just daydreaming, but anyone pireps on twin barons?

[JHW]

Initial cost but I'd assume ongoing to be only slightly more than a Mooney, but not a lot. Am I wrong?

Over 6 years each and numerous repairs etc and lots of avgas, my fixed gear PA32 I used to have and the beech travel air I have now cost within 1% of each other on a per mile basis. Travel air is slightly cheaper if you want to split hairs.

 

[Ted]

I know their cost to fly is kinda high, but Aztecs are monsters for load, interior comfort, and are relatively fast. The do burn 24 + gph, but there are many out there for under 100k.

Having over 500 hours in the 310 and about 1,000 in the Aztec, I'd say it depends on what you want. My Aztec did 155 KTAS @ 21 GPH combined reliably. The 310 does 177 @ 23 or 187 @ 27 typically. The Aztec had more room but I find the 310 to be quieter, more comfortable, etc. Price per mile has come out pretty similar, but that extra speed on the 310 sure is nice.

If you need the space of the Aztec, get one. Otherwise I'd get a 310 or Baron.

 

[Dr. O]

Well first Henning, you are not normal
Ted too (definitely not)
I agree that if ya just absolutely positively gotta be somewhere, you want the biggest, fastest, most capable twin you can afford - and more :wink2:

But if this is a pleasure flight somewhere after slaving, and dreaming, in a cubicle for weeks why blow the bucks just to get there 9 minutes sooner (typical time difference for the typical pleasure run)
Anyway, not worth arguing about.

When the time came to buy my last airplane I seriously considered a turbine (yeah, I could swing it). But after a lifetime of banging around airports and airplanes I have a longer perspective.
I wanted a twin for moving grandchildren across 3 states, two countries, and three of the four Great Lakes - often at night in marginal weather. I looked at all the usual suspects. In the end, I decided that an Apache - same one I had taken my multi rating in 35 years earlier - met my dispatch requirements 98% of the time. The 2% it doesn't I have learned to live with.
Entering the 14th year with this ship I still feel it was the right decision. I have saved tons of money over a faster ship (especially turbine). I have flown every trip I felt comfortable launching. And only a few times would a turbocharged rocket have made a difference - granted, I have not taken the high route across the Rockies.

I have been able to fly longer than I anticipated - and to my surprise my health should allow another 5 years (or so - icing on the cake)
So when you guys go stroking past me, ten thousand feet higher, give me a wing wag.

 

[Henning]

I would tend to pass below you, way below you... .

 

[Ted]

Well first Henning, you are not normal
Ted too (definitely not)
I agree that if ya just absolutely positively gotta be somewhere, you want the biggest, fastest, most capable twin you can afford - and more :wink2:

But if this is a pleasure flight somewhere after slaving, and dreaming, in a cubicle for weeks why blow the bucks just to get there 9 minutes sooner (typical time difference for the typical pleasure run)
Anyway, not worth arguing about.

Not arguing, just pointing out that for many of us there's more of a component of time savings. This is especially true when you get into the twins and turboprops.

If I did mostly 200 nm or less trips, I'd likely look at something slower, cheaper, etc.

 

[drotto]

In a dream world, I would own something like a Mooney for fun and speed or trips with just my wife, and a larger twin for family hauling like a Navajo (a Panther mod would be great also).

 

[Ted]

In a dream world, I would own something like a Mooney for fun and speed or trips with just my wife, and a larger twin for family hauling like a Navajo (a Panther mod would be great also).

Unless you need the short field capability of the Navajo, I can't see why anyone would buy one of those instead of a 421.