Twin Comanche, vs Geronimo/Aztec, vs SkyMaster

J

James the MEI

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Oct 28, 2019
Messages
13
Display Name
Display name:
James the MEI
Hello everybody,
My name is Jim,
I have just over 11,000 flight hours and experience in all three of the above aircraft, as well as many others.

I have been considering buying one of the above as a personal use airplane and I also LOVE providing flight instruction.

( My students 1) don't need to even MENTION "the ball" when they explain "Coordinated Flight" other than as an additional commentary, 2) dont need the ball at all to take off and climb while remaining coordinated, 3) NEVER have a doubt about putting it near the third stripe when performing the power off precision landing... 4) You DO...NOT....need an airspeed indicator to set "best glide" ( and be within PTS/ASC Standards) in ANY of the smaller Cessna's and Pipers.... I'm not bragging... but I am TRULY just PRAISING the wonderful old stick and rudder guys who taught me ! )

I might consider providing ME flight instruction in my airplane to reduce ownership costs, and I am aware of the " Centerline Thrust" limitations associated with training in the SkyMaster.

But I am also considering creating a "Flight Club" based on the airplane. ( insert pic of Ed Norton with black eye here).

And even a Flight Club has positives and negatives associated with each twin.

1) The Aztec is the slam dunk for docile flight and stout forgiving landing gear.
But has expensive fuel costs and those engines cost a lot to rebuild

2) The Twin Comanche is certainly a) THE economical cruising machine, b) the engines are much less expensive to replace and c) can be comfortable for two adults ( and may two smaller pax)
But the wing does require more "attention" in slower flight s/a Take off and Landing. And requires additional technique as well... ( On take off, allowing the a/c to float off the runway before Vmc and then holding it in ground effect until well above Vmc before allowing the a/c to climb.

3) The SkyMaster... ENGINE OUT SAFETY !!!...Many years ago, while in cruise flight, I did personally lose the rear engine due to fuel (tank) mismanagement and.... both I and the other pilots' initial response was... " hey did it get quieter in here?".... yes really.
And I have given dual instruction (in all three airplane types) )and for the SkyMaster per Engine Failure on Take Off after Rotation, LEAVING THE GEAR DOWN and climbing at Vyse always provided positive results. Also I am not convinced that the repair bills will be higher than the other planes, once the sins of previous owners and mechanics have been expelled.... And with noise cancelling headphones... the cabin noise is reasonable.

BUT ... the a/c weight vs the spindly landing gear.... hmm.


I have reasons for considering each of the above airplanes and, without experiencing the costs of MX I love each one of them, but I hope that getting opinions from actual OWNERS and/or experienced mechanics.... might provide the best insight.

Certainly the brokers and sales people will lean towards the benefits of the airplane they have to sell.

So if you would....
Would you please.... tell me what you love, like... and maybe some "I wish that this was better"?
And your "favorite mods" and "most cost effective mods" would also be highly appreciated.

If you would like to PLEASE p.m. me with you experience and advice too!

p.s. .... I have been a CFI, an Airline Pilot, a Director of Training for a Part 135 Scheduled Passenger Op, and Training Program Manager for one of the "Larger and well known Sim Based Flight Training Companies".....( and of course many other paycheck chasing strategies)... and By FAAAARRRR.... Teaching people to fly has been my FAVORITE "not a job" ever.

If you'd like... p.m. me and I will explain " coordination with no reference to the ball"... yes really.

Thank you very much
Jim
 
if you want to teach, besides the centerline thrust issue, both the twinkie and the 337 will have the problem of very, very few DPE's qualified to give a ride in one.
 
great response....
but I do have great relationships with the local DPEs.... so I expect that I could get them qualified
 
My reason for never having another Twin Comanche is that I like to help with the annual by removing and replacing all the panels for the AI. Too many screws! Can't imagine going through that more than once per year. (Maybe you could get a field approval to use velcro?) Besides, today's multi students are probably too fat muscle-bound to fit in one compared to back when the plane was designed. All that HFCS they swill at the fitness center, y'know.
 
What part of the country are you in? I've heard others say the Aztec handles icing conditions well. I imagine that the insurance on a multi (or single for that matter) for instruction must be pretty high.
 
dtuuri said:
My reason for never having another Twin Comanche is that I like to help with the annual by removing and replacing all the panels for the AI. Too many screws! Can't imagine going through that more than once per year. (Maybe you could get a field approval to use velcro?)...
Click to expand...

