A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Twin Comanche vs. Mooney/other singles



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 13th 06, 03:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
E Andersen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default 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?





Ads
  #2  
Old December 13th 06, 04:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Dave Butler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 147
Default 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  
Old December 13th 06, 04:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Paul kgyy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 283
Default 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.

  #4  
Old December 13th 06, 04:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
E Andersen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default 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.


  #5  
Old December 13th 06, 05:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
ktbr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 221
Default 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.

  #6  
Old December 13th 06, 05:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
The Visitor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 231
Default 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

  #7  
Old December 13th 06, 05:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default 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

  #8  
Old December 13th 06, 05:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
pgbnh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Twin Comanche vs. Mooney/other singles

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?







  #9  
Old December 13th 06, 05:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Robert M. Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,767
Default 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?


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

  #10  
Old December 13th 06, 06:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
karl gruber[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 396
Default 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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.