Wife wants a twin, but does it exist?

Just remember, there is a reason why twins often cost less than complex high HP singles . . . .

and - unless you get an aircraft that can maintain altitude on one engine above the rocks - there is no point to it. while an engine out in a single means you are not maintaining altitude, a twin that cannot hold its own is trouble waiting to happen and offers a very false sense of security since if you have say, a 160hp Apache or 180hp Seminole, you still need to operate it as if it were a single when it comes to overwater and similar -
 
Banjo33 said:
Lol, she's actually really disappointed the Aerostar is out of the running! I've got to manage her expectations a little better and show her 310s and BOs. The Twinkie may be a little short of her expectations...I like the notion of having the ability to operate it frugally when there's no requirement for max forward speed, so I'll continue to watch them.

Regarding her(our) speed requirements...she wants 200+ kts! I told her the entry point for that is just way too high, so I've worked her down to 180kts. But, that adds another half hour or so to an already 4hr trip. Take off another 15 kts and that's another half hour resulting in an almost 5 1/2 hr trip! That would absolutely require a rest stop enroute, which now adds another 1 1/2-2 hrs to the trip (we have a 4 year old boy). You're talking 7-7 1/2 hrs now. If we wanted to take a 3 day weekend to visit the family, 2 full days would be spent traveling. In that case, might as well buy a 180hp Cherokee (8 hrs) or fly commercial...she would absolutely choose commercial in that case :nono:.
Click to expand...

A T310R will work out the best for you as you can take advantage of the TAS gains/economies even below O2 altitudes. IME the T-310 R is about 50% more expensive to operate than the rest of the 310s. Another option is an earlier turbo 310 or 320. The R model though has the most volume, and with nacelle tanks, you can carry a lot of fuel.

Another advantage with a 310 comes when you want to step into one of the cabin class Cessnas, the insurance accepts all that 310 time because they all fly basically the same and fly practically the same numbers if not exactly. Stepping between them is not a major transition, so your initial insurance on a 421 is pretty good if you have 200hrs in a 310.
 
Well, the Aerostar will outfly all of these numbers. It will be faster and cheaper in fuel per nm compared to any twin except a Tecnam P2006T or a TwinStar. You can't beat low drag.
 
comanchepilot said:
Just remember, there is a reason why twins often cost less than complex high HP singles . . . .

and - unless you get an aircraft that can maintain altitude on one engine above the rocks - there is no point to it. while an engine out in a single means you are not maintaining altitude, a twin that cannot hold its own is trouble waiting to happen and offers a very false sense of security since if you have say, a 160hp Apache or 180hp Seminole, you still need to operate it as if it were a single when it comes to overwater and similar -
Click to expand...
While what you are saying is technically correct, even a normally aspirated twin has an engine-out drift down rate which meets or exceeds the glide ratio of some very high performance competition sailplanes. This characteristic doesn't mean they are dangerous up in the tall rocks, it just means that you've got to understand their capabilities and respect their limitations. Even with all of their limitations, properly flown, they still offer more operational latitude than HP/complex singles.

Also, as far as overwater ops in those N/A twins, even going along in ground effect beats ditching. ;) A N/A light twin with a SESC of 6,000' will do quite well OEI out over the gulf or great lakes or just about any body of water worth mentioning. :yes:
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
Well, the Aerostar will outfly all of these numbers. It will be faster and cheaper in fuel per nm compared to any twin except a Tecnam P2006T or a TwinStar. You can't beat low drag.
Click to expand...

I WANT one! But, you've got to convince me the Mx won't be more expensive than the 310/BE55....my research indicates there are more negative reviews in this respect than positive reviews, which doesn't bode well unfortunately. Then there's the insurance thing...Help me Stratobee! Lol
 
Merry Christmas to you too bobanna. And thank you for the kind words earlier in this thread...I've been blessed!
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Mine was 155 on 21 combined LOP, and ROP got it to maybe 160. Plus the cabin leaked a ton so it was always cold in the winter regardless of Janitrol use.

