Rematch #427,395: Twins vs. Singles as Personal Airliner

denverpilot said:
The 208 on floats at OSH was enormous. Talk about sail area...
Click to expand...

According to the 'real seaplane people' its a toy for rich guys, a real pig to get out of the water and what you are supposed to fly is a turbo-beaver on floats ;) . Then there is the chance that they are just jealous.
 
wabower said:
Many people have the same reaction, but when time comes to purchase they buy something else.
Click to expand...
The FAA couldn't require a type-rating, but that SFAR has sure done the trick, talk about a turn around with the accident rates. They went from the bottom of the safety pyramid to the top in just a few short years.
 
Yep, kinda shoots holes in the "we don't need no steenking recurrent training" argument, now don't it?
Dead Stick said:
The FAA couldn't require a type-rating, but that SFAR has sure done the trick, talk about a turn around with the accident rates. They went from the bottom of the safety pyramid to the top in just a few short years.
Click to expand...
 
Dead Stick said:
The FAA couldn't require a type-rating, but that SFAR has sure done the trick, talk about a turn around with the accident rates. They went from the bottom of the safety pyramid to the top in just a few short years.
Click to expand...

A scary example of: regulations work!
 
I need to print this out and hand it to people when they ask why I sold the Citation and bought an old 421! It's still not cheap to fly, but it's 1/3 or so to operate whether it's per hour or annually. :dunno:

wabower said:
After several years of KA-200 ownership I can testify that operating one of them feels like you need to have won the lottery in order to fly it. Fuel in major airports, including resort areas, is north of $6/gal, which equates to ~$650/hr for long trips and ~$800/hr for short trips. We budgeted $5k/mo for MX and usually spent all of it over the year.

On numerous occasions I decided to "damn the torpedoes" and fly it to California for the annual golf trip, at least until I did the math. Fuel cost for the round trip from Dallas to Palm Springs would use up most of a five-thousand dollar bill, and then I'd need to store it for a month or pay somebody to fly it home and then come back to get us. Even with my sorry-ass friends chipping in for part of the cost, using the plane was still a big chunk of dough.

Then I'd check my FF account at American and find I could fly free, or worst case fly the round trip for the same cost as .5 hours fuel cost for the B-200. The downside was waiting around in the PSP bag area for the golf bag to show up, the upside was that I could stand up and walk to the whizzer in the MD-80.

Bottom line is that the B-200 didn't ever make the trip. If we had been hauling 6-8 people it might have made sense, but even then it would have been iffy.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
After several years of KA-200 ownership I can testify that operating one of them feels like you need to have won the lottery in order to fly it. Fuel in major airports, including resort areas, is north of $6/gal, which equates to ~$650/hr for long trips and ~$800/hr for short trips. We budgeted $5k/mo for MX and usually spent all of it over the year.

Bottom line is that the B-200 didn't ever make the trip. If we had been hauling 6-8 people it might have made sense, but even then it would have been iffy.
Click to expand...

Jeez, the costs of twin turbines are quite sobering. When I'm a millionaire I'm going to get an old Bonanza with a low compression IO-470 burning mogas, GAMIs, every speed mod, a dual yoke, tip tanks, VGs, gross weight increase STC., new paint, new interior, and a fancy panel with TCAS. I'll cross the country at 150kt/12gph burning car gas and looking up cheap self-serve fuel stops at uncontrolled fields on my used iPad2 with Foreflight. :D
 
Seneca II with FIKI is a pretty capable bird. Affordable, not fast, see this track going above and North of the Low Pressure centered in W Va this last saturday (was their Nor'easter). We still got to Peoria at 4:30.
 

Attachments

  • HFD-FDY12.29.12(small).pdf
    284.2 KB · Views: 13
Jeez, the costs of twin turbines are quite sobering.
Click to expand...

Given the reliability of a turboprop or turbofan, I question why one would need a second engine for basic GA operations. A single engine turboprop would be suitable for anything that you might do short of trying a very long flight over hazardous terrain or open water. I would wonder how a TBM or Pilatus would compare in fuel per hour to a piston twin. Even the relatively slow Pilatus would probably still outpace most piston twins which is going to reduce the time you're burning fuel. The other advantage would be that outside of major convective systems, you would be able to go over the top of most bad weather which you could not do in a piston twin.

Of course, there is the major offset in maintenance....

looking up cheap self-serve fuel stops at uncontrolled fields on my used iPad2 with Foreflight.
Click to expand...

What's funny is that at the GA airport closest to me, full-service Jet-A is actually cheaper than self-serve 100LL by five cents a gallon (and that's before the volume discount that they normally give for any larger purchase). The same applies to a lot of the other airports around here that I am familiar with. At the local towered field, Jet-A is almost a full dollar cheaper. No clue about the mogas around here since I don't pay attention to that.
 
Use your superior research skills to check the engine failures in PC-12's and other turboprops over the years. Expand it to the Aussie's ongoing attempts to ground the entire PT-6 fleet. That might explain some of the reasons why.

SteveinIndy said:
Given the reliability of a turboprop or turbofan, I question why one would need a second engine for basic GA operations. A single engine turboprop would be suitable for anything that you might do short of trying a very long flight over hazardous terrain or open water. I would wonder how a TBM or Pilatus would compare in fuel per hour to a piston twin. Even the relatively slow Pilatus would probably still outpace most piston twins which is going to reduce the time you're burning fuel. The other advantage would be that outside of major convective systems, you would be able to go over the top of most bad weather which you could not do in a piston twin.

Of course, there is the major offset in maintenance....



What's funny is that at the GA airport closest to me, full-service Jet-A is actually cheaper than self-serve 100LL by five cents a gallon (and that's before the volume discount that they normally give for any larger purchase). The same applies to a lot of the other airports around here that I am familiar with. At the local towered field, Jet-A is almost a full dollar cheaper. No clue about the mogas around here since I don't pay attention to that.
Click to expand...
 
SteveinIndy said:
Given the reliability of a turboprop or turbofan, I question why one would need a second engine for basic GA operations. A single engine turboprop would be suitable for anything that you might do short of trying a very long flight over hazardous terrain or open water. I would wonder how a TBM or Pilatus would compare in fuel per hour to a piston twin. Even the relatively slow Pilatus would probably still outpace most piston twins which is going to reduce the time you're burning fuel. The other advantage would be that outside of major convective systems, you would be able to go over the top of most bad weather which you could not do in a piston twin.
Click to expand...

Certainly a number of people agree with your argument, given the sales of those relative planes, but I'd also point out that the cost of a TBM/Meridian/Pilatus is way higher than even an optioned out 421C with significantly different speeds, so it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

It also comes down to personal preference. While turbines rarely fail, they do still fail, and it comes down to whether you'd prefer a turbine single that probably won't fail to two piston twins that also probably won't fail, albeit having a higher probability of doing so. Wayne's arguments show why there are still a number of folks who disagree with the turbine single argument, including me.

So if I'm looking at $1+ million for a used TBM/Meridian, I'll buy the piston twin. Or a Piper Cheyenne, which I can get a decent one of for $400k.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Certainly a number of people agree with your argument, given the sales of those relative planes, but I'd also point out that the cost of a TBM/Meridian/Pilatus is way higher than even an optioned out 421C with significantly different speeds, so it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

It also comes down to personal preference. While turbines rarely fail, they do still fail, and it comes down to whether you'd prefer a turbine single that probably won't fail to two piston twins that also probably won't fail, albeit having a higher probability of doing so. Wayne's arguments show why there are still a number of folks who disagree with the turbine single argument, including me.

So if I'm looking at $1+ million for a used TBM/Meridian, I'll buy the piston twin. Or a Piper Cheyenne, which I can get a decent one of for $400k.
Click to expand...

Yup. To each and to their own means and desires.
 
SteveinIndy said:
Yup. To each and to their own means and desires.
Click to expand...

That's why they sell all kinds of planes!:D I prefer a piston twin over a piston single, and a turbo prop twin over a single anything.:D But, that's where my experience and comfort level is. Lots of guys would rather have a turbo prop single vs a turbo prop twin, just not me. If you can afford one, you can afford either, if the difference in costs are a deal breaker, you might want to stay away from Jet-A.:dunno:
 
So this thread has me thinking, scary! How much does the eclipse 500 cost compared to a KA 200? Also, how does it compare to a piston twin?
 
jmp470 said:
So this thread has me thinking, scary! How much does the eclipse 500 cost compared to a KA 200? Also, how does it compare to a piston twin?
Click to expand...

An Eclipse 500 isn't comparable to a KA 200. Just look at the interiors on both and you'll understand. KA 200 has a beautiful, spacious interior. Eclipse 500 is probably closer to a Cessna 340 as far as cabin size goes.

If you're thinking Eclipse, give the HondaJet a look.
 
Or Baron
Ted DuPuis said:
An Eclipse 500 isn't comparable to a KA 200. Just look at the interiors on both and you'll understand. KA 200 has a beautiful, spacious interior. Eclipse 500 is probably closer to a Cessna 340 as far as cabin size goes.

If you're thinking Eclipse, give the HondaJet a look.
Click to expand...
 
You'll also cry when you realize the turbine Duke isn't faster than a KA200.

Although the O&N 340 is a decent package. Only trues out at 240 KTAS advertised, but great climb rates and advertised fuel burn is 44 gph combined at FL220. Not too bad if you can stomach $1.6 million for the conversion plus purchase of the plane.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You'll also cry when you realize the turbine Duke isn't faster than a KA200.

Although the O&N 340 is a decent package. Only trues out at 240 KTAS advertised, but great climb rates and advertised fuel burn is 44 gph combined at FL220. Not too bad if you can stomach $1.6 million for the conversion plus purchase of the plane.
Click to expand...

There are many nice planes you can buy for 1.5mil. I just dont see the market for any of those twin conversions. They burn fuel at turbine rates, the only 'advantage' when it comes to operating cost is that they are not subject to a rigid manufacturers inspection schedule. And I am not sure that skimping on inspections is truly an advantage.
 
weilke said:
There are many nice planes you can buy for 1.5mil. I just dont see the market for any of those twin conversions. They burn fuel at turbine rates, the only 'advantage' when it comes to operating cost is that they are not subject to a rigid manufacturers inspection schedule. And I am not sure that skimping on inspections is truly an advantage.
Click to expand...

The 340 conversion actually results in better MPG at altitude than the piston, which is unusual but works. Plus has enough fuel capacity to get the range.

While it's probably the best turbine conversion I've seen, I'd agree there is a limited market. I'd have a hard time convincing myself on the turbine 340 when I could buy a nice Cheyenne II for 1/4 of the initial investment, even though I'd have significantly higher fuel burn. Their theory is you're getting as close to a new plane as one can with an airframe that's been out of production for 30 years. My theory is it's still 30 years old.
 
The 340's weak pressurization would disqualify it from consideration here.

Ted DuPuis said:
The 340 conversion actually results in better MPG at altitude than the piston, which is unusual but works. Plus has enough fuel capacity to get the range.

While it's probably the best turbine conversion I've seen, I'd agree there is a limited market. I'd have a hard time convincing myself on the turbine 340 when I could buy a nice Cheyenne II for 1/4 of the initial investment, even though I'd have significantly higher fuel burn. Their theory is you're getting as close to a new plane as one can with an airframe that's been out of production for 30 years. My theory is it's still 30 years old.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
The 340's weak pressurization would disqualify it from consideration here.
Click to expand...

That's certainly the biggest airframe issue that they can't get around.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's certainly the biggest airframe issue that they can't get around.
Click to expand...

They are already somewhat useful load challenged, how does that work out with the need to haul around enough jetfuel ?
 
weilke said:
They are already somewhat useful load challenged, how does that work out with the need to haul around enough jetfuel ?
Click to expand...

Check their website for details on that. Basically they said that with the significantly lower weight from the turboprops vs pistons, that made up for it.
 
SteveinIndy said:
Given the reliability of a turboprop or turbofan, I question why one would need a second engine for basic GA operations. A single engine turboprop would be suitable for anything that you might do short of trying a very long flight over hazardous terrain or open water. I would wonder how a TBM or Pilatus would compare in fuel per hour to a piston twin. Even the relatively slow Pilatus would probably still outpace most piston twins which is going to reduce the time you're burning fuel. The other advantage would be that outside of major convective systems, you would be able to go over the top of most bad weather which you could not do in a piston twin.

Of course, there is the major offset in maintenance....



What's funny is that at the GA airport closest to me, full-service Jet-A is actually cheaper than self-serve 100LL by five cents a gallon (and that's before the volume discount that they normally give for any larger purchase). The same applies to a lot of the other airports around here that I am familiar with. At the local towered field, Jet-A is almost a full dollar cheaper. No clue about the mogas around here since I don't pay attention to that.
Click to expand...

Single engine turbines are a niche market plane, and even turbines crap out, there is plenty of record of PC-12s gliding in. Thing is the acquisition costs and fuel burn make it very difficult to ever come out ahead in the SE Turbine vs ME Piston, even in the pressurized cabin class airframes in the long run. The advantages you get are dispatch reliability and a bit of altitude, but even the turboprops don't get above all the bad weather, you need to step up to a turbojet or the Avanti for that, the PC-12 still has to slog through the weather.
 
weilke said:
There are many nice planes you can buy for 1.5mil. I just dont see the market for any of those twin conversions. They burn fuel at turbine rates, the only 'advantage' when it comes to operating cost is that they are not subject to a rigid manufacturers inspection schedule. And I am not sure that skimping on inspections is truly an advantage.
Click to expand...

I can't see it either until Continental delivers the 350hp Diesel, that will be a worthwhile conversion because it will add efficiency rather than subtract it with the turbine.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You'll also cry when you realize the turbine Duke isn't faster than a KA200.

Although the O&N 340 is a decent package. Only trues out at 240 KTAS advertised, but great climb rates and advertised fuel burn is 44 gph combined at FL220. Not too bad if you can stomach $1.6 million for the conversion plus purchase of the plane.
Click to expand...

Not bad considering a really nice 425 can be bought for $6-700K, and a really nice -135 425 can go for a million or less. :rolleyes: 260 knots, seating for 6 adults and a factory turbo prop. :wink2:
I don't understand converting piston twins to turbo props.:dunno: The cost is crazy compared to what's available already. Dukes are sexy looking little airplanes, but they are small inside and for the $$$ I'd much rather have the cabin room and factory systems of a production airplane.:D
There are usually a couple 421 turbine conversions for sale, asking almost as much as a 425, they usually sit quite a while I don't know if they ever sell.:dunno:
 
Last edited:
John, I definitely agree with you overall. Were it me, I'd look for a Cheyenne.

The one thing I think the 340 conversion does is provide a pressurized twin turboprop that's smaller than what is currently available. If there were smaller, more efficient turboprop twins on the used market, it'd be more appealing to us. The 340 is a good size for our mission than a 421/Navajo/425/Cheyenne.

I still doubt they'll sell many, but I think they chose a decent candidate for conversion. Their 210 conversion has been reasonably popular.
 
As a buyer's rep who's been working this market for many years, I can say with certainty that "gliding in" isn't one of the advantages that owners are seeking when they pop for a couple mil on a plane purchase. I can also attest to the fact that every after-takeoff crash of a cabin-class piston twin that falls into the "why do twins have two engines? because they won't fly on one" category causes many twin owners to check their hole card, as confirmed by JB and others on these forums.

And as a pilot of numerous jets I've learned that the only one that's capable of getting above the bad weather is the SR-71. Everybody else is going around it.



Henning said:
Single engine turbines are a niche market plane, and even turbines crap out, there is plenty of record of PC-12s gliding in. Thing is the acquisition costs and fuel burn make it very difficult to ever come out ahead in the SE Turbine vs ME Piston, even in the pressurized cabin class airframes in the long run. The advantages you get are dispatch reliability and a bit of altitude, but even the turboprops don't get above all the bad weather, you need to step up to a turbojet or the Avanti for that, the PC-12 still has to slog through the weather.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
As a buyer's rep who's been working this market for many years, I can say with certainty that "gliding in" isn't one of the advantages that owners are seeking when they pop for a couple mil on a plane purchase. I can also attest to the fact that every after-takeoff crash of a cabin-class piston twin that falls into the "why do twins have two engines? because they won't fly on one" category causes many twin owners to check their hole card, as confirmed by JB and others on these forums.

And as a pilot of numerous jets I've learned that the only one that's capable of getting above the bad weather is the SR-71. Everybody else is going around it.
Click to expand...

As a long time owner/operator of piston twins who has flown out on one, I can safely attest that is an operational function, keep the plane plane light and it will fly out on one, all it requires is the discipline to keep a minimum load. In general I agree though, a piston twin will either give you engine redundancy or extra load hauling ability, not both.
 
As a guy who has seen professional pilots on the street because they sought to impose less than "full to bulging" takeoff weights on their owners, I can guarantee that if the other guy's pilot will go, you had damn sure better go if you want to remain employed.

Safety is often mentioned as a high priority in GA, but that's before the owner wants to go somewhere and take everything that will fit inside.

Henning said:
As a long time owner/operator of piston twins who has flown out on one, I can safely attest that is an operational function, keep the plane plane light and it will fly out on one, all it requires is the discipline to keep a minimum load. In general I agree though, a piston twin will either give you engine redundancy or extra load hauling ability, not both.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
As a guy who has seen professional pilots on the street because they sought to impose less than "full to bulging" takeoff weights on their owners, I can guarantee that if the other guy's pilot will go, you had damn sure better go if you want to remain employed.

Safety is often mentioned as a high priority in GA, but that's before the owner wants to go somewhere and take everything that will fit inside.
Click to expand...

That is the advantage to being an owner operator, I don't have to fly junk and I don't have to fly for idiots. I saw long ago that professional pilot was a crappy job.
 
Be sure to put that on your resume for the FO job at Avantair.

Henning said:
That is the advantage to being an owner operator, I don't have to fly junk and I don't have to fly for idiots. I saw long ago that professional pilot was a crappy job.
Click to expand...
 
:rofl: @ Wayne and Henning
 
wabower said:
As a guy who has seen professional pilots on the street because they sought to impose less than "full to bulging" takeoff weights on their owners, I can guarantee that if the other guy's pilot will go, you had damn sure better go if you want to remain employed.

Safety is often mentioned as a high priority in GA, but that's before the owner wants to go somewhere and take everything that will fit inside.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. What was the local 340 at my old airport was never seen operating less than 500 lbs over gross. That's with a RAM VII and VGs.
 
Henning said:
That is the advantage to being an owner operator, I don't have to fly junk and I don't have to fly for idiots. I saw long ago that professional pilot was a crappy job.
Click to expand...

Not as crappy as being a "yacht captain". I still get a chuckle watching those guys walking around with the hor derve trays, taking drink orders, playing bellhop, etc. :rofl::rofl:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top