All about Piper Twin Comanches (PA30/39)

[flyingcheesehead]

I've been getting the itch to upgrade to a twin again lately. My sons are getting bigger and the Mooney isn't going to hold all of us forever. Several years ago I was looking hard at 310s and did a bit of a deep dive learning about them, which I posted as the All About Cessna 310s thread.

Well, I've wanted and loved the Twin Comanche for a much longer time - At least back to 2004 when AOPA's sweepstakes airplane was a Twin Comanche, but I liked them even before that. I am a fan of efficiency, and living next to a big ice bucket of a lake that has swallowed one airplane in my logbook, an efficient twin has been very high on my list for as long as I can remember, and when I started flying the Twinkie was probably the best. It's still the best of the affordable ones, the Tecnam P2006 and the Diamond DA42 are too new to really be in the affordable category just yet, with starting used prices for both still north of half a million dollars.

So, thinking about buying again and thinking about that other thread got me thinking that I should probably make another "brain dump" post with all of the knowledge I've collected on Twin Comanches over the past 25ish years, since I probably won't remember it all for another 25! Maybe Comanche expert @Kristin will fill in any gaps I leave here. As with the other thread, I'll update this first post with any new information. Also, in the course of verifying the information here I found a really well written, thorough article about the Twin Comanche by Tom Horne in the September 1980 issue of AOPA Pilot that's very much worth a read if you're really interested in the Twinkie.

The Basics

The Twin Comanche built on Piper's success with the single-engine Comanche line that started in 1958; the Twin Comanche was introduced in the latter half of 1963. The PA-30 "A" model (which was never so named, just the PA-30) was sold from 1963-65 and can be distinguished from the others by having only two side windows, it also had "four" seats with the two rear seats being a single bench seat. The PA-30B model was sold from 1966-68 and added the third side window and optionally two more seats (6 total) where the last two pretty much took up the baggage compartment and had little to no legroom, really they're kid seats. The PA-30C model was sold in 1969, gained a standard 6-pack panel layout instead of the earlier models' "shotgun" panel, and moved engine switches from the bottom row of the panel to the left-hand side and changed them to rocker switches. Finally, the PA-39 "C/R" was sold from 1970-72 and had counter-rotating props for extra safety. There were also turbonormalized models of the B, C, and 39/CR. On June 23rd, 1972, the remnants of Hurricane Agnes dumped up to 19 inches of rain in the area of the Piper factory in Lock Haven, PA and the adjacent Susquehanna River crested at over 31 feet, destroying and sweeping away airframes, parts, and tooling from the Comanche lines. Piper made the decision to continue producing the Arrow and Seneca in Vero Beach and end production of the entire Comanche line, a sad day in aviation history.

One other historical note on the Twin Comanche series: At the time they were being produced, the FAA required multi checkrides to do a Vmc demo at as low an altitude as possible to maximize thrust on the remaining engine as well as some other foolishness like keeping the ball centered and not banking into the good engine at all, and some instructors and examiners requiring things like OEI power on stalls! As a result, a lot of light twins spun into the ground with students, instructors, and examiners on board. The Twin Comanche was by far the most popular training twin at the time and took the blame. The FAA flight tests found nothing wrong with the airplane, but they raised the Vmc on the Twin Comanche from 80mph to 90mph. There's more on the history of the issue in general here: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...gazine/replace-multiengine-myths-with-reality

Capability
Performance: A basic normally aspirated Twinkie with no speed mods is usually going to be about a 160-knot bird. Really clean ones with some speed mods might hit 170. Turbo models can push 200 at altitude. Speed increase with the Miller (200hp) engine version is claimed to be 13% over the 160hp ones.

Load and range: Useful load is in the neighborhood of 1200* pounds, and standard fuel is 90 gallons without tip tanks and 120 gallons with; tip tanks also allow for an increased gross weight of 3725 provided the last 125 is fuel in the tips. Factory config lets you take about 650 pounds on about a 750-mile trip with reserves. Tip tanks allow for taking 750+ pounds on the 750-mile trip (leaving the aux tanks empty and fueling the tips instead), or 480 pounds on a 1,000+ mile leg. Filling the mains alone lets you take around 850 pounds for 450 nm. * Numbers are, of course, approximate and may vary significantly on more heavily modified birds.

Systems
Engines: The entire Twin Comanche line came from the factory with 160hp fuel injected Lycoming IO-320s, with the CR version having one LIO-320 and the turbo versions having a Rajay turbo bolted on. There were aftermarket 200hp IO-360s available for both the N/A and turbo versions, and these tend to get snapped up on the used market quite quickly.

Turbos: Turbo models came from the factory with tip tanks and oxygen systems, but the turbo was also offered as an aftermarket mod so there are a few turbonormalized airframes that don't have tip tanks or O2. The turbo system on models so equipped is pretty simple. It's a turbonormalizer with a manual wastegate. Thus, the engine maintains the same 8.5:1 compression ratio and is not any different from the normally aspirated version. In fact, you can run the turbo model as if it were normally aspirated by simply not closing the wastegates at all. The wastegate controls are a pair of vernier knobs under the throttle quadrant, normal operation is to leave the throttles wide open after takeoff and then slowly twist the wastegate controls in as you climb to maintain the desired manifold pressure; descending is done in the opposite order, with MP reduction starting with twisting the wastegate controls out until they're fully open (no boost) and then working the throttle as you would with a normally aspirated plane. This keeps the operation simple, and ensures that the turbos are very well cooled down prior to landing. Critical altitude is 20,000 feet, single engine ceiling is 19,000 feet and service ceiling with both engines is 30,000.

