Need help. Searching for a 200+ kt cruise, 6 seats, +/- 300K.

[Tom-D]

Please explain. I'm looking to fly not be flown.

If you do not understand that taking 6 people from the east coast to Mt. at over 200k airspeed, requires an aircraft that you do not have the rating to fly, You best get some experience over the route.

Even if the 6 people are the skinny 175 pounds the FAA calls standard they will require over 1000 pounds of usable load, no fuel, no baggage. Add 50 pounds of bags each adds another 300 pounds. Now add fuel to feed the beast to pull that load and you are required to fly an aircraft beyond your capabilities.

No Instrument rating or an aircraft that has the full IFR package, your dispatch ability drops to 25% (or less) to make that trip in 1 day.

To do the trips you are dreaming of requires a professional pilot flying a lot more aircraft than you are qualified for.

Hire it done, or get the training and certificates to do it your self.

 

[JasonM]

Look at these numbers posted for the T210R Turbo Centurion. whacky or what?

http://www.findaircraft.com/performance/aircraft_performance_data-246.htm

 

[Henning]

Look at these numbers posted for the T210R Turbo Centurion. whacky or what?

http://www.findaircraft.com/performance/aircraft_performance_data-246.htm

Those look like MPH numbers, not Kts, and are "Marketing numbers" and likely derived from TAS in the Flight Levels. I don't even know many twins that will cruise nicely at 200 down where you want to be, I cruise at 180,(I loaf hard LOP) but 3 miles a minute is a good speed in the CONUS, I can go corner to corner in a day.

 

[Tom-D]

The back two seats in a 210 are useless as seats. Trapping two people back there for over 2 hours is cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[Henning]

The back two seats in a 210 are useless as seats. Trapping two people back there for over 2 hours is cruel and unusual punishment.

That's for sure, I rode back there once, no thanks.

 

[wabower]

The referenced numbers are shown as being for the "R" model of which very few were produced before Cessna abandoned the single retrac market. The numbers are in MPH and are slightly better than comps for the older planes. It's a better design and resales prices are much higher than others in the fleet.

As you study the numbers published by these websites you'll quickly find that they are in fact "best-case" sales-department speeds that might be possible to reproduce but that most pilots find impractical due to the poor fuel burn/speed ratios that result from max-power cruise settings.

 

[JasonM]

If you do not understand that taking 6 people from the east coast to Mt. at over 200k airspeed, requires an aircraft that you do not have the rating to fly, You best get some experience over the route.

Even if the 6 people are the skinny 175 pounds the FAA calls standard they will require over 1000 pounds of usable load, no fuel, no baggage. Add 50 pounds of bags each adds another 300 pounds. Now add fuel to feed the beast to pull that load and you are required to fly an aircraft beyond your capabilities.

No Instrument rating or an aircraft that has the full IFR package, your dispatch ability drops to 25% (or less) to make that trip in 1 day.

To do the trips you are dreaming of requires a professional pilot flying a lot more aircraft than you are qualified for.

Hire it done, or get the training and certificates to do it your self.

Your friendly. Nice to meet you by the way. Lets make this as negative as we can right? First off, I'm not just gonna pop my a$$ in the plane and go without any training in it. I'm pretty sure since I am not Instrument rated yet, I can not legally fly into bad weather. So.. lets just assume I am smart enough to not fly into that stuff and either go around or wait since I will not be in ANY RUSH. I'm not talking about a plane that fly's 500 Kts here and if I choose an airplane that went 150 kts would your comments be any different here?

 

[Kelvin]

If you change Tom's "tone" to the most loving tone you can imagine...or to the gruffest to one and judge accordingly...it doesn't change that what he is telling you has validity.

Your friendly. Nice to meet you by the way. Lets make this as negative as we can right? First off, I'm not just gonna pop my a$$ in the plane and go without any training in it. I'm pretty sure since I am not Instrument rated yet, I can not legally fly into bad weather. So.. lets just assume I am smart enough to not fly into that stuff and either go around or wait since I will not be in ANY RUSH. I'm not talking about a plane that fly's 500 Kts here and if I choose an airplane that went 150 kts would your comments be any different here?

