Twin Comanche

[flyingcheesehead]

Is this a good deal?

I've got word that a 1964 Twin Comanche is going up for sale by an older gentleman. I looked at it, and it sounds like a great deal so far, though I don't have many exact details as I haven't spoken directly to the seller:

TTAF: Around 6000 and change
Engines: Around 1400-1500 hours
Paint: "New". "Sharp yet classic" would be my description.
Interior: Looks like it could be original or brand new. Original because it's still red vinyl, but brand new because it doesn't have a single tear, crack, or blemish that I could see.
Avionics: Six-pack instrument orientation, dual Narco (ugh) digital flip-flop radios, WX-8 stormscope(which is listed as 0 value on , S-Tec autopilot (appears to be a 60-2 two-axis), slaved HSI, Northstar/Apollo M1 LORAN, Narco digital ADF, King KMA 20 audio panel, electric trim, some kind of electronic fuel flow thingy, and a "low thrust detector" with Left and Right lights... Basically, nothing too special, but nothing that's in dire need of upgrading either.

After thinking it'd take $120K to put together a Twinkie I'd like, this seems like the steal of the century: $68,000. Vref comes up with $84,700.

Should I bother even thinking about this? There's a lot of unknowns still that I should be able to find out about soon - Have the generators been replaced with alternators, what are the real times, what's the real story on the interior, has it been sitting a lot, logbooks, ...

 

[Steve]

Get an insurance quote before you commit. It might change the perceived value.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Get an insurance quote before you commit. It might change the perceived value.

Gotta be cheaper than a Cirrus.

 

[wesleyj]

Twin Comanche is a great little twin, it earned a bad rep for problems in single engine work in its early days, but i personally feel that it was more of a nut behind the wheel problem.

operating costs are more like that of a highperformance single, systems are dependable and relatively simple to maintain, it does require some precision to land without putting it on the nosewheel first, the engines are basically bullet-proof, given the price and times I dont think a person could go wrong with the airplane itself.

But, talk to your insurance people first, might be a deal breaker unless you are willing to drag along a CFI for quite a few hours.

 

[wesleyj]

personally i wouldnt ovn a cirrus, too twitchy for my tastes, and i dont think that the plastic toys are ready for prime time, lets see what they look like when the are as old and have as many hours on them as say a 30 year old 172.

 

[EdFred]

I always liked the Twinkies too, and it will even get in and out of 6Y9....hmmmmmm. Sell the Cherokee to dad, throw in a 430...and I was just thinking of getting my MEL too....

 

[zephyr]

With as many TC's out there for sale as there are it's a buyers market driven by insurance costs. That one could be a bargain if the 2,000 hr gear ad is current, it doesn't need 4 tanks soon, the engines stand a chance of making TBO, and a lot of other stuff. FWF can easily run well over 40K. Prebuy by a Comanche expert is a MUST. Charlie Melot Zephyr Aircraft Engines N808N PA-30 30-410.

 

[tonycondon]

personally i wouldnt ovn a cirrus, too twitchy for my tastes, and i dont think that the plastic toys are ready for prime time, lets see what they look like when the are as old and have as many hours on them as say a 30 year old 172.

If you look at the standard and open class gliders from the late 60's and early 70s, which are the first aircraft built out of "modern" composite materials, you will see that they are still flying fine with no concerns structurally.

 

[Len Lanetti]

Beware of the mid time engine gottcha...as Charlie points out the engine may or may not make it to TBO...the other thing to think about are all the things that are connected to the engine that might need work or replacement before the engine itself...hoses, carbs, exhaust, mags, alternators/generators, starters, ignition harness...give them a real good looking over during the pre-purchase....see if you can determine the time in service from the log books.

Len

 

[PoAdeleted5]

There's a really nice looking Twinkie that was on eBay a couple of weeks ago, it showed up on my field the other day after the auction was called off by a local sale. They were asking $59k. It's not ultra-sharp or perfect, but the paint is in good shape and the interior looks nice even if the styling is a little dated. Mid-time engines, even has boots, hot props and alcohol windsheild and a decent panel.

