Yup. All 17 USG of it. ;) That's typically about 55 mins after an allowance for take-off and climb.

I've already said I wouldn't swap the Twin Com for anything else. Just bear in mind that as four-plus-bags aircraft, it's very different from what it's capable of as a two-person (3:10 to dest) or even three-person (5:30 to dest) tourer.

BookWorm, is the weight penalty of the de-ice worth the advantages in your experience? Must be about 125-145 pounds the best I can figure.

Difficult one to judge. If I count the value as the number of times the boots have actually been used, the answer is "no". If I count the value as the number of trips I didn't cancel and the stress avoided because they were there, the answer is "yes". To be honest, I rarely operate the aircraft as a tourer with more than 2 up, so the penalty is not a bit issue.

I don't think the penalty is really 125-145 lb, though the nitrogen bottle and plumbing is indeed heavy (from a CofG point of view I wish it were in the back rather than the nose). I think we really do have a heavy aeroplane compared to some of its peers - probably all that filler needed to compensate for the abuse over 40 years. ;)

which twin
 

they must be four BIG people to reach the all up on an Aztec! For an easy to fly, spacious twin I would opt for the Aztec BUT dont forget those nav charges. For training I would agree with the recommendation of the duchess. Simple and forgiving!

Just had my first lesson in the Twin Comanche and I really like it. Only thing which irritated me about it was the manner of the landing...very flat (with just two in the front) and hard, it just seems to float and then drop, not like the PA28 at all. Could anyone offer any advice on how to make the landings better? I'm told all the Piper light twins are like this.

i think anything from an arrow upwards lands like that.

As only only one person mentioned, the Cessna 337 is a little known good twin. Yes there is the prop noise, but with plenty of power on tap you can help with lower rpm take offs if light. also the engine tbo is 1500 hrs, but most non turbos seem to make it happily. They have a good turn of speed and load up well. Single engine performance is good on all models, exepct when cycling the gear you will sink with the drap from the clam sheel rear doors !. They also seem to go for good $$.

I remember my ir training in the dutchess. A wonderfull aircraft, with a good sized panel to fill and a nice height position, but they only ever seem to be used for training and everyone i,ve been in showed it with wear and tear.

The 337 looks like a fabulous aircraft. When (if) the readies avail themselves, one shall be mine!
My impression was that the Seneca 1 was definitely more tricky than the Seneca III which was more difficult than the Arrow t-tail which I was told was difficult.

However, the Seneca I and Arrow both have very heavy elevator forces in common, you think you've run out of authority but with more determination you discover there is movement yet. Just that judgement, probably very subjectively on my part, seemed to be more difficult in the Seneca 1.

Perhaps the Twin Comm is like the Seneca 1? The Seneca 1 definitely likes power to remain on until starting the flare with a fair amount of rearward trim. The rearward trim does not cause excessive control forces when going around which is good. It should be positively landed on the mains (greasers just increase the ground roll) with a good flare and the stick hard back as you brake until the nose cannot stay up any longer. This produces satisfyingly short landing runs.

The arrow doesn't have heavy control forces, with a stabilator all-flying tail. The Seneca doesn't either. The Seneca (I, II, or III) is about as benign and easy to fly as any light twin, and has very simple handling characteristics with it's square, hershey bar wing.

The Cessna 337 is okay until one engine fails, when you're sandwiched between to heavy weights and in a cage with one exit and avgas on top. While they don't have assymetrical thrust issues, they have very poor single engine performance, and unless you're flying an upgraded airplane such as a Riley conversion or an airplane with bigger engines, you're going to be drifting down, not climbing, not holding altitude on one engine.

:hmm:...I found the controls light at all times in the Twin Comm, except during the flare, certainly the flare was a lot heavier than the low tailed Arrow. My instructor (A very experienced one I might add) seemed to think that realistically it wouldn't land much better than what I managed. The other issue I discovered was a bit of PIO during the flare...caused by me lowering the nose slightly after the initial flare to loose a bit of height (having perhaps flared a little high at first) and then trying to raise the nose again closer to the ground. Anyone else like to share experiences of the type?

