PA-24-250 looking for trade PA-30

[Samuel Beaulieu]

Hi! Any one interested in a trade for a single? I have a single comanche 250 and I'm looking for a Twin.
located in Quebec Canada. Fly ofter and pretty good shape. 1500hrs SMOH 4300 TT,

Send email if interested for more details: tipou_s@hotmail.com

[Randy Johnson]

Good hunting Sam. Did this same trade up last year. Learned lots of lessons, had a few surprises...but well worth the effort.

Found the overall demand for twins substantially lower than that of singles for multiple reasons. So you ought to have some success. Dont be shy about asking about a trade with every twinkie owner that has their plane for sale. I bet if you look hard enough, there is a deal out there for you.

Best of luck!

[Samuel Beaulieu]

Thank you!! What is the difference in annual cost for the twin? Is the performance the same? I did my twin rating on a twin comanche but not enough hours on it to notice the differences.
Are you happy with the trade?

[Randy Johnson]

Im thrilled with my twin.

The performance is really exceptional. I get about an extra 20 knots at cruise at about 15-16 gph. You really notice the extra power on take off. On an average day a 2000 fpm climb out at blue line is typical. My hangar mates marvel at how quick she gets up to altitude.

The other big difference is how much quieter and smoother the twin is vs my old single 250. The two smaller engines on the wing make for a much better ride in my opinion, as opposed to being strapped right behind that monster of a 250 hp engine on the single.

As far as cost of operation It seems like the cost of gas per mile is pretty much break even between the single and the twin. I cruise at 23 squared in both aircraft unless Im chasing weather. There may be a more significant difference at higher settings. Id say oil and other consumables are probably double on the twin. Expect to pay more for hangar space and transient costs when you travel. Clearly their are twice as many engine related parts and gauges. My best guess is to budget an extra 30% for total yearly costs for the twin. The first year of ownership is always ugly as you beat out the bugs. I budgeted 10k and spent about 15k.

The biggest benefit for me you didnt ask about, but it was the reason I made the upgrade. That has to do with safety. I do alot of over water flying ...up and down the eastern seaboard. That extra engine is a big deal, and allows me to fly direct without concern...and this aircraft eats up the east coast like its lunch. Have flown between Orlando to Northshore Boston regularly in less than 6 hours.

One consideration however is the need for a longer runway in case you loose an engine on takeoff. My days of finding a great 2000' runway in the middle of nowhere are over now that I fly the twin.

Finally Id say that it felt like a very natural progression to move from the single to the twin. There are great similarities in both the airframe and construction. I ignored a sense that twins are in less demand than the singles in today's market and decided to go for it anyway.

It was one of the best decisions I've ever made. She's got beautiful racing curves and flies even better than she looks. I find myself staring at her more than Id like to admit just sitting in the hangar. Ive flown some truly remarkable aircraft in the Navy, but ive found none of them more appealing to the eye or as pleasurable to fly, as the Twin Comanche. I hope you have the same experience Sam.

If I can answer anything else dont hesitate to ask. Im at topnote@aol.com if you would like to chat. Best of luck!

[Zach Grant L1011jock]

Randy,
I'm curious about your statement about using short runways in the twin. If you accepted them in the single why don't you accept them in the twin? If you loose one at rotation on either aircraft, you won't be flying and will undoubtedly be off the far end of the pavement before velocity reaches zero. In any case the only place you have a fighting chance in the twin is once airborne and the gear is in transit. That point is about the same distance single or twin. At that point the twin will keep you out of the rocks if you get the engine secured and fly the airplane. The fact that the singles don't have an accelerate stop chart in the book, doesn't mean they don't have an accelerate stop distance....just some food for thought!

Zach

[Randy Johnson]

Zach I think their are key differences between losing an engine on take off in the single vs the twin that result in longer runways required in the twin. Some are inherent to the aircraft and at least one is self imposed. Here is the basis of my theory...

