WTB: Twin Comanche

Greg Bockelman said:
Kent, since you have been doing the research, how much will insurance run you if you end up buying one?
Click to expand...
Ours runs around $2800/yr with two of us on the policy. I still have an engine failure claim within five years, so that price is said to still be on the high side. Each of us have 1500 ~ hours, with a fair amount multi engine. (2/3 of my time is multi) hull value is 70K.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Wow! That's quite a bit lower. Where'd you get the quote from? What hull value? What total/multi/complex/type time do you have?
Click to expand...

Kent,

I buy my insurance through Davidson Solid Rock in Clinton, AR (501-745-8666). I've been with them since I bought my first plane 7 years ago. They're an independent agent and have always treated me well. I think I asked for an $80,000 hull value. I have well over 1000 hours total time but it's all been in my 172 and 182.

I don't remember the particulars of the quote, she gave it to me over the phone about a month ago. 25 hours of training sounds about right, there were other requirements like maybe no passengers for the next 25 hours. And, $2,000 probably isn't correct. $2,xxx is probably more like it but it was two thousand something. Basically, I was calling just to make sure the insurance wasn't going to be outrageous and, since it wasn't, I started shopping.

Also, they only had two companies that would even quote since I'm based at a 2800' publicly owned grass strip so I didn't even bother to tell them that I'm planning to run it in and out of the strip that I hope to build on the farm this year.
:smile:
 
timwinters said:
Also, they only had two companies that would even quote since I'm based at a 2800' publicly owned grass strip so I didn't even bother to tell them that I'm planning to run it in and out of the strip that I hope to build on the farm this year.
:smile:
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I think I'd be looking at the STOL mod if I were you. :yes: 2800' of grass is probably right at the edge of your accelerate-stop capability, at least at gross. Speed brakes (which can still be added, from either Precise Flight or Knots2U) sure wouldn't hurt either.
 
TMetzinger said:
Is there a FIKI Twinkie?
Click to expand...

flyingcheesehead said:
Yes, but they are exceedingly rare.

Also, there wasn't really such a thing as FIKI approval when the Twinkie was around, so there isn't anywhere that it'll say "approved for flight into known icing conditions" but at least one Twinkie-owning aviation lawyer has dug into the issue enough to conclude that if a Twinkie is properly protected (wings, tail, props, windscreen) that it is legal for FIKI.
Click to expand...

Just found a de-iced Turbo Twinkie for sale - Boots on the wings and tail, alcohol props and windscreen: http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1163641

Asking price is high, but I know a guy who used to own a de-iced turbo Twinkie and he said there were only three of them in existence with both. (This is the second one I've seen for sale, along with N64YB.) FWIW, I think the de-ice and the STOL are mutually exclusive mods, as the stall fences on the STOL mod would interfere with operation of the boots unless there was one boot inboard of the stall fence and another one outboard of it. I think I'd probably lean toward the STOL mod if I had to choose between the two, but it's a matter of dispatchability vs. having more fields you can safely land and take off from.

Here's a couple of others worth looking at -

Normally aspirated, Miller-mod, R/STOL, Garmin 530: http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1151066
Turbo, Garmin 530, Aspen PFD (First time I've seen that in a Twinkie for sale!): http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1165083
Turbo, R/STOL, Garmin 430, and a more reasonable asking price: http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1158944

There's also some nice ones with asking prices in the upper 70's-80's range on Trade-A-Plane.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Just found a de-iced Turbo Twinkie for sale - Boots on the wings and tail, alcohol props and windscreen:
Click to expand...

Ok, but as far as I know, it can't be certified FIKI because of the alcohol.

Asking price is high, but I know a guy who used to own a de-iced turbo Twinkie and he said there were only three of them in existence with both.
Click to expand...

Both what? De Ice and turbo's? Were there de iced planes WITHOUT turbo's? What blows the boots? Vacuum pump?

