entry level light twin

[darien]

For the guys that have flown older 1960's-1970's b-55s b-58 seneca's and tc-twin comanches Which would be most cost effective for low multi time insurance? These have comparable performance numbers but manuverability which do you prefer?

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

I prefer the Barons over the others as far as flying quality, and construction.

Used to be that the Piper equipment could be insured for less due to the hull value. Beechcraft always held their value a little better. I do not know about today.

I have seen more and more insurance companies requiring FS, simuflite, or simcom for b-58's now. So you would have to factor that cost in with the insurance.

Barons tend to be kind of pricy for maintenance, they are less forgiving mechanically for shock cooling and such. As a general rule, Lycomings can be abused a little more than Continentals without getting expensive. Also the senecas and twin comanche use a smaller engine than the barons (180 comanche, 200 seneca, 220 for turbo seneca, 260, 285, or 300 hp for the barons, or 350 hp for the fuel guzzeling 1967 B-56 TC, but hey, it outran the 90 king air for that year!!!!! Only problem was the fuel pump could irrigate a couple of acres no problem. They are pretty rare nowadays.) The Lycomings can normally be expected to make TBO without needing a top end as long as it is flown halfway decent. The Continentals can make TBO, but they must be flown correctly to do so normally.

Flying qualities, in my opinion, the continentals are smoother running, and the Barons fly much like a bigger airplane. I normally tell people its like comparing a Mercedes with a Ford, with the Baron being the mercedes. To me, the Barons tend to be better balanced and feel more solid, especially in weather. The pipers remind me more of driving a truck as opposed to a sportscar.

I have about 1000 hours in the Baron series from the 135 days, and about 300 hours or so in senecas, only about 25 or so in the Twin comanche, so My opinion may be biased toward the Baron's. But it is just that, my opinion.

Barons can be quite thirsty when you compare them to the pipers with the smaller engines. There is of course a speed difference, with the Baron being faster than the others, you just have to decide if the extra fuel burn is worth the extra speed.

 

[JimNtexas]

Would a BE-76 Dutchess work for you? It's a lot nicer flying plane than a Seneca, but of course no turbos or deice.

Certainly everything would be much cheaper for a Dutchess than a Baron.

 

[minitour]

Would a BE-76 Dutchess work for you? It's a lot nicer flying plane than a Seneca, but of course no turbos or deice.

Certainly everything would be much cheaper for a Dutchess than a Baron.

ah the good old firebird...flaming b*tch...other wonderful names we've come to call our Duchess trainer...seems like nothing in it works except the LORAN...gotta love it...

-mini

PS
It's a decent bird despite all the "issues"...never been in a Baron though...

 

[Tinstaafl]

What space, useful load & range ability do you need or want to have available? Those three will eliminate some aircraft types from consideration.

 

[vclean]

Beechcraft parts are historically expensive. Parts may be difficult to find for the older Barons. The early 60's A55s had generators which are very expensive and have poor charging characteristics resulting in dead or undercharged batteries.

Look into possible ADs for wing spar cracks.

 

[wheelsup]

Consider the Beech Travel Air. It's like a 'mini' baron, has 2x 160 hp's that burn ~15 gph total burn. A friend has one that he bought for $65,000 with 400 hours left on each engine. I've flown it before, a good airplane. I've also got time in a B58 and that's definately faster aircraft but burns twice as much...

As far as requring Simuflite, FSI, etc. training - another friend of mine, who is about 20 years old, owns a C-414 Ram V, has 600 hours TT and about 120 multi, and flies it alone (no one riding along) while having a $1 mil/ per person (8 seats I believe, so $8 mil) insurance policy on it. No training needed what so ever, just some time in it (not sure how much). I'm sure he pays more than the average person does for insurance but it can be done without going to those schools. Before any one flames and says "that's impossible" I'm telling you right now it's not. And no, I don't have the name of his insurance comapny.

A guy I used to work with owns a Twin Co, he likes it a lot. Here's his site: Fergworld. He did a lot of research and ended up with it. I've never flown it, but heard they're very "nose heavy".

Good luck!

~wheelsup

 

[HMR]

The Duchess is a great idea. Much cheaper than a Baron. Very easy to fly. No critical engine (counter-rotating props). You'll burn 16-18GPH at full throttle and get 150-160kts. Engines are very tolerant of abuse, I have @ 500hrs shock cooling/heating them during training and never once saw a cracked cylinder. The JanaBomb heater will always be a problem but it's that way in every plane that uses it. You can load 4 adults, bags and 4hrs fuel. In the Seneca V I used to fly you could barely put 4 people onboard and have enough fuel to go around the pattern.

