PA-30 or Debonair (yes its a comparison)

MyassisDragon

MyassisDragon

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
585
Location
Michigan
Display Name
Display name:
Mr Fred
Sorry to post another plane comparison thread but I have been looking at planes for about a year now and narrowed it down (at least for today) to these two. And since it is a twin vs single comparison I thought it would be a good discussion)

They are:
PA-30 (b or C) (would like CR but its above the budget)

Debonair C33A (or anything with the 285hp IO-520 upgrade) Would like F33 but its above the budget.

- Budget $65k to $90K (depending on equipment IE Waas GPS)
- Live in great lakes lots of over water travel (single engine doesn't bother me)
- 90% of my flights are 200-1000 nm (business/personal travel)
- Good Stable IFR platform (flying a AA5B now)
- 1100-1200lb useful load (not completely necessary since its mostly only 2-3 flying)
- 160-170 kt cruise
- 800-1000+ nm range with tip tanks (kids now live 1500NM away)
- Short field and grass strip capable (2000ft)
-Probably only own it 5-7 years (until I get the itch or $$ to upgrade)

Items on the wish list for these planes would be (at higher cost of course)
-De-Ice boots & hot props (more common on PA-30)
-Auto pilot with Alt hold
-HSI
-WAAS GPS
-Engine monitor

I have talked to a few AP's about these and gathered some general information that the Piper will be cheaper to repair (airframe) but the Beech is built better and will have fewer repairs in general.

Ultimately the Twin will have higher operating cost due to double engines and props .....so I understand its not really apples to apples in this category.

Anyone else have 2 cents worth of opinion on these two planes?
 
Last edited:
Both are great airplanes. If you don't mind the single engine over the Lakes, I think you'd be better off economically in the Deb. Both are great IFR platforms. Both handle very nicely. If you find a PA30 with nacelle lockers, you might be able to haul more luggage.

I've never flown a Twinkie off grass, so I have no clue on how the two compare in that realm.
 
I guess the question for me is: why the Twinkie as opposed to it's SE-equivalent? Seems like the PA-24 would fit the budget as well as all of the other specs.
 
I own a Bonanza, so I'm bias but except for the short and soft field, I'd go with the PA-30.

Ask someone with a PA-30 about 2000' turf before investing. It's no prob for the Deb of course. Guessing that if you are light coming out of the turf strip it might be doable. But it's a guess.
 
Yeah, look at the 250-260 Comanches if the Debonair is on the table.

To my untrained eye, they seem very similar and I'd assume the Comanche is a little cheaper to maintain, although it might be a rounding error. It's maybe a little faster then the Debonair as well. Some good deals on them out there. Both are very roomy inside.

As for the PA-30 costs, I can't imagine that a Debonair is more expensive to maintain then a twin, short or long term.
 
Last edited:
How many testicles do you have?
 
SoonerAviator said:
I guess the question for me is: why the Twinkie as opposed to it's SE-equivalent? Seems like the PA-24 would fit the budget as well as all of the other specs.
Click to expand...

I had those on the table along with the normal Debs, but i I really want to be around the 170kt+ cruise which is why the Deb is a C33a or equivalent with the 285hp upgrade.
 
docmirror said:
I own a Bonanza, so I'm bias but except for the short and soft field, I'd go with the PA-30.

Ask someone with a PA-30 about 2000' turf before investing. It's no prob for the Deb of course. Guessing that if you are light coming out of the turf strip it might be doable. But it's a guess.
Click to expand...
Just curious why you would go with the PA-30?
 
MyassisDragon said:
Just curious why you would go with the PA-30?
Click to expand...

I like them. I like the efficiency, extra engine, comfort, design. I have only ridden right seat for a short flight but they seem stable and relatively easy to fly(no direct experience mind you) for a twin. The downside of added mx and fuel is to be considered, but I"m not paying the freight.
 
The Twin Comanche is a great plane. For shorter strips off grass and such, you might want to be looking at one's that have a Robertson's STOL kit.
 
