Looking at buying a light twin
03-30-2011, 05:25 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,194
Originally Posted by AbortAbortAbort
What about Twin Commanders? I would imagine slow, but I know zero about them.
Grumble, what did you guys settle on, if anything?
Grumble, what did you guys settle on, if anything?
We settled on going with two Van's RV's.
03-30-2011, 06:00 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: CFI
Posts: 413
I have a friend with a b55 with the IO-470s. At econemy cruise at altitude an full gross: 162 TAS at 9.2 a side per hour. Not bad if you ask me. Bump it up to full power you're looking at 14 an hour or so at 185 TAS. Not worth the 10 gph if I'm paying.
03-31-2011, 07:33 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Back to the right side
Posts: 227
Originally Posted by FlyFast310
Why does it have to be a twin? It sounds like for your mission you need a Bonanza A36. It has the big barn doors in back, and won't cost as much as a baron to operate.
03-31-2011, 07:45 AM
#15
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,317
Yeah I'd go for the twin if you're doing over-water, or night/IMC in inhospitable terrain but otherwise you might consider a single.
Although with the price inversion right now the single is not going to be any cheaper to buy, you'll save on operations. How much you save save depends on how much you fly.
Although with the price inversion right now the single is not going to be any cheaper to buy, you'll save on operations. How much you save save depends on how much you fly.
03-31-2011, 07:59 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Self employed
Posts: 3,048
The A36 Bonanza, or B36TC (which uses the Baron wing and a turbocharger) are both awesome planes, and nobody could argue that they won't do the mission as profiled. I'd probably pick the 36TC for west flying in the mountains, and the A36 for east of the Rocky Mountains.
They are virtually IDENTICAL to a Baron 58 series (except 58P), except without those redundancies that are so critical whilst overflying low visibility areas, mountains, at night, etc. Plus, clients will be more impressed (if that's important) with a Baron than a Bonanza.
If we're considering single engine planes, nobody said an SR-22. Whole airframe parachute, the same big Continental 550 engine that is available in the upgraded Bonanzas and Barons, the oldest one is only 10 years old, no corrosion / fatigue resisitent plastic airframe. It is only a 4 pax plane, and it won't have big barn doors in the rear for loading. Sexy swing up doors on both sides (unlike Baron/Bonanza and most GA planes, except Cessna light singles).
Here's a 2004 SR22 for just under $200k, with 17 for sale now on Trade a Plane:
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/...G2/988358.html
They are virtually IDENTICAL to a Baron 58 series (except 58P), except without those redundancies that are so critical whilst overflying low visibility areas, mountains, at night, etc. Plus, clients will be more impressed (if that's important) with a Baron than a Bonanza.
If we're considering single engine planes, nobody said an SR-22. Whole airframe parachute, the same big Continental 550 engine that is available in the upgraded Bonanzas and Barons, the oldest one is only 10 years old, no corrosion / fatigue resisitent plastic airframe. It is only a 4 pax plane, and it won't have big barn doors in the rear for loading. Sexy swing up doors on both sides (unlike Baron/Bonanza and most GA planes, except Cessna light singles).
Here's a 2004 SR22 for just under $200k, with 17 for sale now on Trade a Plane:
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/...G2/988358.html
03-31-2011, 08:21 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Self employed
Posts: 3,048
Single vs Twin is a perennial debate. According to 100LL - Aviation Fuel Prices, gas is about $5.50/gal now. Not that many years ago, it was under $2. I think we all know it won't get cheaper.
Any of the non-turbo big bore airplanes you're considering can operate at 12.5gph, so $68/hr. Double for a twin.
Insurance can be much more for a twin of comparable hull value (too many amateur pilots seem to have bad days in them).
Maintenance for a Baron vs Bonanza, comparable until engine overhaul time. Then, obviously, that's double. Ramps charge a small premium to park a twin.
If you're a pro-pilot, and really want to go when you want to go (day/night/wx/mountains), and the single biggest cost increase comparing the Bo/Baron is fuel is not a huge problem, I'd still go with a Baron.
You won't care how much money you saved when that single fan quits on you. (note: I've owned a few singles, and had great times in them)
Any of the non-turbo big bore airplanes you're considering can operate at 12.5gph, so $68/hr. Double for a twin.
Insurance can be much more for a twin of comparable hull value (too many amateur pilots seem to have bad days in them).
Maintenance for a Baron vs Bonanza, comparable until engine overhaul time. Then, obviously, that's double. Ramps charge a small premium to park a twin.
If you're a pro-pilot, and really want to go when you want to go (day/night/wx/mountains), and the single biggest cost increase comparing the Bo/Baron is fuel is not a huge problem, I'd still go with a Baron.
You won't care how much money you saved when that single fan quits on you. (note: I've owned a few singles, and had great times in them)
03-31-2011, 08:33 AM
#18
Che Guevara
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Originally Posted by AbortAbortAbort
The Baron looks like a solid plane from talking to you Tony, I appreciate all your input.
I think the cabin class twins (Cessna or Piper) tend to be somewhat of a pipe dream for us...could be cool to own, affordable to purchase, but probably bigger than what we really need and want the plane for. Considering that maybe half of our flying might involve passengers, and rarely more than two, and rarely clients who would actually care about the size, I just don't see a cost to benefit for it.
The 310 is somewhat of an oddball I think in that it's a bit bigger than some other planes (you can somewhat squeeze between the seats to move around), but the fact that you have to climb onto the wing, then in, then to the back if you're riding back there sort of turns me off. I did my multi and MEI training in a 310 and really enjoyed flying it but if the maintenance record of the one I did my training in was about average it's probably one I should avoid.
What about Twin Commanders? I would imagine slow, but I know zero about them.
Grumble, what did you guys settle on, if anything?
I think the cabin class twins (Cessna or Piper) tend to be somewhat of a pipe dream for us...could be cool to own, affordable to purchase, but probably bigger than what we really need and want the plane for. Considering that maybe half of our flying might involve passengers, and rarely more than two, and rarely clients who would actually care about the size, I just don't see a cost to benefit for it.
The 310 is somewhat of an oddball I think in that it's a bit bigger than some other planes (you can somewhat squeeze between the seats to move around), but the fact that you have to climb onto the wing, then in, then to the back if you're riding back there sort of turns me off. I did my multi and MEI training in a 310 and really enjoyed flying it but if the maintenance record of the one I did my training in was about average it's probably one I should avoid.
What about Twin Commanders? I would imagine slow, but I know zero about them.
Grumble, what did you guys settle on, if anything?
03-31-2011, 08:50 AM
#20
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
VRef is the best source on used general aviation values, but here is something from Aircraft Blue Book. Boy is it a good time to buy a piston twin.
Used aircraft values
Used aircraft values
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
