Any Twin Comanche Drivers?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Vic, Australia.
Age: 36
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any Twin Comanche Drivers?
Hi all,
I'm a private pilot in the process of organising a twin rating for myself.
For all practical purposes I'm going to be doing the rating in a Twin Comanche, specifically a PA39 with tips tanks, non turbo.
Any one have any tips or advice for the Twin Comanche? Or even a twin rating for that matter?
I'm a bit perplexed with the flight manual I have too... mind you it's a "Copy" so it could be incomplete.
There appears to be no "Time to climb / Fuel" chart or a Vxse speed published? Is this normal?
Cheers for any advice.
Craig.
I'm a private pilot in the process of organising a twin rating for myself.
For all practical purposes I'm going to be doing the rating in a Twin Comanche, specifically a PA39 with tips tanks, non turbo.
Any one have any tips or advice for the Twin Comanche? Or even a twin rating for that matter?
I'm a bit perplexed with the flight manual I have too... mind you it's a "Copy" so it could be incomplete.
There appears to be no "Time to climb / Fuel" chart or a Vxse speed published? Is this normal?
Cheers for any advice.
Craig.
If this is an 'initial' twin rating, why do it in the PA-39, which, with the contra rotating props will not teach you a great deal about the 'critical' engine?
Why not in a 'straight' PA-30, which is a good training twin...you will learn the value of S/E speeds, procedures etc...
Why not in a 'straight' PA-30, which is a good training twin...you will learn the value of S/E speeds, procedures etc...
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 25th Jul 2013 at 12:49.
Hi
Did a couple hundred hours in one and learnt a few lessons.
1) Needed some ballast in the back for training and only 2 up front
2) Manual gear extension requires 3 arms, 6 legs and 3 chapters of a Karma Sutra book to operate
3) If the bladders dry and unstick they can "float up" and give false indications of fuel
4) In the flare the turbulent flow from the wings tended to reduce elevator authority and made for some very hard landings, not helped by big fat low compression undercarriage
5) Barely climbs on 2 engines in warm weather let alone one
6) I think I remember the fuel caps to be finicky as well
May all be horse s@@t and only I had these happen issues but otherwise survived
Did a couple hundred hours in one and learnt a few lessons.
1) Needed some ballast in the back for training and only 2 up front
2) Manual gear extension requires 3 arms, 6 legs and 3 chapters of a Karma Sutra book to operate
3) If the bladders dry and unstick they can "float up" and give false indications of fuel
4) In the flare the turbulent flow from the wings tended to reduce elevator authority and made for some very hard landings, not helped by big fat low compression undercarriage
5) Barely climbs on 2 engines in warm weather let alone one
6) I think I remember the fuel caps to be finicky as well
May all be horse s@@t and only I had these happen issues but otherwise survived
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Vic, Australia.
Age: 36
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Griffo, reasoning for the PA39 is that I needed a twin that's based locally, I had two choices, the Comanche or a 310. For insurance reasons I had to go with the Comanche.
Thank Healy, I've heard they're a bit painful to land. Do you recall much about fuel planning etc? With all the emphasis on fuel management I find it hard to believe there's no fuel to climb chart in the manual?
Thank Healy, I've heard they're a bit painful to land. Do you recall much about fuel planning etc? With all the emphasis on fuel management I find it hard to believe there's no fuel to climb chart in the manual?
Sorry bud, years since I flew it but I think it had two 160hp donks. The fuel flow is about double that of maybe a 172 but I'm guessing. I don't recall ever adding any margin for the climb to be honest, Again it may only of been the one I flew but leaning at altitude the fuel flow gauges look like they are close to running in nothing just due to where the indications sit.
Another thing I thought of was the fuel transfer system as well, you have 6 tanks in total and the selectors are on the floor, poorly maintained these can be knocked out of place causing mild heart issues! Whenever you got a splutter the memory actions was down to the floor and switch both to mains straight away
Another thing I thought of was the fuel transfer system as well, you have 6 tanks in total and the selectors are on the floor, poorly maintained these can be knocked out of place causing mild heart issues! Whenever you got a splutter the memory actions was down to the floor and switch both to mains straight away
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years ago, in a place far away
I flew a twin and single com.
