Why buy a new C182 when you can buy a new twin for less?

LJS1993 said:
That only makes logical sense in my mind. However I notice one argument involves the complexity involved when dealing with two engines upon an emergency scenario.
Click to expand...

If you're not of sufficient mental capacity to operate a twin, you likely shouldn't be flying at all. It really isn't that difficult.
 
Henning said:
If you're not of sufficient mental capacity to operate a twin, you likely shouldn't be flying at all. It really isn't that difficult.
Click to expand...

People are idiots, pilots are people, twins give more opportunities to make wrong choices...
 
Skylane81E said:
People are idiots, pilots are people, twins give more opportunities to make wrong choices...
Click to expand...

Twins also give pilots more opportunities to make correct choices, these are choices when in a single one doesn't have.
 
Henning said:
Twins also give pilots more opportunities to make correct choices, these are choices when in a single one doesn't have.
Click to expand...

No doubt. If I could swing the extra fuel for one with resonable OEI performance I'd be in a twin.
 
Skylane81E said:
No doubt. If I could swing the extra fuel for one with resonable OEI performance I'd be in a twin.
Click to expand...

I use 21gph to go 180kts and have good OEI performance. I'm guessing you use 13gph to do 125 kts. I work that out to you getting about 12% better fuel economy.
 
If and when I get to the point I'm ready to buy my own plane, I hope I have enough $$$ to look at something like the Diamond DA42 with the twin Austro engines. In reading over specs and some reviews, I think it would fit my mission perfectly once I'm back in Colorado in a few years.

I'd love to have something like a turboprop (think Piper Meridian), but doubt I'll ever have the kind of money that would require to buy and maintain.

Even a DA42 might still be a "dream plane" meaning I'll have to research other options if I get to that point. But although twin vs single seems to be a religious argument, I think for myself at least, I'd want to own a twin if I could afford it. For my own personal peace of mind, I'd just feel safer having that second engine if something happened.

Provided of course, I kept my skills up. I wouldn't be adverse to making twice-yearly trips to a professional simulator and have them throw everything they could at me just so I could practice as many emergency scenarios as possible.
 
Henning said:
I use 21gph to go 180kts and have good OEI performance. I'm guessing you use 13gph to do 125 kts. I work that out to you getting about 12% better fuel economy.
Click to expand...

I was dinking around the other day...

 
Henning said:
I use 21gph to go 180kts and have good OEI performance. I'm guessing you use 13gph to do 125 kts. I work that out to you getting about 12% better fuel economy.
Click to expand...

You are quite close, and that percentage of fuel economy I'd have to give up seems rather consistent.
 
jhausch said:
I recall reading the Rotax engine has op limits prohibiting IMC. Is that correct? It's a pretty foggy recollection, so please don't take this as the case until confirmed either way.
Click to expand...

Not the case for 912S series. The 912U series is the one not certified for IMC. Only difference is some paperwork. I've flown a P2006T in such crappy conditions we went missed on an ILS because there was nothing but clouds.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Not the case for 912S series. The 912U series is the one not certified for IMC. Only difference is some paperwork. I've flown a P2006T in such crappy conditions we went missed on an ILS because there was nothing but clouds.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't some engines be suitable for IMC conditions?
 
Buy a 200+kt Aerostar for 100 K. 400 K left over for the increased operating cost.
 
douglas393 said:
I think some would disagree with the statement that twins are safer than singles. I own a 182 and enjoy it.
...
I have exactly 2.0 hours in a twin.
Click to expand...

In your case, a single is much much safer then a twin if you lose an engine on takeoff. Avoiding VMC rolls are what you mostly train for

Still.. the argument always has to be mission first.... if we put cost first we'ed all either be staying on the ground or flying some kind of powered parachute or hand-me-down ultralight.

