Six Seats, Two Engines, Under 20 GPH

Chrisgoesflying

Chrisgoesflying

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 7, 2018
Messages
1,107
Location
Too far north
Display Name
Display name:
Chrisgoesflying
This is probably a long shot. I'm several years away from needing a larger plane anyways and the market will probably be much different when I'm ready to move into something bigger. But, with all that said, here is what I would want:

- Six seats
- Better than 1,000 lbs useful load

That's it. Don't care much about speed (anything that flies will be faster than driving so all good). Don't care much about endurance (my human needs endurance is about 3 hours so most planes, including my current plane can outlast me lol).

With the above information, the obvious answer would be Cherokee 6, Lance or Cessna 206.

However, if there was a twin engine that fits the above criteria at similar capital costs as the above mentioned single engine planes and burns under 20 GPH, that would be very intriguing for several reasons.

1. It would give me multi-engine time. Although I don't plan to make flying a career, you never know what the future holds and having multi-engine time under my belt would probably be beneficial if I ever do want/need a flying job.

2. Rough terrain, water crossings, safety net. You know, the typical twin engine benefits.

I could not find a twin with those criteria but maybe you have an idea?
 
I'm thinking a seneca may be the closest you'll get to that. but I didn't really think too hard about it. sorry.
 
eman1200 said:
sorry.
Click to expand...
We're supposed to read that with the Canadian accent right?

Seneca was my first thought as well...but I think Twinkies might have a 6 seat option. Although I can't imagine how practical those rear seats being in 2022 fatness. Perhaps @Kristin could share some insight?
 
Last edited:
Racerx said:
We're supposed to read that with the Canadian accent right?

Seneca was my first thought as well...but I think Twinkies might have a 6 seat option. Although I can't imagine how practical those rear seats being in 2022 fatness. Perhaps @Kristin could share some insight?
Click to expand...

Seat 5 and 6 would be occupied by a dog so no need for actual 2022 fatness type of people seats. Essentially, I would probably never have more than 4 humans (two full sized, two half-sized who will eventually become full-sized over time) on the plane but would want six seats for the extra space. Four humans, a dog, a cat and baggage, that would be the max load. I guess a real, true, spacious four seater with lots of extra space for dog, cat and bags would also work, but IMO four seaters would be too cramped. If I were to buy a Cherokee 6 or Lance for example and if it didn't have the club seating configuration, I would probably remove the last row of seats.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
This is probably a long shot. I'm several years away from needing a larger plane anyways and the market will probably be much different when I'm ready to move into something bigger. But, with all that said, here is what I would want:

- Six seats
- Better than 1,000 lbs useful load

That's it. Don't care much about speed (anything that flies will be faster than driving so all good). Don't care much about endurance (my human needs endurance is about 3 hours so most planes, including my current plane can outlast me lol).

With the above information, the obvious answer would be Cherokee 6, Lance or Cessna 206.

However, if there was a twin engine that fits the above criteria at similar capital costs as the above mentioned single engine planes and burns under 20 GPH, that would be very intriguing for several reasons.

1. It would give me multi-engine time. Although I don't plan to make flying a career, you never know what the future holds and having multi-engine time under my belt would probably be beneficial if I ever do want/need a flying job.

2. Rough terrain, water crossings, safety net. You know, the typical twin engine benefits.

I could not find a twin with those criteria but maybe you have an idea?
Click to expand...
Man I am with you on the multi..!

The twinkie *might* fit the bill, the ones with the Robertson conversion have around 1300 useful and since the engines are relatively small they sip gas only about 6 to 7 gallons per hour per side!

The cabin is a little bit tight though :(

I've resolved to buy a Sky Master when the time comes.. "but the maintenance!" whatever.. yes it will be more to maintain than a 182 but it's actually a very capable multi-engine plane.. it's no worse than any Baron or 310 maint wise and centerline thrust means no absurd characteristics with an engine failure
 
texasclouds said:
Beech 18 is the correct answer.
Click to expand...
I think he meant 20 gph of avgas, not oil. Other than that and the purchase price being a little higher than the OP was thinking about, the Twin Beech is absolutely the correct answer. To every conceivable question.

I have flown the 310 as low as 20 gph total although usually it runs about 24. I run full throttle and 2300 rpm so my fuel flow is mostly a function of altitude, and I think it gets down to 10 per side somewhere around 14,000 feet. I could throttle back at lower altitudes to get that fuel flow but it would cut into my personal minimums, and I’m told that it’s unsafe to go below personal minimums.
 
