Capable Out-of-Production Twins

Which highly capable, out-of-production twins? (pick one or two)

  • Aerostar

    Votes: 16 43.2%

  • Twin Commander (piston)

    Votes: 15 40.5%

  • Mojave

    Votes: 1 2.7%

  • C310

    Votes: 8 21.6%

  • C340

    Votes: 10 27.0%

  • Twin Bo

    Votes: 5 13.5%
  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
spiderweb

spiderweb

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
9,488
Display Name
Ben
OK, so the last poll on new Pipers got me doing research. For this one, pick one or TWO, but assume these are your only choices. Why did you choose them? What mods would you like in them? Which ones are pigs?
 
Grumman Cougar
Always liked that plane.
N769GA_ext.JPG
 
Keith, he said "Capable", as in not GA-7, not Seneca II. That's what hurt.
 
I think the list is rather an interesting one. The Twin Bonanza I don't consider all that capable, unless they made models with full de-ice that I wasn't aware of. Plus they have the difficult to support geared engines. The Mojave is less capable than the P-Navajo (with the advantage of conventional engines vs. geared), but only has the advantage over the Navajo Chieftain of pressurization.

I selected the C310 and C340, which I would outfit with the appropriate Colemill or RAM conversions. They are not only very good-looking and capable aircraft (especially with the conversions), but they actually have parts availability. A RAM T310R has performance in-line with an Aerostar but with an airframe that is easier to support and, in my opinion, has a better interior, plus it doesn't run chop off the arms of its pilots. Flying a Colemill 310 on a regular basis now, I have to say that it is an extremely good and capable aircraft that I like a lot.

I think the list is incomplete, though. Bruce's Seneca II is a very capable aircraft (although one could make the argument that the Seneca V makes the Seneca a current production model), but the Aztec is out of production and an extremely capable aircraft (at least, I think so in my biased opinion). The P-Baron, now out of production, is also very capable if you're looking for something in a range similar to a C340 or Aerostar, although it is a bit smaller.

Furthermore, the Aztec will carry ice like a mule (ask me how I know...). The C310 does not carry ice as well (no experience with the C340, but would expect similar), and an Aerostar especially doesn't carry ice particularly well.
 
bbchien said:
Keith, he said "Capable", as in not GA-7, not Seneca II. That's what hurt.
Click to expand...

No disrespect! I should have rephrased it to "gas-guzzlin' twin for which you need to be a partner in a law firm!"
 
spiderweb said:
No disrespect! I should have rephrased it to "gas-guzzlin' twin for which you need to be a partner in a law firm!"
Click to expand...

Oh, well in that case you left out the Duke! :D
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I think the list is rather an interesting one. The Twin Bonanza I don't consider all that capable, unless they made models with full de-ice that I wasn't aware of. Plus they have the difficult to support geared engines. The Mojave is less capable than the P-Navajo (with the advantage of conventional engines vs. geared), but only has the advantage over the Navajo Chieftain of pressurization.

I selected the C310 and C340, which I would outfit with the appropriate Colemill or RAM conversions. They are not only very good-looking and capable aircraft (especially with the conversions), but they actually have parts availability. A RAM T310R has performance in-line with an Aerostar but with an airframe that is easier to support and, in my opinion, has a better interior, plus it doesn't run chop off the arms of its pilots. Flying a Colemill 310 on a regular basis now, I have to say that it is an extremely good and capable aircraft that I like a lot.

I think the list is incomplete, though. Bruce's Seneca II is a very capable aircraft (although one could make the argument that the Seneca V makes the Seneca a current production model), but the Aztec is out of production and an extremely capable aircraft (at least, I think so in my biased opinion). The P-Baron, now out of production, is also very capable if you're looking for something in a range similar to a C340 or Aerostar, although it is a bit smaller.

Furthermore, the Aztec will carry ice like a mule (ask me how I know...). The C310 does not carry ice as well (no experience with the C340, but would expect similar), and an Aerostar especially doesn't carry ice particularly well.
Click to expand...

Very interesting insights! I've only been in or flown a few of these, but I really liked the C310. I struck me as fast, smooth, and stable Wish it had pressurization, but I know the C340 is actually slower!
 
bbchien said:
Keith, he said "Capable", as in not GA-7, not Seneca II. That's what hurt.
Click to expand...

spiderweb said:
No disrespect! I should have rephrased it to "gas-guzzlin' twin for which you need to be a partner in a law firm!"
Click to expand...

Well, I know absolutely nuttin' and that's a BIG nuttin' bout twins. I've only even flown in the back seat of one 30 odd years ago. I just liked the plane. It looks like a light twin should look to me for some reason.
I'd love for someone to take me for a ride in the right seat of one someday so I can see what the attraction is. Not that I can ever afford to even feed one.
 
spiderweb said:
Very interesting insights! I've only been in or flown a few of these, but I really liked the C310. I struck me as fast, smooth, and stable Wish it had pressurization, but I know the C340 is actually slower!
Click to expand...

