denverpilot
Tied Down
Screaming deal... only just under $600/Mo! For an Aztruck... ugh.
Or, halfway to an installed GTN...
Yes, my sarcasm is kicking in this evening.
SR22 vs Twin Comanche
- Thread starter Skepilot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sr22 twin comanche
Screaming deal... only just under $600/Mo! For an Aztruck... ugh.
Or, halfway to an installed GTN...
Yes, my sarcasm is kicking in this evening.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
That is insane.
I usually shop around every second or third year. For the past 4 or 5 years I've been with the EAA program. $2300 per year including $100k hull loss coverage. First twin I've ever owned.
Radar Contact
Pattern Altitude
That's strange. When I bought my 310 last year I requested quotes from several companies. AOPA (thru IAG) was the cheapest. It was $1800 for the first year. I had no flight requirements placed on me and hadn't stepped foot in a twin in over 15 years (minus time I got flying the plane during the pre-purchase).
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
So, I just flew an SR22 for the first time today and all I can say is: I can’t believe we are even attempting to compare an SR22 with a PA30. They are nothing alike. I can see why some people like Cirrus, but it is not for everyone and every mission.
Personally, I’d take the Twin Comanche in a heartbeat.
Personally, I’d take the Twin Comanche in a heartbeat.
Skepilot
Pre-takeoff checklist
My mission and reasons for comparing these two types is discussed early in the thread. I get that you prefer the Twink, but you stated no reasons. Any reason outside of the second engine?
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ok, so first off: understand that my response you quoted was simply a strictly personal opinion based on having flown both airplanes and injected into the thread POA style. That statement is not necessarily a recommendation for others.
Without knowing you personally, my recommendation is still more or less along the lines of what I posted early in the thread. If operating cost is a concern at all, you might be happier with a Cirrus.
To better help you understand where I'm coming from, you first need to know that I own three radial engine tailwheel airplanes (for less than the acquisition cost of a single new SR22). A Beech 18, a Waco biplane and a T-6. All three of those airplanes put a smile on my face every time I fly them. Flying my personal airplanes is an experience. The Cirrus doesn't do that. The Cirrus is a means to an end. The SR22 is like hoping into a Honda Accord and driving to the office. Works for some people and I certainly don't mind flying it for work, but not really my 'thing'. If you are looking for an airplane to fly efficiently for out of town business trips, the Cirrus is a great airplane. If you want an airplane that you can put alot of stuff in an feel like you are flying an airplane, the Cirrus will disappoint.
Aside from a feeling more like an actual pilot, I personally like the PA30 because it has more space to carry stuff. The SR22 is not going to haul 3 or 4 people and alot of luggage. A Twin Comanche isn't going to necessarily haul a ton more weight, but definitely more room.
If I was going to own a Cirrus as a personal airplane, I'd have to find something to do with it to make it fun……like make viral youtube videos.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Nothing to add on the flying qualities front, agree 100% that such a preference is a legitimate part of choosing the airplane one chooses to own.
I do have to take exception to the volume argument regarding the Comanche. I parked my Arrow next to a 24-250 and sat on both. Unimpressed. The arrow had more leg room. The reason as I found out is this: As part of the bench seat arrangement, they have a structural hat shelf cap that removes in-cabin access to the luggage compartment, severely compromising total luggage volume compared to a PA28, which is 3 inches narrower than the PA24/30 mind you. Same deal for the luggage door (20x20 vs 22x20). As a result of that decision, the bench seat tailbone sits much forward compared to individual seats, and as such effectively removes your rear leg room.
The post-66 Comanche and Twinkie fixed this handicap by removing the structural hatshelf and putting individual seats, thus gaining access to the luggage compartment from the cabin, and moves the backbone of these rear seats further back than the bench seat configuration could. Of course, this was really done in '66 to sell it as a pseudo 6 seater (wouldn't be PC to stick the kids into an enclosed luggage comp after all LOL). When used as a 4 seater in earnest, it's more adequate. This explains the marked premium non-bench seat Comanches have over their pre-66 brethren.
I'd prob offer up a common as hen's teeth Seneca I as an alternative. I know they are hated, but I wouldn't mind owning one. Basically a twin engine cherokee six. Problem is they're all snapped up by flight schools and beat to dirt, because of the preference for the NA Lyco engine for training roles. Alternatively you could offer an *Apache 235 (*the Aztruck goes much farther away than a Twinkie on the operating front than is useful for this conversation imo, furthemore an Apache 235 would have closer fuel burn to the twinkie with slower but similar speeds, whereas an apache wouldn't even be in the ballpark cruise speed wise).
Last edited:
Skepilot
Pre-takeoff checklist
It most certainly is! Rare is the person for whom operating cost is not "a concern at all." Until I win the lotto, that ain't me. That's kind of the point of the thread; does the lower operating costs of an SR22 offset the lower acquisition of the Twink, or will the Twink eat up those initial savings in maintenance expenses?
Yeah, well if I had the means to just buy a plane to put a smile on my face, it would be something aerobatic! But since I have a family, I have to sell the wife on the idea of owning (a share) in an airplane by demonstrating what's in it for her. I wish she would enjoy aerobatics, but it's enough of a battle getting her on a "little airplane" at all! The sales pitch is based on being able to do our family trips at a cost that's reasonable.