Flying night IFR... icing, over Lake Michigan... if that's my mission... I'd rather be in my used $40K de-iced Aztec rather then that $500,000 new 182. Any concerns I have over the additional fuel (about 20% more.. apples to apples) or additional maintenance is mitigated by that extra $460,000 in my pocket
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Buy a 200+kt Aerostar for 100 K. 400 K left over for the increased operating cost.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Those you not buying twins at this junction in time are missing historic low entry level costs. And operating costs are overrated in my 2 year owning experience (1965 Piper Aztec). Best dispatch availability of any airplane I've owned.
 
Last edited:
Jeff K said:
And operating costs are overrated in my 2 year owning experience (1965 Piper Aztec).
Click to expand...

I would agree. I have had big bills as a twin owner, but that's been when complying with AD's, upgrades or doing prop overhauls etc. I have not had big bills just maintaining them. I've also had great dispatch reliability.

The DA42 is an interesting aircraft and diesel is certainly the future. I took a lesson in one a couple of years ago. It was a very bumpy day and I can tell you that that long composite wing feels every single one of them. It's by far the roughest riding twin in turbulence I've encountered. But it's otherwise a really nice plane and it's sold well.
 
Velocity173 said:
Buy a 200+kt Aerostar for 100 K. 400 K left over for the increased operating cost.
Click to expand...

Holy crap. I just looked at the wiki entry for those. The 700 series had about 260 kts?

Most of the Aerostars on controller.com are way above $100k, though.

Very nice looking planes, though. Definitely have to add that to my list of things to research if/when the time comes.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Not the case for 912S series. The 912U series is the one not certified for IMC. Only difference is some paperwork. I've flown a P2006T in such crappy conditions we went missed on an ILS because there was nothing but clouds.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.

LJS1993 said:
Why wouldn't some engines be suitable for IMC conditions?
Click to expand...

Unless it is an induction icing issue (airbox icing up maybe since not a carb?), it is likely an issue of lawyer driven oplims and not because of performance. That's my guess anyway.

Edit - saw KSC's response. that makes sense, too....
 
LoneAspen said:
Holy crap. I just looked at the wiki entry for those. The 700 series had about 260 kts?

Most of the Aerostars on controller.com are way above $100k, though.

Very nice looking planes, though. Definitely have to add that to my list of things to research if/when the time comes.
Click to expand...

The 702P will even do 280kts+ at FL280, balls to the wall. But it will burn +50gph doing so with its 350hp engines. The 601P is not quite as fast with the 290hp engines (about 235-240kts full throttle), but it's also cheaper than the 700's. They're basically the same airframe. 601P will burn 25gph doing 200kts, which is very good economy. Not cheap enough? How about 20gph for a speed of 184kts?

But if you need turboprop speed with piston economy and don't mind the FF, there's pretty much only one ride in town: 700 or 702P.

Many Aerostars go through Aerostar-experts, so don't show up on Controller. If you're in the market for one it's always a good idea to check in with Don at Aerostar World:

http://www.aerostarworld.com/index.php/aircraft-sales
 
Last edited:
The Aerostar is a nice airplane. Out of all the ones I've flown 600(non turbo or Pressurized) the 601P, 602P, 700 and 702P the )92 is my favorite. Good trade off for speed verses fuel burn and doesn't hog the ground like a 601P. I find not hard to believe the 280 out is the 702P. I used to see 235-240.
 
Man, now we're onto Aerostars.
To echo Henning, if you haven't got the mental capacity to fly a twin......aye yi yi.

Be sharp in an Aerostar. Or woe unto thee.
They can be the most rewarding in class.
 
The only other bad thing about the 700and 702 is range. Standard fuel is 165 gallons if I remember correctly. That 3 hours to dry tanks at 50 GPH which is what they burn in cruise. The ax fuse tank helps bit you give useful load then.
 
stratobee said:
The 702P will even do 280kts+ at FL280, balls to the wall. But it will burn +50gph doing so with its 350hp engines. The 601P is not quite as fast with the 290hp engines (about 235-240kts full throttle), but it's also cheaper than the 700's. They're basically the same airframe. 601P will burn 25gph doing 200kts, which is very good economy. Not cheap enough? How about 20gph for a speed of 184kts?

But if you need turboprop speed with piston economy and don't mind the FF, there's pretty much only one ride in town: 700 or 702P.

Many Aerostars go through Aerostar-experts, so don't show up on Controller. If you're in the market for one it's always a good idea to check in with Don at Aerostar World:

http://www.aerostarworld.com/index.php/aircraft-sales
Click to expand...

Damn, those seem like very nice planes for the price.

I'm waiting for the "gotcha"...some gremlin or AD or ??? gonna jump out and take a $300k bite out of the wallet a couple years down the road? :)

I'm definitely looking into those planes when I get to the point of buying my own. Even with the increased fuel burn over something like DA42 with Austros, the delta would buy a lot of fuel.
 
LoneAspen said:
Damn, those seem like very nice planes for the price.

I'm waiting for the "gotcha"...some gremlin or AD or ??? gonna jump out and take a $300k bite out of the wallet a couple years down the road? :)

I'm definitely looking into those planes when I get to the point of buying my own. Even with the increased fuel burn over something like DA42 with Austros, the delta would buy a lot of fuel.
Click to expand...

Don't want to hog thread, but no real gotchas. They takeoff fast and they land fast, so you need some rwy and to be familiar with the sight picture. Anything below 3500ft is starting to get iffy with heavy load onboard. They're complex aircraft with a lot of systems in a tight space, so not always the easiest to work on, but the systems themselves are standard. The wastegate rigging needs to be done correctly, as each engine has two turbos. But it's an easy rig, you just need someone who knows what they're doing. Lots of upgrades available. Built strong (no in flight breakups ever, I think). But then I'm partial.:redface::D
 
Last edited:
Jeff K said:
Don't confuse asking price with selling price.
Click to expand...

I think a realistic price on a good, used non pressurized Aerostar will go for about $150,000. Still that's a lot of money left over for upgrades and increased operating costs over the P2006.
 
LoneAspen said:
Damn, those seem like very nice planes for the price.

I'm waiting for the "gotcha"...some gremlin or AD or ??? gonna jump out and take a $300k bite out of the wallet a couple years down the road? :)
Click to expand...

With Aerostars, the gotcha is well-known, but it isn't price. An Aerostar is fast, good payload, and relatively roomy- and it's handling and OEI characteristics will EAT YOU ALIVE if you are even the slightest bit non-proficient or hesitant when things start going south.

So great planes... if you survive the experience.
 
That's not true, actually. Bit of an old wives tale. They fly perfectly fine on one engine. A non event. Sure the Vmc is high, but so is stall speed, so it all goes together. Don't get slow, that's all.
 
Velocity173 said:
I think a realistic price on a good, used non pressurized Aerostar will go for about $150,000. Still that's a lot of money left over for upgrades and increased operating costs over the P2006.
Click to expand...

Why so much? I'm seeing the Vref mean retail for a 1975 600 at $86,000.
 
Just making sure I've got the conclusion of this thread. Only an idiot would buy a new 182. For that kind of money the smart bet is a 30 year old pressurized, turbo charged, twin, because for some unknown reason they are really cheap.
 
That is not just the conclusion to this thread, that is the conclusion to all POA threads.:lol: Over to the college flying club what plane to buy thread, gotta set them straight.
Alexb2000 said:
Just making sure I've got the conclusion of this thread. Only an idiot would buy a new 182. For that kind of money the smart bet is a 30 year old pressurized, turbo charged, twin, because for some unknown reason they are really cheap.
Click to expand...
 
Alexb2000 said:
Just making sure I've got the conclusion of this thread. Only an idiot would buy a new 182. For that kind of money the smart bet is a 30 year old pressurized, turbo charged, twin, because for some unknown reason they are really cheap.
Click to expand...

Someone has to buy new so the rest of us can buy used
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top