Cessna 310/320 Why not?

[Ted]

Even with 260s I do fine this side of the Rockies with my typical load.

Your typical load isn't very heavy, though. My typical load is right at gross.

but I'm also a VFR flat land pilot so I wouldn't see much benefit from a second engine.

That's a very important point. If you lived here in the hills of PA, that second engine does have extra benefit. I notice that a lot of people who are less interested in twins fly in areas where the second engine doesn't help much. If I lived in one of those places, I probably wouldn't care much, either.

 

[Skylane81E]

Your typical load isn't very heavy, though. My typical load is right at gross.



That's a very important point. If you lived here in the hills of PA, that second engine does have extra benefit. I notice that a lot of people who are less interested in twins fly in areas where the second engine doesn't help much. If I lived in one of those places, I probably wouldn't care much, either.

There ya go, all boils down to your mission. Mine specs a single, yours a twin. They made both for a reason

 

[Henning]

but I'm also a VFR flat land pilot so I wouldn't see much benefit from a second engine.

You only see what you believe you will see until you actually go look. I've been flying Twins for 20 years. My 5th flight/lesson was in a BE 18 getting a free ride to my lessons in the flight school 150. He saw my instructor picking me up and offered me the rides OT to save me some rental money (my instructor wasn't charging me deadhead time). I even rode through a OEI landing on a construction sight on Terminal island a few rides later. That put an end to that, he couldn't give me rides anymore.

I took off with a wet PP 41.5 logged, in an Arrow II XC LGB to Ft Wayne IN via St Louis. On the way out I was flying between Mt Baldy and Las Vegas lookig down at where I could finagle to stick it between the fields of huge boulders. On the return I crossed the same at O' dark thirty and thought "This is nuts" I had a turboed twin a month later and flew it over 10 years for less than my buddies operated their HP singles including Bonanzas. I have been OEI multiple times for real and uncountable for practice and training. I have never been concerned for my life in a OEI situation. Having the excess HP had something to do with saving my life hauling ice as well.

You can think what you want, you will receive the reality you think for.

 

[Skylane81E]

I can tell you that if my plane were a twin id likely have to sell it soon because I can't afford two engine overhauls at once and that time is coming.

So perhaps I should have said my mission/budget specs the single. Twins offer advantages, but you don't get something for nothing.

 

[Henning]

Your typical load isn't very heavy, though. My typical load is right at gross.

Exactly and that as well as high speed are the typical mission for a 310, that's why I manage to operate cheaper than typical because I don't tax my equipment hard. Most machines are designed at a 65% continuous duty rating yet are advertised & marketed towards 85%+ numbers. If you run the marketed numbers, you run into duty cycle issues, typically on plane engines it's cylinders.

Also I save tons of money not having an autopilot.

 

[Ted]

You can think what you want, you will receive the reality you think for.

Yep, and the reality is that twins aren't for everyone - even I admit that. Someone who doesn't fly regularly, can't maintain OEI proficiency, and is flying over places with lots of field is probably best off with a single.

Exactly and that as well as high speed are the typical mission for a 310, that's why I manage to operate cheaper than typical because I don't tax my equipment hard. Most machines are designed at a 65% continuous duty rating yet are advertised & marketed towards 85%+ numbers. If you run the marketed numbers, you run into duty cycle issues, typically on plane engines it's cylinders.

How do you figure the extra weight taxes the plane hard, and how do you figure flying light saves you any money?

You and I operate at similar speeds, I'm actually going a bit slower. Funny enough, my numbers are a bit higher than yours. Of course, I include the true total cost of the plane, not a bare bones costs that makes it look like we spend less on the plane than we truly do.

You are correct that most planes are marketed to the 85% numbers. Most twin owners I see are smart enough not to run there. I run planes economically to make things last. Seeing as the 310 has engines that are now 400 hours past TBO and counting, clearly it works. But seeing as the previous owner ran at 25"/2500 RPM going everywhere for the first 1700 hours of the engines' lives while running rich enough to keep the cylinders cool, clearly his method worked just fine, too. He just spent more money on fuel than I do.