(This is the second one I've seen for sale, along with N64YB.) FWIW, I think the de-ice and the STOL are mutually exclusive mods, as the stall fences on the STOL mod would interfere with operation of the boots
Click to expand...

Aren't leading edge cuffs part of the STOL kits? I would think that would be a bigger issue.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I actually knew that. I had to dredge it up from the recesses of my brain. It's been a long time.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that you hadn't had your coffee yet. I don't know of any light piston engine planes that use turbo bleed air to inflate the boots, every one I've seen and or flown used air from the "vacuum" (aka air) pump(s) for that. Boot inflation pressures are usually in the 15-20 PSI gauge range (30-40 + ambient = 45-50 absolute inHg at sea level) which would be an awfully high boost pressure.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Just found a de-iced Turbo Twinkie for sale - Boots on the wings and tail, alcohol props and windscreen: http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1163641

Asking price is high, but I know a guy who used to own a de-iced turbo Twinkie and he said there were only three of them in existence with both. (This is the second one I've seen for sale, along with N64YB.) FWIW, I think the de-ice and the STOL are mutually exclusive mods, as the stall fences on the STOL mod would interfere with operation of the boots unless there was one boot inboard of the stall fence and another one outboard of it. I think I'd probably lean toward the STOL mod if I had to choose between the two, but it's a matter of dispatchability vs. having more fields you can safely land and take off from.

Here's a couple of others worth looking at -

Normally aspirated, Miller-mod, R/STOL, Garmin 530: http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1151066
Turbo, Garmin 530, Aspen PFD (First time I've seen that in a Twinkie for sale!): http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1165083
Turbo, R/STOL, Garmin 430, and a more reasonable asking price: http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1158944

There's also some nice ones with asking prices in the upper 70's-80's range on Trade-A-Plane.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the rarity of the boots might be part of the reason for a high price although the market for this plane might be about as limited as the supply so things could change pricewise if you wait. I'm curious though as to why you think STOL would be very desirable on a twinkie? Seems to me that the short field performance isn't all that bad in stock form and I'd think that such a mod would have undesirable effects on cruise speed and efficiency, which are this airplane's strong suits.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ok, but as far as I know, it can't be certified FIKI because of the alcohol.
Click to expand...

Huh? Why not? The DA42, for example, uses alcohol for the windshield and the props and it's FIKI. Heck, the DA42 uses alcohol for the wings and tail too. ;)

Both what? De Ice and turbo's? Were there de iced planes WITHOUT turbo's?
Click to expand...

Yes, and yes. There was a Twinkie for sale recently with boots on the wings and maybe the tail, but no prop or windscreen protection, and it had no turbo. There was also a fully-deiced Twinkie for sale a year or so ago that was normally aspirated.

What blows the boots? Vacuum pump?
Click to expand...

Yup. Heck, even on the Seneca II which DOES have turbos, the turbos aren't blowing the boots. It's the vacuum (er, pressure in the PA34's case) pump.

Aren't leading edge cuffs part of the STOL kits? I would think that would be a bigger issue.
Click to expand...

I was thinking maybe you could still put boots on the outside of the cuffs... :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Huh? Why not? The DA42, for example, uses alcohol for the windshield and the props and it's FIKI. Heck, the DA42 uses alcohol for the wings and tail too. ;)
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, the last de iced GA plane I flew was a 402 in 1987. And given what I know now, I am not sure it was certified, just that it had the equipment.

I was under the impression that the certification standards AT THAT TIME, precluded the use of alcohol for known ice certification. IOW it needed hot props and a hot plate for the windshield. Maybe not anymore.

I was thinking maybe you could still put boots on the outside of the cuffs... :dunno:
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure either. I kinda doubt it, but can't say for sure.
 
gismo said:
I'm curious though as to why you think STOL would be very desirable on a twinkie? Seems to me that the short field performance isn't all that bad in stock form and I'd think that such a mod would have undesirable effects on cruise speed and efficiency, which are this airplane's strong suits.
Click to expand...