CT,

I think that pretty much describes the Seneca 1 too! Understood that such a perception is possibly subjective and relative to one's usual steeds.

guppy
well I have only flown early model 337's (non turbo or P) and I never had any problems with either single engine climb, with various loads. The only problem is the well know gear retraction drag brake (which can be fixed with a stc door deletion kit)
I would liken flying a 337 on one engine to flying a 182.

and if you dont like not having a driver door, best avoid flying most pipers or anything larger

Welcome to the game of chance called "landing the Twin Com". :) The unpredictability of landing seems to be a standing joke among TC owners.

I think the fundamental problem (probably not shared by other Piper twins) is the high deck angle in the normal ground attitude. It was supposed to be so the passengers could climb straight on to the aft wing without a step. A consequence seems to be an uncomfortably narrow window between that ground attitude (at which you just about avoid breaking the nosewheel) and the stall attitude. Vortex generators seem to help.

I found an old Fliteguide test of the Twin Com on the internet and it suggests to deal with the landing:

Quote:

---

There are two main schools of thought on how to minimise landing embarrassment. The first is to use half flaps, which will get the Twin Comanche down sooner and with less of a sudden cessation of flying. The second is to simply pump up the main gear legs to maximise their extension length. This addresses two of the main causes; it reduces the nose high stance and increases the gap between the flaps and the ground. Either way the PA-30 is an aeroplane that will punish sloppy technique.

---

Now of course you'll need to specify if it's the front engine or the rear, beause the performance is different for each. That said, what kind of single engine ceiling have you been at gross weight with an engine out? If you're limping home close to sea level with no significant terrain beneath, perhaps it's okay.

It's certainly not akin to flying a 182. Among other things, with the 182, I've regularly dropped loads of skydivers out at 15,000 feet and higher...something you'll not being doing on one engine in the 0-2/337. In fact, even at low altitudes, you won't meet the same rate of climb on one engine as a 182...and one one engine you're in an emergency condition in the 337, whereas you're perfectly fine in the 182. Furthermore, lose the remaining engine in the 337, you shouldn't count on fairing nearly as well with the subequent forced landing as you will with the 182 when it's powerplant fails.

Well, presently if I want to get out of the cockpit, it's either leave the seat, retire to the rear supernumary area and descend a flight of stairs to the main deck before leaving the main entrance door, or exiting the top hatch out of the cockpit and descending on an emergency cable about 38' to the ground. And no, I don't like not having a driver door. My other regular airplane has ejectable doors and quck release side panels, a full steel roll cage, and I usually wear nomex, gloves, boots, and a helmet.

The cherokee doors are a disgraceful joke and it applies from the PA-28 through the Seneca. It's a sorrowful piece of engineering.

However, seeing as you mentioned it, when I flew the Navajo, I had an exit door in the cockpit. It's a little bigger than a Cherokee, and it's still a piper. The Cheyennes we flew didn't have the door, but we figured we could plow over the station operator in back if we had to get out in a hurry :}.

Both points true. I routinely land with half-flap. With full flap the window I described between ground attitude and stall is even smaller.

There's also a small-nose-wheel mod that has a similar effect to pumping up the main-wheel oleos.

Bookworm has it.

Basically, the Twin Comm's attitude on the ground is that of a shallow climb. Therefore, if the speed is not exactly right before the flare, rotating the aircraft into the landing attitude will cause it to climb away again or scoot off down the runway in ground effect until the speed bled off. The take off can be equally interesting for the same reason; slightly too much back-pressure on the stick and it gets airbourne in ground-effect at an alarmingly low speed, slightly too much forward pressure and the aircraft will wheelbarrow which can be quite exciting in a crosswind! Once you got it right though it was a very satisfying little aircraft to fly.