MyassisDragon said:
Sorry to post another plane comparison thread but I have been looking at planes for about a year now and narrowed it down (at least for today) to these two. And since it is a twin vs single comparison I thought it would be a good discussion)

They are:
PA-30 (b or C) (would like CR but its above the budget)

Debonair C33A (or anything with the 285hp IO-520 upgrade) Would like F33 but its above the budget.

- Budget $65k to $90K (depending on equipment IE Waas GPS)
- Live in great lakes lots of over water travel (single engine doesn't bother me)
- 90% of my flights are 200-1000 nm (business/personal travel)
- Good Stable IFR platform (flying a AA5B now)
- 1100-1200lb useful load (not completely necessary since its mostly only 2-3 flying)
- 160-170 kt cruise
- 800-1000+ nm range with tip tanks (kids now live 1500NM away)
- Short field and grass strip capable (2000ft)
-Probably only own it 5-7 years (until I get the itch or $$ to upgrade)

Items on the wish list for these planes would be (at higher cost of course)
-De-Ice boots & hot props (more common on PA-30)
-Auto pilot with Alt hold
-HSI
-WAAS GPS
-Engine monitor

I have talked to a few AP's about these and gathered some general information that the Piper will be cheaper to repair (airframe) but the Beech is built better and will have fewer repairs in general.

Ultimately the Twin will have higher operating cost due to double engines and props .....so I understand its not really apples to apples in this category.

Anyone else have 2 cents worth of opinion on these two planes?
Click to expand...

I have a PA-30 so I am biased, but I have flown the Deb as well.

The Twinkie is fine on grass, but you need to have the landing gear maintained by someone who knows what they are doing. Fortunately, you need venture no further than Rockford, IL to find one of the best Comanche shops around. The Comanche is more of a floater, so you need good speed control to land on shorter strips. I have landed on 2500' dirt/turf strips. Whether it is doable depends on weight, temperature, condition of the ground, and what obstacles must be avoided.

I would argue that the PA-30 is better build. The Beech as some nice design features that are superior, over all, the Comanche airframe is stronger and corrosion is much less of an issue because all the airframe parts were sprayed with zinc chromate before riveting together so there is even protection in the lap splices. Also, they do not use magnesium in the control surfaces.

The Twinkie's engines are noticeably more reliable and much more likely to make TBO without significant work. But you do have an extra engine and extra prop to maintain and a combustion heater. There will likely be more expense in maintaining the Twinkie, but it shouldn't be huge.

What else do you want to know?
 
All Bonanzas and Debonairs are certified to Utility category standards to full gross weight.

To put it in cliche terms, they are built like a tank. Particularly the gear, which is shared with the twin Baron. All later Debonairs(C33A and later) are corrosion proofed from the factory. Early Bonanza and Debs which use Mag were corrosion proofed as well, but of course, they age and after 50 years, things just wear. The companion plane to the Deb is the E33C and F33 which are certified acro. A few stiffeners were added to the tailcone, rudder area, and a different door was fitted.

Also, the 285HP Bonanza/Deb are always faster than any of the 250/260HP Comanches, which isn't a surprise I guess.
 
docmirror said:
All Bonanzas and Debonairs are certified to Utility category standards to full gross weight.

To put it in cliche terms, they are built like a tank. Particularly the gear, which is shared with the twin Baron. All later Debonairs(C33A and later) are corrosion proofed from the factory. Early Bonanza and Debs which use Mag were corrosion proofed as well, but of course, they age and after 50 years, things just wear. The companion plane to the Deb is the E33C and F33 which are certified acro. A few stiffeners were added to the tailcone, rudder area, and a different door was fitted.

Also, the 285HP Bonanza/Deb are always faster than any of the 250/260HP Comanches, which isn't a surprise I guess.
Click to expand...

By all Bonanzas you mean the V-tails as well. I think you will find that a whole lot more of those have broken up in flight than any of the Comanches. The original 180 Comanche was designed and tested to an ultimate failure of 7.5G's instead of the required and certified 5.7G's.

I would bet my life on the Comanche method for attaching the wing spar together over the Deb/Bo four bolts and carry-through box.