I'd like to find out who bought it and see if I can bum a ride.

 

[bbchien]

Kent, you will have spent $130 when you are done. New Bungies, new engines, small nosewheel STC, Hoses replaced, Prop OHs, Governors, Garmin 430, PS 2000 Audio Panel, KX155-39, it adds up FAST. After that it will be A $120K Twin commanche.

You are are a big guy. The cabins are tight.

 

[wesleyj]

If you look at the standard and open class gliders from the late 60's and early 70s, which are the first aircraft built out of "modern" composite materials, you will see that they are still flying fine with no concerns structurally.

Yah, but those gliders arent exposed to the elements year round, in and out of clouds, precip, temp changes, engine vibration and such, I still dont think they are up to the task.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Kent, you will have spent $130 when you are done. New Bungies, new engines, small nosewheel STC, Hoses replaced, Prop OHs, Governors, Garmin 430, PS 2000 Audio Panel, KX155-39, it adds up FAST. After that it will be A $120K Twin commanche.

True. I've got a message off to them about the bungees, and would want a fairly clean bill of health on the engines as well as some idea of their recent usage.

Small nosewheel is a popular mod, but imho not needed. Sure, I've only flown and landed a Twinkie once, but I had no issues with nose heaviness (and my being in the plane certainly contributes to that effect! ). I'd probably skip it, unless it was super-cheap or the nosewheel needed replacement for some other reason.

I guess my feeling is that I could live with it as-is for some time. Most Twinkies either have a shotgun panel, or mechanical (or otherwise crummy) radios, or no autopilot (or again, one of the worthless Piper ones) and that sort of thing.

My first upgrade would probably be some new yokes from Fessler to replace the bow ties. Next would be a cheap DME if I could find one. It may even have one tucked away somewhere, the only thing I could see of the panel is what I got off of sticking my digital camera in through the tiny window, aiming as best I could, and snapping. I don't see a transponder in any of my pictures either, and I did miss a good chunk of panel on the lower left and lower right.

I do hate Narco radios. Had the one Narco the club owns out of one of the Archers for nine months before they even LOOKED at it. The Narco OBS' also turn the wrong way (knob right, rotates left) and I think some of them don't show the opposite heading at the bottom. This would be less of an issue due to the HSI, though.

Once I got enough dough for a big upgrade, I'd be concerned about a Garmin 430 being able to run the same HSI as a Narco radio. Might have to replace both if I do either, though that would be a good excuse for an EHSI.

Man, I guess I do have a long list of upgrades that would be nice. Yokes, GPS (and GPSS), audio panel, tip tanks, JPI 760 to replace the Shadin, HID landing lights, Mode S, C/R engine and prop at the next overhaul, and maybe a few speed mods. (The one I flew had gap seals, spats, and Wow Cowls and trued 175 KTAS.)

I know the upgrade game can get expensive - It's just nice to finally see a reasonably priced bird that I can live with for long enough to make that money.

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention: It appears to have new glass (incl. 1-piece windscreen) all the way around. If it's not new, it's sure in darn good shape.

You are are a big guy. The cabins are tight.

Compared to yours, anything I've been in except a King Air B200 is tight! I found it to be comfortable enough on the one flight I had in one. I would prefer a B-model, but beggars (such as they come in this game, anyway ) can't be choosers. I'd really like a B-model or later with the Miller dorsal fin, tip tanks, and maybe some speed mods, but like I noted above... $$$ I've gotten a little less picky about airplanes in my old age, despite being a gadget freak. Nothing like flying a Cub on skis at 500 AGL for a weekend to remind you that we don't fly because of the gadgets!