More room where? Maybe the cargo compartment? Not anywhere that's important to us. The SR22 cabin is 5 inches wider than the Twink (49" vs 44"), and I can put my family of 3 in it along with all of our bags, top of the fuel and still be under gross weight. A number of people have posted earlier in the thread that the Cirrus wins between the two in comfort. You might be able to cram a little more "stuff" in the Twink, but (A) not much more and (B) we don't need it.
Skepilot
Pre-takeoff checklist
Oh, yeah, now I definitely can't own one! LOL
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Truth is that is a hard one to fully predict because so much can happen with an individual airframe. Honestly, because the Cirrus purchase price is so high in comparison, I think you will end up spending slightly less on the Twin Comanche in the long run……BUT, you will have a higher dispatch reliability with the Cirrus. In other words, you are probably going to experience longer maintenance down periods and loss of availability with the PA30 than the Cirrus.
I've managed to do quite well with reliability on my Beech 18 to the point where I have as much confidence in scheduling it for a coast to coast cross-country trip as I would a Cirrus. I definitely have more confidence in my aircraft than any of the professionally operated Barons or Twin Cessnas around me. BUT, I found a very good airframe, and it requires lot of planning ahead and addressing squawks early before they down the aircraft which possibly costs me more per year in annual maintenance, but it is worth it to me. But that leads me back to my original recommendation in this thread: if you don't have a lot of experience owning and operating older GA airplanes, you may have a hard time with a Twin Comanche. At a minimum, you'll have a steep learning curve.
Baggage is exactly what I'm talking about. Both airplanes are traveling machines. To me that means hauling luggage and stuff to accommodate the people, but the Cirrus baggage compartment is not big at all. You have more space in the PA30 and can even find one with nacelle lockers. If you can make a Cirrus work for you that's great, but It would never work for me.
Having flown both, I would disagree with that statement. The Cirrus interior 'looks' nicer/fancier, but it is not that comfortable. While I never sat in the back of the Twin Comanche, I found the PA30 much more comfortable to sit in up front on a long cross country than the Cirrus. To me, sitting in the Cirrus pilot seat for 2.5 hours was about the same level of comfort as sitting in a Delta Economy Plus seat for the same length of time.
My personal biggest complaint about the Cirrus is that for the money you pay, the fit and finish is not at all great. It's not horrible, but it isn't Beechcraft quality. It is at best on par with Cessna and even then maybe a little cheaper feel. It's like paying for a Lexus and getting General Motors build quality. But that is more a reflection on modern GA manufacturers than a specific indictment against Cirrus.
Good grief. You are comparing the price of decades old planes, including a biplane to the price of a brand new Cirrus?
*sigh*First, short of winning one of the big lotteries I'm not buying a new plane. Most of us aren't. Heck, only one of my cars has been brand new in over 35 years of buying cars, and that only because it was basically the same cost as slightly used. I'm not buying a $700-900k Cirrus. If I bought a Cirrus it would be $160-250k, and with a couple of partners. Same if I bought a Baron, 310R or Twinkie. There's so much fixed costs in flying. I've flown in 3 and 4 person partnerships and availability has not been an issue, even when most of the group was flying 80-90 hrs/year.
Second, there's nothing wrong with a Beech 18, Waco biplane or a T-6. I have a coworker that owns a biplane and loves flying it. Says it's a blast. I know more than one person that flies a T-6, but I think only one them owns the T-6 they fly, and they all love flying them. So, while those planes aren't for me, there is a segment of the pilot population that loves them. Mind you, I don't dislike those planes, they just don't do what I want from a plane. Ok the Beech 18 would do it. I'm sure a Waco would be a hoot to fly, but I'm not much for going up and flying around in circles. Been there, done that. Occasionally it's fun, but only occasionally.
I travel via general aviation. My family has taken trips in a Cessna 172, Commander 112A, Arrow, SR22 and Baron 58; we've flown in few others but not as much as those. Out of that mix I'll take the SR22. Yeah, the Baron will haul more, but in 2 years of flying it I've needed more than what the SR22 will do only 3 times. I also fly Angel Flight missions. The SR22 works great for that too. The passengers seem to like getting into a slick new plane much better than a 40+ year old plane, not having a yoke in front of them (for a front seat passenger) or sitting backwards in the seats in the Baron. Getting into the back of the Baron is really easy though with the big double doors. That was very helpful for a gentleman with mobility issues. Otherwise the Cirrus is easier to get in and out of than pretty much any other plane I've flown. The 112A is a close comparison as it has two doors as well, but the SR22 entry is a little easier than the 112A.
I have flown the SR22 with three and four on many flights. That includes day trips, including seeing a college bowl game, and week long trips with luggage. The kids have done their homework in the back seat during their high school and college years. Will a SR22 carry four 200+ lb men and hunting gear or four sets of golf clubs? No. Well, it might taxi around the airport, but there wouldn't be fuel for flying.
The Baron 58 I'm flying would do it, but I've made that type of trip exactly zero times. We don't haul a lot of luggage with us whether we're going via SR22, Baron or Delta. When I want to go with my wife and/or kids to Miami for a long weekend or New Orleans the SR22 is a great way to get there and back again. Heck, when we've gone to Cape Cod and back from Atlanta it's just as fast if not faster in the SR22 than commercial, because I can use a small airport on the Cape. The PA30 will do it as well, and so will many other general aviation planes.I like to fly on trips. I get to do more of them if my passengers, especially my wife, also enjoys flying in these small planes. The passengers seem to like the SR22. I'm sure they'd love a PC12 or biz jet even more, but I don't have the bucks for that.
