Do you own your own airplane? Wacha got?

el con said:
I see now twin+ ie = che nuttin simple like twincom .
I may be old but I'm still a rookie at this here aviation jargon.:blush:
Click to expand...

'sok Brad, I wanted one for about 4-5 years before I ever heard it called "Twinkie". Twin Comanche just doesn't roll off the tongue. :no:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
'sok Brad, I wanted one for about 4-5 years before I ever heard it called "Twinkie". Twin Comanche just doesn't roll off the tongue. :no:
Click to expand...

It really doesn't. Twinkie is an appropriate name for it - it's cute and tasty. ;)
 
el con said:
Ray
It will make you appreciate Myrtle Beach so much more. We've had great weather every year,ask everybody who came.( That probably just jinxed us)
Click to expand...

I've been through Labor day snow and rain. I will pray that the good string of weather holds out for a decade or two.

Come to da U.P. Eh ?
Click to expand...

This troll has been to the right side of the Bridge but Port Huron is far enough North for me to live. I do want tp fly up there and get an aerial view of the Pictured Rocks. Maybe this summer.

Where Men are Men and Sheep are scared.
Click to expand...

Beauty, eh. No comment though.

Do you take your 172 down or let it freeze in the hanger here in Mi?
Click to expand...

It's in a hanger here. Had it out for 1.1 yesterday. So far most of my MYR trips are still commercial. Along that route seems there is usually weather somewhere.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
.

1. The 421 has a much more complicated system.

2. He once said "I think the P210 actually costs more per hour than the 414 with all its maintenance!"
Click to expand...

1. My 421 had On/Off/Crossfeed. How much simpler can it get?

2. What's wrong with this picture?
 
wabower said:
1. My 421 had On/Off/Crossfeed. How much simpler can it get?

2. What's wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...

You don't have all that aux tank/main tank stuff going on with the 421? The tips being mains, and wings being aux, and having to burn off so much, blah blah blah??? Is that just in the 340?
 
flyersfan31 said:
You don't have all that aux tank/main tank stuff going on with the 421? The tips being mains, and wings being aux, and having to burn off so much, blah blah blah??? Is that just in the 340?
Click to expand...

The 421"C" model has a simplified fuel system as described previously (no tip tanks). The 421 "A" and "B" has separate mains(tips) and aux's(wings, wing locker).

Not complicate as some would have you believe, just requires a pilot that has taken the time to learn the aircraft systems and how they work.

The 310, 320, 335, 340, 401, 402(A& B ) 414 and 421 (A& B )share essentially the same fuel system. The 303, 404, 441 and 421C didn't use tip tanks.
 
Last edited:
flyersfan31 said:
You don't have all that aux tank/main tank stuff going on with the 421? The tips being mains, and wings being aux, and having to burn off so much, blah blah blah??? Is that just in the 340?
Click to expand...

The newer 400-series airplanes (since the mid-late 70's) don't have any of the fuel switching issues. All of the tip-tank airplanes, including of the 340's, have the main-aux system, and the Citation III has one that's almost identical in function, except with an aft fuselage tank.

In practice, the 100 gallons in the mains (tips) is sufficient for many missions (up to 300+ nm) so no switching or other monkey-motions are necessary. The aux tanks in most of the airplanes hold ~360# fuel, so the difference in performance, especially during engine-out drills, is noticeable. We routinely fly a GAMI-equipped 340 between Taos and Dallas with tips only.

Long story short, the pilot needs to understand the fuel system, but the real-life issues aren't as bad as those who don't fully understand them want to believe.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Not complicate as some would have you believe, just requires a pilot that has taken the time to learn the aircraft systems and how they work.
Click to expand...

Not overly complicated but certainly not as simple as the 421C. I'd be willing to bet that there a lot fewer fuel starvation accidents in airplanes that don't require management of fuel sources under normal conditions (when all engines are operating etc) than in those which require that fuel management occur in flight.
 
wabower said:
1. My 421 had On/Off/Crossfeed. How much simpler can it get?
Click to expand...

The 421 Tony flies was significantly more complicated than that.

2. What's wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...

The comment was said half in jest by the plane's owner, but the point was that the P210 was quite the maintenance hog for him, whereas the 414 he had fewer problems with.

As has been stated (and I agree), the big thing is knowing the airplane, and it's not a big deal. I do like the simple fuel system on the Aztec. Inner/outer/off for each side, and then crossfeed valve.
 
lancefisher said:
Not overly complicated but certainly not as simple as the 421C. I'd be willing to bet that there a lot fewer fuel starvation accidents in airplanes that don't require management of fuel sources under normal conditions (when all engines are operating etc) than in those which require that fuel management occur in flight.
Click to expand...

