Twin Comanche info needed, please
Only flown one of these things once, while considering doing a twin rating. (Circumstances changed; bought a house instead.)
Did a bit of upper air work, the usual stalls/turns and then some assymetric stuff..true eye opener.
As with any twin in this power range, don't expect the good engine to take you far if you are unfortunate enough to lose one on departure. We were at least 500lbs below gross, and with the critical engine feathered and everything cleaned up, the climb rate was a good 80-100 fpm.
Every one of the circuits I flew (about 7 landings in all) resulted in a smooth landing. As with a Mooney, with its all-flying tailplane, trimming through the flare seems to help quite a lot in achieving a passable touchdown.
Did a bit of upper air work, the usual stalls/turns and then some assymetric stuff..true eye opener.
As with any twin in this power range, don't expect the good engine to take you far if you are unfortunate enough to lose one on departure. We were at least 500lbs below gross, and with the critical engine feathered and everything cleaned up, the climb rate was a good 80-100 fpm.
Every one of the circuits I flew (about 7 landings in all) resulted in a smooth landing. As with a Mooney, with its all-flying tailplane, trimming through the flare seems to help quite a lot in achieving a passable touchdown.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -11`
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I own a quarter share in a PA30. In fact it`s the one that was previously owned by Sir Douglas Bader. So, if he can land it without legs, it shouldn`t be as difficult as some seem to think 
Lovely airplane with very simple, reliable engines. I heard the stories about the landings too, but I find the PA30 at least as easy to land as the seneca. Not much difference.
The ICS is a very good place to get information. They have a guy there that is the absolute gear-guru for the PA30.
Have fun with it!
Lovely airplane with very simple, reliable engines. I heard the stories about the landings too, but I find the PA30 at least as easy to land as the seneca. Not much difference.
The ICS is a very good place to get information. They have a guy there that is the absolute gear-guru for the PA30.
Have fun with it!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nearest Bombardier AMO
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the best for this new year to you all!
Thanks for all the replies! It is clear that the fuel system needs good looking at, as does the gear - by the way, we were told the gear needed a 500-hourly overhaul, not 1000? Lindberg put together a comparison chart between Beech Travelair, Piper Seminole, a Dutchess, some-or-other thing called a Cougar, and the Twinky. Compared load, current price, speed, range, fuel burn, etc. The Twinky really does seem way ahead of the pack. Furthermore, all the pilot reports seem to indicate that all the rest were bolted together purely as trainers whereas the comanche would appear to be in a Mooney-esque class of its' own. Hmm, going to be interesting to fly the thing.
To the poster who mentioned single-engine performance - we're not labouring under any illusions regarding engine-out scenarios whatsoever. You lose one on rotation or in the initial climb, you're landing, agree 100%. The advantage of this little airplane over all the singles is that you have a fighting chance when out over hostile terrain, if loaded within reason.
Thanks for all the replies! It is clear that the fuel system needs good looking at, as does the gear - by the way, we were told the gear needed a 500-hourly overhaul, not 1000? Lindberg put together a comparison chart between Beech Travelair, Piper Seminole, a Dutchess, some-or-other thing called a Cougar, and the Twinky. Compared load, current price, speed, range, fuel burn, etc. The Twinky really does seem way ahead of the pack. Furthermore, all the pilot reports seem to indicate that all the rest were bolted together purely as trainers whereas the comanche would appear to be in a Mooney-esque class of its' own. Hmm, going to be interesting to fly the thing.
To the poster who mentioned single-engine performance - we're not labouring under any illusions regarding engine-out scenarios whatsoever. You lose one on rotation or in the initial climb, you're landing, agree 100%. The advantage of this little airplane over all the singles is that you have a fighting chance when out over hostile terrain, if loaded within reason.
Lindberg put together a comparison chart between Beech Travelair, Piper Seminole, a Dutchess, some-or-other thing called a Cougar, and the Twinky. Compared load, current price, speed, range, fuel burn, etc. The Twinky really does seem way ahead of the pack. Furthermore, all the pilot reports seem to indicate that all the rest were bolted together purely as trainers whereas the comanche would appear to be in a Mooney-esque class of its' own. Hmm, going to be interesting to fly the thing.
I think the landing issues come from the nose-high ground attitude. For any landing aircraft, there's a window between the limits of stall AoA and ground attitude (to avoid banging the nosewheel first). For the Twin Com, that window is narrow. Full flap doesn't help (reduces stall AoA). The vortex generators do.