Fuel system: Standard from the factory, the Twin Comanche had a 90 gallon fuel system, 60 gallons in the mains and 30 in the wing aux tanks. 30 gallon tip tanks were standard on factory turbo models and optional on the normally aspirated ones. All of the factory tanks are direct-feed to the engines. Additional aftermarket tanks could consist of 38 gallon wet wing aux tanks (Miller), 40 gallon nacelle tanks (Phill-Air), and a 10 gallon tank that went in the bottom of the baggage compartment. It's also rare to see more than one aftermarket tank type fitted, as the Twinkie is quite efficient and burns around 16gph total, so even the factory tip tank setup is good for 7+ hours; adding the Miller or nacelle tanks gives you an endurance of around 10 hours! At least one airplane so fitted has crossed the Atlantic.

De-ice: This was available in a couple of ways, including an aftermarket system from Wiggins Airways that inflated boots with an on-board nitrogen tank! There were also more traditional de-ice boot systems available long ago, but none of them can be retrofitted now and there are only a handful of Twinkies left that are de-iced due to a very high cost to maintain the systems.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

(Continued - Darn 10,000 character limit!)

Flying
The main complaint I've heard is that they're hard to land. In my limited experience, I didn't really notice that - But I've heard a theory that the vortex off the inner edge of the flap can sometimes interact with the stabilator in a way that causes occasional firm arrivals, and that the wing fillet kit prevents that interaction. Another theory is that pulling the engines to idle at landing speeds can blank out enough of the wing and/or stabilator that it drops in, but that's true of any piston twin.

There are, of course, the caveats from the NTSB study of the early crashes that are worth being aware of, but unless you're doing stalls at a low altitude OEI, it's not a big deal. I don't think the Twinkies have any egregiously bad habits in terms of flying characteristics.

Finally, the trim control is above your head - It's an old car window crank, though someone older than I will have to pipe up with what it comes from (1960s Chrysler, IIRC). The big thing here is that in addition to it being different from most airplanes with a fore/aft wheel, just like with USB-A, you're always going to do it the wrong way the first try.

Maintenance
The Comanche line is pretty well supported by third parties still, especially Webco. The big recurring thing to stay on top of is gear maintenance. Bungees are required every 500 hours or 3 years, whichever happens first, but most conscientious owners replace them every other year and as I understand, it isn't that expensive - Hopefully @EdFred will pipe up here.

Modifications
As far as light twins go, the Twin Comanche sold very well in the heyday of GA and thus it's one of the more modified light twins out there. As a testament to this, I could not find a single unmodified airplane on the used market right now when looking for pictures!

One very common mod is the "small nosewheel mod": From the factory, all three of the Twinkie's tires were the same size, but that results in a pitch attitude that's just high enough that the stock airplanes sometimes like to start flying before reaching Vmc. To counteract this, the small nosewheel mod replaces the factory nosewheel with a smaller one, reducing pitch on the ground.

Another is the windscreen. From the factory, it was a two-piece windscreen. There are two slightly different versions available, the "one piece" that just removes the metal divider down the middle, and the "Arapaho" windscreen that is taller. An aside: The PA-40 Arapaho was to be a successor to the Twin Comanche and did end up getting fully certified on the PA30/39 type certificate in 1974, but of the three built one (N9999P) was crashed (by none other than Clay Lacy) during flight testing, one was scrapped, and the third (N9997P) is currently being restored.

Speed Mods: This should really be "Aerodynamic mods" as speed isn't the primary goal of some of them. Knots2U still sells quite a large selection for the Twin Comanche. The most effective in terms of speed is supposed to be the gear lobes. One of the other highly desirable ones is the Wing Fillet kit that is installed at the aft edge of the wing root, that is supposed to help make the plane easier to land.

Miller mods: This was a group of modifications by J. W. Miller: 200hp IO-360s to replace the 160hp IO-320s, an extended nose with a 130-lb baggage compartment, extended engine nacelles with baggage compartments, a larger dorsal fin to officially knock Vmc back down to 80mph in spite of the larger engines, 38 gallon auxiliary wet wing fuel tanks, and increased gross weight (I thought it was 3725, but I also found a reference that said 3780). No longer available, and the airplanes that are so modified fetch a premium and sell quickly.

Robertson STOL: This mod increases max gross weight to 3800 pounds, reduces Vmc to just 75 mph (65 knots), and significantly reduces takeoff and landing distance. It includes a large, curved dorsal fin, drooping wing leading edge, and converts the ailerons into flaperons to effectively give you full-span flaps. As I recall, partial flap settings bring the ailerons down with the flaps while going all the way to full flaps brings the ailerons back up for controllability.

Avionics: Most popular avionics for class II airplanes are good to go in the Twinkie, only one particular item of note here: If you want a fancy Garmin autopilot, unlike most twins that require the expensive GFC 600, the Twin Comanche can use the same GFC 500 that's used in piston singles. You don't get the automatic rudder bias feature of the GFC 600, but you also don't get its prohibitive price tag.