The problem is threefold:

1. The aux tanks will provide fuel directely to the engines, so if fuel is present the engine will run. The book says straight and level only, but that's mostly a lawyer provision.

2. The fuel return lines from the engine feed only the main tanks, so the fuel level in the mains will "grow" when the aux tanks are in use. If the aux tanks are selected while the mains are full (or almost full) it's possible (but somewhat improbable) that some fuel could be ported out the vents due to the growth of fuel in the mains. So that's why the book calls for takeoff and climb on the mains. It's more important on long trips, since most people don't run out of gas on short ones.

3. The only real complication with these systems is the nacelle tanks that only feed the main tanks, and which are not accessible by the engines during flight. Some planning and cross-feed are necessary if the plane has only one nacelle tank (as is the case in airplanes with factory air) so in those cases the pilot has some thinking and planning to do. The actual workload is roughly 20 seconds and about 4 control movements over a 4-5 hour flight. Given the apparent ability and aptitude of many pilots, that is evidently enough to create significant overload. Or, depending on your point of view, a good tool for "the thinning of the herd."
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
2. The fuel return lines from the engine feed only the main tanks, so the fuel level in the mains will "grow" when the aux tanks are in use. If the aux tanks are selected while the mains are full (or almost full) it's possible (but somewhat improbable) that some fuel could be ported out the vents due to the growth of fuel in the mains. So that's why the book calls for takeoff and climb on the mains. It's more important on long trips, since most people don't run out of gas on short ones.
Click to expand...

That sounds familiar to what Tony explained to me: They need to run X.X hrs on the 'mains' and then just flip the switch on the Aux's until they're empty. As long as you know how much total fuel you have onboard, it's still a fairly simple time vs. fuel burn endurance equation.
 
its not really that complicated of a system to operate, as wayne points out, but its a hell of a lot more complicated than on/off/crossfeed.

one of our 421s has 1 nacelle tank, the other has 2. often the trickiest part planning wise is to make sure you have a comfortable amount of gas in the mains towards the end of a trip for any takeoffs and landings. often we are dropping passengers within 30 miles of our home base and then heading home. not burning enough out of the aux tanks early on enough can lead to complications.
 
My Lil' Grumman AAI-A. (She nothing fancy, but she's a lotta fun!)
 

Attachments

  • 6322L at K.S.E.R (Seymour, IN).jpg
    6322L at K.S.E.R (Seymour, IN).jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 34
Dale,
Very nice AA-1A, I had two of them and now have a Tiger AA-5B.

Regards,
Mike in NJ
 
I'm the proud owner of :smile: a '74 Arch-Warrior with a new engine and a new interior. I'm happy.
 

Attachments

  • Post pic.jpg
    Post pic.jpg
    32.1 KB · Views: 25
  • DSC00341.JPG
    DSC00341.JPG
    280.8 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
This is my new Flight Design CTLS.
picture.php
 
wabower said:
Long story short...the real-life issues aren't as bad as those who don't fully understand them want to believe.
Click to expand...

You can say that about a lot of airplanes!!! :smile:
 
Wow!! Lotsa NICE planes on this post!!

Flyersfan31 , I'm new here and don't want to stir a stink, but what gives with the commie avatars?
 
These are a couple of photos my parnter's daughter took. Very nice pictures. Now, if only I can get enough money together to replace the autopilot, install a new HSI, install ice protection, upgrade to 200hp engines, get a paint job, and redo the interior, It'd be just perfect!
 

Attachments

  • DSC03276trimmed.jpg
    DSC03276trimmed.jpg
    279.8 KB · Views: 32
  • DSC03264trimmed.jpg
    DSC03264trimmed.jpg
    51.4 KB · Views: 19
Well, working on owning it. Certainly I own it from a "fixin'it" point of view. Previous owner had it for 20 years and his flying had dropped off considerably in the last few years. I've had to fix many "nickle-and-dime" things (that 0.5 to 1+ AMU).

Down right now for an electrical problem and the DG and turn coordinator are out for rebuild. The AP is also being repaired but that's mostly done now with only final tuning for altitude hold required (hopefully).

I've learned a lot about maintenance on 30 year-old aluminum but I'm not sure it's worth the tuition. Heck, I've mostly been reviving skills learned while keeping a '68 Mustang alive into the 90's. The major skill seems to be calling around to find parts and then being willing/able to rebuild or have those parts rebuilt.

At this point I'm just wishing that I could get that hole in my wallet bushed down to a smaller size...
 

Attachments

  • 100_0269A.jpg
    100_0269A.jpg
    537.2 KB · Views: 24
Last edited:
Aztec Driver said:
These are a couple of photos my parnter's daughter took. Very nice pictures. Now, if only I can get enough money together to replace the autopilot, install a new HSI, install ice protection, upgrade to 200hp engines, get a paint job, and redo the interior, It'd be just perfect!
Click to expand...

