more airplanes
approaching 9000+ hours, so the question becomes with all things considered,
how much of an effect does the high time have on this airplane's value? The
TwinCo is not so rare a bird that there aren't or won't be other comparative
examples on the market with lower total airframe times, even if they have
slightly higher asking prices. If you look around it's normally easy to
find older twins advertised for no more than the value of their engines,
props, and radios but even in these instances they often have much less than
9000 hours TT.

Jim



"E Andersen" > wrote in message
...
>
>> On a twin of that age and advertised at that sale price, I would set
>> aside
>> NO LESS than an additional 50% for additional repair and maintenance that
>> you may incur during your first year of ownership.
>
>
> yeah, I am aware of that, I was more concerned about the airframe, 9000
> hours sounds like a lot, I dont know
>
>
>

[comanche driver]

just a couple of quick things to check first.

check the gear trunion pins- ad on thoses they crack.
check logs for dye inspection, repeditive, or replacement with webco units,
non repetitive.
check gear bungee arms they crack also, no ad but ad on bungees.
check main gear castings at the web, they crack there also.
check tension on the push-pull gear cables, need a adapter most twinco
owners will have one or were to get one, they are easy to make the drawing
is in the service manual. if they are dragging to much the need to be
replaced, they are available but not cheap to replace.
check fuel valves for leaks and screens for corrosion, also part of a AD.
check rear bulkhead for cracks and horizonal bearings for play. also AD

those are the biggest things right off the top of my head for the twinco


check the ad list there are a few repetitive AD's


R. burns PA30 N31952



"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> There are many things to think about when buying an airplane but a couple
> that concern airframes are:
> 1: you can't make it younger
> 2: you can't make it straighter (reasonably)
> Money can fix just about everything else, but no amount will never roll
> back the TTAF meter.
>
> As the fleet of GA airplanes gets older there are more and more airplanes
> approaching 9000+ hours, so the question becomes with all things
> considered, how much of an effect does the high time have on this
> airplane's value? The TwinCo is not so rare a bird that there aren't or
> won't be other comparative examples on the market with lower total
> airframe times, even if they have slightly higher asking prices. If you
> look around it's normally easy to find older twins advertised for no more
> than the value of their engines, props, and radios but even in these
> instances they often have much less than 9000 hours TT.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> "E Andersen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> On a twin of that age and advertised at that sale price, I would set
>>> aside
>>> NO LESS than an additional 50% for additional repair and maintenance
>>> that
>>> you may incur during your first year of ownership.
>>
>>
>> yeah, I am aware of that, I was more concerned about the airframe, 9000
>> hours sounds like a lot, I dont know
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[comanche driver]

just noticed you are in florida. I have the bugee replacement tool and the
gear load check adapter at my hanger at FMY if you need to borrow for an
inspection.

R. burns

"comanche driver" <spamawayassh.ole> wrote in message
. ..
> just a couple of quick things to check first.
>
> check the gear trunion pins- ad on thoses they crack.
> check logs for dye inspection, repeditive, or replacement with webco
> units, non repetitive.
> check gear bungee arms they crack also, no ad but ad on bungees.
> check main gear castings at the web, they crack there also.
> check tension on the push-pull gear cables, need a adapter most twinco
> owners will have one or were to get one, they are easy to make the drawing
> is in the service manual. if they are dragging to much the need to be
> replaced, they are available but not cheap to replace.
> check fuel valves for leaks and screens for corrosion, also part of a AD.
> check rear bulkhead for cracks and horizonal bearings for play. also AD
>
> those are the biggest things right off the top of my head for the twinco
>
>
> check the ad list there are a few repetitive AD's
>
>
> R. burns PA30 N31952
>
>
>
> "Jim Burns" > wrote in message
> ...
>> There are many things to think about when buying an airplane but a couple
>> that concern airframes are:
>> 1: you can't make it younger
>> 2: you can't make it straighter (reasonably)
>> Money can fix just about everything else, but no amount will never roll
>> back the TTAF meter.
>>
>> As the fleet of GA airplanes gets older there are more and more airplanes
>> approaching 9000+ hours, so the question becomes with all things
>> considered, how much of an effect does the high time have on this
>> airplane's value? The TwinCo is not so rare a bird that there aren't or
>> won't be other comparative examples on the market with lower total
>> airframe times, even if they have slightly higher asking prices. If you
>> look around it's normally easy to find older twins advertised for no more
>> than the value of their engines, props, and radios but even in these
>> instances they often have much less than 9000 hours TT.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> "E Andersen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>> On a twin of that age and advertised at that sale price, I would set
>>>> aside
>>>> NO LESS than an additional 50% for additional repair and maintenance
>>>> that
>>>> you may incur during your first year of ownership.
>>>
>>>
>>> yeah, I am aware of that, I was more concerned about the airframe, 9000
>>> hours sounds like a lot, I dont know
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[E Andersen]

"comanche driver" <spamawayassh.ole> wrote in message
. ..
> just noticed you are in florida. I have the bugee replacement tool and the
> gear load check adapter at my hanger at FMY if you need to borrow for an
> inspection.
>
> R. burns
>

Hi

that sounds really good. I am a bit vary about the comanche, looks like its
the same guy at "the local airfield" that have done service for a long time,
I think I'm gonna pass on this one and look at another instead, or maybe a
nice seneca.

Erik

[E Andersen]

Hi

the more I look into it, the more I keep returning to the comanche, it must
be the
fastest small twin and at the same time very economical, how can that go
wrong :-)

I might go and have a look at this one

http://www.schomeraircraftcenter.com/inventory5.htm

during the week, does anyone know this particular aircraft?

Erik


>>
>> check the gear trunion pins- ad on thoses they crack.
>> check logs for dye inspection, repeditive, or replacement with webco
>> units, non repetitive.
>> check gear bungee arms they crack also, no ad but ad on bungees.
>> check main gear castings at the web, they crack there also.
>> check tension on the push-pull gear cables, need a adapter most twinco
>> owners will have one or were to get one, they are easy to make the
>> drawing is in the service manual. if they are dragging to much the need
>> to be replaced, they are available but not cheap to replace.
>> check fuel valves for leaks and screens for corrosion, also part of a AD.
>> check rear bulkhead for cracks and horizonal bearings for play. also AD
>>

[[email protected]]

On 25-Feb-2007, "E Andersen" > wrote:

> Hi
>
> the more I look into it, the more I keep returning to the comanche, it
> must
> be the
> fastest small twin and at the same time very economical, how can that go
> wrong :-)
>
> I might go and have a look at this one
>
> http://www.schomeraircraftcenter.com/inventory5.htm
>
> during the week, does anyone know this particular aircraft?
>
> Erik
>
>
> >>
> >> check the gear trunion pins- ad on thoses they crack.
> >> check logs for dye inspection, repeditive, or replacement with webco
> >> units, non repetitive.
> >> check gear bungee arms they crack also, no ad but ad on bungees.
> >> check main gear castings at the web, they crack there also.
> >> check tension on the push-pull gear cables, need a adapter most twinco
> >> owners will have one or were to get one, they are easy to make the
> >> drawing is in the service manual. if they are dragging to much the need
> >>
> >> to be replaced, they are available but not cheap to replace.
> >> check fuel valves for leaks and screens for corrosion, also part of a
> >> AD.
> >> check rear bulkhead for cracks and horizonal bearings for play. also AD
> >>

Don't know anything about this particular but if an autopilot is part of
your consideration (seem to remember a previous reference) I would not
consider this aircraft. I owned a 64 model TC a number of years ago with
this autopilot and it is very old technology even at that time (about 15
years ago). It was in and out of the instrument shop several times trying
to keep the thing working, especially the altitude hold. The people at the
shop were an old family business that had been around since shortly after
WWII and they didn't have anything good to say about it. Several boxes, all
interconnected with RF cables (old style coax, with the hollow dialectric
for the center conductor). The plane was great, a real honest four person
plus baggage plane even with full fuel. Reasonable operating costs for a
twin. But the old autopilot was garbage. Good luck in your search.

Rick

[[email protected]]

Before we found our 66 Aztec C model with it's STEC 60-2, we
considered a 65 C with an Altimatic II that was inoperable. I called
Autopilots Central and discussed this autopilot with Bob Ferguson. He
took plenty of time and explained the problems with the Altimatic II
and didn't simply brush me off. His recommendation was to totally
discount this autopilot, even it was fully functional. He said that
we'd be looking for a replacement just as soon as we had our first
problem with it.

I have a friend with an Altimatic III in his Aztec and he hasn't any
problems, plus it's still serviceable by most shops.

YMMV
Jim Burns

[E Andersen]

I wonder if the upgrade to an STEC would be relatively easy, if the servos
are already in place?


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Before we found our 66 Aztec C model with it's STEC 60-2, we
> considered a 65 C with an Altimatic II that was inoperable. I called
> Autopilots Central and discussed this autopilot with Bob Ferguson. He
> took plenty of time and explained the problems with the Altimatic II
> and didn't simply brush me off. His recommendation was to totally
> discount this autopilot, even it was fully functional. He said that
> we'd be looking for a replacement just as soon as we had our first
> problem with it.
>
> I have a friend with an Altimatic III in his Aztec and he hasn't any
> problems, plus it's still serviceable by most shops.
>
> YMMV
> Jim Burns
>

[Jim B]

Bob Ferguson would know the best route for you to follow. His email and
contact info are at http://www.autopilotscentral.com/contact.htm
He's a straight shooter. You'll find his name, recommendations, and
accolades in the archives of many newsgroups.

Jim