High performance SE versus light twin: ongoing debate!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK and Poland
Age: 60
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High performance SE versus light twin: ongoing debate!
At the risk of slight duplication, one of the other threads I had started has veered off in the direction of the above question.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=78063
I thought I should draw your attention to this, as the name of the other threat does not reflect this issue, so you could have missed it.
If you have strong views either way, please let us know - for one, I am still personally not 100% decided what to buy. Also, if you have recommendations about SPECIFC a/c models that can do the job cost-effectively (I am looking for reasonably high-cruise, 4 PAX & personal luggage carrying capacity, and 1,000mile range) then please share this with us (here or in the other thread).
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=78063
I thought I should draw your attention to this, as the name of the other threat does not reflect this issue, so you could have missed it.
If you have strong views either way, please let us know - for one, I am still personally not 100% decided what to buy. Also, if you have recommendations about SPECIFC a/c models that can do the job cost-effectively (I am looking for reasonably high-cruise, 4 PAX & personal luggage carrying capacity, and 1,000mile range) then please share this with us (here or in the other thread).
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not really qualified to answer this - but my cents worth, based on a recent thread enquiry here, is that a Mooney M20J (or later) will meet most of your needs in terms of performance and range. You may however have some problems with the usable load. As for SE v ME the debate around here seems that it can go on forever - and frequently does. From what I've been able to pull out from between the lines the answer is to be found in how frequently you plan to go on some loooonnnng cruising. If it's not too often then the added cost doesn't seem to iron out the safety/performance/training issues
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piotr
It's a matter of mission profile and personal risk assessment.
Will these 1,000 mile flights cross water, mountains or desert? Will you fly at night, with a low cloudbase or in fog?
If the answers to the above include a yes or two:
How confident are you that you won't get an engine failure? Are you prepared to stake your life on it? (I mean that literally, not pejoratively.)
Are you prepared to practice twin emergency procedures often (no less than every two months)? This is a cost both financially and in time.
Can you afford to pay for a twin that goes up with 4pax + baggage? This often means getting a twin that is capable of carrying more, such that you are always well below MTOW.
OR...are you prepared to fly only on days when you can treat an MEP EFATO as if you are in an SEP? (You have to do this with a single anyway). In this case you can get a lower performance twin and only use the redundancy in the cruise.
1,000 nm is a long way, with reserves, and you might find it a little difficult to find an economical twin that can do that. So you will either have to pay more or compromise a little on range.
W
It's a matter of mission profile and personal risk assessment.
Will these 1,000 mile flights cross water, mountains or desert? Will you fly at night, with a low cloudbase or in fog?
If the answers to the above include a yes or two:
How confident are you that you won't get an engine failure? Are you prepared to stake your life on it? (I mean that literally, not pejoratively.)
Are you prepared to practice twin emergency procedures often (no less than every two months)? This is a cost both financially and in time.
Can you afford to pay for a twin that goes up with 4pax + baggage? This often means getting a twin that is capable of carrying more, such that you are always well below MTOW.
OR...are you prepared to fly only on days when you can treat an MEP EFATO as if you are in an SEP? (You have to do this with a single anyway). In this case you can get a lower performance twin and only use the redundancy in the cruise.
1,000 nm is a long way, with reserves, and you might find it a little difficult to find an economical twin that can do that. So you will either have to pay more or compromise a little on range.
W
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piotr,
The Beech A36 has been mentioned before as a very capable single engined airframe. I have one since almost 30 years and fully agree.
If I would have to fly your missions, tip tanks, turbo-normalizing and TKS (known icing approved) would have to be added. I have custom IO520BB, GAMIjectors, JPI 700, Garmin GNS430, etc. Adding GAMI Prism electronic ignition would get rid of the magnetoes, and provide a second alternator and electrical reduncancy, as well as much better engine management (should be certified this spring).
Early 1970'ies airframes are better because they have lower empty weight, and if properly care for will last forever.
I can carry full standard fuel and five 170lbs adults plus toothbrushes for each. Adding tip tanks, the gross weight is increased 200 lbs by STC. The difference between a 1973 and 1978 model is close to 100 lbs more empty weight.
Any twin that would fit your mission requirements would be over 2 metric tons, adding airways charges plus more maintenance requirements. I flew a pressurized light twin side by side during 15 years and I can only confirm that the running costs are about four times higher (at least, if no other surprises). Boots are less effective than TKS, since the chemical keeps the wings/tail/fuselage clean.