Fuel tanks: As mentioned above, Miller had 38-gallon wet wing aftermarket tanks. Phill-Air still does 40 gallon nacelle tanks and AFAIK Osborne still sells the tip tanks, @EdFred had a set of these put on his Comanche 250 after he bought it. All of these fuel tanks are compatible with each other, so if you really want an ocean-crossing machine it's possible to get 198 gallons worth of fuel tanks if you really want the ability to fly for 12 hours!

In fact, all of these mods are compatible with each other - I have seen a Miller/Turbo/STOL plane that per some sources should take off and land in under 1000 feet yet still do 225 knots in cruise, while still burning a miserly amount of fuel! Quite a capable bird if you can find one.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Here's a few pictures to show some of the variants and modifications discussed above:

This is the only one I could find that still has the factory two-piece windscreen.

This one is pretty close to stock, an "A" model, with two side windows. It also has the standard hardly-there dorsal fin, and the standard "tiger shark" engine cowlings with rectangular openings. It does have the one-piece windscreen mod and the small nosewheel mod, both of which are very common.

This is the Arapaho windscreen mod. Notice that the previous one has the top of the windscreen as a horizontal line roughly in line with the tops of the side windows, while this one has glass all the way to the top of the plane.

This one has the aftermarket "Wow Cowls" (note the circular openings) and the one-piece windscreen. It also has three-blade MT props, which are a rare sight.

This one is a Turbo B model. Note the third side window and tip tanks. Nothing in the exterior picture gives away that it's a turbo except the paint and vents on the side of the cowl if you look REALLY close. The dead giveaway of a turbo is to look for the wastegate controls, which you can see underneath the throttle quadrant in the right hand picture (vernier push-pull-twist controls with black handles and red buttons). Also, take a look at the switches along the bottom of the panel on the left side - That style is present on the A and B models. Just by looking at the right hand pic with its switches and the wastegate controls you can tell it's a B model turbo.

This one shows the newer style rocker switches used on the C and CR models, with the engine switches moved over to the left side. This one is normally aspirated, missing the wastegate controls underneath the throttle quadrant.

Here you can see one that has the larger Miller dorsal fin. FWIW, unlike the other Miller mods, you can still buy the big dorsal fin from Knots2U. Take note of the aft end of the engine nacelle - This is what the stock nacelle looks like.

Here's what a Miller nacelle with the extra baggage compartment looks like. This one also has Precise Flight speed brakes. While the Twinkie doesn't have a reputation as being overly hard to slow down, it is pretty slippery for a twin and has relatively low flap and gear speeds so speed brakes would be nice, but they're not particularly common.

Here's one that has the Robertson STOL mod. Note the large dorsal with the big sweeping curve up to the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer, and the stall fence on top of the wing where the flap and aileron meet.

 

[midwestpa24]

I did my M/E in a Twin Comanche. I do remember the DPE was not thrilled about doing anything near VMC in it as he once survived being inverted in one.

For the little time I had in it, I found it to be a nice plane. The one I flew had the original 160 hp engines, but many of the speed mods and would cruise at 170-175 on about 8 per side.

While I do like them, I think I would personally go for a nice single -260 over the twin. I don't think the benefit of the two engines outweigh the cons.

 

[Doc Holliday]

They’re nice antiques.

 

[bonefishpete]

Never got the twin bug but with $50K engine rebuilds a side I don’t see twins at all affordable. Used prices show that nowadays I believe.

 

[Eldorado]

very complete write up, it was by far my favorite plane, regret ever selling it after 16 yrs of ownership. I had zero problems with the engines(io320c1a). You don’t have cooling problems with those bullet proof 4 cylinder engines that are moving thru the air at 190mph. 6 cylinder engines generate much more heat in the two back cylinders. I’ve owned 180 pa 24, 250pa 24, 210, 182rg, and v35. It was as cheap or cheaper to maintain than any of the others, mainly due to the bullet proof engines. I flew it at 23 squared, 8-9 th/ft, 14gph. I had factory turbos but never used them except to get above ice, and if in a hurry to getting through areas of scattered thunderstorms developing in west. If I ever lost an engine on takeoff, I would have overboosted the good engine to make it to a safe landing spot. The bad part of the ray jays is they could be over boosted. The good part about them is they could be over boosted in an emergency. Flying out west where I live, I never would boost them above 22”, just enough to get the plane “on step” from hanging on its nose above 10 T to give it less drag. The turbo was a get out of jail card, not one to use for efficiency. With tip tanks and off loading fuel, you could carry a decent load, as stated above with decent range.

 

[Racerx]

Ill tag @Kristin but Im not sure what you could have missed.

 

[Brad W]

I remember the 1st time they caught my eye...I was up with my instructor flying over some sort of festival in Urbanna VA (Crab festival maybe?)
Noticed a bunch of planes parked on a private strip there. I was nervous about it since we didn't have permission to land, but he wanted to land and I figured he's PIC.... so we did. There was a twin Comanche parked there, and it looked like a little fighter jet compared to the Apache that the school had. Since then I've always admired them... Never got any time in one though.