Bruce, what do you think of the PA-30 turbos? I've often thought that even though the overboost potential is high, you could save on the extra engine wear and tear with the manual wastegates by simply leaving them wide open unless you actually needed the turbo. If you did, take off with WOT but the turbos "off" (wastegates open), then slowly close the wastegates while climbing. Then, to descend, simply open the wastegates (slowly) first before retarding the throttles. On flights where the turbos aren't needed, simply leave them "off". Would significantly help the turbo cooling issues too. Right? Would this technique work? Anything wrong with not using the turbos unless you really need them?

 

[DeeG]

Did all my multi comm training in t/c's. Sweet planes.

 

[bbchien]

True. I've got a message off to them about the bungees, and would want a fairly clean bill of health on the engines as well as some idea of their recent usage.

Small nosewheel is a popular mod, but imho not needed. Sure, I've only flown and landed a Twinkie once, but I had no issues with nose heaviness (and my being in the plane certainly contributes to that effect! ). I'd probably skip it, unless it was super-cheap or the nosewheel needed replacement for some other reason.

It's not about nose heaviness. It's about the aircraft wanting to lift off before Vmc, a dangerous condition. And it does....with that high AOA on the ground.

I guess my feeling is that I could live with it as-is for some time. Most Twinkies either have a shotgun panel, or mechanical (or otherwise crummy) radios, or no autopilot (or again, one of the worthless Piper ones) and that sort of thing.

My first upgrade would probably be some new yokes from Fessler to replace the bow ties. Next would be a cheap DME if I could find one. It may even have one tucked away somewhere, the only thing I could see of the panel is what I got off of sticking my digital camera in through the tiny window, aiming as best I could, and snapping. I don't see a transponder in any of my pictures either, and I did miss a good chunk of panel on the lower left and lower right.

I do hate Narco radios. Had the one Narco the club owns out of one of the Archers for nine months before they even LOOKED at it. The Narco OBS' also turn the wrong way (knob right, rotates left) and I think some of them don't show the opposite heading at the bottom. This would be less of an issue due to the HSI, though.

Once I got enough dough for a big upgrade, I'd be concerned about a Garmin 430 being able to run the same HSI as a Narco radio. Might have to replace both if I do either, though that would be a good excuse for an EHSI.

Man, I guess I do have a long list of upgrades that would be nice. Yokes, GPS (and GPSS), audio panel, tip tanks, JPI 760 to replace the Shadin, HID landing lights, Mode S, C/R engine and prop at the next overhaul, and maybe a few speed mods. (The one I flew had gap seals, spats, and Wow Cowls and trued 175 KTAS.)

I know the upgrade game can get expensive - It's just nice to finally see a reasonably priced bird that I can live with for long enough to make that money.

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention: It appears to have new glass (incl. 1-piece windscreen) all the way around. If it's not new, it's sure in darn good shape.



Compared to yours, anything I've been in except a King Air B200 is tight! I found it to be comfortable enough on the one flight I had in one. I would prefer a B-model, but beggars (such as they come in this game, anyway ) can't be choosers. I'd really like a B-model or later with the Miller dorsal fin, tip tanks, and maybe some speed mods, but like I noted above... $$$ I've gotten a little less picky about airplanes in my old age, despite being a gadget freak. Nothing like flying a Cub on skis at 500 AGL for a weekend to remind you that we don't fly because of the gadgets!

I know you're a gadget freak. That's why it'll cost you over time

Bruce, what do you think of the PA-30 turbos? I've often thought that even though the overboost potential is high, you could save on the extra engine wear and tear with the manual wastegates by simply leaving them wide open unless you actually needed the turbo. If you did, take off with WOT but the turbos "off" (wastegates open), then slowly close the wastegates while climbing. Then, to descend, simply open the wastegates (slowly) first before retarding the throttles. On flights where the turbos aren't needed, simply leave them "off". Would significantly help the turbo cooling issues too. Right? Would this technique work? Anything wrong with not using the turbos unless you really need them?