The 310 is fast, smooth, and stable. But a stock 340 is faster than a stock 310 (at least when each is at the appropriate altitude), unless you get into T310R (which is more comparable). The RAM T310R is the real way to go if you want really fast. One of my friends has one and likes it a lot.
 
Ugh... Hate to say it, Teller, but the Beech 18 is everything the Beech 19 is not - Classic, attractive, etc...

The 19 sure gets its job done well, but if I owned one I'd have to buy a Shorts to park it next to. Y'know, so it looked less ugly in comparison. :D

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
Not on the list, but I'd go Twinkie.
 
Steve said:
Not on the list (nor would I choose one that is), but if $ were no object...

Image20.jpg


which best matches this thread's title, imho

That 500 looks eerily like a Lockheed PV-2, which my Dad crewed on in WWII. He sasid one of their favorite pastimes was to pull up next to a B-17, feather the prop nearest to the AAF guys and pull ahead.
Lockheed+PV2+Harpoon+1.jpg
Click to expand...
 
one of the old guys in our CAF wing used to fly a 500 for an oil company. they also had an A-26.
 
Keith Lane said:
Well, I know absolutely nuttin' and that's a BIG nuttin' bout twins. I've only even flown in the back seat of one 30 odd years ago. I just liked the plane. It looks like a light twin should look to me for some reason.
I'd love for someone to take me for a ride in the right seat of one someday so I can see what the attraction is. Not that I can ever afford to even feed one.
Click to expand...

Smallest twin I've ridden in is a B1900. But I sure love the looks of a few others mentioned here. C-310 (OK, fell in love with it as a kid watching Sky King), and those round engine Beeches are just classic.
 
Ghery said:
Smallest twin I've ridden in is a B1900. But I sure love the looks of a few others mentioned here. C-310 (OK, fell in love with it as a kid watching Sky King), and those round engine Beeches are just classic.
Click to expand...

It's hard not to love a Cessna 310. The lines of even the old ones still look beautiful, and starting in the mid-60s they still look like new planes. If I saw the 310N I fly (42 years old) and didn't know better, I'd think it's new.
 
Keith Lane said:
That 500 looks eerily like a Lockheed PV-2, which my Dad crewed on in WWII. He sasid one of their favorite pastimes was to pull up next to a B-17, feather the prop nearest to the AAF guys and pull ahead.
Click to expand...

Dee Howard actually based his 500 on the PV-1 Ventura design, predecessor to the PV-2, and bought a few dozen PV-1 airframes to start with, but made several major modifications to allow pressurization and high altitude flight. For example, the 500 has a fuselage former every 6 inches. The PV-1 has them about every 20 inches or more much like a DC-3.

Great story, and quite plausible. I've heard some harrowing stories about Navy PV-2 Harpoons stationed in the Aleutians.
 
Wonder why there are so many votes for the Aerostar?
 
I voted Twin Commander, and I'd love to get one, because I think they have a certain appeal to them. But if money and practicality is no problem, I'd go with the Commander 700.

commander700_johndavies.jpg
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I voted Twin Commander, and I'd love to get one, because I think they have a certain appeal to them. But if money and practicality is no problem, I'd go with the Commander 700.

commander700_johndavies.jpg
Click to expand...

I've flown a 680FL, and it is SO stable, so fast. It has a potty, 7 passenger seats, and it flies as easy as a C172! I REALLY want one of them. One of the few twins you can load up everyone and their stuff, top off the fuel, and GO!
 
I've flown a 500U a little bit. Nice. If I had the money to maintain
one and wanted an older twin that was cool to fly .. that would be
it. That's what I voted for.

RT
 
the ultimate twin has to be the Gooney bird. Range, utility & nostalgia. Wow . How could you not want to have a DC-3? Dave
 
wabower said:
Probably because none of the doofi voters have ever had to maintain one.
Click to expand...

+1. The one at my airport, despite being a naturally aspirated, non-pressurized variant, spends more time in the shop than in the air. The boring twins that are the most capable are the ones that receive the fewest votes, despite the fact that they're still around in such large numbers because they are capable.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
What the?

Another view.
d889eb44-224c-f1b4.jpg
Click to expand...

This tri-geared, triple-tailed, extended-cabin Beech 18 (actually, a C45), is called a "DumodLiner," and it is owned by one of my Addison Airport Mafia members. It has been being used as an auto parts hauler between south Texas and Mexico, and is not awaiting collection from its former base airport.

Make an offer! :ihih:
 
SCCutler said:
This tri-geared, triple-tailed, extended-cabin Beech 18 (actually, a C45), is called a "DumodLiner," and it is owned by one of my Addison Airport Mafia members. It has been being used as an auto parts hauler between south Texas and Mexico, and is not awaiting collection from its former base airport.

Make an offer! :ihih:
Click to expand...

I really have to move back to Dallas!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top