 

[dtuuri]

Lie down until the feeling passes. Too many screws! Oh, and watch this: https://www.google.com/search?q=twi...ate=ive&vld=cid:0a70f182,vid:TfL6iyeH8OA,st:0

Consider the difference between a Travel Air nose-over accident and a Twinkie w/one-piece windshield (no support). Fuel sumps are in the belly, too, right between the seats, in case of a gear-up.

But if I haven't de-convinced you, try to get one like the one I loved:


A 1963 model, same year I soloed. SN: 56.

 

[T Bird]

Can’t speak for the twin but I’ve had my 260 for almost a year now and love everything about it (well, except mx costs but they haven’t even been that bad and it applies to any plane you’d own).

 

[Jim_R]

Oh, and watch this: https://www.google.com/search?q=twi...ate=ive&vld=cid:0a70f182,vid:TfL6iyeH8OA,st:0

Make it stop!!!!

 

[Rick A]

Rode along with a buddy's beautiful restored Twinkie from PA to Los Angeles and back. Full of gear to the max. The autopilot quit on the way out over Ohio, so he was glad to have me along to share hand-flying, in lots of weather. It's a great instrument platform with bulletproof engines. Loved the plane, but never got used to the flat landings.

My 0.25 cents is to find a well-cared for sample with tip tanks and as many mods as possible. That windshield mod looks super! Good luck and patience. It will be worth the wait.

 

[bradg33]

I have a '69 C Model (with some partners). Great, super efficient, little airplane. I don't fly it very often because my "main" airplane is a Duke (and I'm now addicted to the room and pressurization...), but when I roll up the fuel pump in the Twinkie, it's basically free compared to the Duke. Ours has boots and a hot plate, so it's a tad slower and heavier than some, but it still makes 163-165kts TAS on about 16gph total. With 90 gallons of avgas, it's got pretty good legs. Cabin space is decent, luggage space is decent. Maintenance isn't too bad, though it's a lot more tedious to take apart and put back together than most Beech products (just engineered differently). We've not had any real problems with parts or finding a competent shop to work on it, but annuals tend to be expensive just because it's time consuming to work on.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I did my M/E in a Twin Comanche. I do remember the DPE was not thrilled about doing anything near VMC in it as he once survived being inverted in one.

I bet he didn't ask you to do a power on stall OEI at 500 AGL either!

While I do like them, I think I would personally go for a nice single -260 over the twin. I don't think the benefit of the two engines outweigh the cons.

If I didn't live in such close proximity to Lake Michigan, I probably wouldn't bother with a twin either. The main thing I will need in a few years is a bigger cabin than the Mooney's if my boys keep growing like weeds. The Mooney is great for *one* 6'4" person; not three (plus a 4th who's about a foot shorter).

They’re nice antiques.

Yeah, that's just the thing. When looking for efficient twins, it's even worse than "Do I buy a plane from before or after the production gap" because the GA production gap was about 12 years (~1985-1997), while the gap between the Twin Comanche and the TwinStar was 32 years (1972-2004). We're getting to the point where these things really are antiques (the youngest are 54 years old) but like I said, the post-gap twins are still north of half a million dollars, which ain't happening.

There are some similar-class twins, but... The Travel Airs are even older, the Seminoles are cheap, slow garbage, the Cougars are pretty rare... Thus, the Twinkie remains popular in spite of its age.

Never got the twin bug but with $50K engine rebuilds a side I don’t see twins at all affordable. Used prices show that nowadays I believe.

These are tiny little 160hp 4-bangers - They don't cost $50K to rebuild, that's what my IO-550 will cost! The IO-320s look to be getting overhauled in the low $30K range. There are still two of them, of course, but they're relatively cheap to overhaul and pretty bulletproof to start with. I've heard of people running them to double the 2000-hour TBO.

And I sure wish used prices were a little lower! The Twinkies on the market right now range from $115K up to $185K and I've seen one recently for $270K (full Garmin panel and autopilot - It was the one Garmin used to certify the GFC500 for the PA30.)

Lie down until the feeling passes. Too many screws! Oh, and watch this: https://www.google.com/search?q=twi...ate=ive&vld=cid:0a70f182,vid:TfL6iyeH8OA,st:0

Yeah, I've seen that. Definitely not going to buy that one. Also, definitely not going to exceed Vne!

Fuel sumps are in the belly, too, right between the seats, in case of a gear-up.

I mean, I've never heard of a fire or fuel spill after a gear up, and PLENTY of Twinkies have been geared up over the years... ?

I have a '69 C Model (with some partners). Great, super efficient, little airplane. I don't fly it very often because my "main" airplane is a Duke (and I'm now addicted to the room and pressurization...), but when I roll up the fuel pump in the Twinkie, it's basically free compared to the Duke. Ours has boots and a hot plate, so it's a tad slower and heavier than some, but it still makes 163-165kts TAS on about 16gph total.

Wow! Not many out there that have boots any more. The Duke is such a sexy airplane - Best looking piston twin ever made, if you ask me - But $$$.

With 90 gallons of avgas, it's got pretty good legs.

Once upon a time, I thought of tip tanks as a requirement. They're still nice, but given that 90 gallons is over 5.5 hours, I'm not likely to ever "need" 120! I don't think my back could take too many 6+ hour legs any more.