Also I save tons of money not having an autopilot.

How? On the cost of purchase and install? That G600 wasn't cheap...

That also makes your plane profoundly unappealing to most people who want to take it on long trips. I've hand-flown the 310 to Houston and back just because it's fun (about 16 hours with a detour to Maine on the way home), but I'm happy to have the autopilot. If the plane didn't have one, that would be next on the list. The Century III isn't the best in the world, but a new STec is far down on the list after a bunch of other upgrades.

 

[Ted]

Ad there in is a consideration for a twin, if at the MEAs you will be flying it is only going down after an engine failure are you just more likely to have that fatal failure carting around more engine to fail? Are you going to have to keep the weight down to prevent that issue?

Realized that I didn't respond to this, which deserved response.

You are correct. If you're at a point where the terrain is higher than the single-engine service ceiling, you are simply going down, and thus have twice the probability of an engine failure. As one person explained to me in Denver, you can either be comfortable with the safety of a piston single, or else you need to make a very substantial upgrade to have an actual safety improvement.

Some people do keep the weight down if this is a concern. Doc Bruce, for instance, has invested quite the effort into calculating his single engine performance and plans accordingly. Mari was flying the 320 as a "glorified single," and accepted it as such. For me, I'm somewhere in the middle. I'm careful about weight, but the 310 I fly (with the Colemill conversion) is an excellent performer. So this means it's not much of a concern with the loads that I fly, the real concern is that I do my job right flying the plane.

 

[Henning]

Yep, and the reality is that twins aren't for everyone - even I admit that. Someone who doesn't fly regularly, can't maintain OEI proficiency, and is flying over places with lots of field is probably best off with a single.



How do you figure the extra weight taxes the plane hard, and how do you figure flying light saves you any money?

You and I operate at similar speeds, I'm actually going a bit slower. Funny enough, my numbers are a bit higher than yours. Of course, I include the true total cost of the plane, not a bare bones costs that makes it look like we spend less on the plane than we truly do.

You are correct that most planes are marketed to the 85% numbers. Most twin owners I see are smart enough not to run there. I run planes economically to make things last. Seeing as the 310 has engines that are now 400 hours past TBO and counting, clearly it works. But seeing as the previous owner ran at 25"/2500 RPM going everywhere for the first 1700 hours of the engines' lives while running rich enough to keep the cylinders cool, clearly his method worked just fine, too. He just spent more money on fuel than I do.



How? On the cost of purchase and install? That G600 wasn't cheap...

That also makes your plane profoundly unappealing to most people who want to take it on long trips. I've hand-flown the 310 to Houston and back just because it's fun (about 16 hours with a detour to Maine on the way home), but I'm happy to have the autopilot. If the plane didn't have one, that would be next on the list. The Century III isn't the best in the world, but a new STec is far down on the list after a bunch of other upgrades.

The only thing I don't count into my operating costs is acquisition costs, and the panel upgrade. Everything else is included including what I figure it's going to cost to do the final engine catch up from purchase when I figure my total costs from last year over the actual money I spent (<$200hr including holdback on my engines and props) when I figure my $250hr costs.

The two big differences between our planes is the Colemill 310hp conversion (520s are considerably more $$$ to have and operate than 470s)
and the augmentors, they are more than fluff, they are worth around 5 kts.

The money I save from not having an autopilot is the several thousand $$$ a year I watch people pay to keep them working, especially now with the Century and S-TEC pricing schemes. The G-500 hasn't cost me much since purchase and to me, safety wise, I think SVT will be a much greater value than A/P.

 

[Ted]

The only thing I don't count into my operating costs is acquisition costs, and the panel upgrade. Everything else is included including what I figure it's going to cost to do the final engine catch up from purchase when I figure my total costs from last year over the actual money I spent (<$200hr including holdback on my engines and props) when I figure my $250hr costs.