Mine was a clapped out 10k TTAF dog freighter, though. If I'd paid attention to some of the details and speed mods then like I do today, 165-170 might've been doable. Figure a bit more with the 290 HP STC. The Aztecs you flew were probably in better shape. Mine was destined for the junkyard, but for 4 years I gave her one hell of a finale before retirement. I miss that plane.

Meanwhile, with 520s in my 310 I'm doing 180 on 23 or 194 on 27. I think I'll be able to hit 200 with a few more details.

You're 100% correct about best all-weather plane. My Aztec would carry enough ice to fill the arctic and it was rock solid in the worst of weather. The biggest reason we sold it was we didn't need two planes and the 310 was in much better shape. But now with 3 kids, I do find myself thinking how the Aztec's cabin would be better suited, but I still like the 310 better.
Click to expand...

Most of my cross-country time in an Aztec was a 1974 model and would do those speeds. It was in good condition with low time engines. I flew it around the Great Lakes and your experience in the ice mirrors mine.

Take the RH middle seat out of an Aztec, which we did, and it is a pretty roomy cabin for five, and still comfortable when we put the seat back in and filled the seats. We did spend a bit of time chasing leaks so that it would be warm enough in Upper Midwest winters.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
We're done with kids, but a Navajo or 414 has crossed the dinner table discussions. I just have a hard time spending more money to go slower with worse OEI performance.

I wish the PA-41P had hit production...
Click to expand...

The PA-31-310 has decent OEI performance, and great performance when a few hundred pounds under gross. The engines are pretty bullet proof, it is about the nicest flying of the Piper twins, but maintenance is pretty comparable to a B58, but lots more plane. Only problem, won't fit in a T hangar. But neither will an Aerostar.
 
Henning said:
A T310R will work out the best for you as you can take advantage of the TAS gains/economies even below O2 altitudes. IME the T-310 R is about 50% more expensive to operate than the rest of the 310s. Another option is an earlier turbo 310 or 320. The R model though has the most volume, and with nacelle tanks, you can carry a lot of fuel.

Another advantage with a 310 comes when you want to step into one of the cabin class Cessnas, the insurance accepts all that 310 time because they all fly basically the same and fly practically the same numbers if not exactly. Stepping between them is not a major transition, so your initial insurance on a 421 is pretty good if you have 200hrs in a 310.
Click to expand...

Where does that extra 50% become a factor? If it's fuel burn when operating on the turbo, how does pulling the throttle back on the other 60% of the flights effect that number? If it's just general MX/upkeep of a turbo, well there's nothing that can really be done about that. Is 50% more expensive synonymous with $175 greater than the $350/hr operational cost?
 
brien23 said:
If you plan on flying hard IFR in a twin look for one with known ice certified.
I believe on the cessna line of 310 only the C-310R is known ice certified. very few other twins are certified for known ice, lots have boots and other deice props and other stuff but only a few are certified for flight into known ice.:nono:
Click to expand...

FIKI is not all it is cracked up to be. I will fly formation in the ice with a non-FIKI Aztec, with a FIKI 310, and I guarantee that the plane that drops out first will be the FIKI 310. What is important is the overall aerodynamics. The Aztec has a fat, high lift wing. The 310 has a skinnier wing.
 
Banjo33 said:
I WANT one! But, you've got to convince me the Mx won't be more expensive than the 310/BE55....my research indicates there are more negative reviews in this respect than positive reviews, which doesn't bode well unfortunately. Then there's the insurance thing...Help me Stratobee! Lol
Click to expand...