My first Mooney as a Rajay (second throttle) turbo. Was very sweet. But there was this one descent in which for distractions I didn't fully open the manual wastegate upon initiation of descent (it was from 19,000) and I caught the boost going to 30" at about 9,000 feet. Scared the bejeebers outta me.

 

[wesleyj]

We had a T/C back in 71 or 72, it had turbos, dont remember what kind. had levers along side the throttles, we advanced them manually but when we reduced the power, there were a couple of dogs that the throttles caught that reduced the turbo power as well, that way you never had to worry about forgetting to reduce the turbo power,

 

[Dart]

Is this a good deal?... 1964 Twin Comanche is going up for sale by an older gentleman.....TTAF: Around 6000 and change
Engines: Around 1400-1500 hours....After thinking it'd take $120K to put together a Twinkie I'd like, this seems like the steal of the century: $68,000. Vref comes up with $84,700.

Just yesterday I was talking to a client whose dad was the "older Gentleman" about ten years ago. A hangar vulture made an offer of 80K for what was then a very cherry TC getting close to overhaul time. By the time the new owner was done he was 120K into it. Consistent with what I'm reading in these posts.

Should I bother even thinking about this?

That's a personnal question but, it seems a typical deal. Bill told me his dad belonged to the local "tribe" and flew to all the quarterly meetings. The plane recieved a "grand champion" or some such award from the tribe in '85 (after a major refurb of paint, interior, avionics...the works) Maybe you can contact some TC owner clubs in your area. They are planes with a dedicated owner following. Bill told me that there was a gear AD. His dad had folded one.

 

[gismo]

It's not about nose heaviness. It's about the aircraft wanting to lift off before Vmc, a dangerous condition. And it does....with that high AOA on the ground.

VGs might cure that problem by lowering Vmc. I wonder if they are available for Twinkies?

My first Mooney as a Rajay (second throttle) turbo. Was very sweet. But there was this one descent in which for distractions I didn't fully open the manual wastegate upon initiation of descent (it was from 19,000) and I caught the boost going to 30" at about 9,000 feet. Scared the bejeebers outta me.

I've flown a couple planes with Rajay aftermarket turbos. The two engine killer scenarios are taking off with the wastegate closed and descending a long ways with them closed. The other issue I've noticed is that it's difficult to set mixture up high with the turbos spinning. When you go lean the turbos spool down and the mixture changes. It's do-able, just touchy IIRC.

I think that if I had manual wastegate turbos I'd install a big red overboost light and an audio warning for the same. It shouldn't be all that difficult to add switches on the throttle and WG control to give a warning if the WG was closed and the throttle was more than a little bit closed. I think that would cover most of the potential overboost scenarios.

 

[ApacheBob]

If the cabin is too snug, a 1957 Apache might be more comfortable. Did I mention that mine is for sale?

 

[jonfloto]

If you like the plane, get it. I just put $20+K into a new 2 axis Century 2000, GPS steering, altitude hold, auto trim, new yokes from Comanche Gear, a new panel and added a slaved EHSI in the process to my 64 Comanche 250. I've also added a Garmin 430 and a factory new Lycoming engine. I'll never get the investment back, but neither will I get the investment back on my car. The airplane is a consumable item. I've done a couple of cross countries (including one to repair the botched job the avionics shop did) and have used all these upgrades. They make for a truly special airplane and the result is an airplane that is still almost $200K less than a comparable Cirrus. Then you can spend your money on flying instead of on airplane payments. You only have one life to live, so choose wisely and enjoy it.

 

[weilke]

VGs might cure that problem by lowering Vmc. I wonder if they are available for Twinkies?

They are. Dont recall the manufacturer. Take a little bit of top-end speed. But being 10 minutes late beats being 10 minute dead.

 

[weilke]

After thinking it'd take $120K to put together a Twinkie I'd like, this seems like the steal of the century: $68,000. Vref comes up with $84,700.