Apart from having a great time in both, I remember the ground effect with the very low wing and the short legs, it would float for two weeks every time I tied to land.
Flul efficient...very.
Comforable ride very.
Sorry no numbers or manuals.
enjoy the twin com....
glf
Apart from having a great time in both, I remember the ground effect with the very low wing and the short legs, it would float for two weeks every time I tied to land.
Flul efficient...very.
Comforable ride very.
Sorry no numbers or manuals.
enjoy the twin com....
glf
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Vic, Australia.
Age: 36
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the heads up guys.
I'm sure it'll be a nice machine to fly.
I'll just have to dig around and find out whats up with the climb fuel planning.
With comparison to the A36 I usually drive, the PA39 manual just seems incomplete and messy...
Cheers, Craig.
I'm sure it'll be a nice machine to fly.
I'll just have to dig around and find out whats up with the climb fuel planning.
With comparison to the A36 I usually drive, the PA39 manual just seems incomplete and messy...
Cheers, Craig.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite a few bar hours have been spent comparing the A36 and PA24. As always it's horses for courses but, for what it's worth, I favour the view that says the Comanche is much more of the 'pilots' aircraft. It's a bit more demanding to handle but rewards the ego when flown well. There is a fair bit of handling folklore associated with both the single and twins but be wary of falling into the traps of e.g. excessive approach speed. You can do really nice landings, with lots of flap, at the book speeds. Generally, if you find yourself floating, you're doing it wrong. Similarly, if you're 'arriving' hard, a short application of power around the flare can work well.
Having said that, there are some delightful idiosyncrasies which I presume come mainly from the wing form (which is quite symmetrical, as I recall). I've noticed it mainly with the singles that have the tip tanks but it's a cool thing to be able to float a few cm above the runway - seemingly for ever - on a calm day. The smallest deflection of the little finger on the yoke will then land the aircraft.
By the way, the manual style may simply be an age thing. These aircraft are all getting pretty long in the tooth now. Not sure what vintage your A36 is but, in general, you see a lot of difference in manuals from the 60s and 80s.
Enjoy the training and avoid those 'twin catastrophe' stories.
Having said that, there are some delightful idiosyncrasies which I presume come mainly from the wing form (which is quite symmetrical, as I recall). I've noticed it mainly with the singles that have the tip tanks but it's a cool thing to be able to float a few cm above the runway - seemingly for ever - on a calm day. The smallest deflection of the little finger on the yoke will then land the aircraft.
By the way, the manual style may simply be an age thing. These aircraft are all getting pretty long in the tooth now. Not sure what vintage your A36 is but, in general, you see a lot of difference in manuals from the 60s and 80s.
Enjoy the training and avoid those 'twin catastrophe' stories.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Vic, Australia.
Age: 36
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tecman, I just learnt that the "GAMA" POH specification was introduced 3 years after this PA39 was built, so that probably explains the messy manual.
I'll see what the local instructors have to say about the fuel planning.
Considering it's not a familiar aircraft I don't feel comfortable with those "Rule of thumb" applications for climb.
Thanks for the info/advice everyone
I'll see what the local instructors have to say about the fuel planning.
Considering it's not a familiar aircraft I don't feel comfortable with those "Rule of thumb" applications for climb.
Thanks for the info/advice everyone
There's plenty of info on the Net about the "twin can" as they where affectionately known:-)
Did my IFR rating on one a 100 yrs ago in TW during Jan, half tnks 2 up & one donk, keep an eye out for a good cleared flat field!:-)
Nice to fly though, kinda like an old Jaguar sports car:-)
160HPx2 & a 160 kts, not much around that could match those figures back then.
If you are prone to reacting to fuel vapors within the cabin then I'd suggest lots of fresh air directly at yr face, the fuel system leaked like a sieve at the fuel selectors which as has been said was a night mare with wear.