 

[poadeleted20]

You're pretty much talking turboprop to haul that much payload that fast-in a single - they just don't make big enough piston engines to make that much power (somewhere north of 400 HP). The Piper Malibu goes that fast at altitude, but with enough fuel to go anywhere at all, there's not enough payload left for six people. The Comanche 400 would come close, but there's a reason they only built a few of them -- engine cooling issues, which is why you don't see any other 4-row horizontally opposed engines out there. So, we're probably talking Piper Meridian, TBM-700, or a turboprop conversion Bonanza or Centurion to do what you want. Whether you can find one of those for $300K is beyond my knowledge.

 

[Henning]

Your friendly. Nice to meet you by the way. Lets make this as negative as we can right? First off, I'm not just gonna pop my a$$ in the plane and go without any training in it. I'm pretty sure since I am not Instrument rated yet, I can not legally fly into bad weather. So.. lets just assume I am smart enough to not fly into that stuff and either go around or wait since I will not be in ANY RUSH. I'm not talking about a plane that fly's 500 Kts here and if I choose an airplane that went 150 kts would your comments be any different here?

Very likely, because you could do that in a Saratoga. To get over three miles a minute reliably takes a pretty serious step up in equipment, to do it with 6 people in reasonable comfort takes another serious step up in equipment. While YOU want to fly the plane, that does not apply to your passengers, they are along to get to the destination. If they are cramped into a tight plane being slammed around in the turbulence down low, they will be less than enthusiastic about traveling with you.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

This is about as close to what you ask as is available.

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...U-MATRIX/2008-PIPER-MALIBU-MATRIX/1276687.htm

Alternatively you can make due with as close to what you want as possible.

An early model A36 tith a IO550 and Tornado Alley Turbo running LOP can true at almost 200 knots at 20,000'

The useful load of such a plane can be 1400 lbs give or take 100, or with wing tip tanks can be 1600 lbs.

You should be able to find a 68-70 model with these useful loads newer models have less useful load.

You can probably do the same thing with a T210 with I0550 and TAT as well.

Subtract about 8-10 knots if you do not want to fly higher than 16k'

My turbo is STC and claims 197 knots at 20,000' however I manage 175 knots at 11,500'.

It is worthy to note that on most 6 seat airplanes the last two seats are limited to 100 or 125 lbs so if your 5 are all adults it might be difficult to achieve.

 

[Henning]

You're pretty much talking turboprop to haul that much payload that fast-in a single - they just don't make big enough piston engines to make that much power (somewhere north of 400 HP). The Piper Malibu goes that fast at altitude, but with enough fuel to go anywhere at all, there's not enough payload left for six people. The Comanche 400 would come close, but there's a reason they only built a few of them -- engine cooling issues, which is why you don't see any other 4-row horizontally opposed engines out there. So, we're probably talking Piper Meridian, TBM-700, or a turboprop conversion Bonanza or Centurion to do what you want. Whether you can find one of those for $300K is beyond my knowledge.

The turbo prop Bonanza won't have the fuel to get far with 6 people either, nor the Silver Eagle from what I heard.

 

[Jeff K]

Multi-rating is trivial... I got it in 7 hours over a weekend. All in, including fuel, airplane rental, instruction and checkride (which I got on a Sunday), it was just a hair under $2000. Now, on going training is critical here... because what you train for in a twin never happens... until you need it. I go to re-occurring once a year.

You have a huge multitude of twins that will easily meet your objectives for under $100K... quite a few well equipped. $200,000 buys alot of gas, insurance and maintenance... of which I believe you are overrating each by a large margin. I fly my NA booted Aztec at 18 gal/lop and it's going over 180mph TAS at that fuel burn. Get a more slippery twin, like a 310 or B58 with a turbo charger and it should easily meet your goals.

A tougher nut here is the IFR rating. You need this for the kind of flying you want to do (plus it knocks down the insurance some). Single or twin, you really need to consider this mandatory and be making a strong effort to get it done.

As to those you perceive as coming down hard on you... it's tough love. Safe flying is about training and experience... both of which you don't appear to have.

 

[Immelman]

Henning has nailed it a few posts above.

OP, no offense but the original mission you described requires a serious amount of airplane, money, and training (yes, multi engine instrument) to make the thing work as you described. Beyond acquisition, the operating costs will take a ginormous step up vs a single engine piston airplane. If you can swing it, go for it! But you're really up in the cabin-class twin, or ($$$) single engine turbine (TBM, PC12) arena at that point.