I got my ATP in a Roberson STOL equipped Twinkie. As far as I could tell, it didn't hurt the top end performance much, if at all. What I DID notice, when I got to fly a non STOL Twinkie, was that the 10 mph reduction in VMC on the STOL equipped airplane made it much nicer on landing. In the flare specifically. In the non STOL equipped airplane, I had the nose drop on me before I was done flying. Ran out of elevator authority in the flare. Never had it do that on the STOL equipped airplane. What that told me was that I was flying it to slowly into the flare. Only had that one, maybe one other landing in the plane, so I never really got comfortable with it.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I wouldn't want to take it up to just bore holes in the sky.

Hmm. Come to think of it, I don't really do much of that anyway.
Click to expand...

Sure you do. They're just REALLY big holes and you don't have to pay for the fuel....:D
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I got my ATP in a Roberson STOL equipped Twinkie. As far as I could tell, it didn't hurt the top end performance much, if at all.
Click to expand...

That's what I've heard as well. Supposedly, a stock Twinkie's ailerons are partially stalled in cruise, the STOL mod raises them a bit to get rid of that problem and that's enough to compensate for any other drag that might be added.

The reason I'd like the STOL mod? It cuts accelerate-stop in half, and were I to have one right now I'd probably base it at 6P3 which only has a 2200 ft. runway. A-S is about 2600 in a stock Twinkie, and about 1350 in an R/STOL Twinkie.

I think it'd also be advantageous even in a place like Gaston's - I hear you twin drivers talking about your departures there and the length of time spent below blue line. R/STOL moves the blue line from 110mph (IIRC) to 95mph, so you get there a lot faster.

I dunno, it just seems to be a mod that would allow me to go to a lot of the places I like to go, without worrying so much about being able to get back out safely.
 
gismo said:
I suspect that the rarity of the boots might be part of the reason for a high price although the market for this plane might be about as limited as the supply so things could change pricewise if you wait.
Click to expand...

Oh, forgot to answer this half - While boots are rare, another plane that had boots (but not hot/alcohol props) was on the LOW end of the price range. :dunno:

I also saw a pretty nice fully-deiced Twinkie sit on the market for several months a couple years back, even at a pretty decent price. It seems to be a pretty niche market, those who are looking for de-iced airplanes tend not to look at the Twinkies because so few of them have boots.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I got my ATP in a Roberson STOL equipped Twinkie. As far as I could tell, it didn't hurt the top end performance much, if at all. What I DID notice, when I got to fly a non STOL Twinkie, was that the 10 mph reduction in VMC on the STOL equipped airplane made it much nicer on landing. In the flare specifically. In the non STOL equipped airplane, I had the nose drop on me before I was done flying. Ran out of elevator authority in the flare. Never had it do that on the STOL equipped airplane. What that told me was that I was flying it to slowly into the flare. Only had that one, maybe one other landing in the plane, so I never really got comfortable with it.
Click to expand...

Running out of elevator and dropping the nose is a common complaint with the twinkie. A friend who has one said he found that rolling in lots of nose down trim solved that issue for him. Personally I'd think a hundred pounds in the baggage compartment would do as well BWTHDIK.

I still think I'd rather have boots on a plane flown in Wisconsin than the STOL kit and I wonder if there's a VG kit that would tame the VMC as well as the STOL equipment?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I was under the impression that the certification standards AT THAT TIME, precluded the use of alcohol for known ice certification. IOW it needed hot props and a hot plate for the windshield. Maybe not anymore.
Click to expand...
AFaIK, all of the FIKI TKS installations use alcohol for the prop(s) and windshield. I suspect that it's not that the FAA ever prohibited alcohol prop and/or windshield protection for FIKI, just that no one before TKS had managed to certify an airplane that way.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Huh? Why not? The DA42, for example, uses alcohol for the windshield and the props and it's FIKI. Heck, the DA42 uses alcohol for the wings and tail too. ;)
Click to expand...

gismo said:
AFaIK, all of the FIKI TKS installations use alcohol for the prop(s) and windshield. I suspect that it's not that the FAA ever prohibited alcohol prop and/or windshield protection for FIKI, just that no one before TKS had managed to certify an airplane that way.
Click to expand...