I used to plan on 60 ltrs an hr (longer flights)& that worked out pretty good as the extra power/fuel used in the Clb was somewhat negated with a lower pwr setting for descent.
The 12v U/C system ( I think a lot are 24v these days)can be a problem to if not serviced reg. A smaller nose wheel when fitted helped with the wheel barrow type Ldgs the twin can was renowned for. Fly it on in a 'flattish' attitude using pwr where needed worked for me. Flaring & trying to hold it off would usually mean hello I have arrived !:-)
They had a bad reputation when they first hit the skies but like all thoroughbreds they needed to be treated with luv & respect:-) Bit like the misses..........phew thank god for Ebay!
Enjoy the ride, as towards the end of yr career it's those days flying challenging machines that will live on in yr memory
Wmk2
Did my IFR rating on one a 100 yrs ago in TW during Jan, half tnks 2 up & one donk, keep an eye out for a good cleared flat field!:-)
Nice to fly though, kinda like an old Jaguar sports car:-)
160HPx2 & a 160 kts, not much around that could match those figures back then.
If you are prone to reacting to fuel vapors within the cabin then I'd suggest lots of fresh air directly at yr face, the fuel system leaked like a sieve at the fuel selectors which as has been said was a night mare with wear.
I used to plan on 60 ltrs an hr (longer flights)& that worked out pretty good as the extra power/fuel used in the Clb was somewhat negated with a lower pwr setting for descent.
The 12v U/C system ( I think a lot are 24v these days)can be a problem to if not serviced reg. A smaller nose wheel when fitted helped with the wheel barrow type Ldgs the twin can was renowned for. Fly it on in a 'flattish' attitude using pwr where needed worked for me. Flaring & trying to hold it off would usually mean hello I have arrived !:-)
They had a bad reputation when they first hit the skies but like all thoroughbreds they needed to be treated with luv & respect:-) Bit like the misses..........phew thank god for Ebay!
Enjoy the ride, as towards the end of yr career it's those days flying challenging machines that will live on in yr memory
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 26th Jul 2013 at 07:25.
'tecy' fortunately a lot of those old gas burner heaters didn't work properly anyway, most likely saved a few lives without even knowing it!
Flying up around Tammy in Jan an A/C would have been better but the drag on one eng with a compressor turning would mean certain death if ya couldn't turn the bugger off!:-)
Wmk2
Flying up around Tammy in Jan an A/C would have been better but the drag on one eng with a compressor turning would mean certain death if ya couldn't turn the bugger off!:-)
Wmk2
I've got about 700 hours on the PA30 and have instructed on it. The Twin Comanche is a good honest twin. It feels like a sports car to fly, it has nice harmonised contriols.
You should get about 165 to 170 knots true at about 7000 to 8000 feet.
Don't sweat the climb figures too much. Plan on 65 litres per hour cross country (including climb) and about 75 to 80 per hour for training and hacking about when you don't get to lean it properly. If you really have to have a climb figure I would say about 75 litres per hour.
On an ISA day at sea level you should get around 160 FPM single engine at 3725 lbs (1690 kg) which is MAUW with tip tanks full and about 260 FPM at 3600 lbs 1635 kg MAUW with tip tanks empty. Note I said should get, aircraft condition and ambient conditions will play a big part in actual figures.
As already mentioned the PA30/39 can be a challenge to land nicely one or two up, this is because the C of G is at the forward limit. With some ballast in the luggage area or rear pax it lands much nicer. Landing with reduced flap settings can help when just two up.
I very much doubt any have been converted to 24v. The undercarriage system is very simple and robust and gives very few problems....provided like any piece of machinery it has been properly maintained. Despite what someone posted the emergency extension process is simple and easy.
There again the some comments that have been posted about the fuel system indicate poor maintenance. There should be no fuel smells. The bladders don't become "unstuck" due to them becoming dry. There is no transfer system, the fuel is fed directly to the engine from the selected tank. The selectors are not easily knocked.