You can get lucky with landing. Our aircraft was flown by a prospective (and now current) Twin Com owner, with a great deal of light twin experience. His words after his first landing were "You know I really don't see why everyone makes such a fuss about landing the Twin Com. It seems just fine to me." After his second landing, his words were "Oh... Sorry ..." We parked up and closed the baggage hatch which had popped open with the impact.
The Cougar is Grumman AA7, makers of the very appealing Traveler/Cheetah and Tiger singles.
Flown the singles (Nice.); never the twin, though one of my instructors did mention he thought the AA7 a great a/c to do a twin rating on.
Your research/presentation indicates what I often thought, based on reports. The PA30 (39 if you can score one!) was above-average build quality. Intended for discerning private owners, probably more so than as a flying school/aero club aircraft.
I sure found it very pleasant to fly. Nicely appointed.
Flown the singles (Nice.); never the twin, though one of my instructors did mention he thought the AA7 a great a/c to do a twin rating on.
Your research/presentation indicates what I often thought, based on reports. The PA30 (39 if you can score one!) was above-average build quality. Intended for discerning private owners, probably more so than as a flying school/aero club aircraft.
I sure found it very pleasant to fly. Nicely appointed.
To put the Twin Comanches' single engine performance into perspective, take a look at the following figures I got off the net. I acknowledge that some of the figures may vary slightly from some manuals but never the less will be close enough to give a good comparision.
PA30 260 fpm
PA31-300 Navajo 270 fpm
PA34 Seneca II 235 fpm
PA44 Seminole 180 fpm
BE76 Duchess 235 fpm
BE58 Baron 390 fpm
Cessna 402 225 fpm
DA 42 Twinstar 160 fpm
While none, except perhaps the Baron, have startling single engine performance I think you will agree the Twin Comanche compares pretty well.
Well actually the PA30 outperfoms the PA39. Long story short, counter rotating engines are not as efiicient as non counter rotating engines. It's to do with the slip stream from the props and the flow over/around the airframe. Apparently Piper increased the power on the C/R Navajo from 300 to 315 to get the same performance as the non C/R Navajo.
The only advantage that the PA39 has in my eyes is the more modern panel layout and you can be that in the PA30C anyway.
Apparently the PA30B was be best performer however my choice would be the PA30C to get the modern layout, but even then there are STC's to change the old layout to the new layout.
PA30 260 fpm
PA31-300 Navajo 270 fpm
PA34 Seneca II 235 fpm
PA44 Seminole 180 fpm
BE76 Duchess 235 fpm
BE58 Baron 390 fpm
Cessna 402 225 fpm
DA 42 Twinstar 160 fpm
While none, except perhaps the Baron, have startling single engine performance I think you will agree the Twin Comanche compares pretty well.
The PA30 (39 if you can score one!)
The only advantage that the PA39 has in my eyes is the more modern panel layout and you can be that in the PA30C anyway.
Apparently the PA30B was be best performer however my choice would be the PA30C to get the modern layout, but even then there are STC's to change the old layout to the new layout.
Last edited by KeepItStraight; 2nd Jan 2010 at 20:56.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KeepItStraight, also keep in mind that my PA39 has a re-inforced tail spar. They did that after the elevator flutter test ... YouTube - PA-30 Twin Comanche Tail Flutter Test
also keep in mind that my PA39 has a re-inforced tail spar
Consider this;
NASA were doing the testing for their own purposes not the prove any weakness in the design.
The flutter in the video was deliberately set up by introducing extreme conditions.
This flutter would not occur under any normal or most abnormal circumstances. It is very unlikley that any pilot would encounter it especially if the aircraft has been maintained properly and the trim tab mechanism is in good condition.
To my knowledge there has never been an accident due to tail plane flutter.
My point is your stronger tailplane is nice to have but is not required.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nearest Bombardier AMO
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Messrs Bookworm and Tarq, glad to hear our research confirmed. Will report back when Lindberg and I have had the chance to get to grips with the machine. Will be about 3 to 4 more weeks, seeing as there's a bit of company-aviating to be committed in the interim.
Keepitstraight, the one light piston that would stand out if it were included would be the C404. About 350 feet+ on one, at that's at less-than-ideal temps on the African plateau. Lovely bit of kit, really miss it. And aren't the numbers on that Diamond-thingy a bit shocking? You'd think they'd build something capable of performance on a par with the dinosours, at least, as opposed to even worse!