If 200 knots is a requirement just because it sounds like enough speed.. it might be time to look at the problem differently: What length trip, over what type of country and season (wind, altitude), and then how long will that trip take. Then look at the block hours required with airplanes of various speeds. The shorter the trip, the less any speed advantage helps you.

Sadly, filling 6 seats and going anyplace at reasonable distance in a single engine GA airplane is a tough thing to do. Its not like trading in your Sedan for a minivan.

 

[JasonM]

Very likely, because you could do that in a Saratoga. To get over three miles a minute reliably takes a pretty serious step up in equipment, to do it with 6 people in reasonable comfort takes another serious step up in equipment. While YOU want to fly the plane, that does not apply to your passengers, they are along to get to the destination. If they are cramped into a tight plane being slammed around in the turbulence down low, they will be less than enthusiastic about traveling with you.

I'm assuming by the way things are transpiring here that 1. Its just not possible in a single for my price point. 2. to be in something capable of that would require an airplane outside of my capabilities such as....? This is where I am confused. I can see a Malibu being beyond my ability right now, but I don't see a 210 being a hard transition. With that said, obviously the 210 isn't stacking up anyhow.

So lets change the story line here. How fast can I realistically expect for a single w/ 5-6 seats in my price range and what are my best options?

 

[poadeleted20]

So lets change the story line here. How fast can I realistically expect for a single w/ 5-6 seats in my price range and what are my best options?

When you say "5-6 seats," just how much weight are you planning to put in the cabin, including pax and baggage? I know some people buy 6-seat singles more for the extra cabin volume than because they actually plan to carry six adults in the plane. Examples include families with children who haul lots of kid accoutrements when they travel. If you're in that latter class, and don't plan to haul six adults around, the 36 Bonanza, Cessna 210, Piper Malibu, and Piper Lance/Saratoga HP all fit your requirements. The non-turbocharged versions are 170-knot class, although the Malibu gets up over 200 knots in the flight levels. But to haul 1200 lb of people and bags along with enough fuel to go anywhere you couldn't get to as fast door-to-doo by driving, you're back to two piston engines or one turboprop.

 

[JasonM]

Multi-rating is trivial... I got it in 7 hours over a weekend. All in, including fuel, airplane rental, instruction and checkride (which I got on a Sunday), it was just a hair under $2000. Now, on going training is critical here... because what you train for in a twin never happens... until you need it. I go to re-occurring once a year.

You have a huge multitude of twins that will easily meet your objectives for under $100K... quite a few well equipped. $200,000 buys alot of gas, insurance and maintenance... of which I believe you are overrating each by a large margin. I fly my NA booted Aztec at 18 gal/lop and it's going over 180mph TAS at that fuel burn. Get a more slippery twin, like a 310 or B58 with a turbo charger and it should easily meet your goals.

A tougher nut here is the IFR rating. You need this for the kind of flying you want to do (plus it knocks down the insurance some). Single or twin, you really need to consider this mandatory and be making a strong effort to get it done.

As to those you perceive as coming down hard on you... it's tough love. Safe flying is about training and experience... both of which you don't appear to have.

Tough love is fine and I can appreciate that if that's how it was meant to be portrayed.

I have had so many people including my past instructors telling me how dangerous a twin can be if you loose an engine on takeoff and that they are extremely hard to control. My past instructor has a twin and said he loves it but the fuel costs make it hard for him to choose over his T182.

I never really looked into multi for those reasons, but I am willing to do that if I can convince myself that its safe.

As far as my training and experience, your correct. I'm new to the game.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

The turbo prop Bonanza won't have the fuel to get far with 6 people either, nor the Silver Eagle from what I heard.

The 500 or 550 Turbines burn about 33=35 gph so 120 gallons does not go but 3 hrs and change. Even with that you have to fly pretty much in class A space for those efficiencies.

At 240=260 knots that is 700-750 nm. So you can calculate that you need about a pound of fuel per mile. Most planes you are talking about will have only 1100 useful load so a full fuel payload would be 500 lbs or less.

If you found a early model T210/A36 with 1400 lbs useful load by one that is run out for $70k and then put a new IR550 engine and tornado alley on it then add tip tanks for an extra 200 lbs useful load and 30-40 more gallons of fuel and you have a mean flying machine that approaches your needs.