That's the first time I've seen you publish a semi-realistic number (although admittedly I stopped reading your numbers a while ago).

I figure $170/hr dry for me. In the US, around $300/hr wet. In Canada, about $430/hr wet due to higher fuel costs and user fees. Plus in Canada I tend to go to more expensive airports since that's where I'm needed.

The two big differences between our planes is the Colemill 310hp conversion (520s are considerably more $$$ to have and operate than 470s)
and the augmentors, they are more than fluff, they are worth around 5 kts.

While I agree the augmentors are fluff, they through-the-wing exhaust went away for good reasons. I'd like to dump the augmentors in favor of one big exhaust pipe that's attached to a turbo on the other side.

I'd also doubt that if I compared numbers with a 470 operator over the life of the engines that the 520s would be significantly more expensive - maybe $5/hr more total. We'll be going for 550s at overhaul if we can make the paperwork and finances come together for the upgrade.

Little detail: The Colemill conversions are 300 hp, not 310 hp (I wish they were 310 hp).

The money I save from not having an autopilot is the several thousand $$$ a year I watch people pay to keep them working, especially now with the Century and S-TEC pricing schemes. The G-500 hasn't cost me much since purchase and to me, safety wise, I think SVT will be a much greater value than A/P.

So you take specific instances and decide that applies to all, when your basic principle you tout is that you are somehow able to operate cheaper than others? I've not put a dime into the 310's autopilot, and in the Aztec AP I've only put in about $2,000 for 900 hours of flight time. Saying an AP costs you several thousand dollars per year is bogus.

The G-500 may not have cost you that much since purchase (which I'd hope), but that cost a fortune to install. When I figure my costs I include everything, even upgrades.

 

[Skylane81E]

Realized that I didn't respond to this, which deserved response.

You are correct. If you're at a point where the terrain is higher than the single-engine service ceiling, you are simply going down, and thus have twice the probability of an engine failure. As one person explained to me in Denver, you can either be comfortable with the safety of a piston single, or else you need to make a very substantial upgrade to have an actual safety improvement.

Another rub that while not universal ought to be considered. I've noticed that twin owners often are less thurough with how they take care of the engines. I actually had one tell me that he didn't care because he had a spare (in equally poor shape)

He would have been more, MUCH more, than twice likely to crash due to an engine failure in the mountains as a well taken care of single.

Point simply being that just because you have two engines you can't neglect them.

 

[Henning]

That's the first time I've seen you publish a semi-realistic number (although admittedly I stopped reading your numbers a while ago).

The G-500 may not have cost you that much since purchase (which I'd hope), but that cost a fortune to install. When I figure my costs I include everything, even upgrades.

That's the numbers I've always used, they've been solid numbers... 20 years of this crap paying my own damned dime and doing my own work and working on others planes in shops for a job. I'm not a f-ing idiot, I know what I can operate equipment for and I know why it costs other people so much to operate theirs. The people who pay a ton have no mechanical acumen and were taught **** poor techniques. The people who fly 421s on budgets others fly T210s know something about operating engines and take them past TBO without ever pulling a jug.

I don't count the panel as an upgrade, I consider it minimum safe equipment and calculate it in with purchase cost. Yes, the panel was expensive, but in the end I had a nearly new condition glass panel three mile a minute cruise twin for <$100k (even with SVT & A/P I'll be < $100k). That's about 1/3rd of what I could buy any other glass panel twin or HP single with 3300TT, 50hrs and 250hrs on the engines & new Top Props. My operating costs are less than the rental costs I see for SR-22 as well.

 

[Ted]

Another rub that while not universal ought to be considered. I've noticed that twin owners often are less thurough with how they take care of the engines. I actually had one tell me that he didn't care because he had a spare (in equally poor shape)

He would have been more, MUCH more, than twice likely to crash due to an engine failure in the mountains as a well taken care of single.

Point simply being that just because you have two engines you can't neglect them.

