Twin Comanche- Partnership?

[Skates97]

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".

 

29 minutes ago, steingar said:

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

You are talking about actual accidents but you are missing his point. If I lose my engine I have no power and the odds of landing off field and in an accident report are much higher than the trained/proficient pilot in a twin who loses one engine. That guy will most likely land uneventfully at an airport and there is no accident report to go along with it. 

[jetdriven]

17 minutes ago, Skates97 said:

 

You are talking about actual accidents but you are missing his point. If I lose my engine I have no power and the odds of landing off field and in an accident report are much higher than the trained/proficient pilot in a twin who loses one engine. That guy will most likely land uneventfully at an airport and there is no accident report to go along with it. 

But the fatalities per 100,000 hours are still very similar between singles and twins. This includes the flights where one was feathered and continued to an uneventful landing.  

[Mooneymite]

Safety issues aside....  If you want to move up the food chain in commercial aviation, a logbook full of twin time will get you places you can't get with SEL, or centerline thrust.

A Twinkie is a pretty economical way to get there.

[EricJ]

18 hours ago, Skates97 said:

 

You are talking about actual accidents but you are missing his point. If I lose my engine I have no power and the odds of landing off field and in an accident report are much higher than the trained/proficient pilot in a twin who loses one engine. That guy will most likely land uneventfully at an airport and there is no accident report to go along with it. 

 

18 hours ago, jetdriven said:

But the fatalities per 100,000 hours are still very similar between singles and twins. This includes the flights where one was feathered and continued to an uneventful landing.  

The sum of all this implies that engine failures are twice as likely in a twin, which totally makes sense.    That a fair number of those result in a safe landing due to the presence of the second engine also makes sense.    That the ultimate safety record is similar between singles and twins also makes sense, because the increased complexity of the twin may cancel the advantage of the second engine, and the second engine offers no advantage to other failure modes and causes of accidents not related to engine failures.

So the only real advantage of a twin is the additional power for climb and load and cruise speed.   Another way to get that power is with a single turbine, which is more reliable than pistons, hence the actual advantage in safety record with a single turbine compared to piston singles or twins.

Makes sense to me.

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

Another way to get that power is with a single turbine, which is more reliable than pistons, hence the actual advantage in safety record with a single turbine compared to piston singles or twins.

The only problem is that the cost of entry into a SETP from a very nice piston twin is an extra half million dollars.

[Guest]

The Twin Comanche is a great airplane, certainly no worse than a Mooney.

Good support network,  Reliable Lycoming Engines, No corrosion issues, not steel gage to rust, Zinc chromate primer throughout, fuel bladders from birth, a gear transmission which can be disconnected from the system to extend the gear in like a Mooney transmission.

It does have a 1000 gear AD requiring measurement of bolts and bushing and replacement of worn items, the AD on the heater is the same as other, there is a recent AD on the heater tail pipe heat shroud.  There is an AD on the fuel selector requiring cleaning and checking for inter port leakage. Most other AD’s have terminating actions.

They fly better with one engine out than your Mooney will fly with one engine out.

As with any airplane the values very, it all depends on component times paint interior and equipment, I could see one being worth more than $100K, just as some Mooney’s demand higher prices.

Clarence

[cliffy]

Owned  a twinkie (slang for twin comanche), own a Mooney, flew several models of Senecas, Navajos, Twin beech, etc. 15 times as much ME as SE time in my log book. A twinkie is a good airplane if you find the right airframe. 1000 hr landing gear AD (a biggie) know about it going in. AD on the heater, not unusual. Easy to check in place.  Fuel filter/selector AD takes 30 mins each annual. The engines are relatively bullet proof.  170 kts on 14-15 gph. NA ones are good for 17K. Seneca Is IMO are dogs. Seneca IIs and IIIs are a different breed. Barons are good but cost more for parts if needed $$$$$$$$$. 

Twinkie S/E capability is generally better than most light ME airplanes. It will hold @ 9000 going down and climb to @7500 going up (at normal loads). BUT if your DA is 7000' you ain't going anywhere on one engine. That's life in the ME world.  Turbos may help some here . Many light MEs are stuck around 4000-5000' SE capability. Out west?????   Hmmm. 

Twinkies got a bad rap early on due to the FAAs bad judgement on Vmc demonstrations. They are actually fairly easy to handle on one engine with correct speeds. 