It is also not true that a 285hp Debbie will always out run a 250/260. Down low . . . maybe. Not up high. The Comanche's wing is more efficient and the aircraft doesn't start to poop out at higher altitude to the same degree.

Anyone in NorCal that wants to race their Debbie at 13,500, I have a 260 Comanche I will put up against it.
 
I think your cutting it close on the budget for the pa 30, for one in good shape,well maintained. The Deb is a great airplane,and it doesn't know when it's over water. Personally I prefer the beech products,built to last.
 
Most people(uninformed) blame the plane for the early in-flight break-ups of the Bo. After the advanced training offered, the Bo/Deb improved it's safety rating to better than the Piper and Cessna comparable planes.

Don't know of any Comanches rated for Util category, or acro. I don't know them that well.

Beechcraft C 33 A Debonair - Performance Data

Horsepower: 285 Gross Weight: 3300 lbs
Top Speed: 181 kts Empty Weight: 1775 lbs
Cruise Speed: 174 kt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Piper PA-24-C 260 Comanche - Performance Data

Horsepower: 260 Gross Weight: 3200 lbs
Top Speed: 170 kts Empty Weight: 1773 lbs
Cruise Speed: 161 kts

pfft
 
docmirror said:
Most people(uninformed) blame the plane for the early in-flight break-ups of the Bo. After the advanced training offered, the Bo/Deb improved it's safety rating to better than the Piper and Cessna comparable planes.

Don't know of any Comanches rated for Util category, or acro. I don't know them that well.

Beechcraft C 33 A Debonair - Performance Data

Horsepower: 285 Gross Weight: 3300 lbs
Top Speed: 181 kts Empty Weight: 1775 lbs
Cruise Speed: 174 kt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Piper PA-24-C 260 Comanche - Performance Data

Horsepower: 260 Gross Weight: 3200 lbs
Top Speed: 170 kts Empty Weight: 1773 lbs
Cruise Speed: 161 kts

pfft
Click to expand...

Piper never bothered to certify the Comanche in the utility category. Are you suggesting that they were required to do so just because the airframe was strong enough to qualify?

Those are book numbers. I am talking real world. The POH is full of fictions. Even when the numbers are accurate, it is at one altitude, in one set of atmospheric conditions.

Inflight break up is mostly pilot error. However, I am guessing you weren't involved in aviation much in the early 80's when the V-tail defect came to light.
 
Keep guessing, cuz you're doing real well so far.
 
docmirror said:
Keep guessing, cuz you're doing real well so far.
Click to expand...

I figured it was polite to make that guess as the only other explanation is a more willful ignorance or failure to mental comprehend the facts as no one can seriously argue that the ruddervators were not defective prior to the AD mandated repair in the mid-80's.
 
The ruddervator cuff AD was to fix the pilot problem, not the plane problem. Face it, the V-tail was just too fast, and too slick for the pilots of the 50s.

There are still many, many Bonanzas(V tail) flying out there without cuffs. I know, I have one and it's as safe if not safer than the Comanche(by NTSB accident stats).

Now, get one more in. I'm done.
 
I see the OP has posted a potential for upgrade to another plane down the road. What kind of plane? Bigger probably means twin, buying the PA-30 and building a ton of twin time now might make insuring something down the road easier...
 
docmirror said:
All later Debonairs(C33A and later) are corrosion proofed from the factory. Early Bonanza and Debs which use Mag were corrosion proofed as well, but of course, they age and after 50 years, things just wear. The companion plane to the Deb is the E33C and F33 which are certified acro. A few stiffeners were added to the tailcone, rudder area, and a different door was fitted.
Click to expand...

What year did they start corrosion proofing the singles? Beech didn't start the corrosion proofing on the Barons until the late 70s.
 
If you're actually going to take it into the ice, shy of a turbine I'd want a twin.
 
docmirror said:
The ruddervator cuff AD was to fix the pilot problem, not the plane problem. Face it, the V-tail was just too fast, and too slick for the pilots of the 50s.

There are still many, many Bonanzas(V tail) flying out there without cuffs. I know, I have one and it's as safe if not safer than the Comanche(by NTSB accident stats).

Now, get one more in. I'm done.
Click to expand...

You either have an early V-tail or a later one with STC SA1649CE installed. That was the old Mike Smith STC. I was in and out of Mike's shop in 84-85. I looked at a lot of bent tails, including one that was as a result of wake turbulence, not the result of a pilot getting into a thunderstorm or whatever. There is no question that the ruddervator is significantly stronger with an attach point at the forward portion of the chord. It is always possible to say that the pilot is at fault as the pilot was at the controls when the plane broke.

As I recall, Aviation Consumer pointed out at the time that there were like 250+ V-tails that had come apart in the aircraft and only like 3 of the straight tails. There have only been a few Comanches that have come apart in the air. There is no reason to think that the cross section of pilots are different from one to the other.
 
Wow, a 2000' grass,strip,is kinda short for either plane, depending on how clear/obstructed the approaches are. I take my Mooney to just two grass strips: 2000', obstructed on one end, and I go there light (two people and half tanks, no more); the other is also obstructed at one end but is 3500' less a couple hundred feet displaced threshold when landing over the trees & power lines at the west end. The longer one is on the NC coast, and my wife and I fly in loaded full (often stacked to the ceiling) but a little light on gas. I've also flown out and in there with four guys in the plane, and fueled up to just 34 gallons for W&B.

It's all in the extra length and clear departure path . . . Landing over the trees and departing over the clear end is most common, as that way points towards the ocean.

Id check the Performance Tables for grass takeoff distance at weights and temps you will likely see.
 
docmirror said:
The ruddervator cuff AD was to fix the pilot problem, not the plane problem. Face it, the V-tail was just too fast, and too slick for the pilots of the 50s.

There are still many, many Bonanzas(V tail) flying out there without cuffs. I know, I have one and it's as safe if not safer than the Comanche(by NTSB accident stats).

Now, get one more in. I'm done.
Click to expand...

Lol, more like weekend warrior pilots.

We've been dumbing down things since then, I'd take a tailwheel, spin and recover on a heading, eyeballs and feet working PPL graduate from the 50s, over a button pushing ipad coddling, foot rest PPL of today.
 
Beechcraft C 33 A Debonair - Performance Data

Horsepower: 285

Takeoff ********************************* Landing
Ground Roll: 880 ft************************Ground Roll 632 ft
Over 50 ft obstacle: 1225 ft
 
docmirror said:
Beechcraft C 33 A Debonair - Performance Data

Horsepower: 285

Takeoff ********************************* Landing
Ground Roll: 880 ft************************Ground Roll 632 ft
Over 50 ft obstacle: 1225 ft
Click to expand...

So what's the additional required for grass instead of asphalt? How does length for Takeoff and to clear the infamous 50' obstacle change as temperature increases? That's what's important here, not the book numbers for takeoff from pavement, at sea level, on a cool 59ºF/15ºC day.

You gotta plan for actual use, not pie-in-the-sky numbers. Those are pretty close to my own numbers, and I've got 100 hp less. Still don't go to short grass strips with a load, and I especially don't depart from short grass strips with a load. Seems there was someone who did so recently [2000' grass strip, Arkansas or Texas, loaded heavy], in a Bo, and took his family out with him. The NTSB should have their say sometime late next year or early 2017 about the likely causes for that one.
 
either one is fine on 2000ft turf...but...the twinkie has little prop clearance so keep the grass mowed low everywhere. Twinkie's are a bit cramped with no nose baggage. I really wanted one but we just couldn't fit into it, so we got the next-most efficient twin, the travel air. However if you're comparing cabin space with a deb then they're pretty much exactly the same.

I've rebuilt a few comanches from wrecks and also worked on several bo's/barons, both flavors are well built and each have a few aggravating points.

It's tough to complain about a twin comanche. But if you're prepared to ride behind one engine then a lightweight deb with a 520, or better a 550, is a sweet ride and smokin fast.
 