The main and aux tanks have bladders which are held in place with clips, it is possible that some clips can come undone which means the tanks will not hold to stated quantity so you do need to be careful until you know the aircraft.
Make sure the fuel caps and the seals in the fuel doors on the mains and aux tanks are in good condition. Other wise you may get rain water in the tanks particularly the aux tanks. Always, always, always, do a thorough fuel drain from the fuel selectors, preferably into a container so that you can see what you've drained. The drain tubes are under the belly of the aircraft. CASA knew better than Mr Piper and insisted in having drains inserted into the wings as well, draining from these alone isn't sufficient IMO.
Hopefully your instructor is Comanche knowledgeable.
Don't be too concerned that it's a PA39 rather than the PA30. True it has no critical engine but otherwise it'll do the same things and you'll learn the same things, the speed will be slightly different for Vmca.
As has been said the Comanche was built before the GAMA standard POH was introduced. The manual is rather basic however there is a GAMA style POH available from the International Comanche Society that has much of the info you're looking for.
I'm sure you will enjoy the Twin Comanche. There is no other light twin than can match it's performance, payload, range etc.
You should get about 165 to 170 knots true at about 7000 to 8000 feet.
Don't sweat the climb figures too much. Plan on 65 litres per hour cross country (including climb) and about 75 to 80 per hour for training and hacking about when you don't get to lean it properly. If you really have to have a climb figure I would say about 75 litres per hour.
On an ISA day at sea level you should get around 160 FPM single engine at 3725 lbs (1690 kg) which is MAUW with tip tanks full and about 260 FPM at 3600 lbs 1635 kg MAUW with tip tanks empty. Note I said should get, aircraft condition and ambient conditions will play a big part in actual figures.
As already mentioned the PA30/39 can be a challenge to land nicely one or two up, this is because the C of G is at the forward limit. With some ballast in the luggage area or rear pax it lands much nicer. Landing with reduced flap settings can help when just two up.
I very much doubt any have been converted to 24v. The undercarriage system is very simple and robust and gives very few problems....provided like any piece of machinery it has been properly maintained. Despite what someone posted the emergency extension process is simple and easy.
There again the some comments that have been posted about the fuel system indicate poor maintenance. There should be no fuel smells. The bladders don't become "unstuck" due to them becoming dry. There is no transfer system, the fuel is fed directly to the engine from the selected tank. The selectors are not easily knocked.
The main and aux tanks have bladders which are held in place with clips, it is possible that some clips can come undone which means the tanks will not hold to stated quantity so you do need to be careful until you know the aircraft.
Make sure the fuel caps and the seals in the fuel doors on the mains and aux tanks are in good condition. Other wise you may get rain water in the tanks particularly the aux tanks. Always, always, always, do a thorough fuel drain from the fuel selectors, preferably into a container so that you can see what you've drained. The drain tubes are under the belly of the aircraft. CASA knew better than Mr Piper and insisted in having drains inserted into the wings as well, draining from these alone isn't sufficient IMO.
Hopefully your instructor is Comanche knowledgeable.
Don't be too concerned that it's a PA39 rather than the PA30. True it has no critical engine but otherwise it'll do the same things and you'll learn the same things, the speed will be slightly different for Vmca.
As has been said the Comanche was built before the GAMA standard POH was introduced. The manual is rather basic however there is a GAMA style POH available from the International Comanche Society that has much of the info you're looking for.
I'm sure you will enjoy the Twin Comanche. There is no other light twin than can match it's performance, payload, range etc.
Last edited by KeepItStraight; 26th Jul 2013 at 12:01.
Very good info from K-I-S.
I used 56 LPH for longer range flying the PA-30B or C, and flight planned on 150 KTAS for very conservative numbers. They fly a whole lot better with weight spread through the cabin.
Can I recommend anyone thinking about range and endurance in the PA-24 and PA-30 Comanches read Into the Wind-The Story of Max Conrad by Sally Buegeleisen.