On a warm spring or fall day flying low and slow the SR22 is no where near as much fun as doing the same in the Waco. There's just no comparison. The Waco wins that hands down.
While I'm working on putting a SR22 partnership together, it just doesn't look like it will happen. There's interest, but not enough commitment. I don't have the available capital to buy one and wait for partners right now. I have another opportunity on a Mooney partnership and I may do that. I don't just fly SR22s, even though I do enjoy flying them.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
I was not at all. The OP was asking about the cost difference between the Cirrus and a Twin Comanche. I was simply pointing out what is a reality for me is that for the capital it would require to purchase a new Cirrus, I could afford my three airplanes. That is absolute truth.Good grief. You are comparing the price of decades old planes, including a biplane to the price of a brand new Cirrus?*sigh*
*sigh*
And stop acting like you’ve been personally attacked when I was simply clarifying MY perspective.
I never in this thread told the OP that he should think like me. I simply explained and qualified why I feel the way I do about the two airplanes.
Last edited:
I in no way thought you were personally attacking me.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,351
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
The Cirrus is probably going to be viewed as more comfortable by more folks, just by the seat design alone. The cabin is a little wider. Baggage is comparable. Two doors is a nice feature.
It's subjective of course. In my TwinCo I can slide my seats back so far that I can practically lay down. Width is fine for someone my size - I'm 5'9" and broad-shouldered. Overall the cabin is probably a wash, but the seats and doors are a net plus to the Cirrus.
I disagree about the operating costs. I think it would be less expensive to operate a Twin Comanche. It's not that hard to maintain this airplane. The systems are very simple. I don't work on my own plane. It gets some minor maintenance each year, and an annual, of course. Mostly I just pull it out of the hangar and fly it. Parts are easy to get and not overly expensive. I burn a comparable amount of gas for two engines vs. the Cirrus' one. I've only been AOG'd once or twice since I bought it in 2000, and I've flown the hell out of it.
Also a lot less expensive to buy a Twin Comanche, all things being equal, which they're not of course.
I'd leave all the subjective factors about appeal (or lack thereof) for the Cirrus or any other airplane out of it. Each person will have their own opinions on those matters. Personally I think they're nice looking aircraft, although I do 'get' the argument that they're a bit generic. (shrug) Whatever.
The line for safety, redundancy and reliability are drawn at different points on the spectrum for different people, and in terms of importance aren't weighted evenly across every aircraft buyer, as is clearly evidenced by this thread.
I had an interesting chat with a pilot colleague of mine tonight -- my fellow crewmember -- we're both in Stockholm, Sweden at the moment, flying back to the States tomorrow evening. He's a light aircraft owners also, owns a Mooney. We were talking about how we use our airplanes. We both wondered how much money to pour into our various avionics projects on our airplanes (I'm doing a second G5 and watching the GFC500 STC list for the PA-30 to be added, along with upgrading my JPI EDM-760 to the 790 model and a few other minor upgrades) while he's about to add a GTX345 for ADS-B In/Out. We both opined about the possibility of upgrading to a bigger/more capable airplane in the next few years, something with anti-ice capability and a bit more payload capacity. He was considering a 310R, I was thinking a Baron 58... twins for us both, in similar categories. He likes his Mooney but mostly flies it VFR, or the occasional vanilla IFR.
For both of us, the conversation was oriented purely around the utility of what we could use the plane for, and living in the northeast, we both targeted larger "light" twins with anti-ice capability. He seems likely to be leaving the world of single-engine piston aviation behind with his next upgrade, whenever that may occur (his previous airplane was a Cessna 182.)
I like going places in my personal aircraft. Love teaching in the Piper Cub. Loved teaching acro in the Pitts, Citabria and the Super Decathlon. Enjoyed transitioning pilots into the Cirrus. But my specific desire is a magic carpet which comes as close as possible to being able to take me anyplace, anytime, with redundant systems across the board backing me up, from electrical to powerplant to avionics.
But if my goal was to pleasure cruise and enjoy a simple airplane with minimal proficiency requirements I might have a very different picture in mind. And if I was back to acro I'd obviously be shopping for an aerobatic ship.
Our missions really shape what we do with our money and how we select the airplanes we fly.
It's subjective of course. In my TwinCo I can slide my seats back so far that I can practically lay down. Width is fine for someone my size - I'm 5'9" and broad-shouldered. Overall the cabin is probably a wash, but the seats and doors are a net plus to the Cirrus.
I disagree about the operating costs. I think it would be less expensive to operate a Twin Comanche. It's not that hard to maintain this airplane. The systems are very simple. I don't work on my own plane. It gets some minor maintenance each year, and an annual, of course. Mostly I just pull it out of the hangar and fly it. Parts are easy to get and not overly expensive. I burn a comparable amount of gas for two engines vs. the Cirrus' one. I've only been AOG'd once or twice since I bought it in 2000, and I've flown the hell out of it.
Also a lot less expensive to buy a Twin Comanche, all things being equal, which they're not of course.
I'd leave all the subjective factors about appeal (or lack thereof) for the Cirrus or any other airplane out of it. Each person will have their own opinions on those matters. Personally I think they're nice looking aircraft, although I do 'get' the argument that they're a bit generic. (shrug) Whatever.
The line for safety, redundancy and reliability are drawn at different points on the spectrum for different people, and in terms of importance aren't weighted evenly across every aircraft buyer, as is clearly evidenced by this thread.
