If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Twin Comanche vs. Mooney/other singles
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Twin Comanche vs. Mooney/other singles
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Twin Comanche vs. Mooney/other singles
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Twin Comanche vs. Mooney/other singles
"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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Twin Comanche vs. Mooney/other singles
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Twin Comanche vs. Mooney/other singles
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Twin Comanche vs. Mooney/other singles
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... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Twin Comanche vs. Mooney/other singles
("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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Twin Comanche vs. Mooney/other singles
Look he http://forums.delphiforums.com/Coman...Reading+%3E%3E and he www.comancheflyer.com For information on Twin Comanches (singles too). Regards, Jerry |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Narrowing it down... Comanche? | Jim Carter | Owning | 81 | March 21st 06 05:06 AM |
aftermarket de-ice for Twin Comanche | Dico | Owning | 1 | February 5th 06 05:51 PM |
Twin Comanche comparisons | Dico | Owning | 6 | January 30th 06 06:00 PM |
Comanche accident averted last evening | [email protected] | Piloting | 23 | April 13th 05 10:02 AM |
AOPA Twin Comanche | Rosspilot | Piloting | 79 | December 8th 04 07:23 PM |