Conrad, (1903-1979), was a contemporary of Lindberg and other pre WW2 aviation legends. He died with over 50,000 logged flight hours in his logbook. He made 150 ferry flights over the Atlantic, and 30 over the Pacific.
He recorded a PA-24 flight of over 58 hours airborne, and a PA-30 flight of 6,830 nm from Capetown to Florida. Some of his fuel miserly flights in Pipers are still world records. He was recognised by several prestigious awards, and is considered one of the greatest ferry pilots of all time.
happy days,
I used 56 LPH for longer range flying the PA-30B or C, and flight planned on 150 KTAS for very conservative numbers. They fly a whole lot better with weight spread through the cabin.
Can I recommend anyone thinking about range and endurance in the PA-24 and PA-30 Comanches read Into the Wind-The Story of Max Conrad by Sally Buegeleisen.
Conrad, (1903-1979), was a contemporary of Lindberg and other pre WW2 aviation legends. He died with over 50,000 logged flight hours in his logbook. He made 150 ferry flights over the Atlantic, and 30 over the Pacific.
He recorded a PA-24 flight of over 58 hours airborne, and a PA-30 flight of 6,830 nm from Capetown to Florida. Some of his fuel miserly flights in Pipers are still world records. He was recognised by several prestigious awards, and is considered one of the greatest ferry pilots of all time.
happy days,
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have an original Piper Twin Comanche Owner's Handbook.
I scanned the following from the performance section, the numbers are page numbers:-
SECTION IV
PERFORMANCE CHARTS
Take-off Distance Over 50 Foot Obstacle.....................37
Take-off Ground Run................................................38
Take-off Distance Over 50 Foot Obstacle (Short Field)..39
Take-off Ground Run (Short Field) ............................40
Best Rate of Climb Speed ........................................41
Single Engine Rate of Climb......................................42
True Airspeed vs Standard Altitude............................43
Range vs Standard Altitude......................................44
Enroute Single Engine Service Ceiling........................45
Landing Distance Over 50 Foot Obstacle....................46
Landing Ground Roll...............................................47
Landing Distance Over 50 Foot Obstacle (Short Field) 48
Accelerate - Stop Distance .....................................49
Altitude Conversion Chart ......................................50
Power Setting Table ..............................................51
If you pm me a private email address, I can send you any of the above in PDF format. There is no climb fuel graph.
Quoted consumption - 84 USG useable leaned to best economy
17.2 gph @ 75% 800 sm @ 8000'(std Alt) inc 45 min reserve
15.2 gph @ 65% 860 sm ditto
13.4 gph @ 55% 910 sm ditto
11.2 gph @ 45% 975 sm ditto
I presume the above would include the climb, but it doesn't say so.
You then have to do all the conversions - ANM to GNM, USG to Ltr, Std Alt to Press Alt etc.
Practically we used to use rule of thumb with a fudge factor which was acceptable to reasonable people once upon a time, but I doubt if NASA could satisfy the CASA bureaucrats these days.
I scanned the following from the performance section, the numbers are page numbers:-
SECTION IV
PERFORMANCE CHARTS
Take-off Distance Over 50 Foot Obstacle.....................37
Take-off Ground Run................................................38
Take-off Distance Over 50 Foot Obstacle (Short Field)..39
Take-off Ground Run (Short Field) ............................40
Best Rate of Climb Speed ........................................41
Single Engine Rate of Climb......................................42
True Airspeed vs Standard Altitude............................43
Range vs Standard Altitude......................................44
Enroute Single Engine Service Ceiling........................45
Landing Distance Over 50 Foot Obstacle....................46
Landing Ground Roll...............................................47
Landing Distance Over 50 Foot Obstacle (Short Field) 48
Accelerate - Stop Distance .....................................49
Altitude Conversion Chart ......................................50
Power Setting Table ..............................................51
If you pm me a private email address, I can send you any of the above in PDF format. There is no climb fuel graph.