Last edited:
Hank S said:
So what's the additional required for grass instead of asphalt? How does length for Takeoff and to clear the infamous 50' obstacle change as temperature increases? That's what's important here, not the book numbers for takeoff from pavement, at sea level, on a cool 59ºF/15ºC day.

You gotta plan for actual use, not pie-in-the-sky numbers. Those are pretty close to my own numbers, and I've got 100 hp less. Still don't go to short grass strips with a load, and I especially don't depart from short grass strips with a load. Seems there was someone who did so recently [2000' grass strip, Arkansas or Texas, loaded heavy], in a Bo, and took his family out with him. The NTSB should have their say sometime late next year or early 2017 about the likely causes for that one.
Click to expand...

Never underestimate the ability of pilots to abuse their aircraft, and themselves along with it. Not familiar with the accident you reference, but not surprising. Technique is a big deal, and pilots surprised by lethargic performance in hot / high circumstances often pull back, when they should gain a little speed in ground effect.
 
In my experience, of the 5 major GA players from the 60-80s, Beech was by a good margin the most conservative with their specs.

I guess I made an assumption that if you overload a Deb, on a hot day, and try to get out of a wet, deep grass 2000' strip everyone is gonna die. Really didn't think that needed to be stated, but, I guess - sigh...
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I see the OP has posted a potential for upgrade to another plane down the road. What kind of plane? Bigger probably means twin, buying the PA-30 and building a ton of twin time now might make insuring something down the road easier...
Click to expand...

Yep, this is part of the equation rolling around in my head. But not a necessity
 
Hank S said:
Wow, a 2000' grass,strip,is kinda short for either plane, depending on how clear/obstructed the approaches are. I take my Mooney to just two grass strips: 2000', obstructed on one end, and I go there light (two people and half tanks, no more); the other is also obstructed at one end but is 3500' less a couple hundred feet displaced threshold when landing over the trees & power lines at the west end. The longer one is on the NC coast, and my wife and I fly in loaded full (often stacked to the ceiling) but a little light on gas. I've also flown out and in there with four guys in the plane, and fueled up to just 34 gallons for W&B.

It's all in the extra length and clear departure path . . . Landing over the trees and departing over the clear end is most common, as that way points towards the ocean.

Id check the Performance Tables for grass takeoff distance at weights and temps you will likely see.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wrote 2000' but the reality is most would be 2500 or greater (do have a 2200 one around me though) These would also be with light load hauling the wife unit and camping gear...I am a pretty conservative pilot when it comes to loading / performance, and can currently get in and out of these with a Tiger lightly loaded.
 
JHW said:
either one is fine on 2000ft turf...but...the twinkie has little prop clearance so keep the grass mowed low everywhere..
Click to expand...

What do you think the prop clearance is compared to a Mooney M20c? (only one I have experience flying) The mooney seemed pretty close to the ground
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Have you considered the PA23 or PA27 line? They seem to be much better airplanes for grass.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I did like the idea of more HP / bigger plane but the fuel burn was quite a bit higher for not that much more cruise speed (almost 10gph more)
 
MyassisDragon said:
Yeah, I wrote 2000' but the reality is most would be 2500 or greater (do have a 2200 one around me though) These would also be with light load hauling the wife unit and camping gear...I am a pretty conservative pilot when it comes to loading / performance, and can currently get in and out of these with a Tiger lightly loaded.
Click to expand...

My Bonanza lived at a 2300' grass strip for a long time. I only have 225HP and I never was worried about getting out except on real hot days with a full load(never tried).

Use 10* flaps, and let it build speed before yanking on it, just like the Tiger. Get your gear up quick, you'll be fine with some decent planning. I have no idea on the Twinkie, but I'm guessing it can be done.
 
MyassisDragon said:
Yes, and I did like the idea of more HP / bigger plane but the fuel burn was quite a bit higher for not that much more cruise speed (almost 10gph more)
Click to expand...

Yeah, the PA-27 is going to burn quite a bit more and not have any speed, but it'll carry anything you get in the door (and that's a lot). PA-23 is smaller.

Since you've got the Debonair in the mix, what about the Travel air? Beech product, probably closest to a twinco.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top