The Youtube excerpt posted by Sternone makes for sobering viewing. Definately induced through exceptional circumstances then, was it? I remember a glider landing with the aft fuselage a splintered pulp due to a flutter induced in sudden turbulence during high-speed flight. The pilot was understandably reluctant to exit via parachute and therefore, having established some semblance of control at very slow speed, managed to land safely.
Keepitstraight, the one light piston that would stand out if it were included would be the C404. About 350 feet+ on one, at that's at less-than-ideal temps on the African plateau. Lovely bit of kit, really miss it. And aren't the numbers on that Diamond-thingy a bit shocking? You'd think they'd build something capable of performance on a par with the dinosours, at least, as opposed to even worse!
The Youtube excerpt posted by Sternone makes for sobering viewing. Definately induced through exceptional circumstances then, was it? I remember a glider landing with the aft fuselage a splintered pulp due to a flutter induced in sudden turbulence during high-speed flight. The pilot was understandably reluctant to exit via parachute and therefore, having established some semblance of control at very slow speed, managed to land safely.
Last edited by Doodlebug; 3rd Jan 2010 at 08:29.
Don't put any multi-thousand-pound stock in my "confirmation"; I like the aircraft and have flown it, my knowledge aside from that is anecdotal and from books/mags.
That said, go ahead and buy one!
That said, go ahead and buy one!
aren't the numbers on that Diamond-thingy a bit shocking?
All of the performance figures (Take Off dist, RoC, Cruise, Landing dist) seemed to be a bit far fetched for two 135 HP engines lugging around 1700kg. In the event the actual AUW ended up at 1785 kg. The specs now give a 156 KTAS at 10,000 and the S/E RoC of 160 fpm.
Compared to the original factory estimates the take off distance increased by 47%, two engine RoC reduced by 38%, S/E Roc reduced by 68%, cruise speed down by 14%, landing distance up by 42%. How did they get the estimated figures so wrong?
I smile when I see and hear people going on about how good the DA42 is. It is certainly no quantum leap forward from aircraft that are 40 years old.
Certainly the Comanche has more power but the plastic wonder has an empty weight nearly 20% more, carries 17% less payload, has 85% less luggage capacity and flies 8% slower.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point is that there is another difference which you didn't point out that the PA39 has a reinforced spar in the tail.
May I remind you that with the Nasa testing the tail didn't brake or fall off
About the DA42, I flew the first generation and the 2.0 engines. Compared to the twinkie I have a feeling that I need twice as much the runway. When you apply power on the twinkie you feel the engines pushing you to your seats, that's a good sign. Never had that with the DA42, in fact during my takeoff roll I was wondering when this plane was going to fly.
Diamond first numbers in their brochure was a DA42 with thielert 1.7 engines that would be a 200+KTAS plane.
May I remind you that with the Nasa testing the tail didn't brake or fall off
About the DA42, I flew the first generation and the 2.0 engines. Compared to the twinkie I have a feeling that I need twice as much the runway. When you apply power on the twinkie you feel the engines pushing you to your seats, that's a good sign. Never had that with the DA42, in fact during my takeoff roll I was wondering when this plane was going to fly.
Diamond first numbers in their brochure was a DA42 with thielert 1.7 engines that would be a 200+KTAS plane.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Down the airway.
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used to be a member here...and still fly TCs fairly regularily.
ComanchePilot.com
Useful site I used when I wanted to fly a TC with TTs around the world. Never did though.
It's a wonderful machine that has got a bad reputation primarily for two reasons.
It is a favourite training machine because it is cheap to buy and cheap to fly.
But...under certain conditions of altitude demonstration, Vmca can be the same or less than Vs. This has led to spin situations in the hands of relatively inexperienced pilots, which in a twin is not a good idea.
Landings are easy enough if you stick to the manufacturers bug speeds which are aleady worked out in the TC handbook for MLW. If you give the machine the usual five knots for mummsie and the kids you will come in too fast and the airraft can very easily wheelbarrow. The nosewheel is a potential weak point in the hands of a Ferrari pilot.
From a maintenance point of view, watch out for the fuel tanks. They are bladder tanks and sitting around doing nothing will crack them unless they have been left full of fuel. Fuel selectors have been covered. Nosewheel gear and undercarriage/spar need checking-especially if machine used for training, whihc it almost certainly at some time will have been. There are various different combinations of gear selectors and electric or manual flap. Make sure you know what you are buying with this. Some of the gear warning lights bulbs can be unusual.
Carpets and under floor rot are sometmes a problem, though not only in Pipers and check on the quality of any recent paint job done perhaps only as a cosmetic. The airplane history-where it has lived-is important also. Hot and dry or cold and wet.
Outside of the Navion, which is now really too old, I do not think there is a better or more fun machine with TTs for long range world cruising in safety and comfort for two people. I don't think en route maintenance would be much of a problem although you would possibly want a few spares holding yourself as you came across the stuff available. Incidentally-this is only hearsay, I would avoid anything fancy like a turbo charged TC. There was though a normal aspirated for sale recently in South Africa where they are still quite popular,.
I envy you..happy flying..because that is still what the TC is-a pilot aircraft.
ComanchePilot.com
Useful site I used when I wanted to fly a TC with TTs around the world. Never did though.
It's a wonderful machine that has got a bad reputation primarily for two reasons.
It is a favourite training machine because it is cheap to buy and cheap to fly.
But...under certain conditions of altitude demonstration, Vmca can be the same or less than Vs. This has led to spin situations in the hands of relatively inexperienced pilots, which in a twin is not a good idea.
Landings are easy enough if you stick to the manufacturers bug speeds which are aleady worked out in the TC handbook for MLW. If you give the machine the usual five knots for mummsie and the kids you will come in too fast and the airraft can very easily wheelbarrow. The nosewheel is a potential weak point in the hands of a Ferrari pilot.
From a maintenance point of view, watch out for the fuel tanks. They are bladder tanks and sitting around doing nothing will crack them unless they have been left full of fuel. Fuel selectors have been covered. Nosewheel gear and undercarriage/spar need checking-especially if machine used for training, whihc it almost certainly at some time will have been. There are various different combinations of gear selectors and electric or manual flap. Make sure you know what you are buying with this. Some of the gear warning lights bulbs can be unusual.
Carpets and under floor rot are sometmes a problem, though not only in Pipers and check on the quality of any recent paint job done perhaps only as a cosmetic. The airplane history-where it has lived-is important also. Hot and dry or cold and wet.
Outside of the Navion, which is now really too old, I do not think there is a better or more fun machine with TTs for long range world cruising in safety and comfort for two people. I don't think en route maintenance would be much of a problem although you would possibly want a few spares holding yourself as you came across the stuff available. Incidentally-this is only hearsay, I would avoid anything fancy like a turbo charged TC. There was though a normal aspirated for sale recently in South Africa where they are still quite popular,.
I envy you..happy flying..because that is still what the TC is-a pilot aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maintenance
Thanks to all giving us good advices to the plane. It looks there are no questions about the flying qualities of the plane (ecxept the landings). As I own a singele engine aircraft already, I am not copletely new to the business, but this is a historic airplane and so maintenance is easy. I can do owner maintenance according an approved programm from the authorities. How is this on the twin comanche? Is it an annex II aircraft? If yes, do I have a choice between the relatively new maintenance programm (CAMO) or the old 'annual check and TBO thing'? I am talking about Europe... Even we have JAA & EASA, there are differences in the countries.... Any good advice for registrating the aircraft in a special country? Or is N-reg an option in Europe? 
Thanks for your advices....
Thanks for your advices....
F.Lee Bailey "bullet" conversion for the TC :
Palm Beach Roamer, Inc. ( Aircraft Shopper Online, Aircraft Sales, Aircraft for Sale )
Palm Beach Roamer, Inc. ( Aircraft Shopper Online, Aircraft Sales, Aircraft for Sale )
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nearest Bombardier AMO
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lindberg was unable to view the aircraft as a short-notice trip came up for him, unfortunately, but I got to have a peak along with the very capable gentleman from Biggin who did the pre-buy. The latter gent will be writing up a list of snags, what stuck in my mind were the very stiff throttle- and mixture levers (no need for the friction-nut at all!); a row of corroded rivets in the exhaust-stain of one donkey (the other side has clearly already been re-riveted in the past; very loose fuel selectors (!!!); soggy carpet in the cabin (although, to be fair, the aircraft had been washed inside and out before we got there); some water weeping from underneath the fairings atop of the wings aft of the engines, minor corrosion in a couple of places; paint poor. Engines seem in good nick, props are good, ditto gear, cockpit ok. Mixed feelings. Waiting for Lindberg's input.
A scary thought is the rumour that the regulators want to put in place a law limiting engines to a twenty-year lifespan, only. Thoughts on this, gentlemen?
A scary thought is the rumour that the regulators want to put in place a law limiting engines to a twenty-year lifespan, only. Thoughts on this, gentlemen?