I had an interesting chat with a pilot colleague of mine tonight -- my fellow crewmember -- we're both in Stockholm, Sweden at the moment, flying back to the States tomorrow evening. He's a light aircraft owners also, owns a Mooney. We were talking about how we use our airplanes. We both wondered how much money to pour into our various avionics projects on our airplanes (I'm doing a second G5 and watching the GFC500 STC list for the PA-30 to be added, along with upgrading my JPI EDM-760 to the 790 model and a few other minor upgrades) while he's about to add a GTX345 for ADS-B In/Out. We both opined about the possibility of upgrading to a bigger/more capable airplane in the next few years, something with anti-ice capability and a bit more payload capacity. He was considering a 310R, I was thinking a Baron 58... twins for us both, in similar categories. He likes his Mooney but mostly flies it VFR, or the occasional vanilla IFR.
For both of us, the conversation was oriented purely around the utility of what we could use the plane for, and living in the northeast, we both targeted larger "light" twins with anti-ice capability. He seems likely to be leaving the world of single-engine piston aviation behind with his next upgrade, whenever that may occur (his previous airplane was a Cessna 182.)
I like going places in my personal aircraft. Love teaching in the Piper Cub. Loved teaching acro in the Pitts, Citabria and the Super Decathlon. Enjoyed transitioning pilots into the Cirrus. But my specific desire is a magic carpet which comes as close as possible to being able to take me anyplace, anytime, with redundant systems across the board backing me up, from electrical to powerplant to avionics.
But if my goal was to pleasure cruise and enjoy a simple airplane with minimal proficiency requirements I might have a very different picture in mind. And if I was back to acro I'd obviously be shopping for an aerobatic ship.
Our missions really shape what we do with our money and how we select the airplanes we fly.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
I'm a Piper owner, but as someone who was in the process of researching an upgrade to the Arrow, I have to disagree with that characterization of the Comanche (both single and twin) line. I realize I'm not going to convince you as a twinkie owner, but it is simply not true that the twinkie is cheap to keep on an ongoing basis when compared to better source-supported category peers, and the OP could benefit from further internalizing that.
I can't paste the entire exchange, but @Kristin had an exchange with another frequent poster in the Piper specific forum, and conceded that point on the mx front as a twinkie owner herself. To be fair, this was in the context of a discussion about Miller modded TwinCos and why them (and twincos in general) are not favored in the flight training environment (an honor that is usually bestowed to the Seminole and Seneca Is for these very mx-conscious reasons, cruise performance be damned). There was even the insinuation that an Apache or Aztec would be less costly to maintain, something even I consider specious, considering another contributor on here @GRG55 actually hangars a cannibal in order to keep his Aztec flying! Which is the antithesis of "dispatch rate" and "cheap to keep" to me.
Some of the highlights:
"Comanche fuel selectors ($5-10K), landing gear trunnions ($4K), gear motors and transmissions ($1500-3500) will be wear items <....> All of those are obsolete parts, hard to obtain, and very expensive. By expensive I mean thousands, not hundreds of dollars. Add in the 1000 hr gear inspection at $4000-7000, required by AD, and you have some significant expenses to budget."
And on a Twinco specific thread comparing it to a Seneca II for a private owner:
"You will miss stuff. I can't really tell you how to tell if the landing gear is any good. You have to have worked with them and had them apart. Don't trust the logbook entry for the 1000 hour gear inspection unless it is specific that it complied with paragraph A of AD 77-13-21 or SL 782. There are AD's on the ailerons that are not always complied with properly even though signed off.
You will want to look to see if the landing gear transmission is a Dura or a Dukes and if the former, check for end play in the jackscrew. If the landing gear transmission makes too much noise, it might need an overhaul. That can run a couple of K. Firewall cracks are possible, as are cracks in the floor supports. There can be internal corrosion in the fuel selectors which should be checked. The bladder tanks can leak and that needs to be checked for. There are two AD's on the heater, but probably the same on the Seneca. There is a rear bulkhead AD that can be terminated or needs a recurring inspection. There is the Hi-Shear rivet replacement AD which is often signed off and terminated when it has not been terminated completely.
Those are a few things off the top of my head. I urge you to get someone to look at the logs and the plane that knows it well."
Though I could make the point you could find similar narratives for the 23/27 airframe (something they didn't really dove into in those threads), you're not gonna find the kind of onerous mx demands on an SR22 airframe and components by a long shot. It's just not even close. Even a Seminole looks like a darling on that front, and contrary to popular myth, the things do make 150KTAS+ cruise, flight training-inflated pricing notwithstanding.
Now, your point about the overall cost compared to capitalizing an SR22, I do 100% agree with you. In the narrow context of the OPs interest in rather-limited non-BRS options, it would yield a Twinkie as the answer here. Me, I'd go for a Lance, even a turbo one, and have a ton of money left for opex and mx, but that's neither here nor there.
Caveat emptor.
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,351
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
Thanks for the reply. Not my goal to pick apart your comments here, because the spirit of what you're saying has merit, but I have to apply my experience as well.
It is, of course, a basic truth that as planes age go out of manufacture and age that they will cost more to maintain, both in money and time. But that's true of a huge number of airplane types which are still flying.
The Twin Comanche was compared against an SR-22, not other light twins or singles. As a basic comparison it doesn't lend itself to neat analysis because of all of the differences... but that was the question posed by the OP based on his decision tree at the time.
In my 18 years of ownership I've never replaced any of the following:
- landing gear trunion
- fuel selector
- gear motor/transmission
My gear AD has been performed once in that time, by Bill Turley in Bartow, Florida. He is regarded as the gold standard when it comes to the PA30 gear AD, and the cost was $3500.
