Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

PA30 Twin Comm, Aztec or Seneca I?

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

PA30 Twin Comm, Aztec or Seneca I?

Old 22nd Dec 2007, 11:14
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
That leaves all the rest of the fuel you carry to get you to destination.
Yup. All 17 USG of it. That's typically about 55 mins after an allowance for take-off and climb.

I've already said I wouldn't swap the Twin Com for anything else. Just bear in mind that as four-plus-bags aircraft, it's very different from what it's capable of as a two-person (3:10 to dest) or even three-person (5:30 to dest) tourer.
bookworm is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2007, 17:08
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: American Traveling
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BookWorm, is the weight penalty of the de-ice worth the advantages in your experience? Must be about 125-145 pounds the best I can figure.
TwinkieFlyer is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2007, 08:28
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
is the weight penalty of the de-ice worth the advantages in your experience? Must be about 125-145 pounds the best I can figure.
Difficult one to judge. If I count the value as the number of times the boots have actually been used, the answer is "no". If I count the value as the number of trips I didn't cancel and the stress avoided because they were there, the answer is "yes". To be honest, I rarely operate the aircraft as a tourer with more than 2 up, so the penalty is not a bit issue.

I don't think the penalty is really 125-145 lb, though the nitrogen bottle and plumbing is indeed heavy (from a CofG point of view I wish it were in the back rather than the nose). I think we really do have a heavy aeroplane compared to some of its peers - probably all that filler needed to compensate for the abuse over 40 years.
bookworm is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2008, 15:30
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: BUCKS
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
which twin

they must be four BIG people to reach the all up on an Aztec! For an easy to fly, spacious twin I would opt for the Aztec BUT dont forget those nav charges. For training I would agree with the recommendation of the duchess. Simple and forgiving!
wac flyer is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 11:36
  #45 (permalink)  
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just had my first lesson in the Twin Comanche and I really like it. Only thing which irritated me about it was the manner of the landing...very flat (with just two in the front) and hard, it just seems to float and then drop, not like the PA28 at all. Could anyone offer any advice on how to make the landings better? I'm told all the Piper light twins are like this.
Contacttower is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 14:44
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Meon Valley
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i think anything from an arrow upwards lands like that.

As only only one person mentioned, the Cessna 337 is a little known good twin. Yes there is the prop noise, but with plenty of power on tap you can help with lower rpm take offs if light. also the engine tbo is 1500 hrs, but most non turbos seem to make it happily. They have a good turn of speed and load up well. Single engine performance is good on all models, exepct when cycling the gear you will sink with the drap from the clam sheel rear doors !. They also seem to go for good $$.

I remember my ir training in the dutchess. A wonderfull aircraft, with a good sized panel to fill and a nice height position, but they only ever seem to be used for training and everyone i,ve been in showed it with wear and tear.
poor southerner is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 15:59
  #47 (permalink)  
Formerly HWD
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indochina
Age: 56
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The 337 looks like a fabulous aircraft. When (if) the readies avail themselves, one shall be mine!
I'm told all the Piper light twins are like this.
My impression was that the Seneca 1 was definitely more tricky than the Seneca III which was more difficult than the Arrow t-tail which I was told was difficult.

However, the Seneca I and Arrow both have very heavy elevator forces in common, you think you've run out of authority but with more determination you discover there is movement yet. Just that judgement, probably very subjectively on my part, seemed to be more difficult in the Seneca 1.

Perhaps the Twin Comm is like the Seneca 1? The Seneca 1 definitely likes power to remain on until starting the flare with a fair amount of rearward trim. The rearward trim does not cause excessive control forces when going around which is good. It should be positively landed on the mains (greasers just increase the ground roll) with a good flare and the stick hard back as you brake until the nose cannot stay up any longer. This produces satisfyingly short landing runs.
Tony Hirst is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 16:52
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The arrow doesn't have heavy control forces, with a stabilator all-flying tail. The Seneca doesn't either. The Seneca (I, II, or III) is about as benign and easy to fly as any light twin, and has very simple handling characteristics with it's square, hershey bar wing.