Two engines under 20gph? A lance with a small generator in the back for camping.
 
337 probably fits the bill.

210 also would (though single).

How strict are you on 20GPH? If you bump it up just a bit that opens up quite a few multi options and frankly gas has been the cheapest part of my plane ownership.

Also yes Beech 18 because it's about smiles per gallon not miles per gallon.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
Man I am with you on the multi..!

The twinkie *might* fit the bill, the ones with the Robertson conversion have around 1300 useful and since the engines are relatively small they sip gas only about 6 to 7 gallons per hour per side!

The cabin is a little bit tight though :(

I've resolved to buy a Sky Master when the time comes.. "but the maintenance!" whatever.. yes it will be more to maintain than a 182 but it's actually a very capable multi-engine plane.. it's no worse than any Baron or 310 maint wise and centerline thrust means no absurd characteristics with an engine failure
Click to expand...


Go home Tantalum, you're drunk.

Is it cabin class? No. Tight? Not hardly.
 
Twin Comanche or Travel Air come to mind
 
The Seneca 1 isn't loved becuase it is ponderous in roll. The II solved the vibrating Lycoming problen and the ponderious roll with longer ailerons and Turbo'd continentals. Mine has ~950 usefull and six hours' duration. If it didn't have aux tanks it would have 975 useful.

21 gph. Not 20.

....and the twinkie isn't anyplace near 1000 useful.....
 
The travelair I'm training in leans out to about 16 GPH total at 165 kts. I think you can get it configured for 6 seats, though we don't for training. Two IO-320 engines which are pretty darn reliable with parts everywhere.

They are frequently available under 100K. I was looking at a bigger twin, but may decide to do something like the Travelair instead. It's a bonanza inside, I think (never been in a Bo). I think there is a poster or two on here that operate them.


Chrisgoesflying said:
This is probably a long shot. I'm several years away from needing a larger plane anyways and the market will probably be much different when I'm ready to move into something bigger. But, with all that said, here is what I would want:

- Six seats
- Better than 1,000 lbs useful load

That's it. Don't care much about speed (anything that flies will be faster than driving so all good). Don't care much about endurance (my human needs endurance is about 3 hours so most planes, including my current plane can outlast me lol).

With the above information, the obvious answer would be Cherokee 6, Lance or Cessna 206.

However, if there was a twin engine that fits the above criteria at similar capital costs as the above mentioned single engine planes and burns under 20 GPH, that would be very intriguing for several reasons.

1. It would give me multi-engine time. Although I don't plan to make flying a career, you never know what the future holds and having multi-engine time under my belt would probably be beneficial if I ever do want/need a flying job.

2. Rough terrain, water crossings, safety net. You know, the typical twin engine benefits.

I could not find a twin with those criteria but maybe you have an idea?
Click to expand...
 
Lol, tsio 360s havent solved a damned thing since they were first ill conceived at the womb.
 
If your endurance is 3 hours why get hung up on the 20gph???
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Because a three hour flight at 20 GPH will cost me $600 in gas and at 40 GPH it will cost me $1,200 in gas.
Click to expand...
I calculated costs based on your burn numbers/hours at $7.00/gal and thought your math is way off....but I now realize you are from way up north. You must have some hellacious fuel costs. Ouch.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Yes, but regardless of fuel cost - a twin will cost you anywhere from 5-25k per year more. Fuel burn is such a small, fraction of operating cost.
Click to expand...

Is it though? I fly around 150 hours per year. Granted, a twin will be faster than my current plane so my trips will probably be around 100 hours per year. At 20 GPH, that's $20,000 per year in fuel cost. At 40 GPH that would be $40,000 in fuel cost. That's a $20k difference. My mechanic charges $75 per hour. It seems like cost of gas is a large portion of the equation. Maybe not the largest but just because it isn't the largest doesn't mean I should be stupid about it if I can avoid it somehow. Again, a single engine Cherokee 6 or similar would probably be my best choice but if there is a twin that can stay around 20 GPH, it would still fit the budget and give me multi engine time, plus the benefits of twin engines.

robin ardoin said:
I calculated costs based on your burn numbers/hours at $7.00/gal and thought your math is way off....but I now realize you are from way up north. You must have some hellacious fuel costs. Ouch.
Click to expand...

