WilliamF wrote:
When I buy another twin, it won’t be a Twin Com it will be a late model Cessna 337.
I have been thinking about those, particularly the pressurized version, but here in central Europe they are maybe not the right airplane as they are very noisy to the outside world and therefore you won’t have fun finding an airfield which will accept you with it even as a stop.
Otherwise I hear they are quite nice airplanes but also quite noisy inside. I’ve seen one or two in my life but have never flown in one.
Why that over the others? Just out of interest.
Silvaire wrote:
Locally we don’t tend to get hung up on IO versus O when describing engine types, given that all of them are within 10 HP of each other they are all O-320s…
I did not mean to be hung up about it, but for a potential buyer the difference is still important imho. For IFR, I am not too keen on carburetted engines, even though my own is one, as it adds the distinct problem of carb ice to the equation. With injected engines, you get several advantages not only in the icing behaviour, but you can e.g. put GAMI injectors and fly LOP properly, e.t.c. The icing issue may well be why Piper at the time decided on fuel injected engines vs straight O320ties, but I also hear the theory it is because the injected engines are smaller to build in, no carb hanging on the bottom.
In Germany and surroundings the Twin Com got quite some attention due to the fact that for many years the editors in chief of Pilot und Flugzeug operated them, first Heiko Teegen and then Jan Brill, whose former N7311Y is extremely well known all around. They flew them all around the world, Jan’s 7311Y has a ridiculous endurance and has served him very well until he upgraded to a Cheyenne. Many people have seen the movies they made from their trips and frankly it is since then that I still think if I ever upgrade it may well be to one of those…. pipe dream but I am looking out.
And if so that de-iced exemplar would be on the top of my list. But I would need to get the full US licenses too…
RobertL18C wrote:
@Silvaire like a lot of vintage classics you need an engineer experienced on type
Comanches, more often 180/250/260 singles but with similar airframe, are thick on the ground here and are working airplanes. From my point of view it’s a relatively modern aircraft, well supported, but with some areas of complexity in maintenance that probably wouldn’t be present in a vintage classic. Everything is relative. With my current aircraft, there are two or three people still alive in the US who have any experience working on them… now plus me and my friend the A&P mechanic (since 2010). With any aircraft I’d own it would be us working on it, studying hard, meeting people, learning and doing until we too were experienced on type.
Your point is regardless a good one – every aircraft has a learning curve and debugging period, for me on two planes it’s been about five years to get each where I wanted it to be. I would expect similar for something like a Twin Comanche, plus greater amounts of money given the larger parts count. My friend the A&P mechanic is currently going through this period with a parallel valve O-540 powered Chipmunk with the Harold Krier/Art Scholl airframe mods, owner/builder long since passed away and no documentation available.
Locally we don’t tend to get hung up on IO versus O when describing engine types, given that all of them are within 10 HP of each other they are all O-320s… or whatever the case may be. We do tend to differentiate between e.g. an ‘angle valve 540’ and a ‘parallel valve 540’, more so than whether it’s injected – there’s a big difference in weight and power between those two variants.
@Peter thank you for the link, have friends in Nairobi so will read with interest.
I also see that nice A model has a typical useful load close to 1300 lbs.
@WilliamF friends don’t let friends buy a mixmaster :)
When I buy another twin, it won’t be a Twin Com it will be a late model Cessna 337.
Actually they are IO-320-B engines. The PA-39 had counter rotating engines, but IO-320. Same displacement as a Warrior but fuel injected. There is an STC where you can hang 200 HP IO-360 engines on them, but wuffo would you do that :)
. The O-320 engine,
The engines are IO360, injected, not the same O360 like on the Piper Warrior, just to be sure. The best variant of those have Rajay Turbos attached.
@Silvaire like a lot of vintage classics you need an engineer experienced on type. The landing gear system with bungees is strong but needs knowledgeable service. The airframe is also more complex than the Cherokee/Seneca family, again strong but needs good knowledge of the type.
The problem is that experienced engineers with knowledge of the type are becoming fewer.
I have to say that notwithstanding my complete lack of multiengine flying experience, the Twin Comanche looks very interesting. The O-320 engine, even two of them simultaneously, is a simple thing and from the POV of cooling (e.g. when turbo’d and operating at altitude) small cylinders are better than large cylinders. Two O-320s is like having an eight cylinder 320 HP engine instead of one six cylinder engine with bigger cylinders.
Magazine flight test of the aircraft for sale on planecheck here.
