Buying a light twin

[C425Driver]

A friend asked me to help research and buy a light twin for his business. I've got plenty of time flying them, but no experience with acquiring one.

I'm looking for good resources of information on aircraft selection, as well as all of the costs associated (direct/indirect) with operating one. Anyone know any books, websites, etc.? Would it be worth it to join NBAA for a single plane operation such as this one?

Also, if anyone has any advice or suggestions, I'm all ears. The airplane will be used primarily as a businees tool traveling throughout Florida, with some personal trips to the Keys and Bahamas. It will not be used for air taxi, with the average trip hauling 2-4 people, including the pilot. He seems to be leaning toward something newer, such as a 1998-2002 Seneca V or a Baron.

Thanks in advance for your help.

C425Driver

 

[FN FAL]

I can't say enough good about what these individual aircraft reports say. I was partnered with a couple of guys on a twin cessna and after we bought, I saw the report on our plane...it was dead on.

http://www.aviation-consumer.com/airplanereviews/

You can get them to fax or download to you the individual reports for the aircraft you are interested in, or buy the books. Money well spent. At least you'll have an idea as to what you and your investors are getting into.

I flew my one third share doing business flights with my employer...it was a great deal for the both of us.

Good luck in your endeavors...and one word of advice...no matter how much your future aircraft owner thinks he wants a DUKE...don't let him buy one!

 

[EMBATP]

dont have much time in a seneca, but about 250 hours in a b-58. great airplane and easy to fly.

 

[vetteracer]

Is he dead set on a twin? Bang for the buck an A-36 or a C-210 are great aircraft.

The useful load in the real world, there is not a lot of diff. when comparing an A-36 and a C-310.

Maintenance and fuel costs are the killer with a twin. Also insurance. If money is not an issue (when is it not) offer the idea of a large single. Another option is a Malibu Mirage. I am not sure the price, But I bet they are comparable to a twin. Never flown one, they look great though. Maybe someone with some Malibu time can give us the details.

If he is dead set on a twin A 310 is an OK choice, if the pass. Are not prone to being airsick. Barons are nice ships as well.



Mark

 

[FN FAL]

He seems to be leaning toward something newer, such as a 1998-2002 Seneca V or a Baron.

If he is dead set on a twin A 310 is an OK choice, if the pass. Are not prone to being airsick. Barons are nice ships as well.

I like the idea of the 300 series Cessna as well, but it looks like his guy wants something a little newer. From what I hear from guys that have flown both, the Baron appears to be about the same as a 310 in performance and handling. (I never flew a Baron). From my extensive experience flying Seneca's 135 and 91, I don't think the club seating works as well as it is advertised...but that is my opinion, and when you look at what is out there now days as recent Seneca's and Barons, I don't think you have much choice in the matter...because I believe they all come with club seating now.

sad thing about the 300 series Cessnas is they seem to be continiously under seige with some serious ADs. Like the turbocharged Cessna exhaust AD and the most recent wing spar AD that appears to be on hold.

 

[350DRIVER]

414, 421, Cheyenne III, baron, aerostar, would be my choice in that order if I were in the market for a light twin. Any of those will get the job done for what he wants to accomplish.


3 5 0

 

[mattpilot]

http://planequest.com/operationcosts/default.asp


Operating costs ... Though you might wanna update the fuel prices in those calculations to get a better idea.

 

[Citationkid]

How about an Aero Commander? Too old?

 

[C425Driver]

Thanks for all the input.

To answer some of your questions, my friend wants something newer because he feels maintenance costs will be lower and the airplane will be well equipped with up-to-date equipment.
He wwants to stay away from pressurized aircraft to keep maintenance costs down, and for the area we plan on flying in the pressurization won't really benefit us.

He is dead set on a twin, just for the redundancy of the second engine in the event of a failure.

Thanks again,
C425Driver

 

[mattpilot]

How about a C208 caravan?


Single engine, but its turbine ... very reliable

 

[Citationkid]

How about a C208 caravan?