It will be twice that of a 310 given you operate them at the same level of their respective capability. If you slow the Aerostar down to 200 though and run a T-310-R at 200, you have a much different situation, it could go either way.
 
brien23 said:
Some of the items to think about on a known ice AC are.
supplement for Flight In Icing Conditions. It says "Installation of Beech Kit No. 58-5012 properly equips the airplane for flight in icing conditions." It lists several limitations and 2 placards that are required. Then it lists the REQUIRED EQUIPMENT FOR FLIGHT IN ICING CONDITIONS:
1. Antennas for which strength and locations have been approved for flight in icing conditions.
2. Combustion Heater
3. Current Flight in Icing Conditions Supplement (58-590000-33)
4. Electrothermal Heated Windshield Segment
5. Electrothermal Propeller Deice System
6. Emergency Static Air Source System
7. Fuel Vent Heaters
8. Heated Pitot Tube
9. Stall Warning Heater
10. Surface Deice System (Inboard and Outboard Wing, Horizontal and Vertical Stabilizer Deice Boots)
11. Two Alternators, both rated at 85- or 100-amperes
12. Wing Ice Lights (Left Side)

It also states that the Pneumatic pumps are time limited to 600 hours of engine operation.

Just something to think about before you go into ice.
Click to expand...

What model year airplane? One thing to understand about icing certification is that the "Flight into Known Icing" certification didn't exist before about 1976-77. Before that, it was up to the manufacturer. My 74 Aztec was not "FIKI", but was approved for flight into "light to moderate icing conditions" when equipped with . . . There was not, however, a limitation on flying your Aztec without deicing equipment, there was only a lack of approval. After FIKI came along, then either it was certified for FIKI, or there was a limitation that flight in known icing was prohibited. This is a subtle, but legally significant distinction.
 
Twinkies have the same operating economies as the Comanche singles. They offer lower entry and operating costs than Bonanzas for very similar real world operating speeds and payloads.

The twinco for sale seems like a very nice example of that airplane - and you have a good Comanche mechanic close enough for annuals in Bill Turley.

I doubt you will see much difference in real world speeds between the TwinCo and a B55 or a 310, unless you find a turbo example of the 310R or B55.

Absolute speed is not what its a bout since even though most time is spent at altitude, in a 3 hour leg at 190 vs. 180 TAS the lower speeds only add 10 min to the trip. Given vectoring and slowing for arrivals and the lack of airport to airport direct flights and then speed restrictions IFR . . .you'll never notice it.

So don't sell her on absolute speed but effective speed, comfort, dispatch reliability and cost of operation. . . .
 
comanchepilot said:
Twinkies have the same operating economies as the Comanche singles. They offer lower entry and operating costs than Bonanzas for very similar real world operating speeds and payloads.

The twinco for sale seems like a very nice example of that airplane - and you have a good Comanche mechanic close enough for annuals in Bill Turley.

I doubt you will see much difference in real world speeds between the TwinCo and a B55 or a 310, unless you find a turbo example of the 310R or B55.

Absolute speed is not what its a bout since even though most time is spent at altitude, in a 3 hour leg at 190 vs. 180 TAS the lower speeds only add 10 min to the trip. Given vectoring and slowing for arrivals and the lack of airport to airport direct flights and then speed restrictions IFR . . .you'll never notice it.

So don't sell her on absolute speed but effective speed, comfort, dispatch reliability and cost of operation. . . .
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem like it's true anymore, Bonanzas have dropped in price, and the few nice Comanches out there fetch a decent price.
 
Kristin said:
The PA-31-310 has decent OEI performance, and great performance when a few hundred pounds under gross. The engines are pretty bullet proof, it is about the nicest flying of the Piper twins, but maintenance is pretty comparable to a B58, but lots more plane. Only problem, won't fit in a T hangar. But neither will an Aerostar.
Click to expand...

The 310 HP Navajos aren't bad OEI for sure, and a Panther is better yet. But, still got the higher costs. I love Navajos - it'd be worth considering if I got the right deal on the right plane.
 
You might reach out to Mark Shilling. AKA NC Pilot, look in the member list and shoot him a PM.
He moved up to a twin last year and is in your neck of the woods.
 