The purpose in knowing how much runway you need to accelerate and stop is to do just that... and stay on the runway. Clearly the proper inputs in both types of aircraft is to land if you lose an engine while airborne and prior to putting the gear up. In the twin however, if your airborne you need to pull the power back Immediately, and if you can, get the flaps up if they are down. (My acecdotal experience is that the twin floats forever with partial flaps down vs the single).. Its not an inherently easy thing to force yourself remove power on takeoff, and it takes time and runway while the diagnosis and decision to abort is being made. The single would obviously not require pulling the power back if the engine is lost.

Additionally I was taught to always accelerate immediately to blue line once airborne, prior to climb out, and prior to lifting the gear. While this is clearly self imposed, the safety practice consumes more runway as you accelerate to an additional 10 knots of airspeed with the gear still down. While this last consideration is not included in the accelerate/stop charts, it just makes good sense to me and is clearly not an issue in the single. In a worst case twin aircraft power failure scenerio (loss of a single engine airborne and approaching blue line with the gear still down) theres no question your further down the runway than you would be in a single.

I think we'd both agree that if you dont do those emergency memory checklist items in a single you might not land on the runway but if you just push the nose over at least you have a fair shot at landing upright. If you miss those items in a twin there is a real chance of a far less comforting result. So not only do I believe you need more runway in a twin, I beleive the consequences are substantially worse in a twin if you make a bad decision during the emergency. All the more reason in my mind to give yourself more space and time.

For these reasons I am much more aware of the runway length needed for my twin in order to accomodate the loss of an engine and, why I beleive that in a most critical power failure situation, the twin requires more runway to recover.

Thanks for the good question.

[Zach Grant L1011jock]

Randy,
Thanks for your explanation of your thought process. In an effort to not hijack this thread but to give some advice, first I might make a couple observations. If the Twin is floating longer than the single on landing, check your idles. They are probably set too high and you are subject to excess residual thrust on landing. Pulling the power to idle on a twin on landing should pretty much apply the parking brake and give you a pretty quick arrival. Now with that said I am also going to guess that from what you said about your takeoff procedure, you are probably flying your final way to fast. Adjust those two things and you should find a bit better field performance than you are seeing now. Check out the performance charts in the book, with special attention to the conditions at the top of the page. 1.3 Vso is still a good approach number. Vyse and Vmc are invalid numbers on final in the landing configuration (Vmc, because it is a theoretical number with defined conditions that are all required to be met to be met to be a valid number, and on landing NONE of them are met, and Vyse goes out the window as why would you even think of going around on a single engine if you are in a position to land!).

Now for the takeoff proc. Just like when both fans are turning, there are two climb speeds single engine and they converge at the single engine ceiling just as the two climb speeds converge at the aircraft ceiling. These are Vx and Vy, and Vxse, and Vyse. Vxse for a twin Comanche is 90mph at sealevel and gross weight. Vyse or blue line is 105mph. Additionally, the landing gear on the twin Comanche is worth approx 500 fpm and takes about 7 seconds to retract. So whoever taught you your procedure, I would submit, has done you a serious disservice. What you are doing is prolonging the time that your aircraft is unflyable with one engine failed, and increasing your exposure to sudden impact with immovable objects by staying low to the ground and dirty. Remember the old adage about useless things in aviation...runway behind you, altitude above you, and fuel in a fuel truck...short of the fuel you are hurting yourself on the other two. Try this technique the next time you fly. When the airplane is ready to fly (don't hold it on the runway and porpoise or wheelbarrow regardless of airspeed), rotate to 7-10 degrees, retract the gear at positive rate of climb. Hold the pitch as the aircraft accelerates and then pitch to hold Vyse until clear of obstacles. If the gear is in transit or in the well, and you are above 90 mph, you will be able to fly away as long as you don't hit anything, which is why it is important that you get as far away from the ground as possible as quickly as possible. You will be at Vyse with the gear in the well with close to 200' between you and the ground using this technique. Again it is important to pay attention to the numbers on the performance charts at the top of the page.

I know you are new to the twinco, and I'm not sure how much other ME experience you have, but if you are unsure about what I have outlined above, please seek out an experienced Comanche instructor and go over these items with them.

Thanks for the conversation and happy flying!

-Zach

[Timothy Poole]