 

[weilke]

Btw. I do this trip for work twice a month (in the air as I type this). Used the plane for it twice. I find that a MD88 with two pilots up front and an hour in the Delta Club at MSP is the only reasonable way to cover this route. The Bo is great for family travel up and down the east coast, I would not want to go halfway across the continent that way.

 

[JasonM]

When you say "5-6 seats," just how much weight are you planning to put in the cabin, including pax and baggage? I know some people buy 6-seat singles more for the extra cabin volume than because they actually plan to carry six adults in the plane. Examples include families with children who haul lots of kid accoutrements when they travel. If you're in that latter class, and don't plan to haul six adults around, the 36 Bonanza, Cessna 210, Piper Malibu, and Piper Lance/Saratoga HP all fit your requirements. The non-turbocharged versions are 170-knot class, although the Malibu gets up over 200 knots in the flight levels. But to haul 1200 lb of people and bags along with enough fuel to go anywhere you couldn't get to as fast door-to-doo by driving, you're back to two piston engines or one turboprop.

ok.. possible scenarios would be (3 adults and 2 teenagers) @ approx 750 lbs or (2 adults and 2-3 kids) @ approx 650 lbs. Need some extra margin for luggage, say 100 lbs or so.

Like the room inside the Saratoga for the passengers, but i'm 6'1 tall and heard the seat position isn't good if you over 5' 8".

 

[Kelvin]

Malibu transition is straight forward. You have a gear control and a pressurization system to deal with. 25 hours and you will have these covered. I had tons of G1000 time in a 172-182 and made the transition to the Avidyne with ease. I like the way the plane flies way better than either of the Cessnas I owned.

Initial and recurrent training IS a requirement for insurance. I cannot say for a certainty that an instrument rating is required but I would be surprised if it wasn't.

Shortly after my transition trainng, I found myself moving over the ground a few tmes at 265-275kts. Taking a 110-140kt pilot and moving him over the ground at these speeds can be a recipe for disaster. Much of the struggle I have left is mental. Thinking ahead of the plane.

See my post above about "points" in the PA-46 airframes. This point system is a fairly accurate assessment of the capability of the aircraft.

The Matrix I have has proven to be very comfortable, everyone who I have flown has been unanimous in thier appreciation for the room and comfort.

My next aircraft wil be a Turboprop. TBM700---EPIC---or Meridian. Any of these lanes would do your mission but they far exceed the purchase budget.

Good luck in your search.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

There was a guy on AOPA forums who was/is in the Beer business who flies daily/weekly at FL20 and achieved 197 knots true in an A36 with IO550 and TAT.

I am sure he doesn't mostly solo and with one other but it is possible.

Btw. I do this trip for work twice a month (in the air as I type this). Used the plane for it twice. I find that a MD88 with two pilots up front and an hour in the Delta Club at MSP is the only reasonable way to cover this route. The Bo is great for family travel up and down the east coast, I would not want to go halfway across the continent that way.

 

[wabower]

All the twin BS is illusory, so you don't need to spend any time thinking they will improve anything other than the speed at which money disappears. I've owned/co-owned a Twin Comanche, three Aerostars, a 340, 421 and King Air B-200. None of the piston twins did anything that the comparable singles can't do, and the safety numbers are almost identical.

The hypothetical cruise speed differences, such as Henning's "3 miles per minute" are fiction as well, since anybody who flies east-west trips of any length knows the winds and weather are far greater determinants of trip speeds than any numbers generated by the pitot-static system.

The long trips you're contemplating are simply asking planes to do things they weren't intended to do by a factor of 2X, at least from the passenger's viewpoint. If you torture the numbers long enough they will tell you whatever you want to hear, but when they escape they will tell you that they were lying through their teeth.

A nice T-210 or TN A-36 would be a good place to start. Call Wells Stewart who posts here, he has a really nice 550-powered 210 that could be as good a fit as you could ever hope to find for less than half of your budget.

I'm assuming by the way things are transpiring here that 1. Its just not possible in a single for my price point. 2. to be in something capable of that would require an airplane outside of my capabilities such as....? This is where I am confused. I can see a Malibu being beyond my ability right now, but I don't see a 210 being a hard transition. With that said, obviously the 210 isn't stacking up anyhow.