Single engine, but its turbine ... very reliable

Not quite as cheap as a 310

 

[350DRIVER]

414, 421, Cheyenne III, baron, aerostar, would be my choice in that order if I were in the market for a light twin. Any of those will get the job done for what he wants to accomplish.


3 5 0

3 5 0

 

[mattpilot]

tell us again why you qouted yourself?

 

[mattpilot]

take a guess

 

[mattpilot]

well.. i'm guessing its cheap, little operating costs, rugged (improvised landing strips), and has good performance (to make short field operations & fly fast )

 

[pilotyip]

Look at the TC 690

That would be my choice with -5's if I was recommending a turbo prop twin to someone, fast, 270 KTS, easy to fly, (hard to steer at first) economical.

 

[Vavso]

warning about 400 series

I hear that a really expensive AD is coming down that covers some 400 series cessnas its like a $60,000 AD Be careful !

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

Aerostar 600 or 600A, low acquisition, FAST, fun to fly, relatively economical. PM me if you want info on them. I've got lots of resources.

 

[Tinstaafl]

Before deciding on which aircraft might be most suitable, you really need to decide where in the payload/range/speed/cost/runway performance trade off you fit.

Some rough impressions from the various things I've flown:

* Seating: For short trips ie ~1 hr then a bum on each seat is feasable. Not very comfortable though. Possible baggage limitations, either weight or volume. The double doors on the BAron are a godsend. Rear row pax in Barons, C310 & Seneca tend sit with their bum not far off the floor. Aztec rear row pax sit in 'proper' upright chairs *with* headroom. Like all the no-rear-door types, not as easy to get into the rear row.

I tend to think that most light a/c's true passenger load is two adults fewer than the number of seats. Certainly for longer trips. This often lets the seats be positioned to give acceptable or even comfortable leg room for the remainder.

* Range: We all know this trade off. Generally the only solution is a larger aircraft to lift the load. There are a few exceptions eg the PA23 Aztec can usually take full seats + full fuel + some baggage. Similarly the C182 in the single world.

* Speed: The cost tends to be seen in fuel burn or cabin size. The Aerostar is a nice little pocket rocket but has one of the more squeezy cabins & payload/range limits (the extended wing mod can help here, adding ~90kg for a loss of ~5-10kts TAS).

* Runway performance: How short &/or rough are the strips you expect to use? May be a minor consideration given the number of 1000m or longer airstips in the USA. Aztecs offer a good balance between short(ish) runways, speed, load, range & cabin room. Not the fastest, old, door entry a bit narrow but lifts a good load. The Britten-Norman Islander is superb at lifting a heavy load from extremely short strips (10 adults from 400m. Easily). Sucks in every other way though. The Aerostar is more for longer airstrips ie not short bush strips but, as I mentioned before, is quite quick given in its class. I like Aerostars.

* Cost: What sort of purchase & running costs are acceptable? Every type has its moneypit maintenance trap. If it's turbocharged then TBOs are reduced. Even worse if geared. If it has a wet wing then any sheetmetal work on it gets costly. If bladder tanks then they can have a life limit or need replacement due poor fueling procedures. Aerostars are hydraulic everything - flaps, gear, nosewheel steering so that system is significant for them. C400s have a spar AD looming. C310s may also be affected by this. Aztecs may not have been modded for the 2nd hydraulic pump. *Highly* desirable mod for these. They're also a 'hydraulic' aircraft w.r.t. gear & flap. Gets expensive if the gear blow down emergency extension has to be used. Beech have a reputations for more expensive parts.


Be interesting to see what the person finally decides is suitable.

 

[Vik]

Twin Comanche

How about a Twin Comanche?

Affordable to buy vs. the aircraft quoted.
Cheap to maintain (everything is simple and parts are readily available and still used in newer Piper aircraft)
165kts @ 16gph
Can seat 4 + luggage comfortably
Range can be upto 1,100SM

I just bought one a few months ago. I love it.