As noted even $75K is on the high side unless its a superior airframe. A lot depends on engine time left and radios. Make sure the autopilot works flawlessly. Altimatic IIs are hard to fix even if they can be. Alti IIIs are the better. Lots of help out there on what to look for. Just don't jump in without thinking and looking this out throughly. 

Without ME time insurance will be the killer. Check it out before you jump in. Get a real twinkie MEI to check you out. 

Always plan on losing an engine on T/O. That's how you stay alive in the ME world. Doesn't matter if its a twinkie or a big Boeing. They're all the same in that respect.   Airspeed, airspeed, airspeed is your mantra. Blue line is your mandatory goal. 

[Jerry 5TJ]

On 3/2/2018 at 12:35 PM, KLRDMD said:

The only problem is that the cost of entry into a SETP from a very nice piston twin is an extra half million dollars.

Nah, it's more than that...

[KLRDMD]

Nice piston twins are mid $100k where nice entry level SETPs with recent hot sections can be had for $650k.

[aviatoreb]

On 3/1/2018 at 9:05 AM, jetdriven said:

 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. 

I always knew the SETP had fantastic statistics but that is even better than I thought.

What is the accident rate for the airline jets?  This must be getting pretty close.

For the cheapest entry into SETP - not for speed but for reliability - I was always intrigued by both the bananza conversions and the P210 conversion.

[Jerry 5TJ]

On 3/1/2018 at 9:05 AM, jetdriven said:

.... .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. ...

Which is another way to say that it isn't the engine failures that kill us. 

Still it is nice to have that smooth, powerful & reliable PT6A up front. 

[Jerry 5TJ]

2 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

Nice piston twins are mid $100k where nice entry level SETPs with recent hot sections can be had for $650k.

I'd opine that beautiful piston twins are mid $100k while tired SETPs start around $650k:  I dated a bunch of 'em last year before going steady with one and all the good 'uns are a few sigma more expensive than that.

 

[M016576]

On 2/28/2018 at 11:22 AM, TWinter said:

 The Comanche so forth would be much more favorable w/ Seneca and it is easier to fly vs. the Comanche.

 

-Tom

I’ve never flown a TwinCo... but I’ve flown a Seneca II.  It’s the worst flying plane I’ve come across in my 22 years as a pilot.  It’s like driving a rusted out 1978 suburban with a blade on the front that’s stuck down.  It requires constant attention on heavy, numb controls just to keep straight and level..  terrible, terrible flying airplanes.

that said you can get them for an ok price, with lots of capability... so long as you don’t actually enjoy flying a plane, it’s a decent point A to point B platform (let the autopilot deal with its crappy flight characteristics). So I guess the 1978 suburban analogy works pretty good there, too.

[kpaul]

1 minute ago, M016576 said:

I’ve never flown a TwinCo... but I’ve flown a Seneca II.  It’s the worst flying plane I’ve come across in my 22 years as a pilot.  It’s like driving a rusted out 1978 suburban with a blade on the front that’s stuck down.  It requires constant attention on heavy, numb controls just to keep straight and level..  terrible, terrible flying airplanes.

LOL, that is very close to my experience.

[aviatoreb]

6 minutes ago, M016576 said:

I’ve never flown a TwinCo... but I’ve flown a Seneca II.  It’s the worst flying plane I’ve come across in my 22 years as a pilot.  It’s like driving a rusted out 1978 suburban with a blade on the front that’s stuck down.  It requires constant attention on heavy, numb controls just to keep straight and level..  terrible, terrible flying airplanes.

that said you can get them for an ok price, with lots of capability... so long as you don’t actually enjoy flying a plane, it’s a decent point A to point B platform (let the autopilot deal with its crappy flight characteristics). So I guess the 1978 suburban analogy works pretty good there, too.

Now this raises a fantastic idea - we should start a thread called, "What's the worst thing you ever flew"? 

My entry would be the Alarus 2000 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Alarus

I have been in a Seneca II - and I actually have a few hours of dual time in a twinkie and twinkie's are much better flying machines.  A seneca is basically a twin cherokee which drops like a stone if the fan isn't going, and is basically beating its way through the air.  The twinkie wing seems more analogous to a mooney wing in the way it seems to fly and it is generally a more stout machine.

Its a shame they stopped making the entire commanche line singles and twins since they were much superior to the cherokee/seneca line.