So lets change the story line here. How fast can I realistically expect for a single w/ 5-6 seats in my price range and what are my best options?

 

[Henning]

I'm assuming by the way things are transpiring here that 1. Its just not possible in a single for my price point. 2. to be in something capable of that would require an airplane outside of my capabilities such as....? This is where I am confused. I can see a Malibu being beyond my ability right now, but I don't see a 210 being a hard transition. With that said, obviously the 210 isn't stacking up anyhow.

So lets change the story line here. How fast can I realistically expect for a single w/ 5-6 seats in my price range and what are my best options?

Exactly, the 210 fails in 2 of 3. The Malibu is not beyond your ability, ability is easy to gain. However the Malibu doesn't have the range for the load you are looking at, and is a pretty maintenance intensive aircraft run at the speed you want. There is nohing difficult about flying twins. I got time in a Beech 18 before I ever had my PPL and was flying a 421 not long after. I bought my own Travelair with 60hrs TT and no ME rating. Planes are planes, and flying is flying, it's thinking that is the difficult part, decission making. Get the proper transition training and you can get into anything. All in all, if you want to be free of a pro pilot/instructor ASAP, a 310 is your best bet as you'll only need about 20hrs dual and your ME checkride for the insurance to cut you loose; although if you push it to the speeds you are looking for it will be maintenance intensive, at 180kts though it's a very happy airplane. A year/100hrs in it and you can step into a 421 with a brief transition training session.

The reality is exactly what you hoped for is unavailable due to power limitations of reciprocating engines in use, and price tags on turbine engines. If you want to fly the trips you describe, you just have to step up your own game is all. There is nothing that monstrous about flying twins truly, my 310 is a sweetie to fly and running those 260hp IO-470s at 55% power LOP creates little stress and maintenance bills, my CHT are always in the low to mid 300s and my exhaust residue is pure white lead residue, no tan, brown or black carbon so my valve stems, seats, and guides are all nice and clean. Trying to push a HP single (or any recip) to the top of it's envelope is the highway to high engine maintenance costs.

It's always better to buy something that does the job you want at a fraction of its capability rather than at the limits of its capability. A HP single with 6 seats is going to do 160kts pushed pretty hard. Probably the best for you depending on luggage would be a Saratoga.

 

[warthog1984]

I'm assuming by the way things are transpiring here that 1. Its just not possible in a single for my price point. 2. to be in something capable of that would require an airplane outside of my capabilities such as....? This is where I am confused. I can see a Malibu being beyond my ability right now, but I don't see a 210 being a hard transition. With that said, obviously the 210 isn't stacking up anyhow.

So lets change the story line here. How fast can I realistically expect for a single w/ 5-6 seats in my price range and what are my best options?

If you back off from "stretching the iron triangle" (speed, payload, cost) in a single your realistic options are the 210, Piper 6 / Saratoga, Piper Malibu, Beech Bonanza, or conversions thereof.

Realistically, as wabower showed, the P/T-210 can touch +/- 200kts (more with a conversion), but practical/comfortable speed at +/-10,000 is 20-30 kts off "top end"

 

[Kelvin]

There was a guy on AOPA forums who was/is in the Beer business who flies daily/weekly at FL20 and achieved 197 knots true in an A36 with IO550 and TAT.

I am sure he doesn't mostly solo and with one other but it is possible.

Tony, you are remembering Tom Gresham (A36TN) and Jeff Malone (P210N?) who ran the beer distributorship in upstate NY. Jeff has passed away.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

It's always better to buy something that does the job you want at a fraction of its capability rather than at the limits of its capability.

I agree with this 100%.

 

[Jeff K]

I have had so many people including my past instructors telling me how dangerous a twin can be if you loose an engine on takeoff and that they are extremely hard to control. My past instructor has a twin and said he loves it but the fuel costs make it hard for him to choose over his T182.

Take any advice from a CFI, in particular about airplanes, with a grain of salt. You'd think they know their stuff, but all they seem to do is accumulate OWT's. I'm serious... there is nothing in their training that intrinsically qualifies them to hand out buying advice on aircraft. You should have seen my last one during my bi-annual a few years back when they saw me flying oversquared ;-) Now your's sounds a step above most I've meet... actually owning an aircraft.

