Sold my Cherokee Six, Thinking of a 310 or Aztec.
Am I crazy??
Yes. But so are most twin owners, so you qualify in that respect.
Seems Like you can get a lot of plane for the money in the twins right now??? Compared to a Lance, 206,207,BO,Mooney
Initial purchase wise yes, but overall that's not much of a factor (see below).
I want to go faster to save me time?
There are fixed gear singles that are faster than the twins you're considering and retractable singles that are considerably faster. Two engines aren't necessary for speed anymore. What you do get is the ability to deal with an engine problem in cruise at night, over water, and/or in IMC with much less risk (although the actual risk of engine failure is pretty small to begin with), and the ability to carry a lot and still go far. One subtle "advantage" of a twin is the fact that with the higher fuel consumption rate of a twin you can trade fuel for payload with a much smaller reduction in the already longer range.
What is the safest Twin, single Engine performance?
One that's flown a couple hundred pounds below MGW by a pilot with recurrent OEI training at altitudes substantially below the SE service ceiling from long runways. The actual airplane is a pretty small effector on safety as long as you match the plane to the mission.
If you want to use the plane for reliable transportation anywhere above the Mason-Dixon line (or even not too far below it) you need de-ice. This is especially true if your plans include trips further than a couple hundred miles (and if your plans are for short trips, a twin is probably a poor choice).
That's a tougher question. I don't have turbos and I do just enough mountain flying that I wish I did. But then I'd really want pressurization because I don't particularly like nose straws, hate masks, and have family members who'd complain nonstop about using them. It is true that turbos provide some options that can be useful in the flatlands, particularly overtopping ice, but in the eleven years I've owned a twin, turbos would have been useful away from the mountains maybe twice.
The price of the maintenence does not bother me to much for I have owned 2 planes for a couple of years. Is this a comperable comparison to the maintenece on two engines?
Possibly, but probably not depending on the two planes. Two Bonanzas or two C-210s would probably come close assuming there were two people putting the hours on them. If only one pilot flew both the maintenance cost of two fast retractable singles would probably be about 2/3rds the cost of a twin.
Of the four most popular light twins (Aztec, 310, Baron, Seneca II-III), I think the Aztec is probably the most forgiving, especially if you add VGs (something you should consider on any of these). The Baron is the most enjoyable to fly and contrary to popular opinion likely the least expensive to operate (airframe parts cost more but rarely need replacement). If you want/need turbos the Seneca is probably by far the most logical choice. Aztecs are proabably the cheapest to buy and will haul a lot. The 310 and the Baron are the fastest under most conditions. The turbo Aztec and the Seneca are as fast or faster up high and slower down low than a Baron.
IMO none of these planes are too challenging for someone with an IR and a hundred hours in a fast retractable single. If most of your time has been spent in something that trues out below 150 Kt you will have trouble keeping ahead of the plane for a while. IIRC the Baron's gear speed of 152 KIAS is the highest of the bunch and this does eliminate the additional difficulty of trying to come down and get slow at the same time (still a bit of a challenge in a Baron though). And if you have no IR and/or little or no retract time you will likely have trouble getting insurance as well as getting comfortable for the first hundred hours or so.
One factor you must keep in mind that even though you can purchase a flyable example of any of them for half of what you'd pay for a new two place trainer, every one would be priced in the vicinity of a million dollars if you could buy one new today. That means that from a maint. perspective you will be paying to keep a million dollar airplane in the air. These planes usually come with lots of systems you don't find as often on singles like radar, boots, fancy autopilots, HSIs, dual flight instruments, a combustion heater,etc, plus two vacuum pumps, two alternators, two starters, two oil changes, two sets of spark plugs and all that stuff usually costs money to maintain as well. That is as much the reason twins cost two to three times what a single does to operate as is having two engines. And in addition to all that, the insurance industry which used to love twins thinking the extra engine lowered the risk, has become biased against them so you will pay a larger premium than you would for a comparable single even if you had the same hours in each class (which you won't at first).
I'm not trying to steer you away from a twin, I plan to own and fly mine for a long time, but you do need to be careful not to be lured into thinking the lower initial cost will make much difference in the long run.