I think that's a feature of all Piper twins. My Aztec was no different (maybe worse?). It's pretty obvious they were all designed in the day when fasteners were dirt cheap and mechanics made 25 cents an hour.

One of the first things I did after buying the plane was this cowl modification:

http://www.aztecnomad.com/cowl_mod.html

It eliminates the need to disconnect the cowl flap linkages, deal with the air box or fuss with the nine #6 screws only accessible from the main gear wells on each side. Arguably the single best improvement I've made to the airplane, as it cut the time to uncowl each engine from an hour+ to about 15 minutes, and vastly reduced the time to put it all back together again.

James the MEI said:
...1) The Aztec is the slam dunk for docile flight and stout forgiving landing gear.
But has expensive fuel costs and those engines cost a lot to rebuild...
Click to expand...

The Aztec is a stout and comparatively forgiving airplane to train in and for low multi-time owners to fly. Even at my 4000 ASL home base it will climb on one engine with an instructor/student training load. This is part of the reason it moved to the top of my list when I was shopping for my own twin.

None of them are very expensive, and the 'C' and 'D' models in particular can be picked up pretty cheap these days. But a 12-cyl, true six-place airplane with close to 2000 lbs useful load is a lot of airplane as a dedicated daily twin trainer imo.

If you really need the performance of bigger engines because of altitude I'd probably be considering an O-470 equipped B55 Baron. Otherwise a Seminole or Duchess might be a better bet. Unless you can find a decent Geronimo conversion with 180 hp engines.

Challenged said:
...I've heard others say the Aztec handles icing conditions well...
Click to expand...

One would be hard pressed to find a piston twin better than the Aztec in this regard. I live in the Rockies, and this was another reason the Aztec crept to the top of my selection criteria list.
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of your decision should be on acquisition or operating cost. For the most part the 337 and Aztec will have a lower purchase price but higher operating cost. If flight training is on the agenda then I would strike the 337 off the list, just doesn't make sense. Flight training is typically hard on engines so I would chose the one with the lowest operating cost though the TC might be very expensive to ensure. Seems like a Beechcraft Travelair is more what you need than the others.
 
There is a nice Skymaster for sale .Hangered at KSBX . Don't know asking price. Just heard it was for sale from the airport manager. I do know the owner.
My cousin worked for Cessna many years ago . The Skymaster was his favorite twin.
 
James the MEI said:
Hello everybody,
My name is Jim,
I have just over 11,000 flight hours and experience in all three of the above aircraft, as well as many others.

I have been considering buying one of the above as a personal use airplane and I also LOVE providing flight instruction.

( My students 1) don't need to even MENTION "the ball" when they explain "Coordinated Flight" other than as an additional commentary, 2) dont need the ball at all to take off and climb while remaining coordinated, 3) NEVER have a doubt about putting it near the third stripe when performing the power off precision landing... 4) You DO...NOT....need an airspeed indicator to set "best glide" ( and be within PTS/ASC Standards) in ANY of the smaller Cessna's and Pipers.... I'm not bragging... but I am TRULY just PRAISING the wonderful old stick and rudder guys who taught me ! )

I might consider providing ME flight instruction in my airplane to reduce ownership costs, and I am aware of the " Centerline Thrust" limitations associated with training in the SkyMaster.

But I am also considering creating a "Flight Club" based on the airplane. ( insert pic of Ed Norton with black eye here).

And even a Flight Club has positives and negatives associated with each twin.

1) The Aztec is the slam dunk for docile flight and stout forgiving landing gear.
But has expensive fuel costs and those engines cost a lot to rebuild

2) The Twin Comanche is certainly a) THE economical cruising machine, b) the engines are much less expensive to replace and c) can be comfortable for two adults ( and may two smaller pax)
But the wing does require more "attention" in slower flight s/a Take off and Landing. And requires additional technique as well... ( On take off, allowing the a/c to float off the runway before Vmc and then holding it in ground effect until well above Vmc before allowing the a/c to climb.

3) The SkyMaster... ENGINE OUT SAFETY !!!...Many years ago, while in cruise flight, I did personally lose the rear engine due to fuel (tank) mismanagement and.... both I and the other pilots' initial response was... " hey did it get quieter in here?".... yes really.
And I have given dual instruction (in all three airplane types) )and for the SkyMaster per Engine Failure on Take Off after Rotation, LEAVING THE GEAR DOWN and climbing at Vyse always provided positive results. Also I am not convinced that the repair bills will be higher than the other planes, once the sins of previous owners and mechanics have been expelled.... And with noise cancelling headphones... the cabin noise is reasonable.