Despite what I said above, ALL of the twinkies I have seen are beaters-beat-up old things maintained by people who are living up to the idea of the cheapest twin money can buy.  I am sure there must still exist some beautiful example somewhere but they are surely rare.

The IO320 is nice because not only is it bullet proof, it is cheap to operate from the stand point of fuel flow, and also it is relatively inexpensive to overhaul.

But I worry would that little engine really climb the airplane if single engine with anything close to gross.  I would sooner there exist a IO360 version.  My ideal twinkie would be twin IO360s in pristine condition (the whole airplane).

Oh there are a few rare examples with boots - including the one I flew.

[Ron McBride]

Miller made highly modded Twinky's with IO360's, 200 hp, extended nose, wing baggage compartments etc.  Some of these are turbo'ed also.  Almost a twin Mooney.

Looks like a nice plane.   F. Lee Bailey also modded one. Was for sale for close to $500,000 years ago.

 

[aviatoreb]

3 minutes ago, N803RM said:

Miller made highly modded Twinky's with IO360's, 200 hp, extended nose, wing baggage compartments etc.  Some of these are turbo'ed also.  Almost a twin Mooney.

Looks like a nice plane.   F. Lee Bailey also modded one. Was for sale for close to $500,000 years ago.

 

Now that sounds like a really desirable airplane!

[TWinter]

Okay..Most folks are not feeling the Comanche. Got it. Just thought I'd toss it out there.

Thread drift. This was "Looking for any interest in a partner in the west TN area in a Twin Comanche.".

No interest and that's cool..Time to close the store. Put the sign up that says "Gone Fishin".

 

-Tom

[M016576]

On 3/1/2018 at 1:54 PM, Mooneymite said:

Safety issues aside....  If you want to move up the food chain in commercial aviation, a logbook full of twin time will get you places you can't get with SEL, or centerline thrust.

A Twinkie is a pretty economical way to get there.

Unless that logbook full of centerline thrust says “F-something” in front of it.

[aviatoreb]

51 minutes ago, TWinter said:

Okay..Most folks are not feeling the Comanche. Got it. Just thought I'd toss it out there.

Thread drift. This was "Looking for any interest in a partner in the west TN area in a Twin Comanche.".

No interest and that's cool..Time to close the store. Put the sign up that says "Gone Fishin".

 

-Tom

I like Twinkie - but the nice examples seem rare.  If you find a nice one, it might be just the thing.

[Rudest Buddhist]

Can some of the prior twin owners dive in a bit on cost to operate? I'm no where near TN but I've got a fascination with twins. Although I've only flown a Piper Apache.

@KLRDMD mentioned costs close to a M20E, we're talking ~25K all in for 200 hours?
@aviatoreb what kind of numbers were you seeing with your Twinkie?

[aviatoreb]

7 hours ago, Rudest Buddhist said:

Can some of the prior twin owners dive in a bit on cost to operate? I'm no where near TN but I've got a fascination with twins. Although I've only flown a Piper Apache.

@KLRDMD mentioned costs close to a M20E, we're talking ~25K all in for 200 hours?
@aviatoreb what kind of numbers were you seeing with your Twinkie?

...I don't know.  I forgot.  I only have 4.5 hrs of Twinkie in my log book from at least 5 years ago - but I want to say its a 165kts plane on 15-18gph.  

[MIm20c]

7 hours ago, Rudest Buddhist said:

Can some of the prior twin owners dive in a bit on cost to operate? I'm no where near TN but I've got a fascination with twins. Although I've only flown a Piper Apache.

@KLRDMD mentioned costs close to a M20E, we're talking ~25K all in for 200 hours?
@aviatoreb what kind of numbers were you seeing with your Twinkie?

I would think the Twinkie would be 2x the cost of an E. Just as the Barron is at least 2x the cost of bonanza (hourly/annual costs not acquisition)

However, I do feel think 25k for 200 hrs is a realistic number depending on your fixed costs. 

[Jerry 5TJ]

Here's one that's available.  Nice turbo Twin Comanche.  Lots of upgrades.  I have flown in it, it is a good one.  Suffered some light smoke damage last month.

 

[Rudest Buddhist]

I always heard the rule of thumb for twins is “it’s not 2x the cost. It’s 4x the cost”.

Curious what actual experience has been though.