Fastest Twin Piston Under 400K?

Ted said:
Low purchase price does not mean good for newbies. Please turn in your flight instructor certificate at the nearest FSDO, and review the multitude of relevant NTSB reports. Then go find the nearest chalkboard. You should write the following on it:
Click to expand...

I'd riposte that we have no idea what OP's skill set is, but I can't fight the power of that bart meme, so I yield. Off to my local FSDO and their card shredder. :D

(luckily my FSDO won't take walk-ins and will ignore my request for a minimum of 3 months)
 
DC-3. Although you might have drug dogs meet you upon arrival.
 
Daleandee said:
Can one be had (that's worth having) for less than 400K?
Click to expand...
I was curious enough to look that up as well. I see a few for around that amount.

But the OP wants a twin for over water.
 
Last edited:
A little out of your price range but I think this is the route I would go. Very fast and good range. Just put the amount over $400k on a note and don't worry about it.
https://www.controller.com/listing/...n-xp-82-twin-mustang-piston-military-aircraft
img.axd
 
It was a real treat to see that XP-82 at Oshkosh in 2019.

Interesting that it’s flown only 25 hours since restoration.

If you buy it for $10 million, and fly it another 25 hours, that’s $400k per hour, dry.
 
Jim K said:
And now we're back to the question whether a top tier piston twin like the Aerostar or 400 series is actually cheaper than a SETP.
Click to expand...

As soon as you go turbine, Dirty Harry shows up and asks you a very important question:

upload_2023-1-18_7-15-57.jpeg

Because that's how turboprop ownership is. Yes, turbines are more reliable and normally go between inspections without issues (including engine inspections). But, the aircraft depreciates largely based on remaining time on the engine inspections. And then when they open it up, you can be lucky and have a $30k HSI, or you can end up being over 6 figures.

And when you're flying a TBM, you've got the big expensive PT-6s, parts are priced accordingly.

The MU-2 was great. Breezed between inspections and in 500 hours I only had one or two minor items that had to be dealt with that couldn't be deferred until a scheduled inspection. But the hot section on the one engine was about $65k (that was with a discounted price). If I'd had any MU-2 besides an F with -1s I would've been subject to a combustor AD that would've added about $20k to that hot section.

Everyone I know who has a TBM loves the things. But, one of them was down for about 6 months for his HSI and it was not cheap.
 
Ted said:
As soon as you go turbine, Dirty Harry shows up and asks you a very important question:

View attachment 114090

Because that's how turboprop ownership is. Yes, turbines are more reliable and normally go between inspections without issues (including engine inspections). But, the aircraft depreciates largely based on remaining time on the engine inspections. And then when they open it up, you can be lucky and have a $30k HSI, or you can end up being over 6 figures.

And when you're flying a TBM, you've got the big expensive PT-6s, parts are priced accordingly.

The MU-2 was great. Breezed between inspections and in 500 hours I only had one or two minor items that had to be dealt with that couldn't be deferred until a scheduled inspection. But the hot section on the one engine was about $65k (that was with a discounted price). If I'd had any MU-2 besides an F with -1s I would've been subject to a combustor AD that would've added about $20k to that hot section.

Everyone I know who has a TBM loves the things. But, one of them was down for about 6 months for his HSI and it was not cheap.
Click to expand...
I'm turboprop ignorant... are the Garrett engines on this the same as your mu2?

Screenshot_20230118-083719_Facebook.jpg

I kinda love it; the wings are in the correct place and you know it can take a Cirrus strike :D
 
Jim K said:
I'm turboprop ignorant... are the Garrett engines on this the same as your mu2?

View attachment 114097

I kinda love it; the wings are in the correct place and you know it can take a Cirrus strike :D
Click to expand...

I love how that thing is listed as having an automatic transmission! :rofl:

Those won't be -1s on that plane, they'll be -5s or -10s (I think -10s). I could go into the differences, but the big externally different one is the left hand rotation props (1591 RPM @ 100%) vs. the right hand rotation props (2000 RPM @ 100%). Right hand rotations are -1s, -2s, I think -3s, -6s, -8s...? and then any of them converted to -10s, which retains the gearbox. Basically the left hand rotation engines have an extra reduction gear and that is how they get 1591 instead of 2000. Bigger compressor started with the -5s, and then the -10s had bigger turbine section.

I really liked the Merlins and that was something I'd considered as an upgrade from the MU-2 before shutting down Cloud Nine. It has all of the things I like. Oddball, looks weird, loud, fast/efficient, few made, and a reputation for being squirrely to hand fly especially in weather. 100% Ted plane.
 
What Ed said. Buy a fast single and invest the leftover cash into a good raft and life preservers. Invest in a good maintenance program. Remember, a twin has twice as much stuff to break, and you're likely to end up in the drink anyway if the engine goes out. Second engine is there to get twins to the crash site.
 
steingar said:
Remember, a twin has twice as much stuff to break, and you're likely to end up in the drink anyway if the engine goes out. Second engine is there to get twins to the crash site.
Click to expand...

Says the guy with 0 hours of multi time and no twin ownership experience.

Literally everything you've said in the above quote is wrong, Michael.
 