BUT ... the a/c weight vs the spindly landing gear.... hmm.


I have reasons for considering each of the above airplanes and, without experiencing the costs of MX I love each one of them, but I hope that getting opinions from actual OWNERS and/or experienced mechanics.... might provide the best insight.

Certainly the brokers and sales people will lean towards the benefits of the airplane they have to sell.

So if you would....
Would you please.... tell me what you love, like... and maybe some "I wish that this was better"?
And your "favorite mods" and "most cost effective mods" would also be highly appreciated.

If you would like to PLEASE p.m. me with you experience and advice too!

p.s. .... I have been a CFI, an Airline Pilot, a Director of Training for a Part 135 Scheduled Passenger Op, and Training Program Manager for one of the "Larger and well known Sim Based Flight Training Companies".....( and of course many other paycheck chasing strategies)... and By FAAAARRRR.... Teaching people to fly has been my FAVORITE "not a job" ever.

If you'd like... p.m. me and I will explain " coordination with no reference to the ball"... yes really.

Thank you very much
Jim
Click to expand...


Howdy Jim,
My name is Kevin,
I have just over 1,000 flight hours and experience in none of the above aircraft, as well as many others.

1) I don't need to even MENTION "the ball" when they explain "Coordinated Flight" other than as an additional commentary, because whenever I push the “YD” button that silly ball stays locked in the center
2) dont need the ball at all to take off and climb while remaining coordinated, as long as an engine doesn’t quit while IMC...
3) NEVER have a doubt about putting it near the third stripe when performing the power off precision landing...remember, NEAR is RELATIVE...report high key
4) You DO...NOT....need an airspeed indicator to set "best glide" ( and be within PTS/ASC Standards) in ANY of the Twin Cessna's.... I'm not bragging... but I am TRULY just referencing my Primary ASI, my secondary ASI, my tertiary ASI and if it gets real sideways my IAS button...PRAISING the wonderful new technology that’s made its way to GA cockpits!

I might consider providing ME flight instruction in my airplane if Angelina Jolie needs an ME add on.

But I am also considering creating a "Flight Club" based on the airplane...for those that can pass a very simple/easy check ride...

Thank you very much
Kevin

Jokes aside my vote is the Aztec. Unless you decide to train pilots for the AF that are stepping up to F15’s or other center line thrust birds. :)
 
Radar Contact said:
Howdy Jim,
My name is Kevin,
I have just over 1,000 flight hours and experience in none of the above aircraft, as well as many others.

1) I don't need to even MENTION "the ball" when they explain "Coordinated Flight" other than as an additional commentary, because whenever I push the “YD” button that silly ball stays locked in the center
2) dont need the ball at all to take off and climb while remaining coordinated, as long as an engine doesn’t quit while IMC...
3) NEVER have a doubt about putting it near the third stripe when performing the power off precision landing...remember, NEAR is RELATIVE...report high key
4) You DO...NOT....need an airspeed indicator to set "best glide" ( and be within PTS/ASC Standards) in ANY of the Twin Cessna's.... I'm not bragging... but I am TRULY just referencing my Primary ASI, my secondary ASI, my tertiary ASI and if it gets real sideways my IAS button...PRAISING the wonderful new technology that’s made its way to GA cockpits!

I might consider providing ME flight instruction in my airplane if Angelina Jolie needs an ME add on.

But I am also considering creating a "Flight Club" based on the airplane...for those that can pass a very simple/easy check ride...

Thank you very much
Kevin

Jokes aside my vote is the Aztec. Unless you decide to train pilots for the AF that are stepping up to F15’s or other center line thrust birds. :)
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
What you need, my friend, is a Grumman Cougar...if you can find one. But, also curious why you left an Apache/Geronimo off the list.
 
I have owned my Aztec for 20 years and during that time I owned a Twin Comanche for 5 years. Both are good flying machines. I have given instruction in both during that time. IMHO the Aztec is a better trainer, both for the student and for the person paying for maintenance. It is much more solidly built and more forgiving of students controlled crash landings. The difference in fuel burn in training is about 12 - 18 gph.
 