Back to the original question, though:
1. The venerable Aztec wins hands down for load-carrying, comfort, benign handling and airfield performance. Strangely, the older round nosed models (C and D) were slightly faster than the later pointy nosed ones.
2. The Twin Comanche doesn't have the load carrying capacity but has great economy, speed and range and will appeal to those who like a bit more of a handling challenge.
3. Then there's the Seneca. I only ever flew the Seneca I and never really understood why Piper bothered with it. Cobbled together from all sorts of bits they had lying around it fell somewhere between the Aztec and the Twin Com but without the appeal of either and the handling was just awful. I'm sure it will have improved with later versions, though.

Good Luck,

MT

Bookworm

Have you try the wing fillets: All reports say that they make the landings much smoother and more predictable.

Though we got the VGs fitted only a couple of years ago, we've had the wing fillets since we got the aircraft. If they make landing significantly easier, I shudder to think how badly I'd land one without the wing fillets. ;)

The wing fillets help.
Pumping the main struts to 4" helps.
The small nose tire helps (15x600-6)
Putting 100# in the baggage helps alot.
Land with just a tiny bit of power, increases airflow over the tail
No flaps helps, but you need at least 900m for that

Don't ever try to lower the nose on a Twin Comanche if you over flare a bit, add power instead. The pitch is too touchy unless you have lots of experience.

I'm just wondering, if the Seneca is such a crappy airplane as people seem to think, why are there so many of them? Agreed, the 1 is not perfect with it's aileron/rudder interconnect and heavy in the flare, but apart from that, what's so bad about it? It handles load rather well although it has poor SE performance but then what light twin doesn't (honestly) with only 200 hp normal aspirated per side? It's a benign twin at that, I've flown it below Vmc on one engine and it didn't kill me, the Duchess apparently is not so nice for example.
The Twin Co is apparently impossible to land properly and the Aztruck is only good for hauling a lot and burning tons of fuel.
Ok, so the Seneca 1 is not so fast, but with the 2 they sorted most of the problems and it's a pretty good airplane as compromises go. Is it not one of the most built twins around?

Seneca would do the job nicely:ok:

Twin Comanche Miller convertion.

Also not true, it just take many Attempts.;) You should be able to make 6 good out of 10.

Well I'm getting a little better...still rather 'three pointer' though unfortunately...

Just remember this "any landing you walk away from" stuff is rubbish. They can carry you away and it still counts...

Horses for courses
 

Some time back, but .........

Did all my twin training, as a very low hours PPL, on the PA39 (non turbo) version of the Twin Com. It was my aircraft, and due to my very low hours at the start, it was a handful, but great fun, and (VERY important) with the right instructor, it is NOT a problem to fly accurately, but it has to be flown. The circuit at a small GA field can be 'interesting' as the best speed with the TC is around the 110 - 120 kts, ( due to the single engine blue line speed of 105 Kts) so if there are 3 or 4 Cessna 150's in the circuit, that calls for some careful planning, and more than a little changing of the order, and keeping the options open until shure of getting in adds some spice to getting rid of 30+ Kts of airspeed on very short final.

Went on to do IMC & night and then did a load of hour building/business flying (250 Hrs over a couple of years) all over the place in Europe, and for that, it was perfect, fast cruise, economical, and with De Ice and a reasonable panel, it would go pretty much anywhere I wanted, and when I wanted.

At the end of the training, and yes, we did a LOT more than the book says is needed for a twin, night & IMC rating, I was comfortable, and safe flying it single crew, at night, sometimes IFR on sectors of up to 3 Hrs 30 if needed, but a lot of that was down to an instructor that insisted that I fly it to IR standard, even though I couldn't do the IR initially as I didn't have enough P1 time, so had to stick to IMC rules for a while.

Did some flying in an Aztec during that training period, due to an annual getting in the way. Instructor's comments 'You're used to the TC, which is a bit like a Ferrari. This is the Land Rover of the range, and he wasn't far wrong. Big tank of an aircraft in comparison, much more expensive to operate, but would go places that the TC wasn't really suited to, like short grass strips and the like.

Flew Seneca 1 & 2 in the States when doing some more business trips, and then did my CPL/IR ratings in an old Seneca 1. It wasn't hard to fly in all fairness, but it was again, more expensive, slower than the TC, but capable of carrying a lot more weight.