Should I bother even thinking about this? There's a lot of unknowns still that I should be able to find out about soon - Have the generators been replaced with alternators, what are the real times, what's the real story on the interior, has it been sitting a lot, logbooks, ...

At least you are realistic.

Yes, until its nice you'll spend 120.

There was a fire-sale in TX on controller about 3 weeks ago (owner got deployed). 1/2 the total time of your candidate, <100hr engines + props, Stec50 AP, decent radios, old paint old interior, recent gear overhaul asking somewhere around 85. It has disappeared since, looks like someone got a nice deal. There are a couple of other ones on the market that sound like a better buy to start with a refurb. If you really want to drop money on one, start out with a low-time ndh airfame, high time engines, ratty paint, the autopilot you want (Century III or Stec) and recent gear overhaul by an expert shop. Anything else are bolt-on parts.

As for the insurance issue: A number of insurers dont write PA30s for a pilot without time in them, no matter what amount of money you throw at them. I did manage to get non-owned coverage and I have access to a rental, so if I decide to buy one, I hope insurance will be attainable.

As for the safety: The PA30 was a twin trainer when people thought they had to do Vmc demos at 1500ft to include an actual Vmc rollover. Other twins at the time were apparently a bit more forgiving of this insanity and most of the bloodshed was attribued to the PA30. SE performance on 160hp per side is predictably dismal. But unless you venture into the mountains, the second little lawnmower engine will give you the option to land at an airport pretty much anywhere. There are the 180 and 200hp Miller conversions, but the owners of those seem to have a unreasonable idea as to what they are worth.

The rental I fly is a '64 as well. For the most part, I fly alone. On saturday, I took someone along for a $200 donut and the plane did notice the second body. Following the Dr Bruce school of survivable twin flying, I consider the PA30 with full tanks a 2 seater, even if they were sold with up to 6 seats .

If this is just about building a couple of twin hours in order to move on to something bigger, buying a flyable one that is marketable later on is your best bet. If you want to build a 'nice' one (and spend the 120k to get there), I wouldn't start out with a high-time '64 but rather with a low-time B or C model that has the open baggage compartment.

It is a unique little plane and I am strongly considering to build myself a 'nice' one. It wont however do more than it is designed to deliver. If hauling 4 fat guys and their golf-clubs at night in thunderstorms and icing over high mountains on one engine is your mission, dont buy a Twinkie

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Wow, holy necro-post Batman! That was over 4 years ago, and a lot has changed since then... Mainly my income. With the economy doing what it's doing to everybody, I threw in the towel and I'm back in school playing the part of the starving student. Well, OK, I have some money invested so I'm not starving - Yet - But if I'd bought the plane I'd have airplane/hangar/insurance payments to worry about and wouldn't have had the option to go back to school, or at least not as easily.

I'm still a big fan of Twinkies, and they've gotten even cheaper due to the economy. I've seen them down in the $40K's, some pretty nice ones in the $60K's (including some with turbo or de-ice), and the Miller mods don't make for an instant sale any more the way they used to. In fact, there have been three for sale with the rare combo of the Miller 200hp + Turbo + Robertson STOL which would be a REALLY capable plane, though with a bit less useful load (I think) despite the gross weight increase.

There was one that had that combo and was even neater - It got bought up, had a Garmin 530 added to it, and then was sold and exported to Canada. But there are still some out there.

I'll get mine, sooner or later - But it'll probably be at least 2 years. Until then, I have a shiny new Diamond to play with, and the trusty ol' 182 to do the heavy lifting.

 

[Henning]

Bruce, what do you think of the PA-30 turbos? I've often thought that even though the overboost potential is high, you could save on the extra engine wear and tear with the manual wastegates by simply leaving them wide open unless you actually needed the turbo. If you did, take off with WOT but the turbos "off" (wastegates open), then slowly close the wastegates while climbing. Then, to descend, simply open the wastegates (slowly) first before retarding the throttles. On flights where the turbos aren't needed, simply leave them "off". Would significantly help the turbo cooling issues too. Right? Would this technique work? Anything wrong with not using the turbos unless you really need them?