Quoted consumption - 84 USG useable leaned to best economy
17.2 gph @ 75% 800 sm @ 8000'(std Alt) inc 45 min reserve
15.2 gph @ 65% 860 sm ditto
13.4 gph @ 55% 910 sm ditto
11.2 gph @ 45% 975 sm ditto
I presume the above would include the climb, but it doesn't say so.
You then have to do all the conversions - ANM to GNM, USG to Ltr, Std Alt to Press Alt etc.
Practically we used to use rule of thumb with a fudge factor which was acceptable to reasonable people once upon a time, but I doubt if NASA could satisfy the CASA bureaucrats these days.
Hi Mr XXiLim,
Thanks for the response, if you only have the two to pick from, then go for the PA-39, you will enjoy it.
As has been said by others, it is a pleasant aircraft to fly.
When landing, just learn to hold off whilst she floats a little - that wing trailing edge with flap down is not far from the ground, so you will get some effect.
Where your A-36 'clunks on' in comparison, the PA-24 Single, and PA-30, basically share the same airframe / wing, and share the same 'float', although with the single, the approach speed can be less.
I found the '30' to be an 'honest' aircraft, in which you do learn to be 'accurate' with S/E speed / power etc, otherwise the VSI may not show much 'up' at all.....but that's a good learning machine, and there are many other aircraft in the 'real world', which, with a reasonable load, will perform likewise......
I have no experience on the '39'.
As an aside. the POH I had at the time had about 3 pages devoted to the fuel fired heater in the nose - how to start / manage etc - more space than was given to some aspects of actually operating the aeroplane...
It was also said in the same POH that, said heater used 'so little fuel' that its consumption rate was not significant, and for practical purposes, could be ignored.
I still took it 'into account' when used.....'Old Habits' etc....
Good Luck, and ENJOY!!!
Cheers
Thanks for the response, if you only have the two to pick from, then go for the PA-39, you will enjoy it.
As has been said by others, it is a pleasant aircraft to fly.
When landing, just learn to hold off whilst she floats a little - that wing trailing edge with flap down is not far from the ground, so you will get some effect.
Where your A-36 'clunks on' in comparison, the PA-24 Single, and PA-30, basically share the same airframe / wing, and share the same 'float', although with the single, the approach speed can be less.
I found the '30' to be an 'honest' aircraft, in which you do learn to be 'accurate' with S/E speed / power etc, otherwise the VSI may not show much 'up' at all.....but that's a good learning machine, and there are many other aircraft in the 'real world', which, with a reasonable load, will perform likewise......
I have no experience on the '39'.
As an aside. the POH I had at the time had about 3 pages devoted to the fuel fired heater in the nose - how to start / manage etc - more space than was given to some aspects of actually operating the aeroplane...
It was also said in the same POH that, said heater used 'so little fuel' that its consumption rate was not significant, and for practical purposes, could be ignored.
I still took it 'into account' when used.....'Old Habits' etc....
Good Luck, and ENJOY!!!
Cheers
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 27th Jul 2013 at 02:40.
I did my initial twin rating and MECIR in a PA30 back in the early 90's and have about 250 hours total on type. I haven't flown one though since 1996 so my memory is fading on the specifics but I do remember it to be a very honest little platform. In particular it taught proper fuel management from day one with 6 fuel tanks and strict restrictions on when you can use and/or transfer fuel from certain tanks. It put you in a very good position to later operate and deal with other aircraft with similarly complex fuel systems, ie C310R.
The PA30/39 has never been an aircraft that easily allows the pilot to produce good landings on a consistent basis, a bit like my current steed, the A330/340. I personally have never been in favour of holding any aircraft off more than usual in ground effect to achieve a smoothish landing. Touch down point is far more important especially on short bush strips and using one technique for landing all the time is preferable especially if one has limited experience.
The PA30/39 has never been an aircraft that easily allows the pilot to produce good landings on a consistent basis, a bit like my current steed, the A330/340. I personally have never been in favour of holding any aircraft off more than usual in ground effect to achieve a smoothish landing. Touch down point is far more important especially on short bush strips and using one technique for landing all the time is preferable especially if one has limited experience.