I would suggest you price out insurance for providing flight instruction your own light piston twin aircraft, do the math on how many hours of dual given in the aircraft it will take just to pay the annual insurance premium, and go from there. You may decide you don't want to go this route at all, making most of your questions moot -- except for what features/attributes you desire in your own personal aircraft for your own personal use.
 
Pretty much a troll thread at this point. OP hasn't been back on PoA since Monday early AM.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Is there a requirement to visit often to not be a troll? I haven't been here in several days. Life gets busy, yanno.
Click to expand...
My criteria was based on his activity, or rather, lack there of, in a general sense.

With only 2 posts, and no activity beyond the day he originally showed, responding directly to him is just an exercise in typing practice.

You, on the other hand, are a completely different bit of work, and one whose contributions I always think are worth reading and often entertaining. Especially we wind up the clockwerken of some of your well known foils (such as Nate) and launch them in your general direction. Plus your busy with your new flying job. So disappearing for a day or three is now to be expected.
 
Hi, I've owned two Skymnasters - a 1968 Turbo and a 1973 Pressurized model. Loved them both. You hear a lot of people talk badly about 'Mixmasters', but in my research when someone denegrated the plane I asked had they ever owned or flow one, and invariably they had not even been in one. So I started seeking out only people that either owned one or at least had owned one, and every person said it was their favorite plane. Talked with a guy who had a King Air 200 and a Pilatus PC-12, but when I told him I flew a P337 he couldn't stop raving on how that was his favorite plane he'd ever owned. They are WAY better performing than other light twins - 205kts on just two 225HP motors and 22GPH vs most light twins (even turbos) will hit 185kts and aren't pressurized. The T337 has a service ceiling of a whopping 30,000ft, though the P337 is limiited to FL200 due to pressurization limitations. I have a Seneca 3 right now, which is a darn nice plane, but I don't LOVE it like a Skymaster - and I miss the convenience of pressurization. They pack a lot of equipment in those tight engine compartments, so its best to find a mechanic who's experienced with Skymasters (which will save you money on annuals and maintenance because your mechanic won't have to learn the plane), but I had very little problems with my 337s.
 
There's just something about those twin booms. :drool:
 
Rgbeard said:
@side241

Awesome necropost!
Click to expand...

I know you’re an anti-necropostaphiliac but in some cases it shows the person actually did a search instead of posting the same old sht we see over and over. And if the person didn’t search, someone would get on them for that, so pick your poison I guess.
 
yeah I was torn on this one.. he-who-Lazarus'd did this on another thread too, that one older, 2017. Both were about Cessna337, a cool plane and the guy obviously knows a thing or two. The thing is, presumably the OP here already bought a plane or moved on, and hasn't been seen since he made this thread. Now, side241 wouldn't know this necessarily since he's new, but, that's why I have been recommending two things. Yes we already have a checkbox, leave that there.

(a) people have a post count minimum before they necro
(b) put a little cross or little frankenstein emoji so at least others know going into it

..yes yes I know Frankenstein is the scientist, not the monster, but that's how people know it is..
 
Tantalum said:
yeah I was torn on this one.. he-who-Lazarus'd did this on another thread too, that one older, 2017. Both were about Cessna337, a cool plane and the guy obviously knows a thing or two. The thing is, presumably the OP here already bought a plane or moved on, and hasn't been seen since he made this thread. Now, side241 wouldn't know this necessarily since he's new, but, that's why I have been recommending two things. Yes we already have a checkbox, leave that there.

(a) people have a post count minimum before they necro
(b) put a little cross or little frankenstein emoji so at least others know going into it

..yes yes I know Frankenstein is the scientist, not the monster, but that's how people know it is..
Click to expand...

I do respect @side241 for being a pretty decent SME on the Mixmasters.

I simply find it amazing that a newcomber decides to seek particular threads, ignoring the "speedbumps" that the forum software puts in place for Necroposting, and carries on.

All that said - it was actaully an awesome necropost. At least it was on-topic, and of some specific benefit. I'm seriously doubting that the OP of this thread is around anymore. His profile page says he hasn't logged on since November of 2019.

Yes, a post-count before allowing someone to necropost might be a darn good idea.
 
An old post from a searched topic is what brought me to poa. But I didn't dare plow through the software speed bumps.

An alternative to a minimum post count might be closing a thread to someone that hasn't already posted in the thread after a time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top