What twin do I want?

FormerHangie said:
When making a decision like this, you have to separate wants from needs. @paflyer says he has $200,000 to spend, would like pressurization and 200 knots, and needs to get out of a 2700 foot strip and has to have deice. These sound like contradictory requirements to me, so I'm going to prioritize his needs, and let's see if we can get his wants.

First priority is always the same, we want to avoid appearing on Kathryn's Report. @paflyer says he is a low time multiengine pilot, so something docile and predictable is in order, especially given that he's going in and out of shortish runways, and in cloudy mid-Atlantic weather. Also, since he said something about spending his retirement money, I'm going to guess he's closer to my age (60) than yours (something considerably less than 60). As we age, our senses and systems start slowing. Our field of vision narrows, and it becomes more difficult to process multiple channels of information simultaneously. If you developed significant skills at a younger age and kept them current as you aged, you'd notice a slow decline, but you'd be much more proficient than someone who has had to learn them later in life, or someone who had learned them but did not use them for a number of years.

Second priority is being able to accomplish the mission. In this case it's getting in and out of a 2700 foot runway in mid Atlantic weather. That leaves out a number of twins, even when flown perfectly, they won't get out of that airport. It also requires some sort of deice.

In the wants side of things, he mentioned he would like pressurization and 200 knots, but neither of these are important to the main mission he mentioned. I can't think of a pressurized twin for less than $200K that won't eat him out of house and home. Also, if his most common trip is 200 nm, any twin is plenty fast, the additional speed won't shorten the trip time by much.

You can buy an extremely nice Aztec or 310 for that budget, and have money left over for upgrades. If it were me making the decision, I'd go with the Aztec. I don't mind scaring myself when I'm by myself, but when other people are at risk as well, I get very cautious, and I think the Aztec is the friendlier of the two.
Click to expand...
Thanks for looking out for me, xHangie, and I have to laugh since I just turned 60. But I have to say I don't think I'm slowing down just yet- I have a pretty cranial-demanding job, so I'm constantly exercising the noggin, and physically I'm in decent shape. I don't expect to be doing anything approaching real demanding flying, but I do operate where there's t-storms in summer and ice in winter. Any trip is purely optional and if the weather is going to me iffy I stay on the ground. And the day I detect that I can't process info quickly enough to be safe is the day I take off the spurs or fly with a pro.

The proverbial trip is one that allows me to live on an airpark and fly into a really local strip 5 min to the grandkids (the Tree Canyon one), instead of basing at another nearby airport and going to the 11,500 strip that's 20+ min away. Overall it eliminates just about all road time so door to door we're looking at one hour vs two. How much that's worth is a question. Naturally that assumes the weather on both ends is VFR.

Also, I want the capability of zipping off from the home-drome to FL in comfort and speed. From all reports a METP is easier to fly than a piston twin but I haven't done it yet, and I definitely get the big upcharge to do that both in acquistion and opex. The budget isn't a hard number, I'll go higher if necessary (it just puts off the SS collection date.) Of all the "requirements", I'd give up the pressurization first.
 
MIFlyer said:
I was going to say the same thing. A naturally aspirated Aztec or 310, ideally with a few aerodynamic mods, would give you a mile of margin on those short trips. If you want a little more capability, maybe you go turbo, but you'll be spending a good bit more on fuel and MX for a little more speed the once in awhile you'll need it.
Click to expand...
Turbo is going to help TO over the trees on high DA days, no?
 
paflyer said:
Also, I want the capability of zipping off from the home-drome to FL in comfort and speed. From all reports a METP is easier to fly than a piston twin but I haven't done it yet, and I definitely get the big upcharge to do that both in acquistion and opex. The budget isn't a hard number, I'll go higher if necessary (it just puts off the SS collection date.) Of all the "requirements", I'd give up the pressurization first.
Click to expand...

