PA 30 Twin Comanche Info
Thread Starter
PA 30 Twin Comanche Info
A friend of mine has an opportunity to buy a PA 30 (1964 model) in Europe.
He asked me to assist him in the acquisition process but I never flown any PA 30.
I know it is cheap to operate (160hp) and cruises @ 160kt, has a 1633kg MTOW/MLDW.
Any tips welcomed! (what to watch-out for this type...)
Thanks!
He asked me to assist him in the acquisition process but I never flown any PA 30.
I know it is cheap to operate (160hp) and cruises @ 160kt, has a 1633kg MTOW/MLDW.
Any tips welcomed! (what to watch-out for this type...)
Thanks!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tea green International
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
various
There are two mane versiants the second being the counter rotation props......The Cessna 310 is a more economical aircraft....but the twin com is great....look for tip tanks.....good extra range.....I had a single com....flew the twin several times...like the single does not like to stop flying...keeps on trucking on landing if not on the numbers.....both sets....good luck.....Bumz
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew both and would seem to remember the 310 as being the thirstier of the two but cannot swear to that. It certainly sat higher than the Commanche and was the easier to land, didn't have the large nosewheel which had a tendancy to sometimes make contact early with students and would result in some exciting 'wheelbarrowing'. We had six of the early versions at the school without the contra rotating props for multi training, they had a VMCa of 90 kts and engine out below that speed produced interesting results. Part of my checkout as an instructor was being shown a spin in one. I was still pointing at the placard expressly prohibiting just this when it started, very rapid with major loss of altitude, recovery was standard. Chief pilot simply said 'someone sometime will do it to you!' He was right... twice. Having taken the point to heart, both occasions we had plenty of altitude. Both were during engine out below VMC which we were obliged to cover in the sylabus. Both students, had reacted by jamming forward the live throttle and stamping on a rudder pedal, unfortunately the wrong one, full power on the critical engine with little rudder authority did the trick. The one we came out of by retarding both throttles and standard spin recovery, the second however was far more diverting/ interesting. On entry the student gave a scream and flung himself across and threw his arms around me. I was attempting to pull back the live engine which he had firewalled but he was firmly preventing me and had his head in my lap. The altimeter was unwinding like crazy and I made like the hulk and managed to unwind him and then recover. He had the grace to be slightly embarrased about it for a little bit, but he then decided it had been very funny. I suppose that was one way of looking at it, but I certainly have never forgotten it. But a fun plane, looked great and I enjoyed flying them.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cramped cabin (unless you're a midget), lousy visibility, corrosion in the nose wheel bay (rather large problem), hard to start when hot...did I say cramped cabin?!
Having said this, cheap to run but some parts are getting hard to come by.
A typical Piper, so i'm told by the folks who own one.
A 310 (or even a Baron) is more bang for the buck, IMO.
Having said this, cheap to run but some parts are getting hard to come by.
A typical Piper, so i'm told by the folks who own one.
A 310 (or even a Baron) is more bang for the buck, IMO.