You also mentioned...
- firewall cracks. These are not common and I'm not personally familiar with any PA30 owner who has had this problem (and I know many.)
- internal corrosion of the fuel system. You must be referencing the strainer bowls that can rust if not removed and cleaned per the MM schedule? In any case, this "corrosion" consists of rusty screens, a problem I've never had personally, but would be corrected easily. The rest of the system isn't prone to any sort of corrosion. Neither is the entire plane for that matter, it was zinc-chromated top to bottom at the factory so corrosion is extremely rare on all Comanches -- not so for the Comanche's replacements, the Arrow or Seneca, many of which have since succumbed to corrosion while the Comanche line soldiers on.
- the heater AD is a pressure check every 50 hours of heater operation, and can be terminated if desired. I need this done every 5 or so years, and it takes about an hour of shop labor. I do it every other annual just to be safe (it's cheap.)
- the bladder tanks are made of rubber and will eventually degrade over time as will all bladder tanks. When they leak it's time to replace them. If maintained properly and fuel is kept in the tanks they tend to last 15-20 years a pop, though some have gone as long as 25 years. I've replaced my bladders once, in 2004. This is not a Comanche-specific issue.
- rear bulkhead AD. I don't know this one off the top of my head, whatever it is was probably terminated fleet-wide for the most part.
- rivet replacement AD. Never heard of this one either, so it can't be very common, whatever it is.
My point isn't to doggedly defend the PA-30, but to suggest it's a quagmire of maintenance problems just ain't so... it's a very simple airplane, easy to maintain, easy to get parts, easy to find support. The IO-320s are common engines, all the components are common, props as well. No harder to maintain than any other older complex aircraft, and arguably easier and less expensive than most. PA-30 owners tend to be owners in part because of what you can do with it, which is comparatively speaking, a lot for a little. It's an excellent value proposition.
If you need a new wing or something, you'll be hitting the salvage yards for that. Yes, you can find them.
I would agree that it's not a the best possible training platform for primary multiengine training but that has nothing to do with maintenance issues. It's because of the laminar flow wing and efficient design which lends itself to traveling, not training.
It will be easier to maintain an SR-22, obviously. Lots of service centers, lots of copies of the airplane flying, it's still in production, etc. It will also be substantially pricier to keep running, but that's no surprise.
The proper characterization for any older airplane is that it will be more maintenance-intensive than a new, still in production aircraft. It's not any substantially harder to keep a Twin Comanche going than it is a Seneca I or II. It's arguably easier to keep running than a Cessna 310... that's based on my experience, observing fellow owners with PA-30s and these other aforementioned light twins.
Take it or leave it, everyone's experiences are their own, but I've lived and breathed PA-30s since 2000 so I know of what I speak.
It is, of course, a basic truth that as planes age go out of manufacture and age that they will cost more to maintain, both in money and time. But that's true of a huge number of airplane types which are still flying.
The Twin Comanche was compared against an SR-22, not other light twins or singles. As a basic comparison it doesn't lend itself to neat analysis because of all of the differences... but that was the question posed by the OP based on his decision tree at the time.
In my 18 years of ownership I've never replaced any of the following:
- landing gear trunion
- fuel selector
- gear motor/transmission
My gear AD has been performed once in that time, by Bill Turley in Bartow, Florida. He is regarded as the gold standard when it comes to the PA30 gear AD, and the cost was $3500.
You also mentioned...
- firewall cracks. These are not common and I'm not personally familiar with any PA30 owner who has had this problem (and I know many.)
- internal corrosion of the fuel system. You must be referencing the strainer bowls that can rust if not removed and cleaned per the MM schedule? In any case, this "corrosion" consists of rusty screens, a problem I've never had personally, but would be corrected easily. The rest of the system isn't prone to any sort of corrosion. Neither is the entire plane for that matter, it was zinc-chromated top to bottom at the factory so corrosion is extremely rare on all Comanches -- not so for the Comanche's replacements, the Arrow or Seneca, many of which have since succumbed to corrosion while the Comanche line soldiers on.
- the heater AD is a pressure check every 50 hours of heater operation, and can be terminated if desired. I need this done every 5 or so years, and it takes about an hour of shop labor. I do it every other annual just to be safe (it's cheap.)
- the bladder tanks are made of rubber and will eventually degrade over time as will all bladder tanks. When they leak it's time to replace them. If maintained properly and fuel is kept in the tanks they tend to last 15-20 years a pop, though some have gone as long as 25 years. I've replaced my bladders once, in 2004. This is not a Comanche-specific issue.
- rear bulkhead AD. I don't know this one off the top of my head, whatever it is was probably terminated fleet-wide for the most part.
- rivet replacement AD. Never heard of this one either, so it can't be very common, whatever it is.
My point isn't to doggedly defend the PA-30, but to suggest it's a quagmire of maintenance problems just ain't so... it's a very simple airplane, easy to maintain, easy to get parts, easy to find support. The IO-320s are common engines, all the components are common, props as well. No harder to maintain than any other older complex aircraft, and arguably easier and less expensive than most. PA-30 owners tend to be owners in part because of what you can do with it, which is comparatively speaking, a lot for a little. It's an excellent value proposition.
If you need a new wing or something, you'll be hitting the salvage yards for that. Yes, you can find them.
I would agree that it's not a the best possible training platform for primary multiengine training but that has nothing to do with maintenance issues. It's because of the laminar flow wing and efficient design which lends itself to traveling, not training.