 

[brien23]

I had a PA23-150 for 15 years now the PA30 a little less room inside.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Going from any mooney to any Comanche is a solid move

 

[Barrett50]

The few times I looked at the twin plan, it was a 'go all the way' type. Why stop at the training entry of twins? Step up to the Baron, why stop there, step up to the Duke, and hey - while I'm at it, just go all the way and get the PA-60(Aerostar). I had a bit of stick time in the Aerostar, and was sold. Each time I tried to buy one, it wouldn't pass the pre-buy. Pressure, air con, 230Kts, and it looks so damn cool with winglets.

 

[midwestpa24]

Wow! Not many out there that have boots any more. The Duke is such a sexy airplane - Best looking piston twin ever made, if you ask me - But $$$.

I believe I was reading in another forum recently that Dukes are about to become a lot more difficult and expensive to maintain, there is no more support or parts for their engines.

I have seen some converted to PT-6s, which really gave the airframe the performance it deserved. The only bad thing is the cost is equal or more than an equal 90 series King Air.

 

[WDD]

Your main driver for a larger plane is that your sons are getting bigger, but not sure how we got from that statement to your optimal solution is a twin engine let alone a Twin Comanche. 99% of your post is about one plane, not a review of several planes could and could not fit your requirements.

You have the "I want it itis" fairly bad.

 

[dachar89]

I have a 69C Twin Comanche. Useful load is just under 1200 lbs. a little over 1200 lbs with my back seats removed.

I’ve only ever flown the C model but I find it pretty easy to land well. If I’m solo I land with half flaps, if I have another person or my dogs with me I land with full flaps. That seems to yield the best results. I fly blue line to about 200 ft, start walking the power back, idle over the numbers and touch down on the thousand footers.

My airplane has basically no speed mods. It is stock beyond the hubba hubba hub caps I installed in December. I can get 170 knots at 8k-9k on just under 18 gph in the winter time. A little extra fuel flow to keep chts under 400 with closed cowl flaps. I do have one Surefly per engine, fine wire plugs and Maggie harnesses. In the summer time and loaded, it’s more like 160-162 knots on the same fuel flow. I can go to LOP for about 13gph total at about 150 knots. Supposedly the best speed mod with these airplanes is a control rigging from someone who knows what they are doing with Comanches.

Parts support is ok but there is a lot of stuff made of unobtainium. Very reliant on overhauling the current parts on the airframe versus buying new and parts from retired airplanes. For example, Webco will overhaul your fuel selectors but there are no new selectors available at a reasonable price. Parker Hannifin has them on their website at 20k per I think. There’s a set of fuel selectors on eBay right now for $2k+. Two years ago my alternate air doors / intakes were found to be shot to hell at annual. Certainly can’t find new. Webco has updated doors, but with hinges larger than what’s on the intake (don’t remember the exact details). I got very lucky in sourcing a pair of intakes in good shape from someone who was converting their NA Twinkie to Turbo’d.

I don't have tip tanks but did recently just replace the bladders. Each one from FFC was $1200 two years ago. So almost $5k for the whole set. If you do have tip tanks I believe the solenoids are getting hard to find for those.

I replace the bungees every annual for my plane - cheap insurance as they’re only about $40 from Webco if memory serves.

The other part of the landing gear is the 1000 hour inspection. Complete tear down, inspect and reassemble. Any parts out of tolerance get replaced. This can cost up to $10k depending on what is done. Here’s a good video that was released recently pertaining to the 1000 hr AD:

All of the Comanche airplanes were zinc chromated from the factory so corrosion is typically not an issue.

I love the airplane for what it does. 170 knots on 18 gph. 2 engines, 2 alternators, a nice Garmin panel, very stable IFR platform. Comfortable in and out of 3000 ft strips. Lycoming IO-320s have a good rap. Cabin is “spacious” -> wider than a Baron or Bonanza by a couple inches. I have my back seats out, wooden planks to cover the footwells and that makes a great place for my two 80 lbs golden retrievers to fit in the plane. With room for overnight bags behind them.

Some gripes I have - seats are not vertically adjustable unless you find a set of seats from a lance and install those. I’m 6ft and have maybe a half inch of headroom with a headset on. There’s no armrest on the right side of the pilot seat. I know most GA planes don’t have this but it would be so much more comfortable if they did. It is an antique- my airplane only has a little more than 3000 TT on it which is a double edged sword. It certainly looks like it’s 10-15 years newer on the inside but also some wear items are still original from the factory. Like the bladders. When we pulled them out, 3 were original and one was replaced in the 90s.

twincomanches.com is a great resource for all things twin Comanche. The broker that runs it is a bit controversial in the Comanche community but the website is an excellent tool.