Henning said:
That doesn't seem like it's true anymore, Bonanzas have dropped in price, and the few nice Comanches out there fetch a decent price.
Click to expand...

A really nice well eqpt'd B55 is going to cost a lot more than a Twinky. . . .

Twinky's have more demand - easier to fly and maintain . . . . I know good bonanza mechanic and the annuals on my Comanche start out $200 lower than one on any year Bo. . . .
 
comanchepilot said:
A really nice well eqpt'd B55 is going to cost a lot more than a Twinky. . . .

Twinky's have more demand - easier to fly and maintain . . . . I know good bonanza mechanic and the annuals on my Comanche start out $200 lower than one on any year Bo. . . .
Click to expand...

I can find nicely (not full glass) equipped 55 Barons for $50k. Twinkles have always been expensive, a Twinkie cost $120k at the time I spent $40k for my turbo Travelair. Personally if I wanted a 4 cyl twin it would likely be another BE-95.
 
My B-55 is certificated FIKI with TKS. It is not a license to fly for prolonged periods in ice, but the flying surfaces do not pick up ice (including the props). The nose, spinners, and antennas do pick up ice but the important stuff stays clean. Flying in the midwest in the winter time, especially around and over Lake Michigan can be a setup to pick up ice, and it will keep the airframe free of ice while climbing or descending between layers when otherwise it would be a no-go situation. There is no dependence on boots and hot props or slingers, and no need to rely on vacuum pumps. Also, there is no maintenance unlike boots, or a hot plate to burn out. A new FIKI installation on my Baron was around 10K more than an installation of boots, and well worth the added expense in my opinion. The on board radar is also a plus for the summertime challenge of t-storms, along with the NEXRAD via XM.

The Aztec is a nice plane, but slow compared to other twins especially considering the big engines.
 
FIKI TKS for a B55 is really really nice, but with the system for the A36 clocking in at 60k, I dont even want to know what it costs for a Baron.

If purchase and maintenance budget are an issue, purchasing and maintaining a FIKI plane is probably not in the picture.
 
I'd love TKS in the 310. But the cost would mean I'd never do it, even if available.
 
You know... there is another possibility you didn't cover in your OP... perhaps your wife wants a doppleganger, and not an aircraft? :) :) :)

You know, Doublemint style??? ;) ;) ;)
 
I recall the FIKI installation being around 42k, but this was 10-12 years ago. The only maintenance required is to run it once and a while, and I always check all of the pumps. Boots installed (still leaving alcohol windshield and props) were over 30k, so the decision at the time was pretty easy. The TKS fluid is pretty expensive and makes a slippery slimy mess on the floor of the hangar, but will run around 2+ hours. I carry around jugs of the stuff to fill the tank on the road, but would never go back to boots/vacuum pumps/alcohol windshield and prop slingers.
 
Has Kelly certified their hot surface pad on any planes yet? I asked them about it at OSH a few years back, but the didn't seem interested in STCing it on anything or selling it to anyone. I guess the just wated to attract OEMs?:dunno: Seemed like a less than optimum business model.
 
Bobanna said:
Good point, DS. The second engine can provide more options if the limitations are understood and managed appropriately. Another way looking at a twin includes twice the probability of an engine-out emergency; though much of that is offset by having dual alternators, vacuum pumps, etc. The old adage bears consideration: "When you lose an engine in a single, you're in trouble. When you lose an engine in a twin, you're in twice as much trouble (NB: the first several hundred feet after liftoff). Just sayin'....
Click to expand...

Not if you've taken the time and money to maintain proficiency. The problem is many light twin owner pilots don't.
 
comanchepilot said:
A really nice well eqpt'd B55 is going to cost a lot more than a Twinky. . . .
Click to expand...

Having owned both, there's absolutely no question the Baron was much more expensive to own, maintain and operate. Not even close !
 
KLRDMD said:
Having owned both, there's absolutely no question the Baron was much more expensive to own, maintain and operate. Not even close !
Click to expand...

Depends a lot on the individual airplane. Any airplane that hasn't been taken care of or kept up will cost you big bucks eventually.

While I haven't owned a Twinkie, I got my ME in one and it spent a heck of a lot more time in the shop than my B55. But I did plenty of research when buying and found a very well maintained one. With the single exception of a recent autopilot issue, my yearly maintenance bills on the Baron have been less than on my 170.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I have astounding news! YES! It does exist! It be an aerostar machen conversion and its sitting at bay bridge airport in maryland right now. Professionally flown, well maintained company aircraft. Red white and blue. You'll just need to come up with additional wampum.
Click to expand...

Is it hiding in a small hangar? The only Aerostar I see regularly there is out on the line, with flat tires and no props. :dunno:
 
Fearless Tower said:
Depends a lot on the individual airplane. Any airplane that hasn't been taken care of or kept up will cost you big bucks eventually.
Click to expand...

Paul McCracken, widely regarded as one of the best Beechcraft gurus in the world, did the pre-buy on my Baron so I feel pretty comfortable that I bought a good example.
 
catmandu said:
Is it hiding in a small hangar? The only Aerostar I see regularly there is out on the line, with flat tires and no props. :dunno:
Click to expand...

That.

The only piston twins I see really doing any flying are trainer Seminoles and Sennicas, couple twinkies and the occasional Navajo.
 
One other factor that ought to be considered and occasionally comes into play is where will the airplane be maintained. All things considered, there's really not a lot of difference in performance and capability between a Baron and a 310 or for that matter any of the airplanes mentioned as possibilities. Ten knots is not a meaningful speed difference. However, let's say that you've got your heart set on a 310, but there's a well known Baron maintenance guru located on your airport or perhaps just a short flight away. That ought to weigh heavily in your decision. It can take a lot of time (read: $$$) to turn your typical Cessna and Piper single engine mechanic into someone who knows his way around that Turbo 310 you just bought. Buying that Baron and having experienced and knowledgeable maintenance close by can save big bucks not to mention having a significant impact on dispatch reliability. If you up the anti a bit and go pressurized this becomes even more of a factor.
 
Last edited:
Let me ask a question out of curiosity - not trying to provoke unrestrained laughter, but does anyone have some reasonably good quotes on what that 750 mile trip would cost to charter? I know - the demurrage on layover would be a killer. Charter might be a solution to availability issues, as well. An owned twin might be readily available, when when it's down it might be down for a couple of months waiting on parts, shop time, etc., and there goes your Thanksgiving trip or the summer window when the kids are out of school.
 
jnmeade said:
Let me ask a question out of curiosity - not trying to provoke unrestrained laughter, but does anyone have some reasonably good quotes on what that 750 mile trip would cost to charter? I know - the demurrage on layover would be a killer. Charter might be a solution to availability issues, as well. An owned twin might be readily available, when when it's down it might be down for a couple of months waiting on parts, shop time, etc., and there goes your Thanksgiving trip or the summer window when the kids are out of school.
Click to expand...

421 usually Charters around $750-$850 an hour last I looked, figure 3.5 hrs.
 
jnmeade said:
Let me ask a question out of curiosity - not trying to provoke unrestrained laughter, but does anyone have some reasonably good quotes on what that 750 mile trip would cost to charter? I know - the demurrage on layover would be a killer. Charter might be a solution to availability issues, as well. An owned twin might be readily available, when when it's down it might be down for a couple of months waiting on parts, shop time, etc., and there goes your Thanksgiving trip or the summer window when the kids are out of school.
Click to expand...

I charter a 414 locally for some business trips and it usually comes in at $4.50/mile for day trips. My last trip was 550 miles to destination, 8 hours on ground, and return and it was $5,200.

I bill myself $2,400 for the same trip in my 310.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top