It will be easier to maintain an SR-22, obviously. Lots of service centers, lots of copies of the airplane flying, it's still in production, etc. It will also be substantially pricier to keep running, but that's no surprise.
The proper characterization for any older airplane is that it will be more maintenance-intensive than a new, still in production aircraft. It's not any substantially harder to keep a Twin Comanche going than it is a Seneca I or II. It's arguably easier to keep running than a Cessna 310... that's based on my experience, observing fellow owners with PA-30s and these other aforementioned light twins.
Take it or leave it, everyone's experiences are their own, but I've lived and breathed PA-30s since 2000 so I know of what I speak.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think if you maintain your airplane well, which it seems you do, then the nightmare situations tend not to develop. But if you buy an airplane where the previous owner pinched pennies on everything and deferred, then you can end up with a nightmare on your hands. That can happen to either airplane.
FormerHangie
En-Route
If you check FlightAware on any weekday you'll almost always see that the SR22 is the most common GA airplane during the hours that business flying is done. The Skyhawk is usually second, I assume most of these are training flights. You also see a reasonable number of Bonanzas, and a few Barons as well. There are still some Navajos, which I assume are mostly not owner flown.
That's not to say one is better than the other, and I have no opinion in this matter,but the marketplace has spoken.
That's not to say one is better than the other, and I have no opinion in this matter,but the marketplace has spoken.
Kristin
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,659
- Location
- Twin Cities
- Display Name
Display name:
Kristin (The Aviatrix)
The drift down service ceiling at near gross in my Twinkie is between 7-8,000 MSL. The drift down is so slow that one can cover a lot of territory, even if you are over the high desert on the hottest day imaginable.
Kristin
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,659
- Location
- Twin Cities
- Display Name
Display name:
Kristin (The Aviatrix)
Since some of my writing on Twinkies has been posted here, I thought I ought to comment as I don't want it thought that I would chose an SR-22 over a Twin Comanche and that I am not sure that was made clear.
I expect that there will be lots of SR-22's who will have been shredded as reaching their life limit while my plane will still be flying. It is a CAR3 airframe which offers repair options unavailable to a FAR 23 certified aircraft. Hence, 50 years older bothers me not in the least. And when damaged, it is much easier to repair.
Main reason I like the Twin Comanche over the Cirrus is that it is the most economical twin available and notwithstanding the claim that one is better off floating down under a chute than in a twin, I am not buying that the same could be said comparing an SR-22 with a Twin Comanche. Stats that aggregate twins is intellectually interesting, but irrelevant as I am not flying an aggregate twin. Further, I am flying in the west. Now I am on an island where it doesn't matter if you have a chute. Either the terrain is too rough or the water too cold. I am much, much more comfortable with two reliable baby Lycoming engines than one big Continental which is not nearly as reliable.
I expect that there will be lots of SR-22's who will have been shredded as reaching their life limit while my plane will still be flying. It is a CAR3 airframe which offers repair options unavailable to a FAR 23 certified aircraft. Hence, 50 years older bothers me not in the least. And when damaged, it is much easier to repair.
Main reason I like the Twin Comanche over the Cirrus is that it is the most economical twin available and notwithstanding the claim that one is better off floating down under a chute than in a twin, I am not buying that the same could be said comparing an SR-22 with a Twin Comanche. Stats that aggregate twins is intellectually interesting, but irrelevant as I am not flying an aggregate twin. Further, I am flying in the west. Now I am on an island where it doesn't matter if you have a chute. Either the terrain is too rough or the water too cold. I am much, much more comfortable with two reliable baby Lycoming engines than one big Continental which is not nearly as reliable.
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,351
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
Thanks Kristin... eloquent and to the point as always. I agree 100% of course.
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,351
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
Yeah, I get that question a lot. My answer is:
"I can fly this airplane in level flight at about 5,000 MSL at nearly max gross weight, on one engine, indefinitely -- which means until I run out of fuel." The published service ceiling is higher, but I "count on" 5,000 feet. That's more than enough.
For me that means full fuel, four people (two of which are teenagers), and more bags than I can currently carry --I'm about 75 lbs. under MGW with my kids, wife, and full vacation baggage with all four tanks topped off.
That's indefinite level flight on one engine. I don't think that fully registers with people who don't fly twins. You lose an engine in cruise flight, and it's just not an emergency most of the time. You have plenty of time to decide what you'll do and where you'll go, which may still be your original destination. You get a bit spoiled when you fly with two engines. You're never scanning the ground for an emergency landing field like you do in a single. You're not accepting a "wet footprint" from the moment you start out over the waters of Lake Michigan. From a safety standpoint I'd much rather lose an engine than blow a tire on takeoff... the tire is a much bigger challenge than the loss of a redundant power source.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the decision-making here, but one pilot I'm familiar with flew most of the way to Staniel Cay (I think; it may have been a different outlying Bahamian island) when he had an engine failure. Rather than land there and deal with almost impossible-to-solve maintenance challenges he turned around and flew all the way back to South Florida on his good engine. Talk about options...
Singles are popular because they're generally less expensive to operate, and they fit the proficiency profile of the average GA pilot. I say that completely without disparagement. If I didn't fly as much as I do it's perfectly possible I'd put myself in that category, too. A light twin is still a relatively complicated machine, and there are a few small windows in which the right decision means life or death. If a pilot doesn't trust him or herself to react correctly in that regime, it's best to remove all of those decisions from the tree and just fly a single-engine airplane.
