Game changer..what plane now?

40-50 GPH? For a 421. LOP/economy cruise in a 310 is in the low 20s, even an Aerostar should be low 30s. But I wouldn't buy an Aerostar as a new twin pilot.
 
MotoFlier said:
You both had me up till the whole 40-50gph fuel burn haha
Click to expand...

I mentioned the non-turbo model and the 75% fuel flow is ~29GPH. Still plenty high, but you're moving down the road pretty well at that burn. It's one of the more efficient twins for the speed.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
40-50 GPH? For a 421. LOP/economy cruise in a 310 is in the low 20s, even an Aerostar should be low 30s. But I wouldn't buy an Aerostar as a new twin pilot.
Click to expand...

One yoke, two rudder pedals, six levers. Yeah, you're moving fairly fast compared to a Cessna 172, but there's no special sauce for NA Aerostar. I have a grand total of 26 minutes in it including a take off and climb to cruise. With another 2 hours right seat. I'm no great shakes, but it didn't strike me as being higher workload than the other twins. Add in turbos, pressure, FIKI and things get can messy, but same/same with any other twin with same features.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Oh crap, I missed that. That IS a game changer. I am not so sure a B55 would be a good fit. The back seats in a B55 are really only suitable for a small kid and leaving one in cuts down on the baggage space quite a bit.

For a family of 5, I'd think a 310 might work a little better or Seneca/B58

If you can find a nice one, a Twin Bonanza would be a good family of 5 hauler.
Click to expand...

SenecaII or higher is probably the best for economics especially while the family is small, it has good FIKI gear, but it is Zero Fuel Weight limited. The 310 has it on performance but doesn't offer club seating.
 
Been reading about the 310 looks like a real good option only thing that is freaking me out a little is that the front landing gear looks like a tiny twig.

600px-Cessna310JC-FRYZ.jpg
 
Last edited:
Archammer said:
Ok, so I've got another for you. I'm grabbing the mail and on the front cover of my Flying Mag is the new Diamond DA62. 7 place, 7.5ps/15gph/75%, JetA, 190ktas, G1000.

Here's the link: http://www.diamond-air.at/twin-engine-aircraft/da62.html

Maybe one to consider, but get ready for a 7 figure pricetag.
Click to expand...

I saw that I haven't had time to read through the magazine yet. I don't know how I could ever justify spending that much. I would have to lease it out to an FBO or do something that made some Money. From what I've seen there is really nothing outside of pilots n paws right off kinda stuff. Which we really need some more stuff to right off we get killed at the end of the year.
 
Archammer said:
Ya, saw one of those when we went down to the coast. The owner said the useful load is a NY runway model that hasn't eaten in a few days.

NVSlZQll.jpg
Click to expand...

This is From the remarks in that link.

"Built 2006, Certified 2012
Condition inspection completed August, 2013
Useful Load: 2500 lbs

This Lightning was manufactured in 2006. It is currently flying and at last count, had a little over 150 hrs total time. Climb rates are impressive at 2,000 fpm which it can maintain into the flight levels. High speed cruise is 241 kts, thus the N number of N241FS (for "fast ship"). Normal cruise is 220-230 kts TAS depending on density altitude. Cruise fuel flows are 40-45 gph depending on altitude. A cruise prop setting of 1850 makes for a very quiet cabin. Useful load is 2500 lbs. With full fuel, you can put over 1300 lbs in the cabin.

Takeoff and landing ground roll is typically 1000-1500' depending on weight and density altitudes. This is a full feathering and reverse prop which saves on the brakes on short runways.

This Lightning is very comfortable and a joy to fly. With the electric A/C, it can be precooled on the ground with a ground power unit."
 
Archammer said:
Ya, saw one of those when we went down to the coast. The owner said the useful load is a NY runway model that hasn't eaten in a few days. And yes that is Baron gear underneath it.

NVSlZQll.jpg
Click to expand...

Yea, that isn't a lightning. Only 1 lightning exists. Started out as a Baron 58p, and they put a Walter 601D on it. Now it's faster, more efficient, and cooler. Don't think any piston twin can beat it.
 
Story about it in AirVenture Today
 

Attachments

  • lightning.JPG
    lightning.JPG
    189 KB · Views: 24
MotoFlier said:
Been reading about the 310 looks like a real good option only thing that is freaking me out a little is that the front landing gear looks like a tiny twig.

600px-Cessna310JC-FRYZ.jpg
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how strong it is. If you want to see something real sketchy, watch the video on the recovery of KeeBird in Greenland and watch the Caribou take off and landing and check out how spindley the nose gear on that looks.:eek:
 
MotoFlier said:
That's a damn cool plane!
Click to expand...

It has a Walther turbine on it though which means it has to be in EXP-R&D. The thing about all the turbine bonanza and 210 kits is that the fuel burn is so high, in order to go anywhere you use up most of your useful load on fuel, plus yellow line becomes red line. If you want a turbine single, look at a TBM which was designed to be turbines and have the pressurization to operate where turbines earn their keep for efficiency. Down in unpressurized altitudes. However for less than TBM money, you can be flying a King Air or Cheyenne. The 90 series King Air is easier and safer to fly than a 310 but I would hazard a guess at costing 4 times as much to operate.

Right now you would be best sticking to a 310, and a 310-R has nose baggage and the biggest cabin. Try to find one with 550s if you go with an R. With a couple of years and a couple hundred hours in a 310, if the family keeps growing in numbers and size, you will be easy to insure in 414/421/425/441 Cessnas or a King Air. If you don't need nose baggage, your best deal will be a 310Q or P. You have the big cabin and the 260hp IO-470 engines, and they are the cheapest of all the options to operate and overhaul. However, come time to move up, if it comes, the R will be much easier to sell/trade up.
 
MotoFlier said:
Been reading about the 310 looks like a real good option only thing that is freaking me out a little is that the front landing gear looks like a tiny twig.

600px-Cessna310JC-FRYZ.jpg
Click to expand...

Think about it like physics for a bit. There's not big metal engine and prop sitting out there. All that stuff is out on the wing, where it belongs. :wink2:
 
Henning said:
You'd be surprised how strong it is. If you want to see something real sketchy, watch the video on the recovery of KeeBird in Greenland and watch the Caribou take off and landing and check out how spindley the nose gear on that looks.:eek:
Click to expand...


cool video I really wanted to see it take off. seems like a plane that long should have been a taildragger:lol::dunno:

https://youtu.be/PpR2S_gu5I8
 
Henning said:
It has a Walther turbine on it though which means it has to be in EXP-R&D. The thing about all the turbine bonanza and 210 kits is that the fuel burn is so high, in order to go anywhere you use up most of your useful load on fuel, plus yellow line becomes red line. If you want a turbine single, look at a TBM which was designed to be turbines and have the pressurization to operate where turbines earn their keep for efficiency. Down in unpressurized altitudes. However for less than TBM money, you can be flying a King Air or Cheyenne. The 90 series King Air is easier and safer to fly than a 310 but I would hazard a guess at costing 4 times as much to operate.
Click to expand...

It doesn't burn any more than it did as a Baron, and it's Jet-A, so it's cheaper and has better range. How much would a tbm800 with 150hrs cost you?
 
ktup-flyer said:
It doesn't burn any more than it did as a Baron, and it's Jet-A, so it's cheaper and has better range. How much would a tbm800 with 150hrs cost you?
Click to expand...

Oh, is that the one built out of a P-Baron? I have several questions on that, a big one is what was the prior airframe time, and how is the 10,000hr life limit addressed? I'd thought about doing the same thing with a GTSIO-520-K. There is a notation that it is now 'certified', I'd love a clarification on that especially with that engine, exactly what is it 'certified' as?:dunno:
 
Henning said:
Oh, is that the one built out of a P-Baron? I have several questions on that, a big one is what was the prior airframe time, and how is the 10,000hr life limit addressed? I'd thought about doing the same thing with a GTSIO-520-K. There is a notation that it is now 'certified', I'd love a clarification on that especially with that engine, exactly what is it 'certified' as?:dunno:
Click to expand...
Ask him. His info is at the bottom. http://www.markheggaircraft.com/turboprop-lightning-specs.html
 
Henning said:
Yes, I jumped into one with 60hrs TT, get good training, stay sharp, stay focused, it's not bloody rocket surgery. Figure an IO-470 powered Baron or 310 is going to run about $250-300 hr given ~50-100 hrs a year usage.
Click to expand...

What was your per hour op cost on your $310?
 
