Twin Comanche vs. Mooney/other singles

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

Look he
http://forums.delphiforums.com/Coman...Reading+%3E%3E

and he

www.comancheflyer.com

For information on Twin Comanches (singles too).

Regards,
Jerry

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?

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

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