The Cessna 337 is okay until one engine fails, when you're sandwiched between to heavy weights and in a cage with one exit and avgas on top. While they don't have assymetrical thrust issues, they have very poor single engine performance, and unless you're flying an upgraded airplane such as a Riley conversion or an airplane with bigger engines, you're going to be drifting down, not climbing, not holding altitude on one engine.
SNS3Guppy is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 17:16
  #49 (permalink)  
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
...I found the controls light at all times in the Twin Comm, except during the flare, certainly the flare was a lot heavier than the low tailed Arrow. My instructor (A very experienced one I might add) seemed to think that realistically it wouldn't land much better than what I managed. The other issue I discovered was a bit of PIO during the flare...caused by me lowering the nose slightly after the initial flare to loose a bit of height (having perhaps flared a little high at first) and then trying to raise the nose again closer to the ground. Anyone else like to share experiences of the type?
Contacttower is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 18:19
  #50 (permalink)  
Formerly HWD
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indochina
Age: 56
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CT,

I think that pretty much describes the Seneca 1 too! Understood that such a perception is possibly subjective and relative to one's usual steeds.
Tony Hirst is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 18:27
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Meon Valley
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
guppy
well I have only flown early model 337's (non turbo or P) and I never had any problems with either single engine climb, with various loads. The only problem is the well know gear retraction drag brake (which can be fixed with a stc door deletion kit)
I would liken flying a 337 on one engine to flying a 182.

and if you dont like not having a driver door, best avoid flying most pipers or anything larger

Last edited by poor southerner; 5th Jan 2008 at 19:00.
poor southerner is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 19:17
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Only thing which irritated me about it was the manner of the landing...very flat (with just two in the front) and hard, it just seems to float and then drop, not like the PA28 at all. Could anyone offer any advice on how to make the landings better? I'm told all the Piper light twins are like this.
Welcome to the game of chance called "landing the Twin Com". The unpredictability of landing seems to be a standing joke among TC owners.

I think the fundamental problem (probably not shared by other Piper twins) is the high deck angle in the normal ground attitude. It was supposed to be so the passengers could climb straight on to the aft wing without a step. A consequence seems to be an uncomfortably narrow window between that ground attitude (at which you just about avoid breaking the nosewheel) and the stall attitude. Vortex generators seem to help.
bookworm is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2008, 22:33
  #53 (permalink)  
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I found an old Fliteguide test of the Twin Com on the internet and it suggests to deal with the landing:

There are two main schools of thought on how to minimise landing embarrassment. The first is to use half flaps, which will get the Twin Comanche down sooner and with less of a sudden cessation of flying. The second is to simply pump up the main gear legs to maximise their extension length. This addresses two of the main causes; it reduces the nose high stance and increases the gap between the flaps and the ground. Either way the PA-30 is an aeroplane that will punish sloppy technique.
Contacttower is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2008, 05:16
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
well I have only flown early model 337's (non turbo or P) and I never had any problems with either single engine climb, with various loads. The only problem is the well know gear retraction drag brake (which can be fixed with a stc door deletion kit)
I would liken flying a 337 on one engine to flying a 182.
Now of course you'll need to specify if it's the front engine or the rear, beause the performance is different for each. That said, what kind of single engine ceiling have you been at gross weight with an engine out? If you're limping home close to sea level with no significant terrain beneath, perhaps it's okay.

It's certainly not akin to flying a 182. Among other things, with the 182, I've regularly dropped loads of skydivers out at 15,000 feet and higher...something you'll not being doing on one engine in the 0-2/337. In fact, even at low altitudes, you won't meet the same rate of climb on one engine as a 182...and one one engine you're in an emergency condition in the 337, whereas you're perfectly fine in the 182. Furthermore, lose the remaining engine in the 337, you shouldn't count on fairing nearly as well with the subequent forced landing as you will with the 182 when it's powerplant fails.

and if you dont like not having a driver door, best avoid flying most pipers or anything larger
Well, presently if I want to get out of the cockpit, it's either leave the seat, retire to the rear supernumary area and descend a flight of stairs to the main deck before leaving the main entrance door, or exiting the top hatch out of the cockpit and descending on an emergency cable about 38' to the ground. And no, I don't like not having a driver door. My other regular airplane has ejectable doors and quck release side panels, a full steel roll cage, and I usually wear nomex, gloves, boots, and a helmet.