My main comment on the whole matter is just to fly the equipment you have appropriately.
genna
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2015
- Messages
- 1,721
- Display Name
Display name:
ТУ-104
I've been reading this for a while and it's interesting that everyone seems to focus on an engine loss as a primary cause of bad things happening in GA. There are other causes for accidents and in many of these that extra engine isn't helpful. And I realize that the comparison of twin and BRS single is rather silly most of the time. I'd love to fly a twin if i could afford to stay proficient in it.
I found this FAA presentation from 2012 on top 10 causes of fatal GA accidents
https://www.slideshare.net/southern...iationAdministrationGeneral_Aviation_Accident
While a lot of these can be dealt with by training, experience, and just better ADM, assuming that one screwed up and got oneself into a situation below, not everything can be solved by a redundant engine. And graveyards are full of pilots that should have known better but chose to continue into something they shouldn't have. Number 1 is a loss of control in flight. I don't think any extra engine would help. Or anything else for that matter. BRS gives you a chance.
1. Loss of Control in Flight. Advantage BRS
2. CFIT. Push
3. System Component failure(engine related). Advantage Twin
4. Low altitude operations. Twin may have advantage with higher climb rates
5. Unknown/Undetermined. Can’t judge since we don’t know what happened
6. Other: IAP, Track and altitude flown. Contributing: Non rated pilots. Push with BSR advantage for non-IR/over-his-head pilot
7. Fuel related. Advantage BRS
8. System Component failure(non-engine related). Advantage BRS. Although, i suppose some of these can be solved by system redundancy.
9. Midair collisions. Advantage BRS(slight)
10. Thunderstorms/Windshear. Probably a push… Heavier twins might have some advantage that is not engine related
edit: corrected "BRS"
I found this FAA presentation from 2012 on top 10 causes of fatal GA accidents
https://www.slideshare.net/southern...iationAdministrationGeneral_Aviation_Accident
While a lot of these can be dealt with by training, experience, and just better ADM, assuming that one screwed up and got oneself into a situation below, not everything can be solved by a redundant engine. And graveyards are full of pilots that should have known better but chose to continue into something they shouldn't have. Number 1 is a loss of control in flight. I don't think any extra engine would help. Or anything else for that matter. BRS gives you a chance.
1. Loss of Control in Flight. Advantage BRS
2. CFIT. Push
3. System Component failure(engine related). Advantage Twin
4. Low altitude operations. Twin may have advantage with higher climb rates
5. Unknown/Undetermined. Can’t judge since we don’t know what happened
6. Other: IAP, Track and altitude flown. Contributing: Non rated pilots. Push with BSR advantage for non-IR/over-his-head pilot
7. Fuel related. Advantage BRS
8. System Component failure(non-engine related). Advantage BRS. Although, i suppose some of these can be solved by system redundancy.
9. Midair collisions. Advantage BRS(slight)
10. Thunderstorms/Windshear. Probably a push… Heavier twins might have some advantage that is not engine related
edit: corrected "BRS"
Last edited:
olasek
Pattern Altitude
Disagree strongly, I find Cirrus' interior fit/finish/design much superior to Cessna's, can't talk about Beechcraft never flew one, never sat in one. But having made transition recently to a Cirrus I promised myself to never fly piston Cessnas, Pipers again. And this extra 4" in cabin width is a big relief, I no longer have to be elbow-to-elbow with my front seat passenger, not to mention far superior forward visibility.
CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
Maybe he flew an "older" Cirrus? If so, maybe the older ones weren't like the new ones in terms of interior fit and finish. Idk. I have only sat in the newer ones (2014 and on) and I agree with you that the Cirrus has an interior that is leagues above any other manufacturer I have sat in (talking GA piston singles similar to the Cirrus). The most recent SR22T I sat in was a 2017 I believe and WOW. Felt like I was sitting in a Bentley. It was so much nicer than the new Mooney (I'm not a Mooney hater, I like Mooneys...). I haven't sat in a new TTx so I can't compare to that.
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,351
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
I'm a little surprised by your conclusion here... this is actually a fairly old presentation which I've watched before (2012) and just watched again. It's not bad. The "Top 10 causes of GA accidents" gets re-tabulated and re-oriented each year by different groups. For example, Flight Safety Foundation's Top 10 is different from NBAA's, which is different from AOPA's Nall Report. But most of the familiar players can be found in most of the normal categories.
Number 3 on Tony James' list is System Component Failure / Powerplant, "single drive mags, cylinders, valves, cam/crankshafts, pumps, and other components," which is a who's who of all the popular ways a powerplant can fail in such a manner that the result is power loss, either full or partial. My several issues in turbojet issues were all component or system related (two oil, one bleed air) and those engines are far more reliable than pistons... yet they were either imminently going to fail, or shut down as a precaution due to component failures. In other words, this is still a pretty big deal, piston engine/component failures still kill plenty of people, and system redundancy (number 8 on your list) will still save your bacon.
Regarding chutes, I assume you are referring to BRS (not BSR), i.e. CAPS in the Cirrus and airframe parachutes in general. LOC-I is not a catch-all for BRS. I don't have the number handy, but the majority of the LOC-Is are from low altitude, out of the parameters for the chute to be of help.
I think the BRS has one outstanding application, which is spatial disorientation (presumably in IMC.) Other than structural failure, which is exceedingly rare, I can't think of too many other situations in which the BRS would be of benefit over the availability of a second powerplant, to a pilot proficient in multiengine aircraft.
