Why A Twin Comanche?

THIS WAS PUBLISHED IN JANUARY 2009 COMANCHE FLYER

I earned my pilots license in 2001, and like many others received my training in a C-172. During training I was spending a lot of money on airplane rentals, so I thought it made sense to buy. I bough a one-fourth share in a 1978 C-172.

After I passed my checkride, I found sharing a plane too restrictive, so I also joined a flying club that had four airplanes, one of which was a Piper Archer. I loved how the Piper flew, the panel layout, the view it provided from being a low wing airplane, and decided that Piper was for me. I sold my share in the 172, left the flying club, and purchased a Piper Archer II. It treated me well. I took it to Oshkosh, Sun N Fun, and used it for business and pleasure.

Over time, I outgrew the airplane and decided it was time to step up. I had two requirements - I wanted to carry more and go faster - all of this on a budget. It surprised me that there really weren't many choices. It seemed that the real choice was BETWEEN going faster OR carrying more...not both. I looked at a Mooney - a fast airplane, but it carried very little and seemed cramped for my hulking, well defined physique : - ). I looked at the Piper Lance and the Six. Both were nice airplanes, but they didn't go much faster than my Archer. There were other contenders, but each came up short. Then I stumbled onto a Comanche. "It's a Piper" I thought. I asked around, did the research and my quest began. I looked at a number of singles and twins. Being that the airplane was approximately 40 years old, I took a simple approach - I found a mechanic that knew Comanches - this was Steve Richard of Central Jersey Airport. A former Comanche owner, and plenty of experience with the brand. I had him look at airplanes stem to stern. It is not cheap to fly a mechanic all over the country, but I thought it was money well spent.

I eventually bought a 1969 Twin. It had a lot of goodies - a slaved HSI, Garmin 530W, autopilot and Robertson STOL kit. For me, it is the utlimate flying machine. It is much faster than the Archer, has more room, doesn't burn a lot of fuel, and is a pleasure to fly. It also seems solid - a real flying tank.

My first adventure in the Twinkie was the 50-year celebration of the Comanche at AirVenture last summer. We parked amongst the many beautiful planes. What a thrill!

Is there anything I don't like about the Comanche? Well, uh...that thing we do at the end of each flight...the landing. I was told that this airplane was not for the easily embarrassed. Truer words were never spoken. I have managed to improve my landings with tips from members on the Comanche website. But clearly my twin landing abilities are a work in progress.

In a perfect world, pilots should have an airplane for every mission. A five-mile radius plane, a $100 hamburger plane, a fast airplane for business, and lets not forget a jet - for flying to Paris for dinner, also known as the $20,000 hamburger. Most of us don't have those kinds of resources. But in truth, whether doing pattern work or going across the country, the Comanche serves most missions, and serves them well. Pound for pound the Comanche separates itself from the rest of the pack in terms of speed, utility and economy.

You can find an airplanes that go faster and carry more. But until I have "John Travolta" money, I am going to stick with the Twinkie.