Flying it - I’ll rotate at exactly 90 mph, stay in ground effect with the gear down until 125mph and then gear up and pitch for a 140 mph climb. I’ve found in my home sim that leaving the gear down with useable runway remaining and landing with an engine failure on takeoff between Vmc and Vyse (105mph) is a much easier maneuver than sucking the gear up as soon as you have a positive rate and wrestling to get the plane climbing below Vyse. This airplane isn’t a jet and shouldn’t be flown like one. I chose the 125mph speed because it gives you an extra 20 mph for startle factor with an engine failure and while the gear speed (up and down) is 150, it’s best to run it at 125 or less to preserve the system. Obviously some shorter runways warrant getting the gear up sooner than 125mph but I fly mostly out of 5000+ ft runways. Dan Gryder whatever your opinion might be of him, did a YouTube video where he chopped an engine (with the mixture) immediately after takeoff in a Twinkie. I think it was incredibly dumb, I don’t care how much of a “controlled environment” it was - but no matter how dumb it was, it is a useful tool to see just how a Twinkie handles with an engine failure shortly after takeoff. I review the video and practice engine outs in my home sim every few months to keep my skills sharp. It doesn’t replace training in the airplane, which I try to do every year.

That climb profile (140mph) yields 1000-1200fpm to 6000 in the winter and about 800 fpm to 6000 in the summer, AND keeps chts below 400.
Va at gross is 162mph I believe. Up at 8000-9000 feet, you’re pretty close to that in IAS so any turbulence you come along you don’t have to slow much. The wing is relatively high loading compared to a Seneca or Seminole, so it rides in turbulence well enough for light airplane.

Descents take a bit of planning the way I fly - the 125 mph self imposed gear limit does take some thinking ahead and starting to slow down early. I aim for a 500-600fpm descent profile from cruise. As an aircraft owner I try to treat everything in my plane nicely, including the engines. Slow throttle movements. It’ll slow down quick if you go idle on the engines but the only time I do that is in the flare - otherwise I always try to have some power on the prop. It probably adds a few minutes of flight time to each flight but I’m fine with that if it means treating my airplane nicely.

Insurance for me runs about 4k per year right now. I’m an airline pilot with about 8000 TT, a huge majority of that is ME. I had about 20 hours of piston twin time with 0 in type when I bought my plane and all they required was a checkout with a MEI. No minimum hour requirement. Insurance started at 3200/yr and now, 4.5 years later it’s $4k and I have 250 hours time in type.

One thing I forgot - annuals. I’ve done 4 of them now. Haven’t had one less than 10k, but I’m always upgrading things. 1st one - biggest issue was a crack in an aileron skin. That had to get reskinned at $4k. 2nd one- right engine needed a cylinder. Only place they could get them was from textron for $2500. 3rd one - bladders, CIES senders, a prop governor and the alternate air doors. 4th one- installed LED lights. My plane is getting shoulder harnesses installed and new windows installed right now. I’m hopeful I won’t have any upgrades on my next annual.

Following the Piper checklist a PA30 annual takes ~44 hours of labor. At $100/hr and an oil change and you’re at $5k before anything broken needs to be fixed.

 

[dachar89]

Also- lots of good information in the Fans of the Twin Comanche Facebook group and the Piper Comanche Facebook group.

Kristin runs the Comanche forum at https://forums.delphiforums.com/comanches

Tip for that, if you are searching the type forum, use google with site:https://forums.delphiforums.com/comanches ____search query_____

ICS somehow still exists despite all of the drama within the group. It’s settled down a lot lately, but it still seems like it’s people more concerned about what goes on within the type club than the airframes themselves.

https://pipercomanche.info/?fbclid=IwAR2SATsjjIupP4q-S4JU8baUVHBlbefXdvgjMcsLQ_5e3eWOJ23zAPyQGCg Is good for manuals

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The few times I looked at the twin plan, it was a 'go all the way' type. Why stop at the training entry of twins? Step up to the Baron, why stop there, step up to the Duke, and hey - while I'm at it, just go all the way and get the PA-60(Aerostar). I had a bit of stick time in the Aerostar, and was sold. Each time I tried to buy one, it wouldn't pass the pre-buy. Pressure, air con, 230Kts, and it looks so damn cool with winglets.

You can do that with any type of plane. The trick is to stop at one you can still afford! The normally aspirated Aerostar 600/600A are the most appealing ones to me both because of that, and because the flight levels are boring IMO.

Your main driver for a larger plane is that your sons are getting bigger, but not sure how we got from that statement to your optimal solution is a twin engine let alone a Twin Comanche.

99% of your post is about one plane, not a review of several planes could and could not fit your requirements.

You have the "I want it itis" fairly bad.

Not really. The purpose of the post was to share the extensive amount of information I've collected on them over the years.

The real reason for the twin is the big, cold body of water that's just east of me (Lake Michigan). Like I mentioned, "Michi-Gami" has already swallowed one airplane in my logbook (N5360F), and while I do occasionally cross it in a single, I have a protocol for doing so that I created years ago in response to 60F's demise that I follow religiously, and it precludes crossing down in the Milwaukee area.

I'm not *only* looking at the Twin Comanche. It is one of several planes I'm considering. I just happen to know a lot about them because I've thought they were great airplanes since long before I had a wife and kids - Really, all the way back to before I even started flying. I think I first learned about them when I was a lineman in college, and one of the ones based at the airport where I worked was owned by a super nice guy named Leon Rediske. Leon's parents had founded and owned Rainbow Airport near Milwaukee shortly after WWII and run the FBO. Growing up in aviation, Leon was an A&P and a super friendly guy, and he hung out at the airport more than anyone, often working on his plane, and was happy to chat with a young lineman interested in learning to fly.