AggieMike88 said:
What was your per hour op cost on your $310?
Click to expand...

End game it worked out right around $250 hr which is handicapped with low usage to fixed expenses. If I would have flown 100hrs a year, I would have been below $200.
 
ktup-flyer said:
Yea, that isn't a lightning. Only 1 lightning exists. Started out as a Baron 58p, and they put a Walter 601D on it. Now it's faster, more efficient, and cooler. Don't think any piston twin can beat it.
Click to expand...

It's a Turbine Bonanza that iHenning was talking about. They look exactly the same to me.
 
Henning said:
End game it worked out right around $250 hr which is handicapped with low usage to fixed expenses. If I would have flown 100hrs a year, I would have been below $200.
Click to expand...

That would've made you likely the only one, seeing as the recent Twin Cessna Flyer 310 ownership cost survey came back at roughly $300-420.
 
While the Twin Cessnas are known for gear issues, the nose gear itself isn't the problem on the short nose ones with the canted nose gear like what you pictured (and like the one I fly). The nose gear trunion (the part that supports the nose gear) on the P-R models is weaker and is prone to cracking. I consider that to be an advantage of an N or earlier.

Most gear issues are caused by people side loading the gear (don't turn such that you can feel G forces and you're fine), or the gear not being rigged at annual. These are important measures to take. You do have nose gear bellcranks go out occasionally, but Lance Flynn is the only one I know who's had that happen in a 310 out of a lot of 310 owners.

If you compare it to retractable Cessna singles, well, I know a lot more people who've had issues with those, and people typically don't worry about flying a 172RG, 177RG, 182RG, or 210.

Flying to Gaston's last month was the first time in 5 years and almost 900 hours of flying the 310 that I landed it on grass. That is due in part to concerns for the landing gear. But since I don't typically go to grass strips anyway, that doesn't make an operational impact for me.
 
The problem is not weak gear, its that the GEAR WON'T COME DOWN! Or, more frequently, someone forgets to put it down.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That would've made you likely the only one, seeing as the recent Twin Cessna Flyer 310 ownership cost survey came back at roughly $300-420.
Click to expand...
Not saying that Henning's numbers are correct, but one thing I have noticed, particularly with twins is that the operating costs can vary hugely based on different factors: insurance (hull value), maintenance (big$ shop to owner assist) to hangar rates.

A guy who has an early model 310 insured for $40k is going to be paying a couple thousand less a year in insurance premium compared to another guy with a pristine later model 310 valued closer to $100k or more.

Hangar rates and maintenance fees can vary several thousand per year depending on where in the country the plane is based.

For the OP, you really want to ask a lot of different owners what their total yearly costs are, do your own research on hangar rates/insurance quotes....etc and then crunch your own numbers to see if you can afford it.
 
There is huge variability, but my point is that a range from a couple hundred owners/operators will give you a pretty good estimate of where you'll fall. Most people don't get free hangar like Henning. Low time insurance will be higher, etc.

Absolutely there are many things you can do to reduce cost of ownership - I've done many and have been quite successful at being able to keep cost of the 310 reasonable.
 
I just found out the flight school where I'm training for IFR does not have insurance to cover training in multi or single complex. They quoted around 300 for a community hanger with a Aztec being a little higher than the 310. My CFI also said he will help me fly it home from point of purchase he just can't train me in it.
 
Last edited:
MotoFlier said:
I just found out the flight school where I'm training for IFR does not have insurance to cover training in multi or single complex. They quoted around 300 for a community hanger with a 310 being a little higher than the Aztec. My CFI also said he will help me fly it home from point of purchase he just can't train me in it.
Click to expand...
That stinks. I am surprised they won't do even do IR training in a complex single. Are there any independent CFI's in the area?
 
Ok, momma wants a break down of the 4 planes its narrowed down to which are Aztec D/E, Cessna 310 Q/R, Baron 58, and Aerostar 600 series. I'm sold on the Aztec it is perfect other than being slower than the rest.
Iflytwins has helped me a ton and taken me to school on both the Aztec and 310 and as far as I'm concerned they are the only two options for us. I do understand my wife's wanting to take time to review all options as she knows I'm very prone to just pull the trigger lol.
Can you guys give me some real world costs, and pos/neg on the Baron and Aerostar. My initial feeling on these two would be the maintenance costs will be two high to make sense for us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top