Maintenance for different planes
The lance has baggage space that is 10 times better than the C182 and the front locker can be used for cofg trimming which can get another 3-4 kts cruise speed.
Still, agreed, does have overall much beter baggage capacity and flexibility for maintaining CofG within limits. From memory though, you did have to try pretty hard to get it out of CofG limits.
Flying the locals to Palm Is., I found the front locker particularly useful for stashing the hot food (read as KFC).
Twin Comanche is a great aeroplane. Built with good workmanship and gets outstanding speed.
The buts are;
1. All but the very last ones came with fruit salad instrument panels, which I think are unacceptable for IFR
2. They were designed and built in a different era when labour was cheap. They are a much higher labour for maintenance aircraft than (say) a Seneca.
3. Parts will have a higher degree of difficulty than a Seminole or Seneca (both of which are still made). I'm sure parts are still available, and the International Comanche society will help. But like antique cars, you will need to develop a network of places to get parts.
4. You'll probably be better off if you get involved in the Comanche society.
I think owning a Comanche would be like owning a classic car. You will need a good relationship with a good LAME (who maintains a number of other Comanches) and you will need to be more involved in the maintenance and have a working list of parts to repair / renovate / upgrade. Every 100 hourly will probably involve some additional project.
The following generation of aircraft (Lance / Saratoga / Seminole / Seneca) I think you can still get away with tossing the keys to the LAME and leaving it to them.
If you want a classic aircraft to own that you get involved in and (probably) work to improve, I think the Twin Comanche would be a rewarding aircraft. Otherwise, I'd look to a Seneca II or III.
The buts are;
1. All but the very last ones came with fruit salad instrument panels, which I think are unacceptable for IFR
2. They were designed and built in a different era when labour was cheap. They are a much higher labour for maintenance aircraft than (say) a Seneca.
3. Parts will have a higher degree of difficulty than a Seminole or Seneca (both of which are still made). I'm sure parts are still available, and the International Comanche society will help. But like antique cars, you will need to develop a network of places to get parts.
4. You'll probably be better off if you get involved in the Comanche society.
I think owning a Comanche would be like owning a classic car. You will need a good relationship with a good LAME (who maintains a number of other Comanches) and you will need to be more involved in the maintenance and have a working list of parts to repair / renovate / upgrade. Every 100 hourly will probably involve some additional project.
The following generation of aircraft (Lance / Saratoga / Seminole / Seneca) I think you can still get away with tossing the keys to the LAME and leaving it to them.
If you want a classic aircraft to own that you get involved in and (probably) work to improve, I think the Twin Comanche would be a rewarding aircraft. Otherwise, I'd look to a Seneca II or III.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listen to Akro...
Good advice Akro (All the advice you gave me for the 34 worked a treat!)
I am in the same situation you were in, only 12-18 months ahead.
Through a convoluted set of circumstances, I went the Seneca III, and couldn't be happier. It has turned around and bit me in the wallet a few times, but nothing major, and I haven't had to do the same thing twice. Parts are plentiful and most are reasonable (some are not!).
Having restored a rare car, and if getting a 'classic' airplane like the TC up to speed and on top of maintenance is anything like that experience, I'd rather cut my own arms off with an industrial power saw than ever do that again!
Every airplane has its little foibles, and some makes have the same sort of issues, but doing careful research beforehand, and spending some money to upgrade things like panels will pay you back in less down time and less maintenance liability. And what ever you get, ditch the vacuum system and replace it with modern digital devices. Biggest failure point on any airplane, IMHO!!
If you want to know more about the experience, PM me.
I am in the same situation you were in, only 12-18 months ahead.
Through a convoluted set of circumstances, I went the Seneca III, and couldn't be happier. It has turned around and bit me in the wallet a few times, but nothing major, and I haven't had to do the same thing twice. Parts are plentiful and most are reasonable (some are not!).
Having restored a rare car, and if getting a 'classic' airplane like the TC up to speed and on top of maintenance is anything like that experience, I'd rather cut my own arms off with an industrial power saw than ever do that again!
Every airplane has its little foibles, and some makes have the same sort of issues, but doing careful research beforehand, and spending some money to upgrade things like panels will pay you back in less down time and less maintenance liability. And what ever you get, ditch the vacuum system and replace it with modern digital devices. Biggest failure point on any airplane, IMHO!!
If you want to know more about the experience, PM me.