My shopping list for twins right now starts at the "I can afford" end and includes the Twin Comanche, Turbo Twin Comanche, Cessna 310 and 340A, and Aerostar 600, 601/2P, and 700 which is the "I want" end of things.

I know lots about the Twinkies because I've liked them forever, and the 310 because of the deep dive I did before. A lesser amount about the 340 though it obviously shares a lot with the 310, and as a bonus there is a 4-way partnership on one locally that might be the ideal solution. The Aerostars are appealing because they are more on the "fast and efficient" end of the spectrum as opposed to the "efficient and fast" like the Twinkie.

I've been learning more about the Aerostars recently, but I have a long way to go there. I don't think I want to/can afford to be sole owner of anything pressurized at this point, but it's there for comparison's sake. I also fly turbine stuff for my day job and I think the flight levels are pretty boring compared to flying down in NA piston territory, so the idea of a 200+ knot plane that doesn't need to go way up high to get those speeds is appealing. The odd thing about the Aerostar is that, as relatively efficient as it is, it seems to have pretty short endurance. Anyway, that's for a different post, far in the future, after I nerd out on them enough to have enough information gathered to be worth sharing.

 

[bbchien]

For a big guy with a family, The problem with even the 1970 PA30 CR model remains cabin size…

 

[dachar89]

I will say two things I wish my PA30 had is some sort of FIKI for punching through layers on the way to warmer weather and more SPACE.

I took about a 10 year serious hiatus from GA when I started my airline career. It seemed like when I came back to GA, airplanes that felt big back then all the sudden felt small. Either they got smaller or I got bigger. Or both.. The Twinkie for having good shoulder room still feels small to me. Loaded up with my wife, two dogs and bags, it can feel cramped. Wife and I heading to OSH basically fill the plane to the brim (within w&b constraints of course). I think if I had the miller nacelle wing lockers and/or the miller nose it would be a much different game.

I would love to upgrade to something with a club configuration and 2 doors. Maybe a Baron 58...or a 340 would be even better. I think no matter what you buy you're always dreaming of the next one.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

For a big guy with a family, The problem with even the 1970 PA30 CR model remains cabin size…

True. It's the smallest of what I'm looking at. We don't have any problems in the Mooney with cabin width or height, it's length that's gonna get us. Rear seats aren't movable fore/aft and my normal setting for the front left seat is only one click up from all the way back. The smallest kid goes behind me! Right now he's 3 years old so I've got a bit of time to figure out what comes next. The 9 year old could probably still fit behind me, but not with any room to spare. Luckily my wife is a foot shorter than I am!

Unfortunately it's difficult to tell from online sources what the fore-aft cabin room is like on various airplanes with respect to seating, so when it comes to the Twinkie, we'd definitely need to try one on for size before buying. I don't think we'd have any problem with any of the others on my list.

I will say two things I wish my PA30 had is some sort of FIKI for punching through layers on the way to warmer weather and more SPACE.

I kinda wish I had FIKI on the Mooney sometimes too... But the word is that FIKI knocks about 8-10 knots off your cruise speed (TKS) and it's expensive and messy and I would use it less than a handful of times a year. For what I've heard the cost of boots on the Twinkie runs, I'd not be looking for one that had them.

The Twinkie for having good shoulder room still feels small to me. Loaded up with my wife, two dogs and bags, it can feel cramped. Wife and I heading to OSH basically fill the plane to the brim (within w&b constraints of course). I think if I had the miller nacelle wing lockers and/or the miller nose it would be a much different game.

Yes. Miller nacelles especially are high on my list of wants. With me flying, I probably don't need any nose baggage moving the CG any farther forward!

I would love to upgrade to something with a club configuration and 2 doors. Maybe a Baron 58...or a 340 would be even better. I think no matter what you buy you're always dreaming of the next one.

I'd love to have something with a big back door - I just don't like any of the options. If I'm gonna be burning 2x the fuel or more, the last thing I want to do is go slower and have a terrible turbo system I really don't want (Seneca). Baron 58 would be nice but the purchase prices on Bonanzas and Barons are generally the highest in their respective classes, plus I bump my head on the top corner of the cabin. I can't think of any other twins with as big of a (pair of) door(s) in the back... And I prefer not to give up direct access to the front seats either like you do in most of the cabin class twins. That's one bonus for the Aerostar is that the airstair goes directly to the left seat and you just move the seat out of the way for everyone else to load and unload.

 

[eman1200]

….Unfortunately it's difficult to tell from online sources what the fore-aft cabin room is like on various airplanes with respect to seating….

Comanche for reference

 

[bbchien]

Seneca II. REALLY.

How do you think I ended up with that?
And I do get 160. And living up here with you, in the frozen north, FIKI is very nice. And so is flying above the embed 90% of the time. Go high to get speed....up in the teens at 65% you get 170 true.

Even in the Miller 200 hp version it's pretty slow (and quiet) up there at 12,000. You'll be happy with 135 kts true @ 12,000 (I wasn't). I'm getting 160 kts up there where we live 95% of the time.