Bryon,

Did you find a way to do the 200hp upgrade? I thought that, and the other Miller mods, couldn't be done any more. If they can still be done, GREAT! It's really hard to find a Miller Twinkie, and they go for a huge price premium.

Also, while 200hp engines are nice, I'd go for the dorsal fin (lower Vmc) and wing lockers first. 200hp engines burn more fuel. ;)

I think it is still possible to get de-ice put on a Twinkie, but very expensive.

If you can still do a 200hp upgrade, is it the Miller STC, or did someone else come up with a new STC?
 
Last edited:
*FIND* posts by flyingcheesehead containing "Byron"
*REPLACE* "Byron" *WITH* "Bryon"
*HANG HEAD IN SHAME* :redface:

Sorry, man. I know I'm not the first, but I remembered you saying something about many people making that mistake, and so I went back and double-checked.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
78080419.jpg


But, the other thing I can tell you is that it's been sitting for sale at $85,000 for a LONG time. Many months. That may indicate that it's not worth $85K, and if it's not being flown it's simply sitting there rotting away.
Click to expand...

Update:

Sometime in the last couple of days, the price was dropped from $85,000 to $69,000.

flyingcheesehead begins digging for change between the couch cushions...

Better snap it up, Bryon! :yes:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Update:

Sometime in the last couple of days, the price was dropped from $85,000 to $69,000.

flyingcheesehead begins digging for change between the couch cushions...

Better snap it up, Bryon! :yes:
Click to expand...

That seems more reasonable, especially given today's twin market.

Still, a very nice plane if it fits your mission! :yes:
 
It's interesting... the Twin Comanche is one of those planes that's just "right"- large enough to be legitimately useful, extremely efficient (for a twin), roomy (as planes go). Plus, as is so often the case with something that works well, they are exceptionally attractive airplanes to look at.
 
SCCutler said:
It's interesting... the Twin Comanche is one of those planes that's just "right"- large enough to be legitimately useful, extremely efficient (for a twin), roomy (as planes go). Plus, as is so often the case with something that works well, they are exceptionally attractive airplanes to look at.
Click to expand...

Agreed, Spike. In that respect, the Twinkie is very much like the... umm... kie? Regular Comanche. My instructor has a Comanche 180. Doesn't burn much fuel, but goes pretty quick while doing it. Twinkies are great - not too much worse burn rate than a single engine 6-cylinder, while going pretty darn quick.
 
I noticed from Gaston's there are some changes here. Anyone care to update?

Rick
 
The Viking Witch:

2915832923_d4efbae4c3.jpg


and Penelope (now sold):

015474.jpg


Penelope was a fun lil plane to fly too. She took me down yonder to Georgia and back!
 
OtisAir said:
The Viking Witch:

2915832923_d4efbae4c3.jpg


and Penelope (now sold):

015474.jpg


Penelope was a fun lil plane to fly too. She took me down yonder to Georgia and back!
Click to expand...

Wow, Penelope was a looker,.. to bad I didn't start flying a year sooner! I trained in the 152 and was looking at them for a while before renting from Wings for the past year.
 
Hey Rob, don't you need to update your signature? ;)

Nothing's changed on this end, other than I'm 5 months into Aztec ownership, have my CP-ASEL-IA, and have now put about 90 hours on the thing, maybe more. But I have a cooler picture now:

DSC_0201.JPG


This was taken Sunday morning in Oklahoma as I was waiting for my friend to meet me at the airport. We then had to wait out a thunderstorm, but the rainbow was one of those signs that it was going to be a good day. Sure enough, it was a great day. The rainbow was complete, but getting a picture that included the plane and the full rainbow ended up making the plane very small.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Nothing's changed on this end, other than I'm 5 months into Aztec ownership, have my CP-ASEL-IA, and have now put about 90 hours on the thing, maybe more. But I have a cooler picture now:

DSC_0201.JPG


This was taken Sunday morning in Oklahoma as I was waiting for my friend to meet me at the airport. We then had to wait out a thunderstorm, but the rainbow was one of those signs that it was going to be a good day. Sure enough, it was a great day. The rainbow was complete, but getting a picture that included the plane and the full rainbow ended up making the plane very small.
Click to expand...

Nice pot o' gold, Ted. :yes:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Hey Rob, don't you need to update your signature? ;)

Nothing's changed on this end, other than I'm 5 months into Aztec ownership, have my CP-ASEL-IA, and have now put about 90 hours on the thing, maybe more. But I have a cooler picture now:
Click to expand...

You sure about that "S"?
 
1980 PA28-161 Warrior
I've owned it for 5 years, And do Young Eagle Flights with it
Dave G.
 

Attachments

  • SB assoc . pics 005.jpg
    SB assoc . pics 005.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 13
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top