Not Bruce, but that's the way I managed the turbos on my Travelair which is basically the same setup. The exception was taking off at high altitude airports, I'd close the wastegates and operate like a Seneca II does. I never had a turbo issue in over 1000hrs.

 

[weilke]

Lol, 4 years, that got to be close to some kind of record. Yeah, in 2006 that bird was probably a steal. Do you know what happened to it, right now it may well be one of the 50k examples.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Lol, 4 years, that got to be close to some kind of record. Yeah, in 2006 that bird was probably a steal. Do you know what happened to it, right now it may well be one of the 50k examples.

Well, I just looked back through my pictures to find the N number and looked it up on the registry. I saw it in North Carolina (I could figure out what airport it was if I looked at the sectional) and its latest registration was on 3/31/2008 in New Hampshire. Looks like the guy sold it just in time!

 

[rotorhead1026]

Some observations from a guy who's owned two and flown several more ...

SE performance is at least average, with engines that are producing rated power. I've flown a couple with 2400+ hours on the engines. They ran smoothly, but were noticeably down on power. Those IO-320's will run a long way past TBO, but they may not give 160 hp.

When the airplane came out in 1964, it was relatively cheap and really sexy. It seemed to be the R-22 of the 1960's. Multiengine training was finally cheap enough for the masses, so a lot of people got the rating - then got the multi CFI without getting a lot of experience. Eventually we reached a critical mass where many inexperienced people were giving instruction using a very aggressive training curriculum. Aggravating this was the tendency to have students observing in the back two seats. The airplane is actually a bit nose heavy when loaded for training, but not with four adults on board. The results were predictable. I've given training in a lot of twins - they'll all bite you under similar conditions. The TC was the cheapest training option - so a lot of the accidents were in that type. Similar things happened with the R-22 and helicopter training in the 1980's and 1990's (except that the R-22 isn't that sexy ).

The Doc's point on the small nosewheel is well-taken, but I never had any trouble holding it on to 90 mph or so. IMHO that STC causes more trouble than it's worth. I was able to land it pretty well once I figured out what to do. I'm not telling, though - you have to fly with me to find out.

The airplane sucks in a stiff crosswind. The reason is related to the landing issue.

One of the two I owned was a Miller conversion. TAS 187 knots at 7000'. Vmc was an honest 83 mph (big ventral fin), and SE performance was obviously no problem.

And ... I'm not trying to start a fight with those who disagree, and will not participate in one. It's just my two cents. :wink2:

 

[weilke]

And ... I'm not trying to start a fight with those who disagree, and will not participate in one. It's just my two cents. :wink2:

If you want to start a fight, tell the PA30 fan-club that they should buy a travel-Air instead .

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If you want to start a fight, tell the PA30 fan-club that they should buy a travel-Air instead .

Hey, nothing wrong with a Travel Air - But there weren't nearly as many produced, so it's not as easy to find "The One," there aren't as many mods available, and some of us find the TC cabin more comfortable than the Beeches. But they're both excellent airplanes.

 

[rotorhead1026]

If you want to start a fight, tell the PA30 fan-club that they should buy a travel-Air instead .

Actually, I'd tell the Travel-Air fan club (if there is one) they need to switch to PA30's.

But, I said I didn't want to start a fight ... so I won't tell them anything.

Seriously, the BE-95 is a great choice - like weilke said, you just have to keep looking.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Paging Pilot Kent:



1969 PA30C Turbo, IFR, 4250 TT, 976/1065 SMOH, RSTOL, GNS 430, KX155 Nav/Comm, JPI 760, GTX 330, A/P, NDH. $100,000. CA/(707) 462-1417. 1042836

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Paging Pilot Kent:



1969 PA30C Turbo, IFR, 4250 TT, 976/1065 SMOH, RSTOL, GNS 430, KX155 Nav/Comm, JPI 760, GTX 330, A/P, NDH. $100,000. CA/(707) 462-1417. 1042836

Oooooooh. You bad, bad, man.