The Morey Middleton trip was this Feb with a near dead on crosswind, down low....and I was running 65%. I Hardly EVER run more. The western USA trip last Aug-Sept was a 3600 nm triangle. Do the math: Massive headwinds I'm getting 140 kts over ground. Up high 172 Kt, 157 with a headwind, 172 again. Go HIGH to get speed.

Yeah you can beat this in an Ovation. Not so much in a Twinkie (and I have legroom).
But I can fly with redundancy with similar real time arrivals. It also could be, Wisc. Aviation's Senecas are....well are not in the best trim....I think they are flown at "full rental power, Mr Sulu".

B

 

[SCCutler]

Seneca II. REALLY.
How do you think I ended up with that?

I was *just* gonna say...

 

[GaryM]

Comanche for reference

Not unlike flying economy on most of the majors...

 

[WDD]

Comanche for reference

Mooney for reference

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Comanche for reference

Hah! Well, that is an A and I don't want one of those, but I can do that with the seats in the Mooney too.

Seneca II. REALLY.

How do you think I ended up with that?

Well, you've got a lot of experience in a very nice one. I actually have more Seneca time than any other piston twin. I'm not judging Senecas by Wis Av's ratty ones.

The pluses: Lots of room inside, a solid ride, a big back door.

The minuses: Not a great view with the big cowlings and low seating position, and I *hate* that "never-not-boosting" turbo system. And turbos in general on unpressurized airplanes are not my cup of tea, I probably wouldn't want to make pax wear nose straws and I am not a fan of them myself - The 0% humidity dries me out and after about a half hour my sinuses are burning. And turbos in the non-O2 altitudes are kind of a waste.

Yes, I have a turbo Twinkie on my list, mainly as a point of reference to see if I'd get much benefit from using them on solo trips and just suffering the sinus thing. I much prefer the manual wastegate and higher compression turbonormalized system on it to the fixed one on the PA34.

And I do get 160.

Yep. Not much slower than the M20R, but still slower, at least until you start getting into the O2 altitudes.

And living up here with you, in the frozen north, FIKI is very nice.

It is... But I've also found that I can live without it. What do you need to do as far as cleaning and maintenance of the boots? It's too bad you can't just blow them to knock all the bug guts off.

Even in the Miller 200 hp version it's pretty slow (and quiet) up there at 12,000. You'll be happy with 135 kts true @ 12,000 (I wasn't).

That's not what I hear from Twinkie owners at all.

I'm getting 160 kts up there where we live 95% of the time.

I don't live at 12,000 much at all - usually go at 8-10 on long trips unless there are favorable winds higher. That's just where normally aspirated birds do the best, although I have done 172 KTAS on 10.1 gph at 13,000 in the Mooney.

I may yet end up in a Seneca, as my co-owner in the Mooney is very interested in a twin and the big back door is about his top requirement as he wants to fly older, less mobile relatives around so he's shopping Senecas. I just don't get too excited about them.

 

[lblandina]

That is not a realistic photo.Somebody did that on purpose.Comarches are well-known for being fairly roomy.That is not a normal back seat.Someone just slid the seats back off of the stops.

 

[eman1200]

That is not a realistic photo.Somebody did that on purpose.Comarches are well-known for being fairly roomy.That is not a normal back seat.Someone just slid the seats back off of the stops.

that is a REAL photo. no seats were slid off the back stops.

 

[eman1200]

Mooney for reference

View attachment 151450

that's steingar before eating a snickers

 

[bbchien]

Boots- Turtle wax. My set was only replaced after 50 years (no patches) after I send the tanks out for service. The bugs wipe off.
Boost: get Merlyn upper deck controller wastegates. You dial the throttles to 1/2" below ambient and the waste gates are open. You make TBO.
Useable load: 1500+
I moved my younger daughter from Storrs CT to STL. Man she had so much stuff!

Senecas are NOT glamorous but they get the job done, comfortably.

 

[Lance F]

My son’s turbo Twinkie ate him (and me) alive. The vaunted Kristen did the pre buy, pronounced it all good, and the plane turned out to be a maintenance disaster. Both engines had to be overhauled the first annual. Took hours and hours of work to get the waste gate to make full boost pressure. And many, many other issues. He finally sold it at big loss to end the pain. Cost us both a bunch of time and money. So there’s my opinion of the PA39, but mainly Kirsten.

 

[Barrett50]

Pardon Our Interruption

I would just offer $140k and haggle. Get it inspected, and get some good instruction. 160Kts? Fuggeeddaaboudditt. Lets go 200 instead. Save up and get the winglet kit, and the inconel exh and newer drag links make it pretty bulletproof. If the fuel bill is too high, throttle back to 55%. It's still an Aerostar...

 

[Doc Holliday]

Pardon Our Interruption

I would just offer $140k and haggle. Get it inspected, and get some good instruction. 160Kts? Fuggeeddaaboudditt. Lets go 200 instead. Save up and get the winglet kit, and the inconel exh and newer drag links make it pretty bulletproof. If the fuel bill is too high, throttle back to 55%. It's still an Aerostar...

Money pit.

 

[bbchien]

....And just try to change that lower inboard plug on the Rt engine. You know, there's an STC for a panel from inside the pressure vessel to get to that plug.

Kent, I've shopped/flown them all....as the best part is that I can afford my Seneca. Headed to ORL in a couple of weeks.