We've all seen people who've done that. That said, it depends entirely on the owner. I've actually seen far more crappy singles than twins. This is because in the circles I frequent, most of the twin owners can afford their planes and most of the single owners really can't afford even what they have.

Twins can save in certain particular situations with maintenance, but that's a more complicated subject. They still cost more to maintain.

 

[Ted]

I'm not going to take the time to go back and say how your plane cost you $1,000 to operate for 100 hours, but it's no secret to people on this board. I'd like to see the 421 operator who can fly the thing for what a T-210 driver can. Even with the best 421 operator and worst T-210 operator... good luck.

Even still, your expected costs are low. And most people would consider your panel an upgrade.

 

[Henning]

Another rub that while not universal ought to be considered. I've noticed that twin owners often are less thurough with how they take care of the engines. I actually had one tell me that he didn't care because he had a spare (in equally poor shape)

He would have been more, MUCH more, than twice likely to crash due to an engine failure in the mountains as a well taken care of single.

Point simply being that just because you have two engines you can't neglect them.

That's personality type and is as common with single owners as twins, people lie to themselves all the time to justify not spending money or doing labor or expending any energy on thought.

I'm very thorough in how I take care of my engines. I always feed them the minimum fuel possible. An old engine builder I worked for as a kid told me a great and high value truth in engine operation and building for a purpose. "Any engine will take so much fuel through it per dollar you spend. The less fuel rate you put through it, the longer it will last." The greatest damage to our engines that is done is caused by lead. If you mix that lead with enough unburned hydrocarbons like when running ROP, it ends up on the exhaust stems and valve seats and causes most of our cylinder problems. Good oil is the next primary issue. Synthetic oil stocks + 100LL = destruction, this comes from Ed, the engineer who designed Cam Guard while working for Mobil on an assignment to 'create the best aviation oil'. Mobil one was such pure junk they had to take it off the market and they bought a crap load of new 520s for people. Aeroshell 20-50 (as well as all the other synthetics) use the same syn base stock, Shell just added regular oil to theirs as well so it doesn't ruin your engine in under TBO. Mobil decided that the oil Ed designed was too expensive so they went and just copied Aeroshell's 20-50 formula.

Most of our engine damage comes from unburned/partially burned fuel. The big multiplying factor with that in HP & turboed planes is that operators are trying to go fast. Speed costs exponentially more power which results in exponentially more heat, and that is where our cylinder head fatigue issues come in causing the cracks in the Acme thread region. In order to control that heat that is more than the atmosphere can take away, rather than removing fuel and reducing speed, they dump extra fuel in to cool. This causes ring wash out problems, preignition issues due to carbon deposits in the cylinders, and valve issues discussed previously.

Going fast costs the big money, not having 'spare engines'. The reason people equate these issues with twin expenses is that most people 'don't buy a twin to go slow' same exact thing goes for HP singles. I've taught a lot of people over the years how to save a lot of money flying by slowing down. If they need a speed, but a plane that makes your speed at econo cruise. You might spend more to start, but at the end of 10 years/2000hrs, you're ahead because you didn't flow the fuel quantity the engine is rated to take in its life yet, where as the minimum plane for the speed would have required 2 tops and a major by now.

The main problem is speed discipline on the operator's part.

 

[wabower]

What is your total billing for GA-related acquisition services for the past 10 years?

Wayne has a million hours is bus jets and doesn't think planes between a 210 and King Air should exist and that nobody can operate a plane for less than what every jerk off throttle jockey business pilot will get, he knows what it cost his 195 knot ROP guys. Also, nothing less than a G-V is suitable for cross country flights.

The main problem Wayne has though is he's a bean counter at heart and lives by the spreadsheet and anybody that makes a decision based on anything but the bottom line is an idiot. There is also the fact that his buddy/partner augured in their 340 and he carries emotional scars from that.

 

[wabower]

How many piston twins have you personally owned as sole owner or co-owner? How many hours have you personally flown in those airplanes?

Wayne has a million hours is bus jets and doesn't think planes between a 210 and King Air should exist and that nobody can operate a plane for less than what every jerk off throttle jockey business pilot will get, he knows what it cost his 195 knot ROP guys. Also, nothing less than a G-V is suitable for cross country flights.

The main problem Wayne has though is he's a bean counter at heart and lives by the spreadsheet and anybody that makes a decision based on anything but the bottom line is an idiot. There is also the fact that his buddy/partner augured in their 340 and he carries emotional scars from that.

 

[RotorAndWing]

How many piston twins have you personally owned as sole owner or co-owner? How many hours have you personally flown in those airplanes?

 

[Henning]

What is your total billing for GA-related acquisition services for the past 10 years?

Not much, it's typically something I do for my boat guys, I'd say less than $10k, but I only bill at $300-400 a day + costs for whatever I'm doing for them, I don't do commissions or percentages or whatever. I go look, do my thing and tell them what I think. I usually only have a couple of days involved in a plane purchase and typically will look at less than 4 or 5 before coming up with a good value. I just do small stuff that I know for planes, it's the $15MM+ boats that take more of my time and make my income. When they want jets and turbo props I send them elsewhere.

 

[wabower]

It would be easy to expose him as a blow-hard idiot, but fortunately not necessary since he does it quite well on his own.

He can speak for himself, but it's more that when he sees BS, he calls it. And, well...

 

[jnmeade]

Mitch, when you get tired of this, join Cessna Pilots Association, where people use their real names, and have an adult conversation.

 

[Henning]

How many piston twins have you personally owned as sole owner or co-owner? How many hours have you personally flown in those airplanes?

Own(ed) 2 as sole owner, 12 years twin ownership total now with a bit over 1400ME personally hand flew all but a few hours that someone flew, most of it solo on a survey job that I flew nearly 800 hrs doing my second & third year of ownership/flying (bought my Travelair within 6 months of my first lesson).

 

[Ted]

It would be easy to expose him as a blow-hard idiot, but fortunately not necessary since he does it quite well on his own.

Very courteous, as it makes your job easier.

I always feed them the minimum fuel possible. An old engine builder I worked for as a kid told me a great and high value truth in engine operation and building for a purpose. "Any engine will take so much fuel through it per dollar you spend. The less fuel rate you put through it, the longer it will last.

I wish you wouldn't say things like that. Other people might actually take it the wrong way and believe you.

The 310 I fly is a perfect example of the fact that multiple modes of engine operation can have similar results as far as reliability. 1700 hours flown flat out ROP with a cylinder here and there and otherwise no problems, followed by 400 hours operated at an economy cruise LOP very happily.

It's in the details, and a broad paintbrush like that doesn't do anyone a service.

 

[Henning]

I wish you wouldn't say things like that. Other people might actually take it the wrong way and believe you.

The 310 I fly is a perfect example of the fact that multiple modes of engine operation can have similar results as far as reliability. 1700 hours flown flat out ROP with a cylinder here and there and otherwise no problems, followed by 400 hours operated at an economy cruise LOP very happily.

What is that an example of? Nothing, it has no conclusion or comparison of end result. You went 1700 eating a few cylinders which is what I said would happen. You have not yet run the 1700hrs LOP to see the long term result there.

As far as Bill's words go, I'll take the words of a guy that has been a professional engine builder since his training during WWII. There's a lot of truth in them. If someone can't figure out how to apply the truth, that's not my concern.

 

[wabower]

You can read Mike Busch or Henning and decide who you believe, and/or attend one of Mike's seminars. So far, Mike is ahead about ten zillion to zero for about ten zillion good reasons. One of them is that Mike is an A&P with inspector authorization.

Very courteous, as it makes your job easier.



I wish you wouldn't say things like that. Other people might actually take it the wrong way and believe you.