The majority of the Top 10 come from poor preflight planning, risk management and ADM. That's where the greatest gains are to be had in GA safety and that's the area in which I focus primarily. For pilots who are already conscientious about such matters, the risk of equipment failure becomes a more prominent player in decision-making. It's not a one-size-fits-all box, by any stretch of the imagination, but I've been convinced for a long time that multiengine redundancy has contributed to my ability to safely enjoy aviation the way I want to.
genna
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2015
- Messages
- 1,721
- Display Name
Display name:
ТУ-104
BRS
.. Something at work is called "bsr" The ratios may differ now and when i say "advantage" it does not mean that BRS will save you 100% guaranteed(nor having second engine is guaranteed to save you in all engine out situations). However, it gives you some probability of survival. LOC-I may mostly be at low altitude, but even at 400ft BRS may save your life. Having 2 powerplants isn't going to make any difference. Check out midair collision in FDK... low altitude, both occupants survived.
Sure, better ADM, risk management and planning would eliminate vast majority of these accidents. I said that in my post. But it doesn't. People are people, we make bonehead decisions and fatal mistakes. Nobody is immune. Risk management not withstanding. We are also very bad in abstract risk management(or abstract anything else) in general. Fight or Flight we are good at. Predicting risk... not so much. Evolution. Entire industries and economies are based on that fact. In some of these bonehead situations(ran out of fuel, fire, electrical failure, controls failure are just some of the examples) you have an option not to risk forced landing but to use a chute.
p.s. i fly without parachute most of the time
Skepilot
Pre-takeoff checklist
And, for all those who question why I'm comparing these two types, that's precisely why; the Twin Comanche is the most economical twin available. I would really love to have a twin, and the Twin Comanche is the only one I can think of that stands a fighting chance of comparing favorably in operating costs to a fast single.
For now, due to limited time availability for pleasure flying, it really only makes economic sense for me to join a partnership or rent. Since I haven't found any Twin Comanche partnerships or rentals, I'll be flying an SR22 for the near term. But, I could definitely see me owning a PA30/39 when I retire from airline flying. (Of course, the newest ones will be 60+ years old by then, so we'll see!)
Don't forget. Two engines mean you have roughly TWICE the chance of an engine failing.
Run two engines, probability of one engine failing is the probability of engine 1 failing PLUS the probability of engine 2 failing (minus the probability of BOTH engines failing which in this case can be ignored because it is in the +- error).
Run two engines, probability of one engine failing is the probability of engine 1 failing PLUS the probability of engine 2 failing (minus the probability of BOTH engines failing which in this case can be ignored because it is in the +- error).
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,351
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
Right on... it made sense to me from the get-go. And that's the same reason I own a Twin Comanche. It's the only light twin which I can a) afford to both purchase and operate, b) offers true safety benefits in terms of powerplant and system redundancy, and c) is fairly comparable to most NA high performance singles. To the best of my knowledge the most comparable light twin would be the Beech TravelAir, which my uncle owns, but it burns quite a bit more fuel. I consider the PA-30 to be a significantly better performer in all categories compared to the Duchess and Seminole.
I've always thought of it as a poor man's Baron. It's 3/4 the airplane for 1/2 the price... or less.
You can go a little faster in a NA Cirrus, but not any farther really, and not with any greater payload. (In fact, MGTW is the same in both the PA-30 and the Cirrus -- 3600 lbs.) To be able to do it all for less, and with two engines at that, makes it an option worth serious consideration.
The SR-22 is a beautiful ship, and not a bad choice either... fully understand your thinking and decision-making on that one.
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,351
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
Statistically, that may be true, but it sounds more onerous than it really is. If your odds of winning a given lottery are about 1:10,000, and you buy two lottery tickets instead of one, you've just doubled your chances of winning... right? But the odds are still quite slim. However, the consequences for that engine failure are quite a bit different when it's your ONLY engine.
An engine failure in a twin is, most often, just an inconvenience.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
You can disagree all you want, but I thought the build quality (fit and finish) of the 2015 airplane I flew was mediocre at best.
4” more cabin may help with elbow room, but didn’t keep my legs/knees from rubbing.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
The real test is to sit in the same airplane in 2-3 years and see how impressed you are with the interior.
olasek
Pattern Altitude
I have been sitting in one for 3 months, about 3 times per week and so far I would rather spend another 10 years in this than in a Skyhawk/Archer where I spent previous 10 years. And in an unlikely event I develop a Cirrus phobia - old school aircraft are only 100 feet away.
Kristin
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,659
- Location
- Twin Cities
- Display Name
Display name:
Kristin (The Aviatrix)
People worry excessively about age. DC-3's are older still. The issue is dispatch reliability. I know of Twin Comanche airframes that have done 10K hours of cloud seeding. That is more brutal than most of us fly in. The same airframe design features are present in the Navajos -- same design team in Lock Haven -- and there are Navajos with over 35K hours flying around Alaska. I don't know if there is a practical life limit to the airframe.
I have criss-crossed the entire country in mine and run up and down the west coast from San Diego to Anchorage, though not all in one day. My Twin has never stranded me in the 12 years I have had her. I have never bought a night in a hotel due to a squawk. The closest I can was losing my AI in IMC, but I have a back up. That just necessitated some expense shipping to swap it out the next morning. I am admittedly aggressive on maintenance and upgrading, but I don't worry about the basic airframe.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
True, although I would say I’d be more concerned with age as it relates to composite airframes than metal.