Turbine is easier in some ways, harder in others. Thing with turbines is stuff happens faster, planes are bigger and heavier. Plus you gotta make sure you don't overtorque or overtemp the things as there's no protections for that built-in. Less of an issue on naturally aspirated.

King Airs are about as easy to fly as they come, though.

paflyer said:
Turbo is going to help TO over the trees on high DA days, no?
Click to expand...

Not really. The turbo controllers are typically not temperature adjusted. Plus keep in mind that turbos add weight, so for the same load you'll be heavier at takeoff. The Navajo Chieftains do take OAT into account so you get a proper 350 HP at takeoff regardless of temperature (to a point).

If you get a RAM IV T310R or one of the other upgraded engine packages then that changes things, but keep in mind that 310s have naturally aspirated engine upgrade options, too.
 
C90!?! That will eat you out of house and home!! Great plane yes. The cost to keep it running is a killer. Might as well get an MU2 as the MX will be probably half. But now we are just getting silly.
Another thing to think about is what can you fly under basic med going forward. As age goes up Medicals can be harder to get and most costly to maintain. When you go basicmed you give up some of the planes and altitudes you can fly
 
benyflyguy said:
C90!?! That will eat you out of house and home!! Great plane yes. The cost to keep it running is a killer. Might as well get an MU2 as the MX will be probably half. But now we are just getting silly.
Another thing to think about is what can you fly under basic med going forward. As age goes up Medicals can be harder to get and most costly to maintain. When you go basicmed you give up some of the planes and altitudes you can fly
Click to expand...
maybe; I think the costs are largely based on keeping a working airplane working. As a personal transport where there's no gotta be somewhere, I believe that some of the costs can be mitigated. Still rich for sure, but everything I've encountered that can do the job has the same trade-offs. I had thought MU2 for a while, but the training/mentor regime is kind of tough plus the neighbors won't appreciate the howling TPEs. I don't even know if any turbine is going to be acceptable.
 
Personally I'd stick piston on this one, just my input.

MU-2, I love the things, but it's a 100+ hour a year airplane for proficiency minimum. I personally don't generally recommend people consider one if they have <1,000 multi time. Legally you need 100 hours of multi time before you can get signed off to fly it. Sub 3,000 ft strip in one? Yeah, it CAN do it, but I have 145 hours in the thing and my personal minimum is 4,000 ft runways.

Any turbine is going to burn a lot of fuel on the 200 nm trips, just not their forte.
 
paflyer said:
maybe; I think the costs are largely based on keeping a working airplane working. As a personal transport where there's no gotta be somewhere, I believe that some of the costs can be mitigated. Still rich for sure, but everything I've encountered that can do the job has the same trade-offs. I had thought MU2 for a while, but the training/mentor regime is kind of tough plus the neighbors won't appreciate the howling TPEs. I don't even know if any turbine is going to be acceptable.
Click to expand...

The problem with turbine twins is that they must be on a maintenance program. You can’t just defer things or simply annual the plane the same way you can with piston aircraft operated under part 91. Low utilization or not, a King Air is going to cost some money to maintain legally.

I’ve got a friend who is in a similar position. He started out by looking at King Airs, and was cautioned by several advisors to consider a different option for his low use application. He can afford to buy and operate whatever he wants, so the cost of maintenance and operation is not a concern. In the end we’re shopping for a good 340 for him, which I think will be a nice economical fit for what he’s looking to do. He can sell it and buy the King Air he wants later, if he starts using the plane more.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I would NOT recommend a P-Baron. A few notes.

Beech Field used to have two runways, a 5,000 ft and a 2,500 ft. They did operate the P-Barons off the 2,500 ft runway, so it was doable. This was also out in Kansas with no obstacles. So is it doable? Technically. It's also really bad idea and gives you zero margin if things go bad. Don't get me wrong, the 310 isn't a ton better, but it is better. Note that Dave S. landed his at Gaston's once and he really wasn't comfortable with the margins on it. And Dave is not only a good pilot, but he was also proficient in the P-Baron when he had it.
Click to expand...