Ted said:
Says the guy with 0 hours of multi time and no twin ownership experience.

Literally everything you've said in the above quote is wrong, Michael.
Click to expand...
Got and hour and a half more Ford Trimoter time than you. Twin has twice as much of everything except airframe, and even that's bigger. More complexity. More stuff to break. More stuff to put you in the drink. Don't care if you don't like it.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
How has no one suggested a Duke? You'd look cool in a Duke.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll bite. Seriously, a Duke would be a good second choice after the Aerostar, (210 kts true at altitude). You can get a good one for under $400K, but, like the big twin Cessnas, any of those will cost $600-$700/hr to operate (all-in). And that's with reasonable insurance, which, with low twin time, your numbers may be quite high. I'd check with your brokers to get some real numbers, you may have to accept a slower entry-level plane, Seneca, Twin Comanche, etc., for awhile.
 
Jim Carpenter said:
OK, I'll bite. Seriously, a Duke would be a good second choice after the Aerostar, (210 kts true at altitude). You can get a good one for under $400K, but, like the big twin Cessnas, any of those will cost $600-$700/hr to operate (all-in). And that's with reasonable insurance, which, with low twin time, your numbers may be quite high. I'd check with your brokers to get some real numbers, you may have to accept a slower entry-level plane, Seneca, Twin Comanche, etc., for awhile.
Click to expand...

You missed the joke:
 
Ted said:
Says the guy with 0 hours of multi time and no twin ownership experience.

Literally everything you've said in the above quote is wrong, Michael.
Click to expand...

Wait, Steingar has a first name? I thought it was like Cher, or Madonna, or Ted. One name only known worldwide.
 
steingar said:
Got and hour and a half more Ford Trimoter time than you. Twin has twice as much of everything except airframe, and even that's bigger. More complexity. More stuff to break. More stuff to put you in the drink. Don't care if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

How did you log that without a MEL rating ?
 
eman1200 said:
He got Ed’s name right
Click to expand...

Note, I specifically deleted his quote about and referencing Ed, my statement only pertains to what I quoted.
 
Another oldie but goodie germane to the thread. Personally, I think it's funnier than the Duke one:
 
With only one possible exception I can think of, piston twins have single-engine ceilings of 500 MSL or greater, so you should be able to get to an airport if you lose a fan halfway between Florida and the Bahamas, without even violating the 500 feet from boats rule. Plus Florida has tons of recurrent training options so a diligent pilot shouldn't have any excuses for getting damp flying that mission.
 
Garavar said:
If I could go my whole flying career without ditching or attempting to ditch that would be great.
Click to expand...

EdFred said:
The only way to guarantee that is to stay at home on the couch.
Click to expand...

Would this still count as ditching? About the only way to guarantee you won't have to go swimming, and can't be beat for style points. I wonder if marina slip fees would be cheaper than ramp fees :idea:
Gumman-SA-16A-Albatross-34 (1).jpg
 
Kenny Phillips said:
At extreme altitudes.
Click to expand...

And also extreme power settings. I seem to recall that's at something like 85% power? I forget, but it is something that, to be clear, is NOT an appropriate cruise power setting on a turbocharged big bore 6 cylinder unless you consider doing a top overhaul an acceptable maintenance item every annual.
 
Ted. Don’t think that’s true. Many flying TornadoAlley’s turbonormalized 550’s are routinely cruising at 85% power well LOP without any bad effects.
 
The correct answer to your question was supplied by Kaiser in post #2: Aerostar. Yet here we are at post #79.

Based on your desire to have the overwater safety of two engines, and your 200NM South Florida to Eleuthera segment, the time difference between an Aerostar and a slower twin such as a Baron or 310 will be 5-10 minutes. The Aerostar wins if time is that critical; however, if 5-10 minutes is not enough difference to disqualify other light twins from consideration, you have many options. You might try the following approach: 1). Determine which airplane types meet your requirements for range, payload, and cabin comfort.* 2). Consult your insurance agent to learn which of those candidates will be insurable for you, and at what cost. 3). Buy the very best example you can find among those airplanes that survive the previous two filters.

Personally, I hope you buy an airplane that is already Florida-based and leave the dry-country airframes for me to choose from down the road.

*In the islands it's not unheard-of to find that AVGAS is suddenly and/or unexpectedly unavailable. So having enough fuel to make the round-trip back to Florida, or at least a suitable fuel stop, may prove to be a worthwhile consideration.
 
steingar said:
Got and hour and a half more Ford Trimoter time than you. Twin has twice as much of everything except airframe, and even that's bigger. More complexity. More stuff to break. More stuff to put you in the drink. Don't care if you don't like it.
Click to expand...
Not really true. Lots of posts on here about heavy metal like MU-2s and SA-227s, etc. But many twins like the Barons are about the same size as their single-engine counterparts. And many twins have plenty of one-engine power to fly safely to a runway. I don't currently own an airplane (about to change that in the near future). But I used a friend's airplanes...he'd rent them to me for a dry rate. The Debonair was $135/hour. The B55 Baron was $165/hour. The Baron did cost more to maintain but it wasn't double.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top