Yup, Canada. Gas is above $10 per gallon right now. Granted, we're talking CAD though.

aggie06 said:
But if it gets you somewhere at 200 knots instead of 150, the gas bill could be similar.
Click to expand...

Very true. So, would it be better to look at it from a MPG perspective?
 
aggie06 said:
But if it gets you somewhere at 200 knots instead of 150, the gas bill could be similar.
Click to expand...
$ per nm is different than $ per hour. If it's $ per nm, then I'd say MU2 or a glider :D
 
A later model Twin Comanche can have up to 6 seats, though the rear seats are very much "small kids only." But it's legal with 6 seats and most have useful loads in the 11-1200 pound range. 160-165kts on 15-16gph. Pretty hard to beat from an efficiency standpoint. Engines are pretty reliable IO-320s. But it's a somewhat complicated airplane, and has some pesky ADs that you have to be on top of/aware of. Some partners and I recently bought one, and so far, we're thrilled with it. Did an owner-assisted annual right after we bought it, and I can say that it's harder to work on that my Twin Bonanza by a decent margin. But I expect an average annual without any major repair can be done in the $3-4k range. Maybe less with an A&P @ $75/hr (ours is $110).
 
schmookeeg said:
That's some interesting math.
Click to expand...
Allow me to mansplain the math:
  • 200 nm for 24 gallons of gas is 8.3 nm/gallon
  • 150 nm for 20 gallons is 7.5 nm/gallon
  • If your destination is 450 nm away, that’s 3 hours at 150 kts or 2.25 hours at 200 knots (ignoring climb and descent). That’s 60 gallons for the slower airplane and 54 gallons for the faster one
I agree they’re not the same, but they’re similar and in this example the faster airplane uses less gas overall because it gets there faster.

I will retire to the nerdery with my calculator now.
 
aggie06 said:
Allow me to mansplain the math:
  • 200 nm for 24 gallons of gas is 8.3 nm/gallon
  • 150 nm for 20 gallons is 7.5 nm/gallon
  • If your destination is 450 nm away, that’s 3 hours at 150 kts or 2.25 hours at 200 knots (ignoring climb and descent). That’s 60 gallons for the slower airplane and 54 gallons for the faster one
I agree they’re not the same, but they’re similar and in this example the faster airplane uses less gas overall because it gets there faster.

I will retire to the nerdery with my calculator now.
Click to expand...
physics kinda makes that a tough reality though. Drag goes up exponentially with speed so you’re pretty much predestined to need more fuel at a higher speed.
 
Salty said:
physics kinda makes that a tough reality though. Drag goes up exponentially with speed so you’re pretty much predestined to need more fuel at a higher speed.
Click to expand...
We’re talking about different airplanes, not more gas being thrown at the same airplane. Physics allows different airplanes to be more or less efficient based on a number of factors.

I think you’re missing my point though. Artificially capping at 20 gph doesn’t necessarily give you the best hourly cost. Worth thinking about an airplane that could be slightly more than 20.
 
DA62, you can pick one up for an easy $1.5M. I went with a Cessna single 6 seater, much lighter on the wallet.
 
bradg33 said:
A later model Twin Comanche can have up to 6 seats, though the rear seats are very much "small kids only." But it's legal with 6 seats and most have useful loads in the 11-1200 pound range. 160-165kts on 15-16gph. Pretty hard to beat from an efficiency standpoint. Engines are pretty reliable IO-320s. But it's a somewhat complicated airplane, and has some pesky ADs that you have to be on top of/aware of. Some partners and I recently bought one, and so far, we're thrilled with it. Did an owner-assisted annual right after we bought it, and I can say that it's harder to work on that my Twin Bonanza by a decent margin. But I expect an average annual without any major repair can be done in the $3-4k range. Maybe less with an A&P @ $75/hr (ours is $110).
Click to expand...

Sounds exciting
 
aggie06 said:
Allow me to mansplain the math:
  • 200 nm for 24 gallons of gas is 8.3 nm/gallon
  • 150 nm for 20 gallons is 7.5 nm/gallon
  • If your destination is 450 nm away, that’s 3 hours at 150 kts or 2.25 hours at 200 knots (ignoring climb and descent). That’s 60 gallons for the slower airplane and 54 gallons for the faster one
I agree they’re not the same, but they’re similar and in this example the faster airplane uses less gas overall because it gets there faster.

I will retire to the nerdery with my calculator now.
Click to expand...

nmpg is a good metric that is often overlooked and also not widely advertised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top