The 310 I fly is a perfect example of the fact that multiple modes of engine operation can have similar results as far as reliability. 1700 hours flown flat out ROP with a cylinder here and there and otherwise no problems, followed by 400 hours operated at an economy cruise LOP very happily.

It's in the details, and a broad paintbrush like that doesn't do anyone a service.

 

[Henning]

You can read Mike Busch or Henning and decide who you believe, and/or attend one of Mike's seminars. So far, Mike is ahead about ten zillion to zero for about ten zillion good reasons. One of them is that Mike is an A&P with inspector authorization.

Really? Can you tell me what Mike Busch says that is counter to what I say? I've talked to him at SnF several years ago; we were heavily in agreement on most all issues of aircraft maintenance and management as well as owner/operator incompetence.

 

[wabower]

Don't be so hard on yourself, you're entitled to omit any costs you don't want to include. Especially those that you don't like or don't want to admit or can't figure out any logical reason for spending the money other than lack of good sense. And everybody knows that autopilots are terribly expensive on an hourly basis. Just think of all the electricity they use.

Well, everybody except the two of us, since I haven't spent a dime on my S-Tec for the three years of ownership, didn't spend a dime on the Century in the A-36 for three years prior to that and didn't spend a dime on the 340 or 421. Did spend some money one one of the Aerostars back in the 80's, but everything else on that sumbitch broke too.

When I figure my costs I include everything, even upgrades.

 

[Ted]

You can read Mike Busch or Henning and decide who you believe, and/or attend one of Mike's seminars. So far, Mike is ahead about ten zillion to zero for about ten zillion good reasons. One of them is that Mike is an A&P with inspector authorization.

Yeah. Or talk to someone who actually ran these things for a living and hooked up all the fancy machines to them like the factory would, running them under all kinds of conditions with the intent of finding out what actually harms them. I wonder where we'd find someone like that...

 

[Henning]

Don't be so hard on yourself, you're entitled to omit any costs you don't want to include. Especially those that you don't like or don't want to admit or can't figure out any logical reason for spending the money other than lack of good sense.

That's the one that you always focus on and I don't care about. You think that good sense revolves around money, I don't. I believe that good sense results in my pleasure and that money is a tool towards pleasure.

 

[Ted]

Don't be so hard on yourself, you're entitled to omit any costs you don't want to include. Especially those that you don't like or don't want to admit or can't figure out any logical reason for spending the money other than lack of good sense.

I now see the error of my ways. I see a huge reduction in operating costs coming up. Of course, the shops that are used to me paying them might not be too happy with the results, but I know a lot of places in Canada where they won't be able to find me.

 

[Ted]

To the OP: Welcome to PoA. This is your introduction to thread creep, which happens often and is indicative of a good discussion. Unfortunately, that may mean your question doesn't get addressed.

Feel free to PM me with any 310 questions.

 

[wabower]

That probably explains most of what anybody needs to know who follows these discussions. Their followup question, however might focus on why your posts are filled with incessant blather about costs of acquisition, operation, ownership about which you obviously know nothing and care even less.

That's the one that you always focus on and I don't care about. You think that good sense revolves around money, I don't. I believe that good sense results in my pleasure and that money is a tool towards pleasure.

 

[wabower]

I worked on my Cushman scooter for several years, finally got it to the point that it would start on the 14th kick. Does that count?

Yeah. Or talk to someone who actually ran these things for a living and hooked up all the fancy machines to them like the factory would, running them under all kinds of conditions with the intent of finding out what actually harms them. I wonder where we'd find someone like that...

 

[bbchien]

I have operated a Seneca II with -III engines, FIKI, now through four engines, am on nos 5&6. Even carefullyl managed, this winter it ate $51,000 planned dollars and 20,000 unplanned dollars.

It has run me aggregate $250/hour but remmeber the time-average includes 15 years when you could be a factory reman for only $26K.

So the discounted price simply reflects the cost of maintenence, as well as the 10 statue MPG I get at 160 knots.