The deiced Beech Baron 58 would not carry more than the TN A36 at probably the same speed.
As for engine reliability, avoid TCM factory engines, they should last almost forever if rebuilt by a reputable shop with Millenium cylinders.
When flying a (well-maintained) single for business, always allow a few days for weather. Needless to say, a current IR rating is essential, as well as good understanding of engine operation.
Good luck!
The Beech A36 has been mentioned before as a very capable single engined airframe. I have one since almost 30 years and fully agree.
If I would have to fly your missions, tip tanks, turbo-normalizing and TKS (known icing approved) would have to be added. I have custom IO520BB, GAMIjectors, JPI 700, Garmin GNS430, etc. Adding GAMI Prism electronic ignition would get rid of the magnetoes, and provide a second alternator and electrical reduncancy, as well as much better engine management (should be certified this spring).
Early 1970'ies airframes are better because they have lower empty weight, and if properly care for will last forever.
I can carry full standard fuel and five 170lbs adults plus toothbrushes for each. Adding tip tanks, the gross weight is increased 200 lbs by STC. The difference between a 1973 and 1978 model is close to 100 lbs more empty weight.
Any twin that would fit your mission requirements would be over 2 metric tons, adding airways charges plus more maintenance requirements. I flew a pressurized light twin side by side during 15 years and I can only confirm that the running costs are about four times higher (at least, if no other surprises). Boots are less effective than TKS, since the chemical keeps the wings/tail/fuselage clean.
The deiced Beech Baron 58 would not carry more than the TN A36 at probably the same speed.
As for engine reliability, avoid TCM factory engines, they should last almost forever if rebuilt by a reputable shop with Millenium cylinders.
When flying a (well-maintained) single for business, always allow a few days for weather. Needless to say, a current IR rating is essential, as well as good understanding of engine operation.
Good luck!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time to tell you something that no one did. Forget the sexy expansive Beech Bonanza or the Beech Baron, there are other aircraft that are as capable but cheaper.
The mission that you have described support a need for de iced a twin, this is the Piper Aztec. It is roomy, stable and very capable, just a great machine. It is not sexy and not very economical, you will see 14/15gl a side at 180kts IAS. Another aircraft is the Twin Comanche, very reliable, fast and economical, 160kts AIS at 7gl a side, however, most are not de iced. For a single (yet, I don’t think that you want one) I would go for the Comanche 260C or 260B. 145kts IAS at 12gl and a range of 900-1000nm are standard. If you want to fly a bit faster (150-153kts) the fuel flow is 14-15gl an hour. Oh, all three are powered by Lycoming, not the Contis.
The mission that you have described support a need for de iced a twin, this is the Piper Aztec. It is roomy, stable and very capable, just a great machine. It is not sexy and not very economical, you will see 14/15gl a side at 180kts IAS. Another aircraft is the Twin Comanche, very reliable, fast and economical, 160kts AIS at 7gl a side, however, most are not de iced. For a single (yet, I don’t think that you want one) I would go for the Comanche 260C or 260B. 145kts IAS at 12gl and a range of 900-1000nm are standard. If you want to fly a bit faster (150-153kts) the fuel flow is 14-15gl an hour. Oh, all three are powered by Lycoming, not the Contis.
Grandpa Aerotart
AC-DC ya beat me to it
Never having flown one they don't loom large in my subconcious however a mate just bought a very nice early 70s model with the pointy nose for about 1/2 what my Bonanza is worth.
I'm looking forward to flying it soon.
Certainly a very good choice as you could have one with all the good gear (Long range tanks/deice/heated windscreen plate/hot props/Gamijectors/EDM760/KLN94/blah blah) for probably 1/3 the capital cost of a BE36TC...and probably 75% higher DOCs.
The Twin Catastrophe is just a single with 1/2 the engine on each wing...yes very economical but I would think one with all the gear for serious cold weather IFR wouldn't carry F-all...and I have flown them, though thankfully not a lot.
Chuckles.
Never having flown one they don't loom large in my subconcious however a mate just bought a very nice early 70s model with the pointy nose for about 1/2 what my Bonanza is worth.
I'm looking forward to flying it soon.
Certainly a very good choice as you could have one with all the good gear (Long range tanks/deice/heated windscreen plate/hot props/Gamijectors/EDM760/KLN94/blah blah) for probably 1/3 the capital cost of a BE36TC...and probably 75% higher DOCs.
The Twin Catastrophe is just a single with 1/2 the engine on each wing...yes very economical but I would think one with all the gear for serious cold weather IFR wouldn't carry F-all...and I have flown them, though thankfully not a lot.
Chuckles.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that I risk being slapped around the head by BRL for making a "me too" post, but I do have to agree that the Aztec is very, very good value for money, for what you get.
I paid £35,000 ($50,000) for mine about six years ago. The engines were highish time, but it was immaculate with recent paint, recent leather, everything working and looking good, HSI and full airways kit.
Since then I have added BRNAV GPS plus SkyForce, changed the COMs and NAVs for FM immunity and replaced about four or five pots and one boot.
It is now at the high end of extension, or low end of "on condition". The engineers reckon that I can take the 540s up to around the 3,000 hour mark, occasionally replacing a pot, which should see me clear for another 3-6 years (by which time I hope that there is a diesel alternative.)
I was offered £45,000 for it about a year ago. I looked into accepting and getting a Seneca, but there was really no attraction.
The Aztec is a solid, dependable workhorse. You feel safe, comfortable and cosseted. It goes up well on one engine and is exceptionally docile when an engine fails. It lands in the strongest crosswinds with the least effort (34kt is my personal best, but I still had loads of authority left). It is seriously stable on the ILS, you can set it up on tramlines like a jet.
It's short field performance is also very good , I operate out of Framlingham's 470m regularly (though this does compromise safety margins.)
The only way in which my particular aircraft does not meet the original spec is that it does not have LRTs, so does not do 1000nm with reserves. This has never proved a problem, as Vienna, Barcelona and Bergen are the furthest I usually want to go, and anyway my bladder doesn't have a much greater capacity. However, you can get Aztecs with LRTs which will easily do the range.
My personal view is that the normally aspirated E was the best model. It is faster than the F. The only big advantage of the F being that it carries a spare hydraulic pump (the single hydraulic pump is a serious safety shortcoming of the PA23 range.)
Do not be suckered into believing that the early PA23s are just as good. Go for the 250hp and the big fin, preferable the biggest nose (E onwards).
The three disadvantages of the Aztec over the Seneca are (1) you pay route charges (2) everyone has to climb on the wing to get in and (3) they are a little slower (I TAS at 165kt, as opposed to Seneca's 175.)
I totally agree that there are many twins to be avoided, including GA7, Seminole, Twin Comm etc simply because, although they might profess to do 4 pax and bags, they can only do so with reduced fuel and then only at MTOW, where their performance on one engine is immoral, and Partenavia because of it's poor record in icing, but my personal view is that for serious getting places a twin is required.
When I am very, very rich (just around the corner, as it has been for the last 25 years) I will probably consider a turboprop (whether single or twin) but I'll probably hold on to the dear old Aztec for fun, grass strips and short runways.
W
I paid £35,000 ($50,000) for mine about six years ago. The engines were highish time, but it was immaculate with recent paint, recent leather, everything working and looking good, HSI and full airways kit.
Since then I have added BRNAV GPS plus SkyForce, changed the COMs and NAVs for FM immunity and replaced about four or five pots and one boot.
It is now at the high end of extension, or low end of "on condition". The engineers reckon that I can take the 540s up to around the 3,000 hour mark, occasionally replacing a pot, which should see me clear for another 3-6 years (by which time I hope that there is a diesel alternative.)
I was offered £45,000 for it about a year ago. I looked into accepting and getting a Seneca, but there was really no attraction.
The Aztec is a solid, dependable workhorse. You feel safe, comfortable and cosseted. It goes up well on one engine and is exceptionally docile when an engine fails. It lands in the strongest crosswinds with the least effort (34kt is my personal best, but I still had loads of authority left). It is seriously stable on the ILS, you can set it up on tramlines like a jet.
It's short field performance is also very good , I operate out of Framlingham's 470m regularly (though this does compromise safety margins.)
The only way in which my particular aircraft does not meet the original spec is that it does not have LRTs, so does not do 1000nm with reserves. This has never proved a problem, as Vienna, Barcelona and Bergen are the furthest I usually want to go, and anyway my bladder doesn't have a much greater capacity. However, you can get Aztecs with LRTs which will easily do the range.
My personal view is that the normally aspirated E was the best model. It is faster than the F. The only big advantage of the F being that it carries a spare hydraulic pump (the single hydraulic pump is a serious safety shortcoming of the PA23 range.)
Do not be suckered into believing that the early PA23s are just as good. Go for the 250hp and the big fin, preferable the biggest nose (E onwards).
