Twin Comanche- Partnership?

[TWinter]

Just tossing this out there..There is a retired Doctor that lives in Dyersburg (west TN) and has a 64ish? Twin Comanche he is wanting to sell ( well he and his family). The doctor is declining in health and the family has decided to sell the plane. His nephew had planned to buy it, but also a doctor will be living in California for a few years and then back to TN. It's what this man lived for and truly enjoyed..religious about maintenance and had made several upgrades over the years. He is in his 80s has not piloted in several years and usually has another doctor friend fly him around the patch once in a while.

I have no intentions of selling my Mooney, but as we all occasionally have a need to haul more weight than the mighty Mooney can handle here is an opportunity to purchase the Comanche. The doc would like to see it stay local. I have an interest in purchasing this or making an offer. Since all of us Mooney owners occasionally need more room I was posting to see if anybody fairly nearby would be interested in partnership on this.. If sincere I can get you more info. The plane is mid-time engine with several speed mods. ADSB was just installed. He is asking 100k. Not sure my offer will be that, but at least we have a starting point.

PM me if you are interested..

-Tom   

[KLRDMD]

2 hours ago, TWinter said:

He is asking 100k. Not sure my offer will be that, but at least we have a starting point.

Very few Twin Comanches are worth $100k. I have watched that market for over a year now. An average one is going for $40-60k and top ones rarely get above $70k. That said, there was one that sold for $125k around the first of the year and it was worth every penny.

[gsxrpilot]

If you were in central Texas...

I'd actually prefer to find a partnership in a Baron, but looking.

[steingar]

A Twinkie would need all kinds of bells and whistles before it would be worth that kind of money.  Moreover, its only about 10 knots faster and hauls about 300 pounds more than an M20E.  That's not much of an advantage for that much money, especially because you'll burn through a crapload more gas and maintenance.  It is nice to have that second engine to fly you to the crash site though.

[TWinter]

11 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

Very few Twin Comanches are worth $100k. I have watched that market for over a year now. An average one is going for $40-60k and top ones rarely get above $70k. That said, there was one that sold for $125k around the first of the year and it was worth every penny.

That's why  I posted: 

He is asking 100k. Not sure my offer will be that, but at least we have a starting point.  I have 70-75 in mind..

[TWinter]

11 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

If you were in central Texas...

I'd actually prefer to find a partnership in a Baron, but looking.

I hear ya..if I was in Texas and you found a Baron I'd be in also..  Not sure my pockets are deep enough for ones I've seen advertised.

 

[TWinter]

59 minutes ago, steingar said:

A Twinkie would need all kinds of bells and whistles before it would be worth that kind of money.  Moreover, its only about 10 knots faster and hauls about 300 pounds more than an M20E.  That's not much of an advantage for that much money, especially because you'll burn through a crapload more gas and maintenance.  It is nice to have that second engine to fly you to the crash site though.

I get the point of the post and agree with much of it, but really brother... was the last sentence necessary? I'm tough skinned, but that was just not right.  

[TWinter]

Just reply to thread and PM if interested please. I like the idea of a twin as a second plane for family and true 4 place hauls, if this can be had for $70-75k it's a good deal. I've seen the plane, flown in it and I've see how well it has been taken care of. I'm not a buyer at 100K..w/ the right person I would consider it at $70-75k w/ a good partner.  

 

-Tom

[KLRDMD]

2 hours ago, steingar said:

A Twinkie would need all kinds of bells and whistles before it would be worth that kind of money.  Moreover, its only about 10 knots faster and hauls about 300 pounds more than an M20E.  That's not much of an advantage for that much money, especially because you'll burn through a crapload more gas and maintenance.  It is nice to have that second engine to fly you to the crash site though.

Twin Comanches will do about 170 KTAS on 15 GPH and mine had 1376 lb useful load. Plus it will climb at twice the rate of an E model Mooney and the B models and later Twin Comanches have six seats. The Twin Comanche does so much more than an E model Mooney can and these are very inexpensive airplanes to own and maintain. The "second engine to fly you to the crash site" comment automatically identifies you as someone that has no idea what they're talking about concerning twins but feel free to keep repeating it 

[KLRDMD]

49 minutes ago, TWinter said:

Just reply to thread and PM if interested please. I like the idea of a twin as a second plane for family and true 4 place hauls, if this can be had for $70-75k it's a good deal. I've seen the plane, flown in it and I've see how well it has been taken care of. I'm not a buyer at 100K..w/ the right person I would consider it at $70-75k w/ a good partner.  

Something to consider: All airplanes require continued training but twins require a greater commitment. In the past I had considered a twin as a second airplane but I've decided, for me, that if I'm going to fly a twin, I need to be flying it a lot to maintain proficiency. Again, for me, that's at least 75 hours a year and realistically it probably takes 100 hours a year to be really on top of the game. And I have a reasonable amount of experience (CFI, CFII, MEI, ATP and well over 600 multi hours). So I've decided that if I'm going to fly a twin, it has to be my primary airplane and maybe I'll fly a single as a second airplane with a partner. 

