PA30 Twin Comm, Aztec or Seneca I?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
The Twin Co is apparently impossible to land properly
You should be able to make 6 good out of 10.
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also not true, it just take many Attempts. You should be able to make 6 good out of 10.
You should be able to make 6 good out of 10.
Well I'm getting a little better...still rather 'three pointer' though unfortunately...
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horses for courses
Some time back, but .........
Did all my twin training, as a very low hours PPL, on the PA39 (non turbo) version of the Twin Com. It was my aircraft, and due to my very low hours at the start, it was a handful, but great fun, and (VERY important) with the right instructor, it is NOT a problem to fly accurately, but it has to be flown. The circuit at a small GA field can be 'interesting' as the best speed with the TC is around the 110 - 120 kts, ( due to the single engine blue line speed of 105 Kts) so if there are 3 or 4 Cessna 150's in the circuit, that calls for some careful planning, and more than a little changing of the order, and keeping the options open until shure of getting in adds some spice to getting rid of 30+ Kts of airspeed on very short final.
Went on to do IMC & night and then did a load of hour building/business flying (250 Hrs over a couple of years) all over the place in Europe, and for that, it was perfect, fast cruise, economical, and with De Ice and a reasonable panel, it would go pretty much anywhere I wanted, and when I wanted.
At the end of the training, and yes, we did a LOT more than the book says is needed for a twin, night & IMC rating, I was comfortable, and safe flying it single crew, at night, sometimes IFR on sectors of up to 3 Hrs 30 if needed, but a lot of that was down to an instructor that insisted that I fly it to IR standard, even though I couldn't do the IR initially as I didn't have enough P1 time, so had to stick to IMC rules for a while.
Did some flying in an Aztec during that training period, due to an annual getting in the way. Instructor's comments 'You're used to the TC, which is a bit like a Ferrari. This is the Land Rover of the range, and he wasn't far wrong. Big tank of an aircraft in comparison, much more expensive to operate, but would go places that the TC wasn't really suited to, like short grass strips and the like.
Flew Seneca 1 & 2 in the States when doing some more business trips, and then did my CPL/IR ratings in an old Seneca 1. It wasn't hard to fly in all fairness, but it was again, more expensive, slower than the TC, but capable of carrying a lot more weight.
As a real fun go places reasonably fast and economically airplane, with a relatively light load, the TC was great. Despite the comments above, the TC can be landed 'nicely', a trickle of power, nail the speed, and it's not dramatic. Get the speed wrong, either way, and it can be 'interesting'. Trimming is critical, ( electric trim is almost an essential for workload reduction, especially for single engine work) and the all moving elevator means that it's incredibly sensitive in pitch.
You won't carry 4 adults and bags very far, even with tip tanks, but at 160 Kts or better, that may not be a problem. Even 2 adults and 2 children with bags may require a bit of care with the w & B, and it's not going to work with full tanks. One or 2 up, the only restriction worth considering is the bladder endurance, mine with full tanks and tips filled was good for nearly 11 hours if it was set up correctly in the cruise. The handling is very different 2 up to 6 up, the instructor demonstrated that to me by getting me to do a (short) trip with it loaded on one occasion, and it makes a huge difference to the handling, as the C of G is much more aft. Worth doing if you're getting a TC.
The Aztec is a work horse, and the one I flew wasn't going to set the world on fire speed wise.
The Seneca is sort of between the 2. The rudder/aileron couple can cause problems if you don't keep your feet firmly on the rudder pedals when cruising, in that it can cause some very uncomfortable fish tailing for the people in the back row if there's a bit of unstable air causing the aircraft to twitch, unless it's blocked, the rudder couple upsets things as the ailerons are used to correct the course. Other than that, it's a genuine enough slightly larger twin that can haul 6 adults a reasonable distance without having to keep stopping for fuel.
Hope that helps a little
Steve
Did all my twin training, as a very low hours PPL, on the PA39 (non turbo) version of the Twin Com. It was my aircraft, and due to my very low hours at the start, it was a handful, but great fun, and (VERY important) with the right instructor, it is NOT a problem to fly accurately, but it has to be flown. The circuit at a small GA field can be 'interesting' as the best speed with the TC is around the 110 - 120 kts, ( due to the single engine blue line speed of 105 Kts) so if there are 3 or 4 Cessna 150's in the circuit, that calls for some careful planning, and more than a little changing of the order, and keeping the options open until shure of getting in adds some spice to getting rid of 30+ Kts of airspeed on very short final.
Went on to do IMC & night and then did a load of hour building/business flying (250 Hrs over a couple of years) all over the place in Europe, and for that, it was perfect, fast cruise, economical, and with De Ice and a reasonable panel, it would go pretty much anywhere I wanted, and when I wanted.
At the end of the training, and yes, we did a LOT more than the book says is needed for a twin, night & IMC rating, I was comfortable, and safe flying it single crew, at night, sometimes IFR on sectors of up to 3 Hrs 30 if needed, but a lot of that was down to an instructor that insisted that I fly it to IR standard, even though I couldn't do the IR initially as I didn't have enough P1 time, so had to stick to IMC rules for a while.
Did some flying in an Aztec during that training period, due to an annual getting in the way. Instructor's comments 'You're used to the TC, which is a bit like a Ferrari. This is the Land Rover of the range, and he wasn't far wrong. Big tank of an aircraft in comparison, much more expensive to operate, but would go places that the TC wasn't really suited to, like short grass strips and the like.
Flew Seneca 1 & 2 in the States when doing some more business trips, and then did my CPL/IR ratings in an old Seneca 1. It wasn't hard to fly in all fairness, but it was again, more expensive, slower than the TC, but capable of carrying a lot more weight.
As a real fun go places reasonably fast and economically airplane, with a relatively light load, the TC was great. Despite the comments above, the TC can be landed 'nicely', a trickle of power, nail the speed, and it's not dramatic. Get the speed wrong, either way, and it can be 'interesting'. Trimming is critical, ( electric trim is almost an essential for workload reduction, especially for single engine work) and the all moving elevator means that it's incredibly sensitive in pitch.
You won't carry 4 adults and bags very far, even with tip tanks, but at 160 Kts or better, that may not be a problem. Even 2 adults and 2 children with bags may require a bit of care with the w & B, and it's not going to work with full tanks. One or 2 up, the only restriction worth considering is the bladder endurance, mine with full tanks and tips filled was good for nearly 11 hours if it was set up correctly in the cruise. The handling is very different 2 up to 6 up, the instructor demonstrated that to me by getting me to do a (short) trip with it loaded on one occasion, and it makes a huge difference to the handling, as the C of G is much more aft. Worth doing if you're getting a TC.
The Aztec is a work horse, and the one I flew wasn't going to set the world on fire speed wise.
The Seneca is sort of between the 2. The rudder/aileron couple can cause problems if you don't keep your feet firmly on the rudder pedals when cruising, in that it can cause some very uncomfortable fish tailing for the people in the back row if there's a bit of unstable air causing the aircraft to twitch, unless it's blocked, the rudder couple upsets things as the ailerons are used to correct the course. Other than that, it's a genuine enough slightly larger twin that can haul 6 adults a reasonable distance without having to keep stopping for fuel.
Hope that helps a little
Steve
The circuit at a small GA field can be 'interesting' as the best speed with the TC is around the 110 - 120 kts, ( due to the single engine blue line speed of 105 Kts)
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great that we have a few Twin Com drivers here because I was wanting to ask another question...
I've just finished the MEP on the Twin Com but I'm slightly in two minds about the take off technique. According to the AFM:
Take-off technique
With flaps 15 and both engines at maximum take-off power, the aeroplane should be held on or near the ground until the take-off safety speed of 97mph is attained.
I've been told by my instructor not to use take off flap (this is for a hard runway) and to rotate at 85mph...which as you can see differs slightly from the AFM.
What do others do?
I've just finished the MEP on the Twin Com but I'm slightly in two minds about the take off technique. According to the AFM:
Take-off technique
With flaps 15 and both engines at maximum take-off power, the aeroplane should be held on or near the ground until the take-off safety speed of 97mph is attained.
I've been told by my instructor not to use take off flap (this is for a hard runway) and to rotate at 85mph...which as you can see differs slightly from the AFM.
What do others do?
With flaps 15 and both engines at maximum take-off power, the aeroplane should be held on or near the ground until the take-off safety speed of 97mph is attained.
The PA30 was involved in a number of training spin/stall accidents in its early days when the FAA still required a Vmca demonstration in checkrides. The problem was, in essence, that the rudder remained effective down to speeds very close to stall, and the Vmca demo rapidly turned into an asymmetric stall.
The "fix" was straightforward: the FAA simply increased the nominal Vmca, by a fair few knots. As a result, the take-off safety speed increased proportionately, but, I hypothesise, the instruction in the POH remained the same with the new figure inserted. Perhaps it was test flown a couple of times on a nice day.
As a result, the instruction is, IMHO, dangerous in many conditions. The high nose attitude on three wheels of the PA30 means that at 97 mph with flap 15 you're either climbing or you're wheelbarrowing. The unofficial Owner's Handbook for the PA30B (well worth getting a copy, Essco sell them) quotes take-off runs based on a lift off speed of 80 mph with flap 15, with an assumed speed of 91 mph at 50 ft.
I don't use flap for take-off, though I don't tend to operate off short runways. I lift off when the aircraft wants to lift, and accelerate to about 90 kt before tucking the gear away and climbing.
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks bookworm, the theory about Vmca had crossed my mind as well...but the AFM I have is from 1963 which is presumably before the FAA changed the Vmc figure from 80mph to 90mph. It may be that the manual I have is in fact a mix of stuff from different dates...it says 1963 on it but I know the plane is a 'B' model built in 1966 which is a bit bizarre, although it does have the plane's registration on it. So who knows about that?
Actually I ordered one a few days ago...I'm glad you think it's worth getting. Although of course it is 'unofficial' it is still a Piper publication isn't it?
The unofficial Owner's Handbook for the PA30B (well worth getting a copy, Essco sell them) quotes take-off runs based on a lift off speed of 80 mph with flap 15, with an assumed speed of 91 mph at 50 ft.
but the AFM I have is from 1963 which is presumably before the FAA changed the Vmc figure from 80mph to 90mph
Although of course it is 'unofficial' it is still a Piper publication isn't it?
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but presumably the Vmca figure is amended nevertheless?
...On closer inspection the AFM lists under amendments:Revised minimum single engined control speed and take off safety speed, dated 7/7/64.
An identical amendment entry is also listed further down the page dated 12/12/69. The 1964 entry only amended the take off safety speed (to 97mph as written in the second paragraph of the take off technique section) but the 1969 amendment also changed all the take off distance graphs. There isn't actually any mention of Vmca in the AFM as such, it mearly lists the 'recommended single engine maneuvering speed' of 97mph (despite the words 'minimum single engined control speed' appearing in the amendments page it doesn't reappear anywhere else in the AFM which is a bit odd I thought) which I take to be different from Vmca which I know to be 90mph.
What I had been expecting to find was a big added page which actually stated the change of Vmca from 80mph to 90mph like the AFM has for the Vne change of 230mph to 215mph. But like I said above, other than on the amendments list itself a reference to Vmca doesn't exist in the AFM.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The unofficial Owner's Handbook for the PA30B (well worth getting a copy, Essco sell them)
Why to buy an unofficial POH when you can get an official one? Call Webco and order your ICS POH. You are a member aren't you?
You will find there more info than you think.
I think we're talking at cross purposes AC-DC. The only "official" manual in the sense that I meant is the aircraft's Approved Flight Manual. ICS info tends to be excellent, but the Piper Owner's Manual is also helpful.
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call Webco and order your ICS POH.
I looked at it on the ICS website and was wondering if it was any good.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I have it (2 if to be honest, one at home and one in the aircraft) and it is A*. Very very good with all the information that you might need. They are not cheap but worth every penny.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: American Traveling
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please try to avoid taking off with Flaps in a Twin Comanche. They make it nearly impossible to lift off above Vmc. The later factory POH lists flap setings for TO at 0-15. Optional.
Please try to avoid taking off with Flaps in a Twin Comanche. They make it nearly impossible to lift off above Vmc.
(BTW, solution is to extend flap to 15 again, reduce airspeed, and retract again.)
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found an even better reason once. The flaps are retracted by independent springs. So at 300 feet or so after take-off with flap 15, you command flaps up, and only one retracts. The aircraft remains controllable in that state, but it's not my choice of configuration on a high-workload departure. (BTW, solution is to extend flap to 15 again, reduce airspeed, and retract again.)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello !
I flew only Seneca & TwinCo, not the aztek.
But I would say :
If you fly often enough to be "current", and want a nice speedy airplane, the twinCo is the best.
Yes, not easy to land ! :-) Just need the exact good speed and attitude, what a terrible flare ! And props kiss the grass, you have to be careful.
But that's a greaaat airplane, you will be charmed, the pannel is a mess and there are buttons and switches everywhere, but that smells "the good old fashion twin".
The one I flew was great because you could desactivate turbos manually, which allows you to do some training without stressing your engines.
Problem : de-iced TwinCos are very rare, so you'll probably have a non-deiced one.
Problem 2 : parts may be hard to find.
Seneca I : Great if you want to do some flight training because no turbo, but slow and a bit heavy.
Very reliable, a good transportation twin, easy to land, and a very comfortable cockpit. No Eurocontrol fees with the "below 2T" paper.
But most of them are getting old, quite a lot of flight hours done.
I would prefer the Seneca II turbo (we own one).
But recently built Senecas are too heavy and some even cannot avoid the eurocontrol fee !
Aztek : I never flew, a bit too thirsty, but Piper built reliable airplanes so I assume this one is also a good plane. Maybe parts problems.
About twins, I enjoy the DA42, nice trainer. Too slow and badly deiced for travelling 365 days/year, but nice baby (expensive to buy :-( !!).
Hope this will help...
Frog
I flew only Seneca & TwinCo, not the aztek.
But I would say :
If you fly often enough to be "current", and want a nice speedy airplane, the twinCo is the best.
Yes, not easy to land ! :-) Just need the exact good speed and attitude, what a terrible flare ! And props kiss the grass, you have to be careful.
But that's a greaaat airplane, you will be charmed, the pannel is a mess and there are buttons and switches everywhere, but that smells "the good old fashion twin".
The one I flew was great because you could desactivate turbos manually, which allows you to do some training without stressing your engines.
Problem : de-iced TwinCos are very rare, so you'll probably have a non-deiced one.
Problem 2 : parts may be hard to find.
Seneca I : Great if you want to do some flight training because no turbo, but slow and a bit heavy.
Very reliable, a good transportation twin, easy to land, and a very comfortable cockpit. No Eurocontrol fees with the "below 2T" paper.
But most of them are getting old, quite a lot of flight hours done.
I would prefer the Seneca II turbo (we own one).
But recently built Senecas are too heavy and some even cannot avoid the eurocontrol fee !
Aztek : I never flew, a bit too thirsty, but Piper built reliable airplanes so I assume this one is also a good plane. Maybe parts problems.
About twins, I enjoy the DA42, nice trainer. Too slow and badly deiced for travelling 365 days/year, but nice baby (expensive to buy :-( !!).
Hope this will help...
Frog
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call Webco and order your ICS POH. You are a member aren't you? You will find there more info than you think.
You will find there more info than you think.
Once again, thanks to all those who've answered on this thread.