That is a nice plane! Turbo and R/STOL is a very nice combo, and this one's a 1969 which is regarded as one of the best by the insiders - It has the modern style switches with the engine switch panel moved to the left, it came from the factory with a 6-pack panel, but it's prior to the counter-rotating mod and the speed hit that goes with it.

Sure, there's other stuff that would be nice - Miller engines and nacelles, maybe some more tankage (though it'd only be useful for doing things like going non-stop to/from California, or being able to make Hawaii - 7.5 hours of fuel is already a lot!), speed brakes, de-ice (though I'm pretty sure that boots and the R/STOL are not compatible, so never mind), radar, radar altimeter... But mostly those are things I didn't even think about until I saw N232Y (which has unfortunately since been exported to Canada - Knock that one off the list ). It's really all fluff that would probably be fun to play with at first, but not really useful enough to spend the $$$ to keep it all maintained properly.

It's got all the toys I really want in the panel, too, except a modern autopilot. But it does have one, so if it works, cool.

However - What is that thing on the panel right inside the lower left hand corner of the pilot's yoke?

My first guess was the S-TEC pitch box. Nope. Second guess was an annunciator for the 430. Found pics of a few different ones, but none that look like that.

Hmmmm...

 

[weilke]

Air Data Computer / automatic TAS display ?
Remote DME indicator ?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

My guess is DME.

 

[Ted]

That looks similar to the Narco DME that's in the 310 (and doesn't work), but it seems to be missing the switches and buttons.

I used to think that the modern autopilots were really nice, but after having flown a couple hundred hours with the Altimatic IIIB and Century III (pretty much the same thing), I actually like them quite a bit. They do the job just fine, and since planes typically already come with them, that saves you the trouble and expense of getting a new one put in.

 

[gismo]

That looks similar to the Narco DME that's in the 310 (and doesn't work), but it seems to be missing the switches and buttons.

I used to think that the modern autopilots were really nice, but after having flown a couple hundred hours with the Altimatic IIIB and Century III (pretty much the same thing), I actually like them quite a bit. They do the job just fine, and since planes typically already come with them, that saves you the trouble and expense of getting a new one put in.

Looks an awful lot like a KI-266 (indicator for a KN-65 remote DME):

 

[rotorhead1026]

However - What is that thing on the panel right inside the lower left hand corner of the pilot's yoke?

Look like a KN65 DME ... but that's not listed in the specs.

EDIT - Oops, just saw the post above ... so, I agree.

 

[weilke]

Is that all that is visible of these units (I dont see a DME box in the stack or right panel) ? Does it automatically display a distance/speed whenever the KX155 is tuned to a frequency that has an associated DME signal ?

 

[Ted]

Looks an awful lot like a KI-266 (indicator for a KN-65 remote DME):

That's probably it. The DME I have has the same display, but a couple extra dials built-in. I don't know how exactly it ought to work, I just know that right now, it doesn't.

 

[gismo]

Is that all that is visible of these units (I dont see a DME box in the stack or right panel) ? Does it automatically display a distance/speed whenever the KX155 is tuned to a frequency that has an associated DME signal ?

The button on the front of the KI-266 selects between TTS (time to station) and GS on the right side of the display.

Typically if there are two nav radios there's a separate switch to select the channeling source on the panel somewhere but that's not always the case. Without such a switch only one nav radio would channel the DME. I believe (but don't know for certain) that the actual channeling source switching (several wires) is done in the remote DME box itself and the panel switch just drives an input on the box.

FWIW, the indicator could also be a KI-267 which is similar to the 266 except that it can display a VOR radial instead of the TTS available on the 266. And IIRC, the original indicator for the KN-65 was an electromechanical drum design.