Aircraft accident (not Mooney) in Amarillo

[flyguy241]

There was an accident in Amarillo this morning involving a Piper PA-30 in which the pilot and sole occupant was killed.  The reason I started this thread was to point out in the last ~three years, that that makes three Twin Comanches whose flight originated in the Amarillo area that ended up killing the occupant(s).  I'm not necessarily indicting the make and type, but it does make you think.  

 

 

http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2013-07-25/plane-crashes-home-s-mirror-st

 

[chrisk]

When I first started looking at buying a complex plane, a Comanche was on the list.  After reading the following it was off the list.

 

 

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/1997/November/1/Piper-Comanche-Safety-Review

"The Comanche singles racked up an astounding 17 accidents per 100,000 IMC hours"

 

 

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/1995/October/1/Mooney-Safety-Review

 "The IMC accident rate per 100,000 hours for the Mooney is just a little over half the accident rate of the other retractables (5.91 versus 10.14). It's even better for instrument-rated Mooney pilots on IFR flight plans, at 1.89 per 100,000 hours versus 4.97 for the comparison group."

 

and

 

"The statistics show Mooneys are involved in overshoots twice as often as the comparable aircraft. The good news is that in the decade we studied, only one pilot succeeded in putting a Mooney down short of the pavement — a unique, if dubious honor. The solution is very simple — learn to control airspeed."

[Rwsavory]

My family owned a Comanche single for about 40 years, and I obtained my single engine rating in it way back in the day.  In my opinion It's no harder to fly or more dangerous than a Mooney.  In fact, I think they have very similar flight characteristics.  Certainly, one of the safety advantages the early Mooneys had was Positive Control.  The Safety Review points out that the problem is mainly with the pilot, not the plane.

[flyguy241]

My family owned a Comanche single for about 40 years, and I obtained my single engine rating in it way back in the day.  In my opinion It's no harder to fly or more dangerous than a Mooney.  In fact, I think they have very similar flight characteristics.  Certainly, one of the safety advantages the early Mooneys had was Positive Control.  The Safety Review points out that the problem is mainly with the pilot, not the plane.

I'm with you on the single Comanche.  My uncle flew a 180 for 20 years and got a long with it great.  I put about 100 hours on it myself and credit it with the easy transition to the Mooney I fly now.  The twin Comanche, I don't know.  Two O-320's.  That's then engine my Cherokee had and it struggled on hot days in Amarillo (3600 ft).  I believe two of the accidents that I referenced were where they lost one engine on takeoff and tried to get back to the airport, which goes back to your point on pilot error rather than the airplanes fault.

[MARZ]

 

" The good news is that in the decade we studied, only one pilot succeeded in putting a Mooney down short of the pavement — a unique, if dubious honor.."

Squirrel - was that you?????? 

[Jeff_S]

Everything I have always heard is that single-engine Comanches were generally good to great (when they upped the HP in the engine) but that Twinkies always suffered from poor performance on one engine.  I know this is trite, and often said, but the more I read the more I think that the main purpose of that second engine in a twin is to speed you to the site of the accident.  Yes, if you're in cruise and lose an engine they can be of great benefit. But that isn't typically when you lose an engine. Just a few years ago we had a CFI and student augur into the ground at Rome GA practicing the old engine-out-on-takeoff maneuver. This was from the ATP school and they were flying a Piper Seminole I believe.