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...

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.

("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

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?

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...

"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.

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

"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

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