A Twin Comanche is a great twin and one you can almost certainly afford to buy, fly and maintain if you can afford a Mooney. For a year's worth of flying, it isn't that much more expensive, and it gives you tremendous options that a Mooney does not.

[KSMooniac]

FWIW, I've got a friend/hangar neighbor with a TwinCo and just learned of a pretty onerous AD for the heater... Some ongoing pressure test requirements or replacement, I think. Hartzell bought the C&D heater line and jacked up the prices to a ridiculous level relative to the value of the plane. They probably got AD pushed through to generate sales like they did with their props...

Just make sure you check out the issue before going forward.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[TWinter]

Excellent points and I will check very carefully. Like I said nothing is etched in stone..It is just an idea and a opportunity that presented itself. Thought I would toss it out there. There is a fellow pilot here that would do a partnership in a Baron in a minute, but pricing puts them out of reach for both of us. The Comanche was just an idea as an easy way to be able to take the a folks or friends along with easy access in and out. A hanger buddy and I are scheduling our multi in Smyrna, TN. They fly and instruct in a Duchess. It is a 10 hr  course. Hope to schedule next month. Regardless what happens with the Comanche I would like to get my multi. Thanks for the input and thoughts....My insurance guy did say a Comanche would be eat my lunch in rates, he preferred we consider a Seneca. As a insurance guy and instructor he said the insurance and so forth would be much more favorable w/ Seneca and it is easier to fly vs. the Comanche.

 

-Tom

[jetdriven]

If there ever was a such a thing as an economical twin a Twin Comanche may be one of the only ones there ever was. A Travelair maybe, too. 

[rbridges]

16 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

If you were in central Texas...

I'd actually prefer to find a partnership in a Baron, but looking.

same here.  I'd love to get my foot in the door on a partnership in a twin or larger single.

[KSMooniac]

If there ever was a such a thing as an economical twin a Twin Comanche may be one of the only ones there ever was. A Travelair maybe, too. 

Very true. The ability to run LOP and the bullet proof 320's sure help. The turbo versions add a lot of capability too. Downsides are the terrible gear system and having to feed a heater, but I guess that is true for all twins.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[KLRDMD]

3 hours ago, KSMooniac said:

FWIW, I've got a friend/hangar neighbor with a TwinCo and just learned of a pretty onerous AD for the heater... Some ongoing pressure test requirements or replacement, I think. Hartzell bought the C&D heater line and jacked up the prices to a ridiculous level relative to the value of the plane. They probably got AD pushed through to generate sales like they did with their props...

There is a pressure test AD on most cabin heaters on twins, that's not unusual and is easy to comply with. It has existed for decades.

[KLRDMD]

2 hours ago, TWinter said:

There is a fellow pilot here that would do a partnership in a Baron in a minute, but pricing puts them out of reach for both of us. My insurance guy did say a Comanche would be eat my lunch in rates, he preferred we consider a Seneca. As a insurance guy and instructor he said the insurance and so forth would be much more favorable w/ Seneca and it is easier to fly vs. the Comanche.

The Twin Comanche is no more difficult to fly than any other twin. It is much EASIER to fly than a Seneca. I've personally owned a Twin Comanche, Baron [two, actually] and Seneca. You can buy a Baron for the same price range you're looking to spend for this Twin Comanche. Maintenance will be a bit more as will all around operating expenses, mostly due to the larger engines. You're looking in the 50% more range on a yearly basis than a typical Mooney (versus 30% more for a Twin Comanche) but you'll get faster climbs and cruise airspeeds and roughly double the payload (useful load with full fuel) of the Mooney and 50% more than a Twin Comanche.

Barons are an absolute bargain right now.

Also insurance as a percent of hull value shouldn't vary much regardless of whether you're looking at a Twin Comanche, Baron, Seneca or 310. I'm happy to give you my broker's contact information to get exact amounts.

[kpaul]

2 hours ago, TWinter said:

more favorable w/ Seneca and it is easier to fly

While I have never flown a Comanche, I have flown a Seneca II.  I not recommend strongly enough how miserable that airplane is to fly.  It handles like some one took a 2 ton farm truck and added wings.  They just never seemed happy in the air.  It is the only plane I have ever flown that I truly hope to never fly again.

If you get your multi in 10 hours, I would bet you would have less than 2 hours with both engines pulling equally.  You will get a really good leg workout since you will always be simulated single engine. 

[Ron McBride]

34 minutes ago, kpaul said:

While I have never flown a Comanche, I have flown a Seneca II.  I not recommend strongly enough how miserable that airplane is to fly.  It handles like some one took a 2 ton farm truck and added wings.  They just never seemed happy in the air.  It is the only plane I have ever flown that I truly hope to never fly again.