The cherokee doors are a disgraceful joke and it applies from the PA-28 through the Seneca. It's a sorrowful piece of engineering.

However, seeing as you mentioned it, when I flew the Navajo, I had an exit door in the cockpit. It's a little bigger than a Cherokee, and it's still a piper. The Cheyennes we flew didn't have the door, but we figured we could plow over the station operator in back if we had to get out in a hurry .
SNS3Guppy is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2008, 08:13
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
and it suggests to deal with the landing...
Both points true. I routinely land with half-flap. With full flap the window I described between ground attitude and stall is even smaller.

There's also a small-nose-wheel mod that has a similar effect to pumping up the main-wheel oleos.
bookworm is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2008, 13:13
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bookworm has it.

Basically, the Twin Comm's attitude on the ground is that of a shallow climb. Therefore, if the speed is not exactly right before the flare, rotating the aircraft into the landing attitude will cause it to climb away again or scoot off down the runway in ground effect until the speed bled off. The take off can be equally interesting for the same reason; slightly too much back-pressure on the stick and it gets airbourne in ground-effect at an alarmingly low speed, slightly too much forward pressure and the aircraft will wheelbarrow which can be quite exciting in a crosswind! Once you got it right though it was a very satisfying little aircraft to fly.

Back to the original question, though:
1. The venerable Aztec wins hands down for load-carrying, comfort, benign handling and airfield performance. Strangely, the older round nosed models (C and D) were slightly faster than the later pointy nosed ones.
2. The Twin Comanche doesn't have the load carrying capacity but has great economy, speed and range and will appeal to those who like a bit more of a handling challenge.
3. Then there's the Seneca. I only ever flew the Seneca I and never really understood why Piper bothered with it. Cobbled together from all sorts of bits they had lying around it fell somewhere between the Aztec and the Twin Com but without the appeal of either and the handling was just awful. I'm sure it will have improved with later versions, though.

Good Luck,

MT
Mach Tuck is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2008, 21:34
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bookworm

Have you try the wing fillets: All reports say that they make the landings much smoother and more predictable.
AC-DC is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2008, 21:59
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Have you try the wing fillets: All reports say that they make the landings much smoother and more predictable.
Though we got the VGs fitted only a couple of years ago, we've had the wing fillets since we got the aircraft. If they make landing significantly easier, I shudder to think how badly I'd land one without the wing fillets.
bookworm is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2008, 14:41
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: American Traveling
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The wing fillets help.
Pumping the main struts to 4" helps.
The small nose tire helps (15x600-6)
Putting 100# in the baggage helps alot.
Land with just a tiny bit of power, increases airflow over the tail
No flaps helps, but you need at least 900m for that

Don't ever try to lower the nose on a Twin Comanche if you over flare a bit, add power instead. The pitch is too touchy unless you have lots of experience.
TwinkieFlyer is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2008, 15:01
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm just wondering, if the Seneca is such a crappy airplane as people seem to think, why are there so many of them? Agreed, the 1 is not perfect with it's aileron/rudder interconnect and heavy in the flare, but apart from that, what's so bad about it? It handles load rather well although it has poor SE performance but then what light twin doesn't (honestly) with only 200 hp normal aspirated per side? It's a benign twin at that, I've flown it below Vmc on one engine and it didn't kill me, the Duchess apparently is not so nice for example.
The Twin Co is apparently impossible to land properly and the Aztruck is only good for hauling a lot and burning tons of fuel.
Ok, so the Seneca 1 is not so fast, but with the 2 they sorted most of the problems and it's a pretty good airplane as compromises go. Is it not one of the most built twins around?
deice is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.