That's my understanding as well. Traditional FIKI was boots on the wings and tail, hot props, and a hot windshield (or hot plate on the windshield). Greg's probably right that the 402 he flew was likely not legal FIKI. It's only been recently that they've had FIKI TKS systems out there, and I'm not convinced I'd want one. Rather, I'm fairly convinced I don't.

flyingcheesehead said:
Yup. Heck, even on the Seneca II which DOES have turbos, the turbos aren't blowing the boots. It's the vacuum (er, pressure in the PA34's case) pump.
Click to expand...

On my Aztec it's the same thing. Outlet of the vacuum pump (pressure side) powers the boots, I believe that to be standard.
 
gismo said:
Running out of elevator and dropping the nose is a common complaint with the twinkie. A friend who has one said he found that rolling in lots of nose down trim solved that issue for him. Personally I'd think a hundred pounds in the baggage compartment would do as well BWTHDIK.
Click to expand...

I've heard that complaint too, and I've heard that another solution is the Knots2U Wing Fillet kit. Apparently it gets rid of the undesired interaction between the flaps and the elevator that causes the, er, difficult landings.

I still think I'd rather have boots on a plane flown in Wisconsin than the STOL kit and I wonder if there's a VG kit that would tame the VMC as well as the STOL equipment?
Click to expand...

Y'know, I've never seen a Twinkie with VG's on it. I also don't recall seeing anything of the sort when perusing the STC list the other day. Maybe because it's already a laminar flow wing, they don't help as much as they do on some other birds? Gotta be a reason. :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I've heard that complaint too, and I've heard that another solution is the Knots2U Wing Fillet kit. Apparently it gets rid of the undesired interaction between the flaps and the elevator that causes the, er, difficult landings.



Y'know, I've never seen a Twinkie with VG's on it. I also don't recall seeing anything of the sort when perusing the STC list the other day. Maybe because it's already a laminar flow wing, they don't help as much as they do on some other birds? Gotta be a reason. :dunno:
Click to expand...

There definitely is one available but I don't know if it would help with the landings.

http://www.microaero.com/CS_PDF/Piper/Twin_Comanche_CS.pdf
 
gismo said:
There definitely is one available but I don't know if it would help with the landings.

http://www.microaero.com/CS_PDF/Piper/Twin_Comanche_CS.pdf
Click to expand...

Interesting. It probably wouldn't help with the landings (that's a separate issue, supposedly resulting from an interaction between the vortex off the inner edge of the flaps and the elevator) but they say it improves Vmc by 8mph. I'm curious though, 8mph from what? The PA-30 as originally shipped had a Vmc of 80mph, but the FAA issued an AD forcing a change to a 90mph Vmc - The good ol' Vmc demo crash problem from back then which was unfairly blamed on the Twinkie instead of the FAA. The PA-39 (counter-rotating) had a Vmc of 80mph once again.

So, is Vmc 82mph on the 30 and 72mph on the 39? Or 72/82 on both? :dunno:

Glad to know they're available - Still haven't ever seen them.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The PA-30 as originally shipped had a Vmc of 80mph, but the FAA issued an AD forcing a change to a 90mph Vmc - The good ol' Vmc demo crash problem from back then which was unfairly blamed on the Twinkie instead of the FAA. The PA-39 (counter-rotating) had a Vmc of 80mph once again.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense. Piper makes a plane with a Vmc that's 80 mph, the plane has Vmc roll problems with that. How's that the FAA's fault? Just confused here, as I've yet to see the FAA design any aircraft.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
This doesn't make sense. Piper makes a plane with a Vmc that's 80 mph, the plane has Vmc roll problems with that. How's that the FAA's fault? Just confused here, as I've yet to see the FAA design any aircraft.
Click to expand...