As a real fun go places reasonably fast and economically airplane, with a relatively light load, the TC was great. Despite the comments above, the TC can be landed 'nicely', a trickle of power, nail the speed, and it's not dramatic. Get the speed wrong, either way, and it can be 'interesting'. Trimming is critical, ( electric trim is almost an essential for workload reduction, especially for single engine work) and the all moving elevator means that it's incredibly sensitive in pitch.

You won't carry 4 adults and bags very far, even with tip tanks, but at 160 Kts or better, that may not be a problem. Even 2 adults and 2 children with bags may require a bit of care with the w & B, and it's not going to work with full tanks. One or 2 up, the only restriction worth considering is the bladder endurance, mine with full tanks and tips filled was good for nearly 11 hours if it was set up correctly in the cruise. The handling is very different 2 up to 6 up, the instructor demonstrated that to me by getting me to do a (short) trip with it loaded on one occasion, and it makes a huge difference to the handling, as the C of G is much more aft. Worth doing if you're getting a TC.

The Aztec is a work horse, and the one I flew wasn't going to set the world on fire speed wise.

The Seneca is sort of between the 2. The rudder/aileron couple can cause problems if you don't keep your feet firmly on the rudder pedals when cruising, in that it can cause some very uncomfortable fish tailing for the people in the back row if there's a bit of unstable air causing the aircraft to twitch, unless it's blocked, the rudder couple upsets things as the ailerons are used to correct the course. Other than that, it's a genuine enough slightly larger twin that can haul 6 adults a reasonable distance without having to keep stopping for fuel.

Hope that helps a little

Steve

I think you may be misremembering that. Vyse is 91 KIAS on the PA30/39 (which is 105 mph). Although it's not as pleasant to fly at 95 KIAS, it is a reasonable speed to fit in with slower traffic.

Great that we have a few Twin Com drivers here because I was wanting to ask another question...

I've just finished the MEP on the Twin Com but I'm slightly in two minds about the take off technique. According to the AFM:

Take-off technique

With flaps 15 and both engines at maximum take-off power, the aeroplane should be held on or near the ground until the take-off safety speed of 97mph is attained.

I've been told by my instructor not to use take off flap (this is for a hard runway) and to rotate at 85mph...which as you can see differs slightly from the AFM.

What do others do?

I have a theory about this one.

The PA30 was involved in a number of training spin/stall accidents in its early days when the FAA still required a Vmca demonstration in checkrides. The problem was, in essence, that the rudder remained effective down to speeds very close to stall, and the Vmca demo rapidly turned into an asymmetric stall.

The "fix" was straightforward: the FAA simply increased the nominal Vmca, by a fair few knots. As a result, the take-off safety speed increased proportionately, but, I hypothesise, the instruction in the POH remained the same with the new figure inserted. Perhaps it was test flown a couple of times on a nice day.

As a result, the instruction is, IMHO, dangerous in many conditions. The high nose attitude on three wheels of the PA30 means that at 97 mph with flap 15 you're either climbing or you're wheelbarrowing. The unofficial Owner's Handbook for the PA30B (well worth getting a copy, Essco sell them) quotes take-off runs based on a lift off speed of 80 mph with flap 15, with an assumed speed of 91 mph at 50 ft.

I don't use flap for take-off, though I don't tend to operate off short runways. I lift off when the aircraft wants to lift, and accelerate to about 90 kt before tucking the gear away and climbing.

Thanks bookworm, the theory about Vmca had crossed my mind as well...but the AFM I have is from 1963 which is presumably before the FAA changed the Vmc figure from 80mph to 90mph. It may be that the manual I have is in fact a mix of stuff from different dates...it says 1963 on it but I know the plane is a 'B' model built in 1966 which is a bit bizarre, although it does have the plane's registration on it. So who knows about that?

Actually I ordered one a few days ago...I'm glad you think it's worth getting. Although of course it is 'unofficial' it is still a Piper publication isn't it?

but presumably the Vmca figure is amended nevertheless?