Whoops. I had quite the Nate-esque post going where I talked about the lack of margin and how it would have to be treated as a single until the obstacles were cleared... Then I remembered the percentage of Nate's posts I actually made it to the end of and decided I'd better make it a lot more concise, and accidentally deleted that part.

So yeah. What Ted said. FWIW, the B58P takes 2500 feet with both turning at sea level on a standard day (which is really quite cool, 59ºF)... But accelerate-stop is 3200 feet and accelerate-go is 4500 feet over a 50-foot obstacle. Now, with some pretty common summer weather (90ºF), those lengths become 3000 (and, your'e in the trees), 3600, and 5400.

With respect to speed, pressurization, etc - I'm the guy who talks about how turbos aren't worthwhile unless you're based in the mountains or frequently flying LONG legs. I didn't have my iPad handy last night to put this flight in real-world terms, but 200nm barely gives you a chance to climb to any altitude where turbos are worthwhile, although pressurization helps because you can descend much quicker without blowing up your passengers' ears. Looking at it today in a low-wind scenario, you'd spend 26 minutes climbing to FL200 to get the optimum time of 1:07 for the flight. In an Aztec, you'd be looking at 1:17. That's an expensive 10 minutes, especially considering the Aztec could likely do it all year long with plenty of margin while the B58P is no better than a single until you clear the obstacles, and you may not be able to do it on hot summer days at all depending on obstacles/wind.

Now, if you want the speed and pressurization for other trips than the one you mentioned, go for it (knowing the limitations), but it's not going to buy you much on your "milk run."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Checkout_my_Six said:
A newer Aerostar would be my choice.
Click to expand...

Does it have the runway performance to do the mission safely? I can't imagine it would, with those razor-thin wings and tail surfaces. :dunno:

Speaking of the 310 that many have recommended here, its runway performance is also less than stellar. 2200 feet with both turning on a standard day, 2800 on a typical northern summer day (I see the OP is in PA, so that's at 90ºF). 310Q POH

The Aztec (C) has a takeoff distance of 1600 feet standard/1900 feet summer, accelerate-stop of 2200 standard/2550 summer, much better than the 310. Yeah, it's slow, but that's because it's got the big fat wing that helps it get off the runway. Aztec C POH

Looking at a C90A, standard takeoff is 2800 and summer is 3600 at gross weight. While I'd have thought you wouldn't be anywhere close to gross, a bit of Googling changed my mind (Operating weight 6825, 384 gallons at 6.7 lbs/gal, and 720 pounds of pax puts you right at gross). So, probably not as good of a choice as it would seem.
 
mondtster said:
The problem with turbine twins is that they must be on a maintenance program. You can’t just defer things or simply annual the plane the same way you can with piston aircraft operated under part 91. Low utilization or not, a King Air is going to cost some money to maintain legally.

I’ve got a friend who is in a similar position. He started out by looking at King Airs, and was cautioned by several advisors to consider a different option for his low use application. He can afford to buy and operate whatever he wants, so the cost of maintenance and operation is not a concern. In the end we’re shopping for a good 340 for him, which I think will be a nice economical fit for what he’s looking to do. He can sell it and buy the King Air he wants later, if he starts using the plane more.
Click to expand...

The converse of that expense to maintain legally is that, so long as you're following the MX rules, there is more consistency in turbine MX than piston. This is part of why a lot of people (myself included) have seen some big bills with trying to get a piston twin up to snuff MX wise.

whereisrandall said:
I file 135 and get only a little better at 23/23. But yeah - It'd be my bet.
Click to expand...

N6927Y was a pretty consistent 150-160 KTAS bird (slower in the summer, hotter in the winter) at 2300 RPM, full throttle (whatever that was), and LOP. Typically 20 GPH in summer and about 22 in the winter. Those numbers are combined for the 1,000 hours I had her. 135 seems slow to me, but these birds have a lot of variety in them.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Does it have the runway performance to do the mission safely? I can't imagine it would, with those razor-thin wings and tail surfaces. :dunno:

Speaking of the 310 that many have recommended here, its runway performance is also less than stellar. 2200 feet with both turning on a standard day, 2800 on a typical northern summer day (I see the OP is in PA, so that's at 90ºF). 310Q POH

The Aztec (C) has a takeoff distance of 1600 feet standard/1900 feet summer, accelerate-stop of 2200 standard/2550 summer, much better than the 310. Yeah, it's slow, but that's because it's got the big fat wing that helps it get off the runway. Aztec C POH

Looking at a C90A, standard takeoff is 2800 and summer is 3600 at gross weight. While I'd have thought you wouldn't be anywhere close to gross, a bit of Googling changed my mind (Operating weight 6825, 384 gallons at 6.7 lbs/gal, and 720 pounds of pax puts you right at gross). So, probably not as good of a choice as it would seem.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind the 310 can be had with 520s or 550s, which helps those numbers. Shortest runway I did in the 310 was 1900 ft long, and I was stopped by halfway down, wheels were off about halfway, too. No obstacles, obviously.
 
Cracks me up how in these kind of threads everyone ignores the stated budget...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The converse of that expense to maintain legally is that, so long as you're following the MX rules, there is more consistency in turbine MX than piston. This is part of why a lot of people (myself included) have seen some big bills with trying to get a piston twin up to snuff MX wise.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I didn't intend to imply that this wasn't the case. I feel that the required maintenance programs can be a blessing and a curse at the same time but overall it is probably a good thing.

In the case of my friend, I personally feel that King Air ownership for him would be a boondoggle. He just doesn't use the plane enough for it to be justifiable so even if there is a lot more catch up maintenance on whatever 340 he ends up with I think he will come out ahead.

Ted DuPuis said:
N6927Y was a pretty consistent 150-160 KTAS bird (slower in the summer, hotter in the winter) at 2300 RPM, full throttle (whatever that was), and LOP. Typically 20 GPH in summer and about 22 in the winter. Those numbers are combined for the 1,000 hours I had her. 135 seems slow to me, but these birds have a lot of variety in them.
Click to expand...

I was going to say the same thing. The two Aztecs I fly on a regular basis produce numbers very similar to what you got at similar power settings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
gsengle said:
Cracks me up how in these kind of threads everyone ignores the stated budget...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think the pc12 was a joke. But the OP did bring up King airs so...
the stated parameters are unicornish. Might exist... I’ve just never seen one.
 
mondtster said:
In the case of my friend, I personally feel that King Air ownership for him would be a boondoggle. He just doesn't use the plane enough for it to be justifiable so even if there is a lot more catch up maintenance on whatever 340 he ends up with I think he will come out ahead.
Click to expand...

That's part of why the people who bought the 414 chose to buy it. They've got more time and the downtime for them to get it where they want it (especially with the jump start I gave them) is less of a concern. For me, though, the plane has a job to do and it needs to work.
 
paflyer said:
Hey it's only someone else's money!
Click to expand...

Without a budget it’s a meaningless conversation, and not very interesting. What’s interesting is trying to make it work, not pull out a $3mm silver bullet...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
benyflyguy said:
the stated parameters are unicornish. Might exist... I’ve just never seen one.
Click to expand...
No doubt, which is why I put it to the group for opinions. It's really two aircraft. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Here's the actual destination airport. And probably one of the two aircraft I need!


A more typical arrival/departure:

 
gsengle said:
Without a budget it’s a meaningless conversation, and not very interesting. What’s interesting is trying to make it work, not pull out a $3mm silver bullet...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yep, if I had 3 million for an airplane I wouldn't have a problem!
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Oh... just drive the extra 20 min and be safe.
Click to expand...
It's also dealing with an FBO, getting a rental car lined up for off-hours pickup, returning the rental, paying for the rental, Millionaire parking costs, $6.50 fuel, etc.
 
paflyer said:
It's also dealing with an FBO, getting a rental car lined up for off-hours pickup, returning the rental, paying for the rental, Millionaire parking costs, $6.50 fuel, etc.
Click to expand...
Well...life can be a bit inconvenient at times. :confused:
 
You're not kidding about surrounding trees... how wide is that? It looks like about 30'.

I should practice on something like that. The main runway at my home field is 150 x 10996 --- one can get spoiled. Sometimes I have to use the "small" runway, only 75 x 8048, aww, gee....
 
I do not think I would choose a 310 for that airport with that mission. We base out of a 3,900ft Airpark (3,500 for landing) and that is short enough for me, especially during the summer. Putting even 4 people and fuel in it would be sporty taking off on 3,900, let alone 2,700. Lose an engine with those trees and you're SOL. At least where we are it's flat one direction. I imagine in a year or two when I have more experience in the 310 (I've got about 100hrs in it so far) my viewpoint might change but it's a handful of an airplane when you first start flying it.
 
deyoung said:
You're not kidding about surrounding trees... how wide is that? It looks like about 30'.

I should practice on something like that. The main runway at my home field is 150 x 10996 --- one can get spoiled. Sometimes I have to use the "small" runway, only 75 x 8048, aww, gee....
Click to expand...
It's 23 x 3000. The tall trees are 200' from the threshold.

Maybe this will do the trick:

pic_127673_1_med.jpg
 
paflyer said:
It's 23 x 3000. The tall trees are 200' from the threshold.
Click to expand...

Getting an Aztec in and out of there would be a piece of cake. I take one into a 2500’ turf runway with 90’ trees on a semi-regular basis. It will carry anything you can put in it and handle ice really well but it won’t meet your speed requests.

I don’t think I’d be too concerned about flying a B55 baron in there either. You’ll get closer to the desired speed but it will come at the cost of sacrificing space and payload. I routinely flew 4 adults and luggage in one but we pretty much always needed to leave fuel behind and pack the nose baggage full with all our gear to stay legal weight and CG wise.

I don’t have enough time in the other entry level twins to really comment on them for real world performance. From the realistic discussion in here so far, it sounds like the Aztec or Baron are the best choices. Maybe add the 310 in there too.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
200nm barely gives you a chance to climb to any altitude where turbos are worthwhile, although pressurization helps because you can descend much quicker without blowing up your passengers' ears. Looking at it today in a low-wind scenario, you'd spend 26 minutes climbing (in the B58P) to FL200 to get the optimum time of 1:07 for the flight. In an Aztec, you'd be looking at 1:17. That's an expensive 10 minutes, especially considering the Aztec could likely do it all year long with plenty of margin while the B58P is no better than a single until you clear the obstacles, and you may not be able to do it on hot summer days at all depending on obstacles/wind.
Click to expand...

Just for giggles...

Aztec: 1:17
B58P (FL200): 1:07
PC12 (10,000): 0:54
C90, if you could do it (FL200): 0:49
PC24, probably marginal (FL260): 0:41
CJ4, which could never do it (FL240): 0:38

Speed = $$$$$

BTW, with the longer mission in mind as well, a Seneca might not be as bad as I was thinking originally. They're very comfortable birds, have the big back door which makes it easy for pax to get in, and you'll get some use out of the turbo on longer legs. You'll get a few knots more than the Aztec too.

Checkout_my_Six said:
PC12....is prolly what you want.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Takeoff over 50-footer is 2400 standard, 2800 summer. Doable.

gsengle said:
Cracks me up how in these kind of threads everyone ignores the stated budget...
Click to expand...

We're like one of those House Hunters type shows...

house-hunters-meme-th.jpg

a0f.png

600.png


paflyer said:
Here's the actual destination airport. And probably one of the two aircraft I need!
Click to expand...

Wow. That is a lot of trees. Practically nowhere to go in a single!

paflyer said:
It's also dealing with an FBO, getting a rental car lined up for off-hours pickup, returning the rental, paying for the rental, Millionaire parking costs, $6.50 fuel, etc.
Click to expand...

One more thing to keep in mind, if you have a turboprop: You'll be adding cycles to the engine(s) every time you make a hop to buy fuel. There will be a cost to that. Not sure if it'd be enough to justify buying your own fuel truck or anything, but...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
...N6927Y was a pretty consistent 150-160 KTAS bird (slower in the summer, hotter in the winter) at 2300 RPM, full throttle (whatever that was), and LOP. Typically 20 GPH in summer and about 22 in the winter. Those numbers are combined for the 1,000 hours I had her. 135 seems slow to me, but these birds have a lot of variety in them.
Click to expand...

My 1979 'F' model Aztec (naturally aspirated) is similar. Consistent 155 to 160 kts TAS cruise with fuel flows between 22 gph and 24 gph. I normally fly it at 8000 ft and higher. The 'C' models are reputed to be more efficient/slightly faster than the later models.
 
I’m wth the Aztec crowd, although you might consider a turbo Centurion. Not a twin, but it out performs some. Note: I didn’t say P210 - it’s a sled, too heavy. But the T210 hauls a55, will carry a bunch of fat people at 170kts,...faster, if you want to use O2. Probably a wash with the Aztec maintenance-wise. Then again, for your stated mission, plenty of planes will work. Love Navajos, but probably out of your budget for a good one. Does 45gph sound affordable? Navajo gas.
 
Do you expect a twin will improve your safety given those two airports and the short trip ?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
BTW, with the longer mission in mind as well, a Seneca might not be as bad as I was thinking originally. They're very comfortable birds, have the big back door which makes it easy for pax to get in, and you'll get some use out of the turbo on longer legs. You'll get a few knots more than the Aztec too.
Click to expand...

I've never understood the popularity of the Seneca (apologies to those who love them). Those engines, I would not want.

Laurie's breaking in the engine (Lycoming IO-540) on a 182. She said "Do I really need to fly this thing at full power for the first 50 hours?" I said "On that thing, you can fly it at full power for the first 2,000 hours and it won't hurt anything."

On a Seneca I wouldn't want to fly it at full power for more than 50 seconds.

GRG55 said:
My 1979 'F' model Aztec (naturally aspirated) is similar. Consistent 155 to 160 kts TAS cruise with fuel flows between 22 gph and 24 gph. I normally fly it at 8000 ft and higher. The 'C' models are reputed to be more efficient/slightly faster than the later models.
Click to expand...

Mine was a D model. Not sure where that falls, but the C and D are pretty similar. By the F model they were fixing things that weren't broken. If I knew then what I know now about efficiency, I would've done a lot more work on my D model and probably could've gotten it to the 160+ KTAS range.

j1b3h0 said:
I’m wth the Aztec crowd, although you might consider a turbo Centurion. Not a twin, but it out performs some. Note: I didn’t say P210 - it’s a sled, too heavy. But the T210 hauls a55, will carry a bunch of fat people at 170kts,...faster, if you want to use O2. Probably a wash with the Aztec maintenance-wise. Then again, for your stated mission, plenty of planes will work. Love Navajos, but probably out of your budget for a good one. Does 45gph sound affordable? Navajo gas.
Click to expand...

Depends on which model Navajo and, like all things, how you run it. On the short bodies economy cruise, I would typically see around 180 KTAS on 36 GPH combined in cruise. Block turned out to be around 40. For the Chieftain we tended to do around 50, but that was a "Boss said get there as fast as we can" kind of plane. Both engines ran LOP just fine and could get <30 GPH combined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top