 

[kyleb]

I have operated a Seneca II with -III engines, FIKI, now through four engines, am on nos 5&6. Even carefullyl managed, this winter it ate $51,000 planned dollars and 20,000 unplanned dollars.

Damn. You'd come out cheaper chartering from Netjets. ;-)

 

[bbchien]

And for Henning, my AP has cost $6,800 to keep online for 15 years.

 

[wabower]

For the hours flown he has come out about two million ahead of a frac, but what's a few bucks among friends?

Damn. You'd come out cheaper chartering from Netjets. ;-)

 

[Henning]

And for Henning, my AP has cost $6,800 to keep online for 15 years.

Ok, that's not too bad, does that include the trips to take the plane to get it repaired? I'm just hearing bad reports coming out TX as far as getting parts and service anymore where everyone is now taking the Garmin system and flat rating all repairs, and that's from my buddy's dad who owns an avionics shop. I was almost going to get an S/Tec when I started hearing that noise as well as a quality drop with new management so I wanted to see what played out there. Now with noise about an owner maint category, I'll wait till that plays out a bit further before doing an more avionics except maybe SVT on the G-500.

 

[kyleb]

For the hours flown he has come out about two million ahead of a frac, but what's a few bucks among friends?

Wayne, what does a 50 hour annual block (or whatever the lowest common denominator is) cost with NetJets? Let's choose a Citation as the aircraft...

 

[MitchB]

Wow. Does this happen to every post here?

I really just wanted some up-to-date info on owning / flying 310s / 320s. Pros of owning, possible cons of Turbos, Auto pilots to avoid, etc...
Please - keep that coming... But not from you Wayne. You might be the smartest guy in the world, but you come off here as a complete douchebag. And apparently you know nothing about 310s. Why do you post here? Why would anyone pay attention?

But looks like we're getting into other areas ($$$, oil, LoP vs. RoP, etc...) that may cause friction.

I can appreciate the cost(s) discussion. I think a lot of the cost stuff is relatively fixed - hangar, Insurance, labor for the Annual (before the repairs..). These really are moot from a cost-of-ownership of a particular A/C type vs. another. They are what they are - move on. Cost to maintain or moreso improve an aircraft is a moving target - and owner specific. One man's adequate does not equal another's. How one flys or how an owner maintains his A/C is tantamount to comparing wives or homes...

I think (hope) a great deal of the variable cost(s) for me can be addressed by buying the right airplane. Knowing an airplane might be high time but is cheaper vs. paying top shelf money for a zero gripe airplane. There are a lot of choices right now. There's a sweet spot for each buyer. So I'm arming myself with as much info as I can gather before getting serious.

For me, the twin vs single thing comes down to this: Not always - maybe not often - but there may be times when I find myself flying solo - maybe with my family, at night, over remote terrain. Maybe in weather... Flying a single in those circumstances would not be enjoyable for me. Now that I am flying on my terms, I want to enjoy it. In those conditions there is no discussion of which is preferred..

Engines / systems never fail when we're ready.

 

[wabower]

Kyle, I priced Citation Shares last year for some doctors in Tulsa.

~$105,000 plus excise taxes for ~20 hours on their card program in a 560 Encore (successor to Citation V/Ultra.) They were required to use the hours within 12 months, with normal short-leg and cook-the-books takeoff and landing charges that apply to frac shares as well as black out dates (Superbowl, Masters, Spring Break) restrictions that are common to those programs. Full payment due up front. Also priced the Avanti program, it was ~$1,000/hr cheaper but not a good fit for the LAX trips they wanted.

If you're interested I'll get an updated price list.

BTW, I think the days of the frac ownership programs per se are limited and some of the providers have announced no mas. Henceforth the travel will all be sold as card programs with higher hourly fees and no buy-in. Many reasons for the change, but the unpredictability of residual value has been a sore point with owners for years.

Wayne, what does a 50 hour annual block (or whatever the lowest common denominator is) cost with NetJets? Let's choose a Citation as the aircraft...