Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > The Boneyard
Looking for my first twin engine >

Looking for my first twin engine

Notices
The Boneyard Sell your aviation-related stuff

Looking for my first twin engine

Old 02-28-2017, 05:22 PM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Posts: 376
Default

Originally Posted by DoUEvenLoopBro View Post
Performance and safety are definitely on the top of my list and am simply looking for something roomy enough to fit 4 people (2 adults/2 kids) + ski equipment + luggage. We would also be using it for $100 hamburgers and shorter trips (<700 miles) that don't necessarily fall during ski season.

Everyone commenting here seems to be in agreement that I might want to start looking at some single engines instead. I'm also going to expand my search to the 310 since it seems to be a consensus on something that should be considered.

You guys are giving me some great advice. Thanks again!!
You are a capable pilot but general aviation is a different world than what we have done in the mil. Small GA aircraft on a budget don't generally do well in conditions that make a great ski vacation. There is a reason why GA pilots generally fly in fair weather...its more about aircraft limitation than pilot skill. If you don't have a high performance aircraft with TKS you will need the flexibility to shorten or extend your trips to accommodate the weather. My biggest fears as a GA pilot is traffic and icing.

Look into Mooneys, Bonanza etc for trips to the Bahamas and Orlando and buy a Subaru for skiing...
FlewNavy is offline  
Old 03-01-2017, 08:28 PM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 319/320/321...whatever it takes.
Posts: 492
Default

Another airplane for your list would be an Aztec. Similar to your choices, but it will carry its own weight (more that any of the other choices at approx 2600 lbs) and climb out on a single engine. It goes slower but doesn't seem to pick up as much ice as a Baron (my totally non scientific observation) but it will cost more in gas. The engines are mostly bullet proof, and no turbos to worry about. They are going ridiculously cheap right now because as another poster said, feeding and caring for 2 engines is much more than for one. More than double, which doesn't seem to make sense. Good hunting!
Left Handed is offline  
Old 03-02-2017, 03:15 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Posts: 376
Default

Originally Posted by Left Handed View Post
Another airplane for your list would be an Aztec. Similar to your choices, but it will carry its own weight (more that any of the other choices at approx 2600 lbs) and climb out on a single engine. It goes slower but doesn't seem to pick up as much ice as a Baron (my totally non scientific observation) but it will cost more in gas. The engines are mostly bullet proof, and no turbos to worry about. They are going ridiculously cheap right now because as another poster said, feeding and caring for 2 engines is much more than for one. More than double, which doesn't seem to make sense. Good hunting!
Geronimo conversion of the apache is also very capable. Good (maybe 400-500 from) single engine climb rate even at max gross.
FlewNavy is offline  
Old 03-02-2017, 03:58 AM
  #14  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,995
Default

At sea level.

The apache is slow, with the Geronimo marginally faster (140 kts). They're also old and bring with them a host of issues associated with their age.

I've never worked on any of the Piper indian twins that didn't have a plethora of screws that were the wrong type and size, and owners seem to have a fondnesss for driving PK screws into nutplates and the use of rivnuts, things which make any mechanic tear their hair out and drive up the maintenance costs when doing inspections or simple maintenance.

The apache, the basic airplane before the Geronimo conversion, doesn't actually have a positive rate of climb; when one engine fails, particularly on takeoff, retarding the other is often the appropriate course. Either way, selecting a place to put the airplane on the ground after takeoff, instead of planning a return to the airport, is a very likely outcome.

Experience that in the mountains on a ski trip, and your only choice will be off-field.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 03-02-2017, 05:48 AM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,978
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post

You'll be needing a solid IFR platform with known ice capability, and none of the light twins do very well in ice. You might look at the Twin Commander, as well, or at going with a Turbo Commander 690. That would make a lot more sense. Of course, if a few gallons fuel burn is a consideration, then costs are really tight, and you probably wont be looking to turbine equipment or cabin class twins.
Navajo is excellent with ice, at least much better than many singles and twins (better than Caravans).
JamesNoBrakes is offline  
Old 03-02-2017, 07:30 AM
  #16  
Get me outta here...
 
HuggyU2's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Boeing right seat
Posts: 1,541
Default

Why are you ruling out singles like the Cirrus?
HuggyU2 is offline  
Old 03-02-2017, 11:47 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
trip's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,225
Default

I had a 310 for a couple years, swear Ill never buy another airplane with 24 plugs and 4 mags! And I have my A&P.

I'd look at the 300hp Cherokee 6 or Lance. These are good platforms that can carry a family and lots of gear without the expense and complexity of two engines.
I could get the 310 down to 18 GPH just putting around but I think I planned it around 23-24 if I wanted to get somewhere. Look out for wing spar corrosion and prop AD's on the older 310's.
Use the airlines when the WX is carp.
trip is offline  
Old 03-02-2017, 04:12 PM
  #18  
On Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 10
Default

You guys are posting some great advice. Thank you to everyone!!

Side Note -- There is no particular reason I was starting at twins. Just a single engine guys perspective of having redundancy. BUT, like everyone seems to be mentioning the maintenance and upkeep costs may make it preventive. I believe someone mentioned a Cirrus, Cherokee 6 or Lance so I'll take a look at those as well.
DoUEvenLoopBro is offline  
Old 03-03-2017, 12:29 PM
  #19  
Line Holder
 
Shaft34's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Position: Aerial Firefighting
Posts: 33
Default

Add the A36 Bonanza to the research list too.
Shaft34 is offline  
Old 03-03-2017, 08:17 PM
  #20  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 20
Default

I was in the market for a four place single several years ago. As you did, I started to look at light twins. I bought an Apache with new motors and props. The price we settled on was in the mid 30 thousand. My aircraft is STCed auto gas, and burns at cruise 16 to 17 an hour, my best is 15 an hour. I routinely cruise at 11.5 and 10.5 depending on which way I am going. The aircraft is extremely stable on an ILS approach. My single engine performance: At gross I can hold altitude at 5,000 MSL 100 mph. I also fly over a lot of open water, nothing beats the feeling of a second engine purring along when your family is with you. I do a lot of my own maintenance and agree if you can't do most of it yourself it can get expensive, but it is not difficult. I highly recommend a twin engine aircraft.
N3165P is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
2StgTurbine
Technical
32
10-30-2015 12:24 PM
TheFly
Safety
99
10-30-2013 12:44 PM
seminolepilot
Flight Schools and Training
12
10-09-2013 07:05 PM
Sky Knight
Flight Schools and Training
2
07-13-2011 06:22 AM
aa73
Major
25
08-06-2008 02:40 PM
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices