Should I get a retractable gear airplane?

JHW said:
There's a reason B58's cost more to buy. They'll go faster than a Seneca and will cost less over the long term than a 310.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiousity, why do you think a BE-58 will cost less in the long term than a 310?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Just out of curiousity, why do you think a BE-58 will cost less in the long term than a 310?
Click to expand...
Working for a company that operated a dozen of each. Ongoing normal MX hours and parts will run 2-3x for the Cessna and the engine mount corrosion issues are a ticking time bomb. The 310 is a good plane but it's fragile compared with the baron. And the market knows it and prices each accordingly.
 
If passing up the opportunity to buy a 40 year-old plane that will be expensive to fly and maintain for a 60 year-old plane that will cost even more is the objective, the T-Bone would certainly meet the requirements.
Ted DuPuis said:
I'd be surprised if it was even $10k premiums, but it does depend on hull values. In the Aztec with a $60k hull the first year it was about $4k, which went down to $3k the second year. This was with 225 total time, 0 multi, 80 complex the first year.

I second jeff's thoughts on not trading planes. Twin Bos are cheap for a reason. But, if that would satisfy your desire for an oddball twin and you'd want to keep onlong term, it might make sense.
Click to expand...
 
JHW said:
There's a reason B58's cost more to buy. They'll go faster than a Seneca and will cost less over the long term than a 310. And the barn doors in back are really nice.
Click to expand...

Fearless Tower said:
Just out of curiousity, why do you think a BE-58 will cost less in the long term than a 310?
Click to expand...

Who cares? The OP doesn't want either of these planes. For him it's either a twin Bo, or a Skymaster. Persoanly I think he should sharpen up his mechanic's skills and go for the Skymaster.
 
wabower said:
If passing up the opportunity to buy a 40 year-old plane that will be expensive to fly and maintain for a 60 year-old plane that will cost even more is the objective, the T-Bone would certainly meet the requirements.
Click to expand...
You have a way with words, Wayne:D
 
Fearless Tower said:
Here's the thing.....Just looking at the Twin Bos on T-A-P, the prices range from dirt cheap to around $120k for the nicer ones. Generally speaking, the dirt cheap ones will likely be the most expensive to maintain. You can get a solid 310 ( that will haul more than a 337, will cost less to maintain than a Twin Bo, go faster, AND fit in a T-hangar) for under $120k.

Go with JHW's advice on the costs of trading up, find the best 310 you can get, pay the high insurance premium up front and be happy.
Click to expand...

Air stair makes a difference as does condition but those cheap ones on TAP do not look that bad, just do not have the air stair.

I hear the Tbone is the direct predecessor to the QueenAirs. If you think of them in that capacity then the size and feeding is a little easier to understand.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
Air stair makes a difference as does condition but those cheap ones on TAP do not look that bad, just do not have the air stair.
Click to expand...
The air stair is a nice thing to have for sure. I have seen a few with the mod recently for sale around $50k....those are the ones I would be worried about.
 
It's not the lack of understanding, it's the lack of enthusiasm about writing the checks that kills the deal. Buying a 50 as a show plane might be fun if money were not an issue, but thinking it makes economic sense as a family traveler is comical.

Tony_Scarpelli said:
Air stair makes a difference as does condition but those cheap ones on TAP do not look that bad, just do not have the air stair.

I hear the Tbone is the direct predecessor to the QueenAirs. If you think of them in that capacity then the size and feeding is a little easier to understand.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
It's not the lack of understanding, it's the lack of enthusiasm about writing the checks that kills the deal. Buying a 50 as a show plane might be fun if money were not an issue, but thinking it makes economic sense as a family traveler is comical.
Click to expand...

I am glad I wasn't so enthused when my customers were spending money a few years ago. It would really suck now, I'd have to setup a museum in my hangar and sell tickets.
 
wabower said:
It's not the lack of understanding, it's the lack of enthusiasm about writing the checks that kills the deal. Buying a 50 as a show plane might be fun if money were not an issue, but thinking it makes economic sense as a family traveler is comical.
Click to expand...

If we worried about economic sense general aviation wouldn't exist.

Wants and needs are different. This is a want.
 
Morne said:
Wants and needs are different. This is a want.
Click to expand...
The important thing is that the fuel vapors haven't rendered you incapable of differentiating!

It is when people confuse the wants with needs that they get in over their heads.

Believe me, I am constantly fantasizing about large, expensive airplanes.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I hear the Tbone is the direct predecessor to the QueenAirs. If you think of them in that capacity then the size and feeding is a little easier to understand.
Click to expand...

They are.

And they're huge. I worked the line 4 or 5 years and I've seen one TwinBo. It was headed to OSH and it was absolutely beautiful, clearly it was this families pride & joy but not the every day traveler. This FBO isn't like some podunk county place either, though it wasn't a chain either. I'd be concerned about not only the direct operating costs like fuel but also finding parts for them. I think if you're building twin time something a little more palatable may be better.. like a Seneca or Seminole. My personal favorite piston twin is the Navajo, but I know that is out of the budget discussed right now.
 
wabower said:
If passing up the opportunity to buy a 40 year-old plane that will be expensive to fly and maintain for a 60 year-old plane that will cost even more is the objective, the T-Bone would certainly meet the requirements.
Click to expand...

:rofl:
 
Regarding the 310 vs. 58 Baron, I'd agree that the 310 is a more fragile airplane than the Baron. As far as maintenance costs, I have no idea on comparison since I've never operated a Baron, but I'd expect the two to end up costing similar per hour since they have similar engines and props. Thus your fuel burn and big maintenance reserves will be the same. The Baron is a bit faster on the same fuel burn.

The catch for me is that the Baron's cabin feels significantly more cramped than the 310's, and I also find the 310 to have significantly better forward visibility. To me, it's an overall nicer flying experience. So, even though I'd agree the 310 isn't built as well, I'd prefer one anyway.

Of course, Morne doesn't want a 310 or a Baron, he's looking for something that's more unusual and somewhat of a red-headed stepchild. So, a Twin Bo or a 337 should fit the job. The only Twin Bo owner I ever talked to had one with the straight GO-480s, and he said he loved the plane. It flew well, it was quiet, and he found it to be pretty reliable for his pleasure flying. Clearly he'd not been hit with a big engine bill.

If Morne could trade a bit of lust for the impractical in favor of something that is more practical, then perhaps an early model 310 would be a balance of impracticality with functionality. ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Regarding the 310 vs. 58 Baron, I'd agree that the 310 is a more fragile airplane than the Baron. As far as maintenance costs, I have no idea on comparison since I've never operated a Baron, but I'd expect the two to end up costing similar per hour since they have similar engines and props. Thus your fuel burn and big maintenance reserves will be the same. The Baron is a bit faster on the same fuel burn.

The catch for me is that the Baron's cabin feels significantly more cramped than the 310's, and I also find the 310 to have significantly better forward visibility. To me, it's an overall nicer flying experience. So, even though I'd agree the 310 isn't built as well, I'd prefer one anyway.

Of course, Morne doesn't want a 310 or a Baron, he's looking for something that's more unusual and somewhat of a red-headed stepchild. So, a Twin Bo or a 337 should fit the job. The only Twin Bo owner I ever talked to had one with the straight GO-480s, and he said he loved the plane. It flew well, it was quiet, and he found it to be pretty reliable for his pleasure flying. Clearly he'd not been hit with a big engine bill.

If Morne could trade a bit of lust for the impractical in favor of something that is more practical, then perhaps an early model 310 would be a balance of impracticality with functionality. ;)
Click to expand...

One of the key rationalizations, errr excuses, errr good reasons (yeah! yeah, that's it) for wanting a T-Bone with airstair or 337 is they are easy for older folks to get into and out of. Sure, a 58 Baron or Seneca fits the bill as well, but then so does an Aerostar or Twin Commander. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

If there were a 310 model with barn doors like the 58 Baron I'd be all over it. They're isn't, so I'm not.
 
wabower said:
If passing up the opportunity to buy a 40 year-old plane that will be expensive to fly and maintain for a 60 year-old plane that will cost even more is the objective, the T-Bone would certainly meet the requirements.
Click to expand...
Okay. I got it now. You're Statler, so I guess that means I'm Waldorf......
 
There's no free lunch on this issue. I've carried a portable folding stepstool for at least 20 years for "older folks" and it doesn't seem to matter much which plane I've used. It's not unusual for them to need a step to get up to the first step on the air-stair door. Unless the oldsters go on most of the trips, I think their access should be weighed along with all the other selection factors.

Morne said:
One of the key rationalizations, errr excuses, errr good reasons (yeah! yeah, that's it) for wanting a T-Bone with airstair or 337 is they are easy for older folks to get into and out of. Sure, a 58 Baron or Seneca fits the bill as well, but then so does an Aerostar or Twin Commander. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

If there were a 310 model with barn doors like the 58 Baron I'd be all over it. They're isn't, so I'm not.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
There's no free lunch on this issue. I've carried a portable folding stepstool for at least 20 years for "older folks" and it doesn't seem to matter much which plane I've used. It's not unusual for them to need a step to get up to the first step on the air-stair door. Unless the oldsters go on most of the trips, I think their access should be weighed along with all the other selection factors.
Click to expand...

I consider my mother's inability to easily get in and out of the 310 (and her resultant desire to not fly in it) to be a bonus.
 
MIL will be 91 in a few months and still gets in and out of my Cessna 180 with help from the step-stool. She's not as sprightly as she used to be, but neither is the pilot.

Ted DuPuis said:
I consider my mother's inability to easily get in and out of the 310 (and her resultant desire to not fly in it) to be a bonus.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
MIL will be 91 in a few months and still gets in and out of my Cessna 180 with help from the step-stool. She's not as sprightly as she used to be, but neither is the pilot.
Click to expand...

My mother is 68, but thinks she's old enough to remember watching Moses come down with those dusty stone tablets. She has wished herself to be old and decrepit, and the mind is a powerful force in that regard.
 
I have seen the 337 mentioned a few times in this thread. That are you guys thoughts on a nice P337?
 
Zhunter said:
I have seen the 337 mentioned a few times in this thread. That are you guys thoughts on a nice P337?
Click to expand...
I view the P337 as a nice plane with even more maintenance needs versus the NA version.

First, you have turbo engines that really push the horepower for the displacement (225 hp on a 360!) with questionable cooling. If I were to get one, I would get the intercoolers.

Second, you have the pressure vessel itself. This both eats into the useful load (full fuel on the LR tanked version of a P337 only leaves about 500 pounds, fine for single pilot or a married couple, but not a 4/5-placer anymore) and adds maintenance costs.

All that said, the P337 is about the least expensive way to get A-pressurization and B-200 kts at FL200. Find a well maintained exampe, with the intercoolers, and manage fuel versus payload correctly and you'll probably be tickled pink with it.

Personally, I think the NA 337 is the way to go. But if I lived somewhere higher up than Ohio I might consider either the T or P 337.
 
Zhunter said:
I have seen the 337 mentioned a few times in this thread. That are you guys thoughts on a nice P337?
Click to expand...
you must be typing on an ipad and omitted some letters. You likely meant to type "POS-337"
 
The p337 my friend had saved him a ton on hangar bills. No need for a hangar of its own because it spent most nights in the maintenance hangar.
 
bartmc said:
The p337 my friend had saved him a ton on hangar bills. No need for a hangar of its own because it spent most nights in the maintenance hangar.
Click to expand...

I've owned 2 NA 337's (1966 and 1974) and they were exceptionally reliable.

Couple of friends had P337's and no unordinary maintenance issues.

Depends upon the owner and the airframe. Any airframe can be a maintenance hog if improperly cared for.
 
JHW said:
you must be typing on an ipad and omitted some letters. You likely meant to type "POS-337"
Click to expand...

bartmc said:
The p337 my friend had saved him a ton on hangar bills. No need for a hangar of its own because it spent most nights in the maintenance hangar.
Click to expand...

Interesting, why do you guys feel that these Cessnas are inherently unreliable from a maintenance standpoint? What if it has the intercoolers and more powerful engines?

RotorAndWing said:
I've owned 2 NA 337's (1966 and 1974) and they were exceptionally reliable.

Couple of friends had P337's and no unordinary maintenance issues.

Depends upon the owner and the airframe. Any airframe can be a maintenance hog if improperly cared for.
Click to expand...


I also see lots of posts like Rotor made above, it seems there are a lot of haters out there. Fyi, I have no dog in the fight, just asking.
 
Zhunter said:
Interesting, why do you guys feel that these Cessnas are inherently unreliable from a maintenance standpoint? What if it has the intercoolers and more powerful engines?




I also see lots of posts like Rotor made above, it seems there are a lot of haters out there. Fyi, I have no dog in the fight, just asking.
Click to expand...
People become haters because they either had a bad experience, or know someone who has. But like R&W said, what matters the most is the owner history of the airplane.

Any airplane is going to have certain maintenance issues whether it is repetitive wingspar inspections or expensive AD's on landing gear or others, some more than others, but no airplane is really immune.

What is most important is that the airplane has either been consistently taken care of, or if neglected at some point, then someone before you spent the time and money to make everything right.

Pick the airplane that best fits your requirements and then find the best maintained model you can and you will have the best chance for success.
 
Airplanes tend to earn their reputations relatively early in their production/ownership cycle. Whether good or bad, the image seems to perpetuate over time, and the adage that the "you don't get a second chance to make a first impression" again proves to be true.

Some planes that are now viewed somewhat favorably (by some) were dismal failures and thought to be dogs when they were introduced. Cessna's 177 line is a good example of a widely-heralded flop. I was initially interested in buying a new one but the lack of performance was a deal-killer for me and as well as many other potential buyers at the time.

The handling characteristics were somewhat different than those of other Cessna singles, and were not initially thought by prospective buyers to be all that wonderful. The result was that the line that Cessna hoped would be their future and replace the 172-based airplanes was conceded to be a big mistake and subsequently discontinued.

Certain planes had more birthing issues than others (or as some say were simply introduced before they were adequately tested and ready for prime time) and the early MX and/or performance issues doomed them to a life of disrespect within the industry.

Some of the early problems have been overcome by redesign, modification and better understanding of the idiosyncrasies of each affected make/model, much of which has been accomplished by specialty shops and type clubs. After 40-50 years, the warts of each design are largely known, along with all of the remedies to make them less apparent. Some think they are now great airplanes to own, others take the position that they are like Cessna's most recent line of ARC radios and "just because they're better than the old ones still doesn't mean they're worth a shlt."

When Rotor or other mechanics express an opinion regarding the dependability of the 337's, those must be taken with a grain of salt when compared to the experience of the average non-wrenchy owner who gets most of his left-seat time in his plane when visiting it at the shop. Rotor had good luck with his planes, but I suspect part of it was due to his additional skills. To the contrary, I gained enough first-hand experience with them early-on to know that I wouldn't ever own one. To each his own.

Zhunter said:
Interesting, why do you guys feel that these Cessnas are inherently unreliable from a maintenance standpoint? What if it has the intercoolers and more powerful engines?




I also see lots of posts like Rotor made above, it seems there are a lot of haters out there. Fyi, I have no dog in the fight, just asking.
Click to expand...
 
Wayne

Thanks for the honest explanation.

Jay
 
The 337 is very easy to fly. And very difficult to own. Near impossible to dispatch on a schedule compared to an aztec/310/baron which we operated alongside 337's with 2-3X comparitive reliability.

And the noise. Give yourself a preview, get in a metal trash can, put the lid on it, and get your kids to beat on both ends with broom handles.

OTOH if you are a tinkerer looking to log time toward your A&P it might be just the ticket.
 
JHW said:
The 337 is very easy to fly. And very difficult to own.
Click to expand...

Which model did you own?


JHW said:
Near impossible to dispatch on a schedule compared to an aztec/310/baron which we operated alongside 337's with 2-3X comparitive reliability.
Click to expand...

Both of mine had excellent dispatch reliability. As stated previously it's the quality of maintenance put into the airframe that counts. I also owned a C-310Q and it had excellent reliability. But then again I maintained my equipment.



JHW said:
And the noise. Give yourself a preview, get in a metal trash can, put the lid on it, and get your kids to beat on both ends with broom handles.
Click to expand...

OWT. The 337 props turn 2800 rpm at takeoff power. Once in flight the props are pulled back between 2300 to 2500 rpm. In the various 337's I've flown including the 2 I owned you could remove your headset and speak with a normal tone of voice with the passengers.

JHW said:
OTOH if you are a tinkerer looking to log time toward your A&P it might be just the ticket.
Click to expand...

Could be said about any airplane. :dunno:
 
RotorAndWing said:
Which model did you own?
Click to expand...
own? are you crazy ? I'm not in the scrap metal business. I was unfortunate to work for a company that used 8-10 of them for pipeline inspection. A terrible airplane in every conceivable measure compared with virtually any other piston twin.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Which model did you own?




Both of mine had excellent dispatch reliability. As stated previously it's the quality of maintenance put into the airframe that counts. I also owned a C-310Q and it had excellent reliability. But then again I maintained my equipment.





OWT. The 337 props turn 2800 rpm at takeoff power. Once in flight the props are pulled back between 2300 to 2500 rpm. In the various 337's I've flown including the 2 I owned you could remove your headset and speak with a normal tone of voice with the passengers.



Could be said about any airplane. :dunno:
Click to expand...


Reference my profile pic, I'm not sure I could manage a conventional twin very well missing my right hand. Glad to hear you had good luck with the 337's. I'll look at them a little harder incase I want one someday :)
 
JHW said:
own? are you crazy ? I'm not in the scrap metal business. I was unfortunate to work for a company that used 8-10 of them for pipeline inspection. A terrible airplane in every conceivable measure compared with virtually any other piston twin.
Click to expand...

So you worked for a company that flew them. Sounds to me like your company was severely lacking in the maintenance side.
 
RotorAndWing said:
If they were that terrible why did you operate them?
Click to expand...
1. good visibility
2. tough enough to hit things and walk away
3. because it was the job

none of those reasons apply to my choice of aircraft for personal family transportation, where we want comfort, speed, baggage space, fuel economy, and reliability, none of which are provided by the 337 compared to other choices.

There are no bargains in aircraft sales. The market is very efficient at assigning value. And you can't give away a 337.
 
JHW said:
1. good visibility
2. tough enough to hit things and walk away
3. because it was the job

none of those reasons apply to my choice of aircraft for personal family transportation, where we want comfort, speed, baggage space, fuel economy, and reliability, none of which are provided by the 337 compared to other choices.

There are no bargains in aircraft sales. The market is very efficient at assigning value. And you can't give away a 337.
Click to expand...

Fuel economy isn't bad in the 337 compared to other 6 place twins.

Baggage space, point taken, you need the cargo pod if you want any.
 
Morne said:
Fuel economy isn't bad in the 337 compared to other 6 place twins.

Baggage space, point taken, you need the cargo pod if you want any.
Click to expand...
except it's not a "6-place" twin unless you are shuttling people over a river with only the clothes on their backs. The only comparison in terms of "6-place" cabin space and baggage space is the 6-seat twin comanche and the difference in efficiency there is remarkable.

and as you said, if those people DO want to take a small bag with them, put on the cargo pod and make a slow plane even slower
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top