The three disadvantages of the Aztec over the Seneca are (1) you pay route charges (2) everyone has to climb on the wing to get in and (3) they are a little slower (I TAS at 165kt, as opposed to Seneca's 175.)
I totally agree that there are many twins to be avoided, including GA7, Seminole, Twin Comm etc simply because, although they might profess to do 4 pax and bags, they can only do so with reduced fuel and then only at MTOW, where their performance on one engine is immoral, and Partenavia because of it's poor record in icing, but my personal view is that for serious getting places a twin is required.
When I am very, very rich (just around the corner, as it has been for the last 25 years) I will probably consider a turboprop (whether single or twin) but I'll probably hold on to the dear old Aztec for fun, grass strips and short runways.
W
Last edited by Timothy; 24th Jan 2003 at 11:06.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WColins
"(I TAS at 165kt, as opposed to Seneca's 175.)"
What % power and what alt. do you fly? It doesn't seem right. At 75% and ~6000' you should see better. As far as I know there is an STC for a 2nd hydraulic pump.
I dis-agree with both of you (Wcolins & Chimbu chuckles) about the Twin Com, it is not that bad. You are right to suggest that if you are at MTOW and one engine gone you should treat it as a single, shut the other and crash somewhere nice. Anyway, are you looking to fly 1000nm non stop? If you limit yourself to 800nm you will be 180lbs (at least) below the MTOW.
"(I TAS at 165kt, as opposed to Seneca's 175.)"
What % power and what alt. do you fly? It doesn't seem right. At 75% and ~6000' you should see better. As far as I know there is an STC for a 2nd hydraulic pump.
I dis-agree with both of you (Wcolins & Chimbu chuckles) about the Twin Com, it is not that bad. You are right to suggest that if you are at MTOW and one engine gone you should treat it as a single, shut the other and crash somewhere nice. Anyway, are you looking to fly 1000nm non stop? If you limit yourself to 800nm you will be 180lbs (at least) below the MTOW.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, let's limit our discussions to airplanes that will go 1000 NM non-stop with 4 standard POB, some luggage, and at reasonable speed.
Here is a hypothetical candidate airplane that might be interesting with a few goodies added:
http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AdView.jsp?aircraft_id=70103
It is 9 serial numbers older than mine, so if I take my weight and balance data, it might be close.
As you can see it has good radios, but I would remove the KLN90B, and replace the HSI with a Sandel or a KCS55A. It has tip tanks for long range and gross weight increase of 200 lbs. I would also replace the GEM with a JPI.
Then add the Tornado Alley turbo-normalizer. While in the USA, get the TAT people to look over the airplane and bring it up to better than new. Don't forget some serious engine management training. By that time the new PRISM electronic ignition with standby alternator might be certified, permitting unleaded fuel to be used.
You would then have an aircraft capable of 190+ KTAS (FL100), carrying 4 POB, over 1000 NM with reserves, with deicing. This combination would beat a B36TC for speed, payload and range and have far less engine cooling troubles.
Also read up the Aviation Consumer report on any airplane you are considering.
Here is a hypothetical candidate airplane that might be interesting with a few goodies added:
http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AdView.jsp?aircraft_id=70103
It is 9 serial numbers older than mine, so if I take my weight and balance data, it might be close.
As you can see it has good radios, but I would remove the KLN90B, and replace the HSI with a Sandel or a KCS55A. It has tip tanks for long range and gross weight increase of 200 lbs. I would also replace the GEM with a JPI.
Then add the Tornado Alley turbo-normalizer. While in the USA, get the TAT people to look over the airplane and bring it up to better than new. Don't forget some serious engine management training. By that time the new PRISM electronic ignition with standby alternator might be certified, permitting unleaded fuel to be used.
You would then have an aircraft capable of 190+ KTAS (FL100), carrying 4 POB, over 1000 NM with reserves, with deicing. This combination would beat a B36TC for speed, payload and range and have far less engine cooling troubles.
Also read up the Aviation Consumer report on any airplane you are considering.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AC-DC
This depends. The two settings I use most are 24/24 at relatively low level (say up to 5000') and full throttle/23 which typically results in about 20-21/23 at either 90 or 100.
Both produce 165kt, give or take. The old girl is normally aspirated.
Well, so I thought, and, as the old darling is in C of A at the moment I asked for a quote and they told me that none of the pipework was present and it would cost a fortune.
I guess that "it's not that bad" I could go along with. No, it's not that bad, but it's not that good, and it really isn't a four person plus bags long legged tourer. It's a reasonable steed for crossing water on a nice day for lunch.
W
What % power and what alt. do you fly?
Both produce 165kt, give or take. The old girl is normally aspirated.
As far as I know there is an STC for a 2nd hydraulic pump
I dis-agree with both of you (Wcolins & Chimbu chuckles) about the Twin Com, it is not that bad.
W
Grandpa Aerotart
dirkdj,
Now that's a lovely looking Bonanza. I saved all those piccies for future reference during the on-going slow restoration of my own Bonanza, a 1970 model (E-219).
She's just had her first life IO550 overhauled with new Millenium Cylinders and a JPI 700/Gamis fitted. Unfortunately money which I would have rather spent on the panel went on a new left main spar, rib, hinges and bathtub fittings and a new rudder....so the panel will have to wait a year or three....but it all works, just looks stone aged
VH-EZU
I agree with everything you say about Bonanzas, but the kicker for me in this argument is the 200nm overwater legs and icing in European winters. Perhaps I'm spoiled as VFR is the norm in Australia 95% of the time....but our CBs will rip wings off, and we do get bad ice down south. As wonderfull as Bonanzas are, and a TN BE36 with the other gadgets you describe would be a powerfull travelling machine, are they a (truly) serious IFR aeroplane?
How do they run the TKS system on the wings, new perforated leading edge skins? Messy system init....and corrosion?
Chuck.
Now that's a lovely looking Bonanza. I saved all those piccies for future reference during the on-going slow restoration of my own Bonanza, a 1970 model (E-219).
She's just had her first life IO550 overhauled with new Millenium Cylinders and a JPI 700/Gamis fitted. Unfortunately money which I would have rather spent on the panel went on a new left main spar, rib, hinges and bathtub fittings and a new rudder....so the panel will have to wait a year or three....but it all works, just looks stone aged
VH-EZU
I agree with everything you say about Bonanzas, but the kicker for me in this argument is the 200nm overwater legs and icing in European winters. Perhaps I'm spoiled as VFR is the norm in Australia 95% of the time....but our CBs will rip wings off, and we do get bad ice down south. As wonderfull as Bonanzas are, and a TN BE36 with the other gadgets you describe would be a powerfull travelling machine, are they a (truly) serious IFR aeroplane?
How do they run the TKS system on the wings, new perforated leading edge skins? Messy system init....and corrosion?
Chuck.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WC
You mentioned long range tanks for the Aztec. Where do they fit, and what additional range do they give?
Achievable range should take into account adverse winds on at least a proportion of those 1000nm legs, and the relative location to the route and destination of suitable alternates.
I reckon the Aztec is well short of a 1000nm machine unless you are willing to fly for range, which I assume is a time consuming affair, particularly with adverse winds.
You mentioned long range tanks for the Aztec. Where do they fit, and what additional range do they give?
Achievable range should take into account adverse winds on at least a proportion of those 1000nm legs, and the relative location to the route and destination of suitable alternates.
I reckon the Aztec is well short of a 1000nm machine unless you are willing to fly for range, which I assume is a time consuming affair, particularly with adverse winds.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DIRKDJ
I pick up on the challange
Have a look at http://www.comanchepilot.com/Classif..._for_sale.html , allow it some time to load as there are 3 full size pictures. This aircraft as is will take you to 1000nm, 4 adults, full fuel (90gl) and some luggage, add the tip tanks and you have 200lbs increase to MTOW and another 350nm range (non turbo). After adding and modifying as you suggested the cost of this Comanche will be less then the cost of the Bonanza before the modifications. The Bonanza is a great aircraft but the Comanche beats it hands down, the points that the Bonanza is superior to the Comanche are speed and appeal, but you have a 300hp while the Comanche is 260hp.
Over
WC
Try Tony Brown 0116-240 2294. He deals with spares for Aztecs and knows lots, he might be able to help you.
I pick up on the challange
Have a look at http://www.comanchepilot.com/Classif..._for_sale.html , allow it some time to load as there are 3 full size pictures. This aircraft as is will take you to 1000nm, 4 adults, full fuel (90gl) and some luggage, add the tip tanks and you have 200lbs increase to MTOW and another 350nm range (non turbo). After adding and modifying as you suggested the cost of this Comanche will be less then the cost of the Bonanza before the modifications. The Bonanza is a great aircraft but the Comanche beats it hands down, the points that the Bonanza is superior to the Comanche are speed and appeal, but you have a 300hp while the Comanche is 260hp.
Over
WC
Try Tony Brown 0116-240 2294. He deals with spares for Aztecs and knows lots, he might be able to help you.
Last edited by AC-DC; 24th Jan 2003 at 20:14.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bluskis
I don't have LRTs, so am happy to be corrected on any of the following.
Aztec LRTs are within the wing, and don't change the profile at all, so you cannot tell by looking that an Aztec has the longer range.
Standard tanks are 144 U.S. gallons, and long-range tanks have a 192 U.S.gallon capacity.
The POH gives range without LRTs as follows (all with 45min reserve):
............................nm
Normal.................590
Intermediate.......783
Economy..............835
LR........................915
I guess that there are two ways to estimate range with LRT. Just multiplying by 192/144 gives:
.............................nm
Normal..................790
Intermediate.......1044
Economy.............1113
LR........................1220
or adding 48 USG at known fuel burn (32/26/24/22 USG/h respectively) gives:
.............................nm
Normal...................852
Intermediate........1096
Economy..............1145
LR........................1230
I reckon that the TAS would be 175, 165, 155 and 145 respectively.
So, if my calculations are correct (and I am quite happy to be corrected) the LRTs do do what is required.
W
I don't have LRTs, so am happy to be corrected on any of the following.
Aztec LRTs are within the wing, and don't change the profile at all, so you cannot tell by looking that an Aztec has the longer range.
Standard tanks are 144 U.S. gallons, and long-range tanks have a 192 U.S.gallon capacity.
The POH gives range without LRTs as follows (all with 45min reserve):
............................nm
Normal.................590
Intermediate.......783
Economy..............835
LR........................915
I guess that there are two ways to estimate range with LRT. Just multiplying by 192/144 gives:
.............................nm
Normal..................790
Intermediate.......1044
Economy.............1113
LR........................1220
or adding 48 USG at known fuel burn (32/26/24/22 USG/h respectively) gives:
.............................nm
Normal...................852
Intermediate........1096
Economy..............1145
LR........................1230
I reckon that the TAS would be 175, 165, 155 and 145 respectively.
So, if my calculations are correct (and I am quite happy to be corrected) the LRTs do do what is required.
W
Grandpa Aerotart
Here's a picture of my friends 1972 Aztec. It has the LRTs fitted and in all respects is a '9' out of '10'...engines have about 400 remaining. You can see the filler cap for the integral 'tip' tanks just inboard of the left wing tip.
VH-DXL (On another ****ty day in Oz)
I think he paid a little less than AUD$100K (<US$60K).
Now tell me a twin is unaffordable?
Chuck.
VH-DXL (On another ****ty day in Oz)
I think he paid a little less than AUD$100K (<US$60K).
Now tell me a twin is unaffordable?
Chuck.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>Chimbu,
Your A36 looks nice. Yellow leading edges? Or is it to hide bug stains?
Here in Europe if we want to fly for business, hard IFR is to be expected. That means a perfectly maintained aircraft with good equipment with current pilot (see our website www.pplir.org).
My A36 now has about 4400 hours since new in 1973. The two previous engines went to TBO (second to TBO+20% extension) without any problem. My current engine (IO520BB) is an Ultimate Engines custom overhaul giving at least the power of a 550. So far about 350 hours on this overhaul without any problems, running LOP (GAMI + JPI) except for take-off and climb.
My gradual restoration is as follows: first the engine was done, then the panel (compulsory BRNAV plus FM immunity) by installing GNS430, GMA340, KX155. The autopilot FCS810 was overhauled and fine tuned. It is coupled to the PN101 HSI which is coupled to the GNS430 so it flies airways and RNAV approaches and ILS like a champ. Last year I redid the interior, going from a blue fabric plus naugahide to a full leather interior, presently some of the paintwork is being retouched, because of intallation of NAV blades on the vertical fin.
Planned in the future is: Mode S transponder, and further down the road TN and TKS if my flying demands it.
Those owners with TKS that I contacted are all very positive, icing is no longer a factor, but you lose 100lbs when filled up (about 45 lbs in the summer).
I flew a BE60 for 15 years and this is a powerful deiced turbocharged airplane. The trouble with boots is that they don't keep everything clean. I would take TKS anyday.
There are limits I observe: the freezing level should be a couple thousand feet above most of the terrain, no embedded CB's or TCU, sometimes go low level instead of airways, etc. Most important: if I don't like what I see, I go another day.
For information about TKS see www.flightice.com
The hardware is made in the UK (also fitted on Hawker and Citation jets) but the GA STC's are from the US. The liquid is non-corrosive to metal, but a bit messy on the hangar floor and your clothes. Titanium strips with laser perforated holes are glued onto the leading edges of wings and tail, small pumps provide circulation of the chemical antifreeze. A prop slinger also keeps most of the fuselage clean. Not much use for in down under I guess.
Here in Benelux we have some bad icing situations when a NW wind blows from the North Sea bringing saturated icy CU and CB.
AC-DC
I agree the single Comanche is a serious long range aircraft. I have never flown one, but from sitting in one, I feel that the cabin is much smaller than an A36. Another negative point is that it is an orphan, no longer in production, this may be a problem when spare parts are needed. The prices certainly reflect this.
No way to get de-icing in my opinion.
My feeling is that the Comanche series is probably one of the best Pipers ever built.
Your A36 looks nice. Yellow leading edges? Or is it to hide bug stains?
Here in Europe if we want to fly for business, hard IFR is to be expected. That means a perfectly maintained aircraft with good equipment with current pilot (see our website www.pplir.org).
My A36 now has about 4400 hours since new in 1973. The two previous engines went to TBO (second to TBO+20% extension) without any problem. My current engine (IO520BB) is an Ultimate Engines custom overhaul giving at least the power of a 550. So far about 350 hours on this overhaul without any problems, running LOP (GAMI + JPI) except for take-off and climb.
My gradual restoration is as follows: first the engine was done, then the panel (compulsory BRNAV plus FM immunity) by installing GNS430, GMA340, KX155. The autopilot FCS810 was overhauled and fine tuned. It is coupled to the PN101 HSI which is coupled to the GNS430 so it flies airways and RNAV approaches and ILS like a champ. Last year I redid the interior, going from a blue fabric plus naugahide to a full leather interior, presently some of the paintwork is being retouched, because of intallation of NAV blades on the vertical fin.
Planned in the future is: Mode S transponder, and further down the road TN and TKS if my flying demands it.
Those owners with TKS that I contacted are all very positive, icing is no longer a factor, but you lose 100lbs when filled up (about 45 lbs in the summer).
I flew a BE60 for 15 years and this is a powerful deiced turbocharged airplane. The trouble with boots is that they don't keep everything clean. I would take TKS anyday.
There are limits I observe: the freezing level should be a couple thousand feet above most of the terrain, no embedded CB's or TCU, sometimes go low level instead of airways, etc. Most important: if I don't like what I see, I go another day.
For information about TKS see www.flightice.com
The hardware is made in the UK (also fitted on Hawker and Citation jets) but the GA STC's are from the US. The liquid is non-corrosive to metal, but a bit messy on the hangar floor and your clothes. Titanium strips with laser perforated holes are glued onto the leading edges of wings and tail, small pumps provide circulation of the chemical antifreeze. A prop slinger also keeps most of the fuselage clean. Not much use for in down under I guess.
Here in Benelux we have some bad icing situations when a NW wind blows from the North Sea bringing saturated icy CU and CB.
AC-DC
I agree the single Comanche is a serious long range aircraft. I have never flown one, but from sitting in one, I feel that the cabin is much smaller than an A36. Another negative point is that it is an orphan, no longer in production, this may be a problem when spare parts are needed. The prices certainly reflect this.
No way to get de-icing in my opinion.
My feeling is that the Comanche series is probably one of the best Pipers ever built.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On another ****ty day in Oz
Anyway, blue is such a neutral unwelcoming colour. Give me a variegated grey anytime.
W
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dirkdj
I have flown several hundred hours in a single commanchee, and confirm your thoughts. It was a superb airplane, and at altitude had excellent range. Unfortunately a factory fire put an end to production.
WC
Thanks for the info on Aztec LRTs. They make quite a difference.
Taking a flight of 1000nm, and if done regularly, expect a headwind of 25kt on some trips, then flight times would be between 7.7 and 8.3 hours, depending on location of alternates.
Single pilot, thats serious endurance for a business, got to be there, flight.
I have flown several hundred hours in a single commanchee, and confirm your thoughts. It was a superb airplane, and at altitude had excellent range. Unfortunately a factory fire put an end to production.
WC
Thanks for the info on Aztec LRTs. They make quite a difference.