Yes. I find it useful.

:hmm:...On closer inspection the AFM lists under amendments:

Revised minimum single engined control speed and take off safety speed, dated 7/7/64.

An identical amendment entry is also listed further down the page dated 12/12/69. The 1964 entry only amended the take off safety speed (to 97mph as written in the second paragraph of the take off technique section) but the 1969 amendment also changed all the take off distance graphs. There isn't actually any mention of Vmca in the AFM as such, it mearly lists the 'recommended single engine maneuvering speed' of 97mph (despite the words 'minimum single engined control speed' appearing in the amendments page it doesn't reappear anywhere else in the AFM which is a bit odd I thought) which I take to be different from Vmca which I know to be 90mph.

What I had been expecting to find was a big added page which actually stated the change of Vmca from 80mph to 90mph like the AFM has for the Vne change of 230mph to 215mph. But like I said above, other than on the amendments list itself a reference to Vmca doesn't exist in the AFM.

Bookworm
Why to buy an unofficial POH when you can get an official one? Call Webco and order your ICS POH. You are a member aren't you?;) You will find there more info than you think.

I think we're talking at cross purposes AC-DC. The only "official" manual in the sense that I meant is the aircraft's Approved Flight Manual. ICS info tends to be excellent, but the Piper Owner's Manual is also helpful.

Have you got one AC-DC?

I looked at it on the ICS website and was wondering if it was any good.

Yes I have it (2 if to be honest, one at home and one in the aircraft) and it is A*. Very very good with all the information that you might need. They are not cheap but worth every penny.

Please try to avoid taking off with Flaps in a Twin Comanche. They make it nearly impossible to lift off above Vmc. The later factory POH lists flap setings for TO at 0-15. Optional.

I found an even better reason once. The flaps are retracted by independent springs. So at 300 feet or so after take-off with flap 15, you command flaps up, and only one retracts. The aircraft remains controllable in that state, but it's not my choice of configuration on a high-workload departure. ;) (BTW, solution is to extend flap to 15 again, reduce airspeed, and retract again.)

Your way to solve the problem is correct but in order to prevent it from re-ocurring replace the flap rollers to the plastic type, available from Tony Brown, Webco and Piper. If you replaced them and the problem persist clean the tracks and make sure that they are not lubricated, keep them dry.

Hello !

I flew only Seneca & TwinCo, not the aztek.
But I would say :


If you fly often enough to be "current", and want a nice speedy airplane, the twinCo is the best.
Yes, not easy to land ! :-) Just need the exact good speed and attitude, what a terrible flare ! And props kiss the grass, you have to be careful.
But that's a greaaat airplane, you will be charmed, the pannel is a mess and there are buttons and switches everywhere, but that smells "the good old fashion twin".
The one I flew was great because you could desactivate turbos manually, which allows you to do some training without stressing your engines.
Problem : de-iced TwinCos are very rare, so you'll probably have a non-deiced one.
Problem 2 : parts may be hard to find.


Seneca I : Great if you want to do some flight training because no turbo, but slow and a bit heavy.
Very reliable, a good transportation twin, easy to land, and a very comfortable cockpit. No Eurocontrol fees with the "below 2T" paper.
But most of them are getting old, quite a lot of flight hours done.
I would prefer the Seneca II turbo (we own one).
But recently built Senecas are too heavy and some even cannot avoid the eurocontrol fee !


Aztek : I never flew, a bit too thirsty, but Piper built reliable airplanes so I assume this one is also a good plane. Maybe parts problems.


About twins, I enjoy the DA42, nice trainer. Too slow and badly deiced for travelling 365 days/year, but nice baby (expensive to buy :-( !!).

Hope this will help...

Frog

Well, after quite a long wait, my ICS POH arrived and I am really pleased I got it. Not so much because it actually has much more information in it that the 'original', but because it is so much better laid out and doesn't have that 'home made' (lots of different photocopies of from different decades all bound together in a silly binder with a CAA stamp on it) feel to it that the 'official' one has.

Once again, thanks to all those who've answered on this thread. :ok: