Looking for my first twin engine
 

Hello everyone. I'm new to GA and by "new" I mean that I've never owned a private airplane before....I'm a military pilot with 2500+ hrs and am looking for a twin engine private plane to chauffeur the family around on for family vacations. We're currently on the east coast and would be looking to take trips primary <700 miles. Our longest trip at this point might tickle the 1000nm mark, but not likely at this point.

Does anyone have any suggestions on what we should be looking at??I've done some internet research and believe that I've narrowed some choices down to a (1) Piper Seneca ii/iii, (2) Piper Twin Commanche, (3) Piper Twin turbo Seminole, or a (4) twin Bonanza.

The majority of our trips would be to east coast snow ski destinations and the occasional trip to Florida so if anyone could offer some pros and cons it would be much appreciated. Thank you in advance for any recommendations or comments that you have.

Take a look at overhaul costs, insurance and annual expenses for a twin verses a single. There is a reason twins are selling so cheap. Make sure you have a prebuy done by a qualified mechanic who is not the guy who did the last annual. An aircraft that flies routinely is better then a hangar queen with lower hours. If the aircraft has been sitting spend the money to pull a cylinder and look inside the motors for corrosion.

I would pick the one with the tallest landing gear. That way you will have someplace for your family to live after you spend yourself out of house and home. You left the Cessna 310 off the list, good airplane, tall gear.

-Unless you're out in the sticks, hangar for a twin is about $480-500/month, so 6k per year.
-You'll need to change the oil at least twice a year, if you can get Phillips 20-50 cheap, it's still $67/case, you'll need 2 cases per oil change (about 10 quarts capacity for a 6-cyl continental and some consumption). Oh and filters, tools, and labor if you don't do it yourself.
-Annual inspection? Got a mechanic you trust and who has worked on that type before? Unless you do an owner-assisted, the piper/beech/Cessna service center can charge you whatever they want and that's 2-3k before they have to fix anything. If you do it yourself, you need the right tools, jacks or a cradle and a cheap set of jacks is $900.
-You can run an engine past TBO if you're not flying it commercially, but you may not want to do the same with your props as seals get tired and corrosion hides in strange places and you just don't want your prop coming off.
-Transponder, pitot-static checks (not too much, about 1-2 hours of labor every 2 years if everything works) and ADS-B compliance (5-12k) will be bills you'll have to face unless you're going to fly VFR only below 10k MSL. Then toss in database updates (400-500/year) for whatever GPS navigator you have.
-Turbosuperchargers? Yet another maintenance piece, somewhat trouble free when they're dialed in, rarely are they dialed in and trouble free on these engines.
-Insurance? That will be based on hull value (which you'll set) but based on your hours expect to pay about $1000/year for a 30,000 hull value. Pretty linear above and below that.
-If your family travel footprint is small (2-3 people) you can cut some of those costs almost in half with a single engine. Lots of NAvions, Bonanzas, and Mooneys out there. Not too strangely, purchase price for a decent one with a mid-time engine is about the same as a twin.

Grandpa told me as a young man that if it flies, floats, or does something else that starts with an f, it's better to rent it. Now, I've owned 2 planes, my dad had 2, and Grandpa had a beautiful old ChrisCraft and we were all married at least once, so we don't listen to our own advice. Based on some of your earlier posts, you may want to wait until pay and schedule settle before you sling a twin-engine anchor around your neck. That is, unless you are a lottery winner and married to an A&P/IA.

I looked into the same type of purchase a year and half ago... after doing research the cost of ownership would be too much IMO. I'd recommend buying a SE that can hold 4 pax easily (not just kids) or just rent a twin... unless you are loaded.

All excellent advice everyone. Thank you much for the breakout Lava!! I've had 4 boats myself and am very familiar with the Bring On Another Thousand (BOAT) toys we spend our money on :) I feel your pain.

I intentionally left the Cessna 310 off of the list based on what I was researching.....I was finding the fuel burn runs between 25-29 gph, compared to 17-24 gph on the others, but maybe I need to revisit it as an option based on everyone's suggestions.

I've got a Fixed & Variable Cost budget sheet that I was working on as well, but it looks like I might need to update some numbers. I was finding annuals between $500-1000, but like you mentioned that might have been owner assisted pricing.....

Thanks again to everyone who has commented!!

GAMI injectors and running LOP may help that, and after doing their online course, I'm convinced that's the way to run your engine, but it's still hard to justify one, much less two engines, imo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whatever cost you end up with - double it! I went with a 52yr old single for its speed and low operating costs. I've already put an additional 10k into tools, headsets, parts, supplies and repairs. I also discovered that the engine was run harder than previously thought so now having to think about 4K for top overhaul.