I think Kent is referring to the old FAA requirement that VMC demo's be performed at low altitude (to maximize the differential thrust) which led to several training fatalities.
 
gismo said:
I think Kent is referring to the old FAA requirement that VMC demo's be performed at low altitude (to maximize the differential thrust) which led to several training fatalities.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that. I was gonna post but couldn't remember the details. It didn't really have anything to do with the airplane, per se.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
This doesn't make sense. Piper makes a plane with a Vmc that's 80 mph, the plane has Vmc roll problems with that. How's that the FAA's fault? Just confused here, as I've yet to see the FAA design any aircraft.
Click to expand...

gismo said:
I think Kent is referring to the old FAA requirement that VMC demo's be performed at low altitude (to maximize the differential thrust) which led to several training fatalities.
Click to expand...

Greg Bockelman said:
Yeah, that. I was gonna post but couldn't remember the details. It didn't really have anything to do with the airplane, per se.
Click to expand...

I had a good conversation about this on my multi checkride oral. IIRC, one factor was that the Vmc demo used to have to be to loss of directional control (now it's that OR first indication of stall). A couple people simply screwed up early on, so DPE's and CFI's started having students do the demo up higher to give more room to recover if something went wrong. Well, as you get higher, Vmc goes down (less power being developed on the good engine) but stall stays the same (CAS, goes up in TAS). So, the stall would happen first. Stall with one engine out = bad.

So, not the plane's fault. Ryan Ferguson's site talks about this, and he says that 80mph is the real Vmc (he does not have CR props). 90mph is quite an extra margin. Were I to own a twin, I'd be doing lots of testing to see how it really behaved. :yes:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If you have the $$$, I'd take a look at this one: http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/PIPER-TURBO-TWIN-COMANCHE/1966-PIPER-TURBO-TWIN-COMANCHE/1161981.htm
Click to expand...

I flipped them an e-mail shortly after you posted this and got no response. I finally found the time to call yesterday and it's sold.

This one is just up the road from me and may justify a closer look...if it can be bought at the right price...

http://barnstormers.com/listing.php?id=359270
 
timwinters said:
I flipped them an e-mail shortly after you posted this and got no response. I finally found the time to call yesterday and it's sold.

This one is just up the road from me and may justify a closer look...if it can be bought at the right price...

http://barnstormers.com/listing.php?id=359270
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I wouldn't offer a whole heckuva lot for it - That paint job is tragic. It still has a shotgun panel, and no tip tanks. I do see that it has the Miller dorsal fin (which wasn't listed) and I thought it might have the Miller nacelles but upon closer inspection that was a trick of the shadows in the picture. It has low-time engines, but what kind of overhaul and where? Also, the airframe time is fairly low - Only 85-90 hours per year on average. Check the logbooks for the annual dates and see what it's been getting recently, as it may have started life as a flight school airplane and gotten a bunch of hours in a couple of years, and then been a hangar queen since.

Or, it could be a really good, if ugly, airplane. And I don't know if any of the stuff above matters to you...
 
timwinters said:
Kent,

I buy my insurance through Davidson Solid Rock in Clinton, AR (501-745-8666). I've been with them since I bought my first plane 7 years ago. They're an independent agent and have always treated me well. I think I asked for an $80,000 hull value. I have well over 1000 hours total time but it's all been in my 172 and 182.

I don't remember the particulars of the quote, she gave it to me over the phone about a month ago. 25 hours of training sounds about right, there were other requirements like maybe no passengers for the next 25 hours. And, $2,000 probably isn't correct. $2,xxx is probably more like it but it was two thousand something. Basically, I was calling just to make sure the insurance wasn't going to be outrageous and, since it wasn't, I started shopping.