That said, yes the most critical time of a twin is during takeoff. This is what you mostly train for. More on that in a bit.

As to fuel burn. My Piper Aztec cruises faster then my Cherokee 6 did burning 14 gph then the 6 did burning 12 gph. The Aztec is over-powered for it's not particularly slick airframe (I bought it for comfort, STOL and all weather capability) but there are other twins out there that are more slippery that could meet your specs... for *alot* less money then you think.

Also it's important to also look at miles per gallon also when considering fuel burn. My PA32 was around 11-12 mpg. My Aztec averages around 10 mpg (both numbers in cruise).

I never really looked into multi for those reasons, but I am willing to do that if I can convince myself that its safe.

Twins are about training. It's not convincing yourself that *they* are safe, it's training yourself so *you* are safe. If you are willing to make that time and investment and keep current, they are safe. If not, they will bite you just as hard as your instructor warned you of.

And it's got to be about the mission. VFR flying for the occasional hamburger run... no way. Business/family travel that involves keeping (somewhat) of a schedule or in my case flying over Lake Michigan, then sure. But re-occurring training has to be part of that.

As others have suggested... use the next 6 months to get your IFR ticket... take some time off work also... don't string it out. You'll be a better pilot single or multi... then look at it again.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Tony, you are remembering Tom Gresham (A36TN) and Jeff Malone (P210N?) who ran the beer distributorship in upstate NY. Jeff has passed away.

Thank you Kevin, I am sorry to hear that. I've not been on AOPA for 3 years.

 

[ronnieh]

Jason, what Wayne said.
People posted over 20 times, myself included, trying to diplomatically explain that no single piston will do what you want in your OP. Ain't going to happen. You pretty much blew all of them off. Tom comes along and puts it in plain English, and you are offended. Ok, so now you change the requirements. Again what Wayne said.
Look, low time pilots in small airplanes is dangerous enough without adding high performance/complex to the mix. Any plane that will do the trip reasonably well is beyond your capabilities AT THIS TIME. Being multi rated and IR does not make you competent in either situation. You need experience. Enjoy the crawling before you start jogging. If you want to build time and experience get the IR and follow Wayne's advice. You may be trying to yoke yourself to a pilot partnership where the partner's experience and mission requirements are simply beyond your reach at this time. Don't get offended just learn from the tens of thousands of hours of experience that is represented here.

 

[Skylane81E]

I'd buy a twin for that mission, no smaller/slower than a 310 or Baron.

It took me less than 7 hrs to get my multi including the check ride flying only once a week. It was one of the easiest things I have done

 

[Jeff K]

All in all, if you want to be free of a pro pilot/instructor ASAP, a 310 is your best bet as you'll only need about 20hrs dual and your ME checkride for the insurance to cut you loose;

Minor point, when I was searching for a twin I talked to my insurance agent first and gave him the group of aircraft I was looking at. Aztec's/Seneca's needed 10 hrs dual for them to cut me loose... 310's/Baron 58's needed 25 hrs of dual. Played little to no factor in my decision however.

There is nothing that monstrous about flying twins truly, my 310 is a sweetie to fly and running those 260hp IO-470s at 55% power LOP creates little stress and maintenance bills, my CHT are always in the low to mid 300s and my exhaust residue is pure white lead residue, no tan, brown or black carbon so my valve stems, seats, and guides are all nice and clean.

Sounds like we fly in a similar manner and my exhaust looks just like that.

 

[Henning]

Minor point, when I was searching for a twin I talked to my insurance agent first and gave him the group of aircraft I was looking at. Aztec's/Seneca's needed 10 hrs dual for them to cut me loose... 310's/Baron 58's needed 25 hrs of dual. Played little to no factor in my decision however.



Sounds like we fly in a similar manner and my exhaust looks just like that.

Yep 25 is about 20, A 421 will be considerably more used for initial, probably best to keep your name off the policy for the first 75 hrs. The Seneca and Aztec are both 20kts slower, and the Seneca is a bit shy on OEI performance which six onboard.

Yep, I operate to best preclude doing a mid time top end, carbon deposits are the enemy of that.

 

[Skylane81E]

Tough love is fine and I can appreciate that if that's how it was meant to be portrayed.