If you want a twin have at least 40K on hand at any moment to have an engine overhauled. If one engine goes bad and you can't overhaul it then the airplane sits and you need another overhaul. If you can't afford the first overhaul and need to sell airplane expect a Yuuuuuuge loss.

Lastly a high performance single does almost as well as a twin and statistically is no less safe.

You didnt state how many are in the family; are you looking for a twin because of the people capacity, or because of safety?

Part 23 light twins are not required to climb on one engine, let alone maintain altitude. Some have higher service ceilings than others. I'd be a lot more concerned with performance than the difference in hourly fuel burn. Safety. It's your family, after all.

If you look at the mission cost for a dew annual trips set against the aggregate cost of ownership (maintenance, hangar, insurance, operation, training, etc), your hourly cost will be high; higher than renting, and more than likely much more than buying airline tickets. Especially after you factor in the acquisition costs.

Of the rwins you mentioned, the Seneca II/III has the better single engine service ceiling, but I'd look closely at 310's or a Barron. The 310 would be more economical, depending on model, and offer better overall and single engine performance.

Have a large cash reserve set aside for that first annual inspection; four or five times more than you think, no matter how good your pre-buy inspection. Be prepared to be surprised.

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 might want to consider shipping the ski gear. Step up to an airplane that will take passengers plus the luggage plus skis and you're moving to cabin class, and a big hike in cost and maintenance.

If you're going skiing, you'll also need to look at high altitudes for field performance, somewhere that no light twins excell (or are remotely satisfactory, in most cases). Particularly piston equipment. You may want to expand your search to the Cessna 340 or larger, but soon you'll reach a place where a King Air 90 starts to look promising.

For what you're describing, a Navajo would be an appropriate size for pistons, albeit expensive, or move to a turbine Cheyenne or Conquest.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Navajo is excellent with ice, at least much better than many singles and twins (better than Caravans).

Why are you ruling out singles like the Cirrus?

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.

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.

Add the A36 Bonanza to the research list too.

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.

Cessna 207. If you were serious, you could make that work well, but what it really comes down to is good maintenance and care. I'm half-kidding about the 207, but piston engines are amazingly good if you take good care of them, like warming up/pre-heating, proper power and mixture management in the air and the ground, changing oil, inspecting fittings and replacing stuff, etc. I'm not adverse to piston engines, even just one, but I have a lot of experience flying them, singles and twins. Some twin-jet drivers may not be able to comprehend something that can't maintain 20,000 on one engine, much less something with only one engine. But as an Inspector, I've seen both sides of the coin as far as piston engines. Those people and airlines that take care of them have nearly bombproof service, while those that let things slide more and pinch the pennies sometimes walk the line of relying on basic certification and FAR rules to save them from themselves, which doesn't always happen. So if you are going to invest in an aircraft and do it right, I'd much rather invest in something with one Lycoming 540 or similar engine and put money into doing everything right with it and taking care of it, rather than being possibly spread thin with a twin with two engines and propellers and retractable gear. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of non-draggy piston singles that can carry that much except the Piper Malibu/Matrix or an old P210, but the Cessna 206 has a great reputation for being work-horse airplane and solid. Flying in the mountainous west, you simply need to plan your flights properly and not take ridiculous chances, which means you might get delayed every once and a while. Turbo is not necessary IME, but you need good experience with density altitude. Can be done safely no problem. Turbo brings a bunch of considerations and operating practices you need to do smartly and safely, from engine management to using oxygen, which can be more complication than practical. Most mountain, high DA and low-performance twin flying is all about ADM and planning, usually no stranger to most 121 pilots, except having to do it yourself, but usually quite different than many yahoos that figure their airplane will work for them at any time under any circumstance. A wise man said these situations are as safe as you make them, from the maintenance performed to your turn out direction. If the risk is too great, you just don't fly that day, rather than push equipment that is marginal for the conditions.

Holy Cow!!! You guys are posting some great advice. Like I said in my opening post, I openly admit to being a newbie in the GA community and everything you guys are saying makes sense. I guess to narrow down my searches a little more, I NEED to narrow down my exact needs better.

Being a ski family occupies most of our time in the winter months (all be it East Coast skiing for now), I need to re-evaluate whether or not a twin is a NEED or WANT......We certainly will use the airplane for other trips along the entire eastern US, but maybe a single is the way to go.

A single-engine has been nice to me for 17+ years, so maybe I was over thinking the NEED for a twin to move the family around? While I would/will certainly put in the time to become smart on doing the routine things that I can do (i.e. anything not requiring an A&P mechanic for), maybe the single engines would suit our needs a little better.

BTW, you guys are awesome!!

Dude, seriously, don't risk your whole family! If it flies or floats, its much cheaper to rent. If you really want to go on ski trips with your family, buy them all tickets on a 121 airline. I've attended way too many funerals and investigated way too many G/A fatal accidents under circumstances for which you are considering. Marginal performance, unknown quality maintenance and less reliable, non-turbine engined airplanes are not worth wiping out a whole family. Just my honest opinion after 30 years in aviation.

As one twin-jet and quad-jet driver, I comprehend it. I've spent a significant number of years at low altitudes in the mountains in single and multi engine airplanes. When I say low altitudes, I mean close to the terrain between 5' and 200'. Much of that terrain has been on fire at the time. I don't know how many "twin jet drivers" will respond who have experienced not only engine failures in mountainous terrain, but off field forced landings as a result, but I'll respond, having done all of the above. More than once.

I appreciate the notion that a single engine piston airplane ought to be reliable and probably won't fail, but that's a notion that could only be endorsed by someone who hasn't experienced it, and for whom the concept of making a forced off field landing in mountainous terrain is only an academic query.

I flew 207's quite a bit, in some rough country. I had an engine failure in one. I flew single engine piston and turbine aircraft in rough country, and had an engine failure in both single piston and single turbine aircraft, resulting in forced landings.

Personally, I don't do single engine night, IFR, or IMC, though I still do a fair amount of single engine flight in the mountains. Unless someone is fully prepared to make an off field landing in the mountains, I strongly suggest refraining from flying singles in the mountains, and unless one is operating a twin that's capable of an engine-out at high density altitudes, has known ice capability, and good redundancy (a twin with a cheap vacuum manifold on a light piston twin really isn't), there may be better roads to Rome.

As for the Cirrus aircraft...their chief claim to fame, other than automotive decor is the CAPS parachute, which far too many treat like an alternate airport. It isn't. It's also not a suitable substitute for good planning, which doesn't include single engine IMC over the mountains (or a flight by someone who can't execute a forced landing without the parachute...in other words, it ought not be used as a crutch by those who lack the capability, ability, and basic skills). CAPS is an emergency system that should not be used as a shortstop for bad judgement and lack of skill.

DoUEvenLoopBro,

You are saying you want to buy an airplane that carries passengers, luggage, and skis. This assumes you have the money. If you have the money, go for it!

It definitely sounds like you need cabin class. The Navajo immediately comes to mind. I am reminded of Lynn Johnston, the writer of the cartoon strip, For Better or For Worse.

For Better or For Worse by Lynn Johnston | Read Comic Strips at GoComics.com

One time she wrote that her real family had a Navajo, and they sounded like they were very happy with it. It gave them the freedom to pick up and go anywhere within range at a moment's notice. And they live in Canada, so they probably have a lot of winter ops experience. (And she writes a popular, profitable comic strip, so yes, they can afford it.)

Reading through this whole thing, as much as I love GA flying, I have to say with my family in the winter............buy first class and rent a suburban 4wd.

A single for the rest makes sense. Unless your trying to build some multi time for another reason.

Good luck

30 years of flying both large Part 121 and small GA aircraft, I would go with a 2011 or newer SR22 (NA). (Don't buy the turbo). I operated 3 of them over the years and they are great planes. The G1000 and G700 Autopilot make the plane easy and a pleasure to fly. I think your chances with the CAPS system is better than your chances of losing an engine in a light twin and trying to fly with the operating one. Not to mention if anything ever happened to you, your family would have a very good chance of walking away if they are well trained on how to handle a CAPs deployment.
Feel free to PM me if you want any more info.

How many times did you deploy CAPS (or how many times have you landed a round parachute), and how many engine failures have you had in light multi engine airplanes?

Seriously consider a Cessna 303. It was a shame that Cessna stopped production in 1985 or so. Very easy to fly, simple systems, and counter-rotating props to make single engine operations easier.

Joe

SR22 is a nice plane but not sure it fits his need for pax and cargo (ski equipment)... and although the CAPS is a nice safety feature you'll still hit the ground pretty hard and will cause some serious injuries. Just flew with a captain that owned a SR22GTS and flies it a lot... he said the purchase/operating cost is high... almost to the point that renting isn't much more of a cost. If you just have to own the plane and have the money then go for it... if not, I'd rent.

Having been a CSIP over the years, I can attest that am not a huge fan of the Cirrus community. I think they are a bunch of too - cool for school, type A DBs to be quite honest. However we cannot argue that the CAPS record speaks for itself. Do some research. Those that have pulled it tell a story that I am sold on. When the chute is pulled within it's operating envelope it saves lives. The impact is the equivalent of dropping from 3 stories up. Firm but very survivable. No one is saying use it as a crutch to fly outside your limits.

He record does speak for itself. Over half of the deployments in circumstances where the pilot should never have been, and unending accounts by private pilots (et al) who wouldnt have attempted the trip save for the parachute. It becomes their defacto portable alternate airport. Given that most of the deployments have involved perfectly good airplanes taken beyond the pilot's own capabilities, one can argue that while CAPS does save lives on occasion, it does far more to promote endangerment.

When Cirrus considers every deployment a "save," the statistics are badly skewed. After all, they say, pull, and pull often. We'll make more.

Even though the flight manual clearly states that deployment of CAPS will result in destruction of the airframe and quite possibly death. Whether it's the Cirrus loaded past gross with four people and fuel over the Rockies at night in a thunderstorm, in which the pilot deployed because he lost control (round parachute canopy in tstorms in the mountains...not good), or the gentleman that deployed and floated gently under canopy to the ground in Colorado, while burning to death...to call every one a "save" is at best a misnomer.

That Cirrus used the parachute to compensate for the inability to show spin recovery for certification, but never tested it to a landing, speaks volumes.

Looking for my first twin engine
 

I have a friend that's a retired professional pilot, who is trading in a G36 Bonanza for a Cirrus. He knows his limits and sets hard boundaries for IFR flight. He's doing it because of his age and the ability to have his wife trained to deploy the chute in case of his incapacitation. I think his reasoning is sound for his situation.
I've never flown a Cirrus, but I've only spoken to one pilot that's flown them that likes them.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You guys are awesome!

After everyone's advice and through some more detailed analysis of both our needs, wants, and budget constraints I think we've narrowed it down to the Cessna 310 or Cessna 340 as far as twins go. And the Cherokee 6/300 or A36 Bonanza for singles.....thoughts???

Can anyone speak to the pros and cons of Turbos?

Simple - turbo increases performance and cost. The relationship between the two is not linear.

Rent, rent, rent. Rent the same twin over and over and you'll feel like you almost own it. Plus you can a better performing, well taken airplane. Buy the big single for the hamburgers and the runs to Fl.

There is a big difference in your 310/340. Pressurization can get expensive. Thought about 421s but the geared motors can cause people issues.

I would look more at a 310 vs 402 comparison OR 340 vs 414.
I have no recommendations for either as my youth was spent in Pipers. Chieftains are great.

As far as singles, a T210 would be my choice for load/performance/WB.

Many have said the rent mantra over and over here...and I would tend to agree. You already have said that you are running spread sheets to do some cost analyses. You should also be looking at what it would cost to rent a plane to do what you are hoping to do and the compare the costs to see which way is the best choice. A friend of mine says he needs to average flying his plane 5 hours a month to justify owning it versus renting.

Now let me throw one more idea into your head. Because renting does have its limitations. Planes could be beat up or not available. Weekend rental rates could be prohibitive. You could go down to your local airport and find someone that owns a plane that serves what you need and offer to become a joint owner. You would need to come up with some form of agreement as to how you split the costs (50/50 on annual, % of flight time for wear and tear repairs) so that you each feel you are getting a fair deal. It will cut the costs of owning way down and allow you to fly a plane you know the maintenance history on and will more than likely be in better shape than any rental.

A friend of mine was looking for a Cherokee 6. Ran into another friend that was about to sell his because it was too expensive to own by himself and fly as much as he wanted. They partnered on the plane. Later on they took on two more partners. Now the four of them have one of the nicest planes at the airport. It is much easier to decide to upgrade those radios/nav/interior/etc when you are only paying 1/4 of the cost. They have a shared calendar where they sign up to use the plane. Each guy has a certain number of days per year where once he is signed up, those are his days. Beyond those, he can sign up, but be bumped by someone that has guaranteed days left. They split split all costs evenly as they figure they are all flying it about the same amount of time (or have the option to fly it the same amount).

Odds are there is someone at your airport of choice that isn't able to put gas in their plane because all their spare money is getting put into maintenance. Find that guy and you get access to a nice plane at half the cost and they cut their costs in half and are able to fly more. As with all partnerships, get it in writing as to who pays what, how scheduling the plane will work, how to leave the partnership when that time comes, and other specifics. If you don't get it all on the first draft, then you can always draft up amendments when you make a new partnership decision.

This is the route I would be going if I was to "buy" a plane right now, but fortunately I have a father-in-law with a nice enough Arrow that I can tool around in. He is getting up there in age and is just happy someone is getting the plane in the air now and then.

I've heard that buying a plane sucks, renting a plane sucks, and buy/lease back to an FBO sucks real bad. Best advice I've heard is that buying a plane works well if you don't like sharing your stuff... and of course have the bank roll to do it. Renting in block hours from an FBO is probably the most cost effective method from what i've heard but you don't have ultimate control of the schedules for a specific plane and don't have control of the mx.

FIKI Aztec F model?
 

It can do everything you want. Without going to cabin class
If you go cabin class 340&414 useful load with fuel on board is almost nothing. You can fill all 4 tanks of the Aztruck all 6 seats and some bags "usually" without maxing out if it's got a few of the good mods you can expect 170-200kts