If you get your multi in 10 hours, I would bet you would have less than 2 hours with both engines pulling equally.  You will get a really good leg workout since you will always be simulated single engine. 

I think that the only time I had 2 engines when I did my training was take and occasional time.  Get running right on 2 and the instructor is going to kill an engine.  Do it again and again. 

 

[mooneyflyfast]

3 hours ago, kpaul said:

While I have never flown a Comanche, I have flown a Seneca II.  I not recommend strongly enough how miserable that airplane is to fly.  It handles like some one took a 2 ton farm truck and added wings.  They just never seemed happy in the air.  It is the only plane I have ever flown that I truly hope to never fly again.

If you get your multi in 10 hours, I would bet you would have less than 2 hours with both engines pulling equally.  You will get a really good leg workout since you will always be simulated single engine. 

Ihave to put in a good word for the Seneca II. I owned and flew one for 10 years and 1400 hours. It is a practical transportation airplane. Has lots of useful load, a roomy cabin and plenty of baggage space (nose and rear)  The rear door makes boarding passengers easy and it is quiet in flight.  Very stable on instruments.  Docile on one engine and a low VMC of 66 knots.  Has good short field performance and a single engine service ceiling of 13,000 +.  You wouldn't enjoy doing chandelles or lazy 8s in it but for a practical transportation airplane it is hard to beat. 

 

 

[Browncbr1]

I’ve  flown a twin Comanche.  It’s easy to fly but has the annoying piper trim location on the headliner.  The cabin really isn’t much if any bigger than a mooney.  If you want to fly a light twin for fun on a budget, not a bad pick.  I’m a fan of those engines.  Single engine service ceiling is 5800’ DA if I recall correctly.  With two people up front and full fuel, it will climb reasonably on one engine at 4000’ on a standard day.    I wouldnt pay a penny more than $60k.   Any more and you’re getting into baron55 territory. 

The gear system on the Comanche is cable and pulleys.    Most other twins like barons have hydraulic gear systems.   

Edited March 1, 2018 by Browncbr1

[steingar]

22 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

The "second engine to fly you to the crash site" comment automatically identifies you as someone that has no idea what they're talking about concerning twins but feel free to keep repeating it 

I am sufficiently literate to read accident reports and their summaries, which state fairly clearly and boldly that twins aren't actually that much safer than singles.  Certainly not enough to justify an extra engine and the maintenance thereof.  I didn't invent that joke, and it has been around a long time.

[jetdriven]

 Piston twins flown by a very capable competent commercial pilot that is on top of his game that is very experienced is actually probablya safer operation all around. 135 carriers like Cape Air fly the same planes as the rest of us and they are a very safe operation.  But here’s the deal not everybody is a professional pilot people have lives that have jobs and they want to get from here to there and that’s after specialty and I get that. A Big city lawyer tries a case all day now he wants to get to his family and it’s dark and he’s got a complex airplane he’s been up for 14 hours and all of that...... I think the guy is probably better off in a bonanza than a Baron. It’s a simpler airplane that is less likely to kill you when an engine fails. .Unquestionably did you better in a turbine single like TBM or Pilatus or piper jet prop those airplanes from a safety standpoint absolutely smoke all of the other options.  The single turbine fleeet went something like 10 million flight hours without an engine-failure rated fatality.  Truly remarkable. 

Edited March 1, 2018 by jetdriven

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, steingar said:

I am sufficiently literate to read accident reports and their summaries, which state fairly clearly and boldly that twins aren't actually that much safer than singles.  Certainly not enough to justify an extra engine and the maintenance thereof.  I didn't invent that joke, and it has been around a long time.

The VAST majority of engine failures in a twin (piston, turboprop or turbine) result in a non-stressful landing at an airport and those never make it to the accident reports, now do they ? I know of many such incidents and have personally landed a twin in those circumstances. Read all you want but you're make conclusions based on partial, incomplete data. There is no question in my mind that YOU should not be flying a twin. That doesn't mean that others shouldn't, though. 

The joke is bad and it is flat out wrong. You think you're being cute by repeating it but you simply prove that "you don't know what you don't know".

[steingar]

5 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

The VAST majority of engine failures in a twin (piston, turboprop or turbine) result in a non-stressful landing at an airport and those never make it to the accident reports, now do they ? I know of many such incidents and have personally landed a twin in those circumstances. Read all you want but you're make conclusions based on partial, incomplete data. There is no question in my mind that YOU should not be flying a twin. That doesn't mean that others shouldn't, though. 

The joke is bad and it is flat out wrong. You think you're being cute by repeating it but you simply prove that "you don't know what you don't know".

The rate of fatal accidents is roughly the same for twins and singles.  Look it up.