I have had so many people including my past instructors telling me how dangerous a twin can be if you loose an engine on takeoff and that they are extremely hard to control. My past instructor has a twin and said he loves it but the fuel costs make it hard for him to choose over his T182.

I never really looked into multi for those reasons, but I am willing to do that if I can convince myself that its safe.

As far as my training and experience, your correct. I'm new to the game.

If you loose an engine on take off you are either going fast enough to continue or you are not. If you are not you close the throttles and land strait ahead, just like in a single. If you are going fast enough you can then continue the departure.

It takes some discipline but up till you achieve sufficient speed to fly away on one you just have to remember to treat it like a single and abort

 

[JasonM]

Interesting how this thread is going. I agree with many of you completely. This is a partnership with someone much more qualified and very open to options. I was basically told, go find what I like and he's in for 2/3. Its a great opportunity. I have to step back and look at the direction we should be taking now. He really wants something that's fast. He said over 200 kts. Maybe he set me up for failure on my research? I really don't want to get into something overly complex based on my current skill level, but I do want something to grow into that is capable of doing what we want.

so, whats the Pro's VS Con's of the Baron vs 310?

 

[Skylane81E]

Yep 25 is about 20, A 421 will be considerably more used for initial, probably best to keep your name off the policy for the first 75 hrs. The Seneca and Aztec are both 20kts slower, and the Seneca is a bit shy on OEI performance which six onboard.

Yep, I operate to best preclude doing a mid time top end, carbon deposits are the enemy of that.

Seneca is shy on the six place requirement, granted it has long range tanks but the one I did my multi in would barely take three adults with a full fuel load.

 

[wabower]

Yep. The only time you can predictably expect to see the 6th seat in a C-340 is when they bring it to the shop for pre-buy. If all the seats are on the shelf while the inspection is being completed, the one that looks almost new will be the sixth seat.

When you say "5-6 seats," just how much weight are you planning to put in the cabin, including pax and baggage? I know some people buy 6-seat singles more for the extra cabin volume than because they actually plan to carry six adults in the plane. Examples include families with children who haul lots of kid accoutrements when they travel. If you're in that latter class, and don't plan to haul six adults around, the 36 Bonanza, Cessna 210, Piper Malibu, and Piper Lance/Saratoga HP all fit your requirements. The non-turbocharged versions are 170-knot class, although the Malibu gets up over 200 knots in the flight levels. But to haul 1200 lb of people and bags along with enough fuel to go anywhere you couldn't get to as fast door-to-doo by driving, you're back to two piston engines or one turboprop.

 

[Jeff K]

Yep 25 is about 20, A 421 will be considerably more used for initial, probably best to keep your name off the policy for the first 75 hrs. The Seneca and Aztec are both 20kts slower, and the Seneca is a bit shy on OEI performance which six onboard.

Yeap. As most of my flights were under 300 miles, the STOL performance of the Aztec/Seneca weighed more heavily in my decision. The Baron had me taking the ferry to an island I fly to often if I wanted to remain within the accelerated stop distances for that field (2600 feet). The Aztec bested that field by 300 feet... the Baron was going through the fence line.

What lead me away from the Seneca was the view obstruction from the engine nacelles. I had also had good luck with the 540 in my PA32. Also for my mission the Seneca was near gross with full fuel/my full family. The Aztec fully fueled/fully loaded was over 200lbs from gross although I've never flown it closer then 400lbs. Safety was my first consideration for a newbie twin pilot and that meant a big margin between published gross and what I put in it. I'm not a test pilot and this is an old airplane.

The only thing I really miss is a turbo but the boots are a must have for me.

 

[Skylane81E]

Interesting how this thread is going. I agree with many of you completely. This is a partnership with someone much more qualified and very open to options. I was basically told, go find what I like and he's in for 2/3. Its a great opportunity. I have to step back and look at the direction we should be taking now. He really wants something that's fast. He said over 200 kts. Maybe he set me up for failure on my research? I really don't want to get into something overly complex based on my current skill level, but I do want something to grow into that is capable of doing what we want.

so, whats the Pro's VS Con's of the Baron vs 310?

I like the rear door on the Baron 58s

 

[Jeff K]

I like the rear door on the Baron 58s

Another thing I miss on my Aztec compared to the PA32. Big barn doors like the Baron 58 has.

Now on my bucket list is a T-bone.