Taking a flight of 1000nm, and if done regularly, expect a headwind of 25kt on some trips, then flight times would be between 7.7 and 8.3 hours, depending on location of alternates.
Single pilot, thats serious endurance for a business, got to be there, flight.
Grandpa Aerotart
The yellow leading edges are tape that was clear when put on about 2 1/2 years ago but quickly yellowed in the tropical sun. It's now also starting to peel in places and I'm going to peel the whole lot off soon!
I was under the impression that the TKS system caused some big corrosion problems in earlier Hawkers...but perhaps it's just because they are pieces of rubbish to begin with
EZU has 7050 hrs since new...well the parts I haven't replaced have
I too operate LOP...even in climb...it's the way to go if you have GAMijectors/JPI and aren't climbing very high....better to be back ROP above about 7500' unless you want/need max endurance.
On the wet dream list,
Some new radios (but my old King stuff just won't die
)
Turbonormalising
Tip tanks (although not entirely convinced if I want them yet)
On the dry dream list.
Replace the Garmin 100 with a King KLN94...but cost will mean I probably settle for a OHC KLN90b'. The OZ/US $ relationship makes the Garmin 400/500 series stuff just too expensive...winning Lotto aside.
On the 'to do' list in the next few months.
Some of the rear transparencies are getting a 'little' crazed.
New door seals for the rear double doors.
Get the Century 3 working a little better (Bloody Amphenel plugs)
Instrument 9 Inspection to put her back in IFR.
Happening as we speak,
A few new bulbs in instrument lighting
New bit of carpet in the rear
Lower cabin side trim being replaced ( I think it's original
)
Actually that feels better seeing it written down like that....nothing too scary and not that long a list...ignoring the wet dream list anyway
Just wish the South Pacific Peso was worth what it was 20 years ago.
Chuck.
PS yeah the constant sun, sea and surf gets wearing but someones gotta do it
I could post a shot of my house on the water but the Imigration Department are flat out as it is
I was under the impression that the TKS system caused some big corrosion problems in earlier Hawkers...but perhaps it's just because they are pieces of rubbish to begin with
EZU has 7050 hrs since new...well the parts I haven't replaced have
I too operate LOP...even in climb...it's the way to go if you have GAMijectors/JPI and aren't climbing very high....better to be back ROP above about 7500' unless you want/need max endurance.
On the wet dream list,
Some new radios (but my old King stuff just won't die
)Turbonormalising
Tip tanks (although not entirely convinced if I want them yet)
On the dry dream list.
Replace the Garmin 100 with a King KLN94...but cost will mean I probably settle for a OHC KLN90b'. The OZ/US $ relationship makes the Garmin 400/500 series stuff just too expensive...winning Lotto aside.
On the 'to do' list in the next few months.
Some of the rear transparencies are getting a 'little' crazed.
New door seals for the rear double doors.
Get the Century 3 working a little better (Bloody Amphenel plugs)
Instrument 9 Inspection to put her back in IFR.
Happening as we speak,
A few new bulbs in instrument lighting
New bit of carpet in the rear
Lower cabin side trim being replaced ( I think it's original
)Actually that feels better seeing it written down like that....nothing too scary and not that long a list...ignoring the wet dream list anyway
Just wish the South Pacific Peso was worth what it was 20 years ago.
Chuck.
PS yeah the constant sun, sea and surf gets wearing but someones gotta do it
I could post a shot of my house on the water but the Imigration Department are flat out as it is
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DirkDJ
Well, it is only half an orphan as it only lost its father, there are many PMA parts available and a very strong support group. I have never been in a Bonanza only in a Baron. If the cabin size of the two is the same then the Bonanza is wider but I don't think that by much. The Comanche was always cheaper then the Bonanza, I don't know if the fact that they are out of production makes a big differance but I might be wrong.
I don't know of any de-iced Single Comm although there are de iced Twin Comms.
When I look at the Comanche and compare it to other in the 'money for the buck' scale I don't think that there is another aircraft that beats it. There are many fine aircraft around but they all cost much more (or the same) and give less, the best example is the Piper Arrow.
Another negative point is that it is an orphan, no longer in production, this may be a problem when spare parts are needed. The prices certainly reflect this.
No way to get de-icing in my opinion.
When I look at the Comanche and compare it to other in the 'money for the buck' scale I don't think that there is another aircraft that beats it. There are many fine aircraft around but they all cost much more (or the same) and give less, the best example is the Piper Arrow.