Also, they only had two companies that would even quote since I'm based at a 2800' publicly owned grass strip so I didn't even bother to tell them that I'm planning to run it in and out of the strip that I hope to build on the farm this year.
:smile:
Click to expand...
This has gotta be a 4 seater.....no?
 
Can anyone tell me what the cruise speed is of the turbo twin comanche at around 12,000 ft.
 
- The POH for the '65 Twin Comanche has a chapter 'Flight into known icing' that specifies what equipment is required for such flight. As far as I understand the certification rules, the fact that the known ice equipment is specified in the planes documentation means that there is no separate 'approval' for FIKI necessary for a particular aircraft. If it has the boots and the plate it's good to go (for me personally the discussion seems academic, I don't think I would take one into ice even with the equipment).

- I personally think that the 'sweet spot' is the C-model before they went to the CR engines. While the factory lycoming price sheet only shows a $1500 difference for new/reman/overhaul, in a field overhaul the 'L' engine and 'L-prop' seem to be quite a bit more expensive. Charlie Merlot had commented before on how and why that is the case, may be worthwhile to ask him directly.

- Stan Musick is selling a PA39 R-Stol with radar, miller-nose and some other goodies at a pretty interesting price. Don't know where it is posted, but he is pretty easy to find.

- Insurance is becoming an issue. Chartis (formerly AIG Aviation) for example won't write policies for PA30, period. Avemco does insure them and a good broker should be able to find one of the more niche insurers to cover it.

Now, if someone knows of a nice 'clean' C-model without tip-tanks, with semi-modern working IFR panel, recent gear overhaul by 'name' shop and solid engines, send me a PM.
 
Last edited:
SCCutler said:
As it works out, Wayne, I have what appear to be eleven sound and serviceable fine-wire plugs, ripe for cleaning, gapping and reinstallation, with a twelfth added in. The eleven fine-wires and one massive were in the plane when I bought it, and were replaced when the plane was in the shop not too long thereafter and an intermittent vibration was being troubleshot (it was ultimately determined to be a busted motor-mount). That shop offered me the opportunity to buy fine-wires for $1,200.00, on which opportunity I passed.

Yes, it is true: I am learning all about airplane ownership, and all it takes is money.
Click to expand...

OMG! $1200 for spark plug wires???

The EXACT same ones you can buy for $24.95 at Autozone?
 
SkyHog said:
OMG! $1200 for spark plug wires???

The EXACT same ones you can buy for $24.95 at Autozone?
Click to expand...

Uhh, no. We are talking fine wire Spark plugs, not wires. The fine wire plugs as opposed to massive electrode plugs.

And you can't get either the plugs or the wires from Auto Zone.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Uhh, no. We are talking fine wire Spark plugs, not wires. The fine wire plugs as opposed to massive electrode plugs.

And you can't get either the plugs or the wires from Auto Zone.
Click to expand...

Oh....my bad, spark plugs....you mean these ones?
http://www.ngksparkplugs.com/products/spark_plugs/iridiumix.asp

Available at Autozone for $7.99 a piece?

Or these ones?
http://www.densoproducts.com/sparkplug411.asp?kw=Fine+wire

Available direct from the manufacturer for $19.99?
 
Last edited:
Greg Bockelman said:
Nick, have you ever looked at an airplane spark plug?
Click to expand...

Not super closely, but the only difference I noticed was that the aviation plug is threaded at both ends, presumably because the wires screw on instead of push on.

Point being not that an auto spark plug is interchangeable, but rather that we are raped as pilots for the exact same thing with additional threading.
 
SkyHog said:
Point being not that an auto spark plug is interchangeable, but rather that we are raped as pilots for the exact same thing with additional threading.
Click to expand...

Thing is, they are NOT the exact same thing. However I tend to agree with the sentiment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top