 

[bigD]

The Barons are nicer handling airplanes than the Seneca or Twin Co, but honestly they shouldn't even be included in this discussion. There's a pretty sizable difference in operating costs, and at low multi-time, I'm not sure that they're insurable at any reasonable price.

wheelsup mentioned the Travel Air, and I agree. You get the same nice handling of the Baron (albeit without the performance), but at operating costs that are more in line with the Seneca and Twin Comanche. And you won't get laughed at when asking about insurance.

 

[DC9stick]

The Travel Aire Seminole and Duchess have O-360 Lyc's 180 HP and will burn 18-20 GPH.The Twin Comanche has IO-320 Lyc's 160 HP and will burn 16-18 GPH as will the Apache both 150 & 160 HP verisions, and still a good time builder, Make sure a GOOD mechanic runs a through AD compliance on any of the above listed.

You can burn less as some advertise but no one wants to go that slow. These are realistic numbers. The Baron, Aztec, Cessna 310 and any other 250 -300 HP twins will burn 24 - 36 GPH these #'s are just double what you would see on a single of the same HP. I have owned an Apache, T-Com, 2-310'S my wallet knows the fuel burn of which I speak.

 

[Vik]

I own a Twin Co. Great plane, can't beat the operating costs. PM me for more info or questions.

 

[Vector4fun]

One more possibility, if you can find a decent one, is a Geronimo. Note, I mean a full Geronimo conversion with the 180hp engines. Lots of folks bought the long nose or "square" tail for their Apaches, but never upgraded the engines. A 150 hp Apache with a Geronimo nose and tail is still an Apache. The extra 30 hp per side made a whale of a difference in the airplane. The problem is finding one that has been properly maintained over the years.


And never flip off the boost pumps too soon. Old Apache/Aztec drivers know why...


btw, does anyone else remember a PT-6 powered Apache based in New Mexico?

 

[darien]

great responses

I actually have about a couple hundred hrs in the Duchesses but it's too slow therefore the aze truck would also be out of the question. I currently have a Lance and Bonanza and also use the truck and sports car analogy. Like most GA guys fly 90% of the time by myself and mostly in Fla. I know some are saying why multi? Evolution.



V clean : great info on the A55 generators. These are tid bits from others experience that I luv learning here.



I talked to a mechanic a while back and I think he told me about some kind of weight in the B 58 which made landing a little trickier than the B 55. Anyone know about this?



The turbo Twin Comanche with tip tanks looks pretty attractive to me. Good performance and range and cost. Bad utility What are some other good and bads?

 

[HMR]

I actually have about a couple hundred hrs in the Duchesses but it's too slow therefore the aze truck would also be out of the question. I currently have a Lance and Bonanza and also use the truck and sports car analogy. Like most GA guys fly 90% of the time by myself and mostly in Fla. I know some are saying why multi? Evolution.

Whoa! You're in a different tax bracket than I thought. Forget the Duchess. Sell the Lance and Bonanza and get a CJ. It's easier to fly than the Duchess.

 

[FN FAL]

Get yourself into a thuroughbred like the Cessna 320 with the TSIO-470's...nothing like owning a twin that costs you 12,000 bucks a year in annuals and sports engines with no factory support.

Ask your plane mech if he/she ever heard of TSIO-470's?

Don't get caught with your pants down...go look up "aviaiton consumer" on google and buy their used aircraft reports for the aircraft you thinking about buying. You won't regret the 8 or 12 bucks you spend, believe me.

 

[peter185]

I have flown the C-310, PA-30-200 (the Seneca 1, not sure that is the right model # though), the B55, and the B58. With most of my multi time in the 58 Baron. The 58 is easy to land and I am not familiar with the weight that you speak of. I would personally go for a Baron either a 55 or 58, they are both pretty good, compared to everything else that has been mentioned. I don't think insurance will be to big of a deal. I got insured on the 58 that I fly with only 50 hours multi and 5 in type and 850 total. My only requirement before taking pax was 5 hours with a flight instructor. The hull is insured for $310,000 with pretty standard liability limits (can't think of them right off hand) and the premium was $7994. PM if you want contact info on my insurance agent.

Performance for the 58 is as follows (IO-550 engines)

190 kts all day long at 24" and 2400 RPM burning about 30-32 gph at 6000 feet.

If you have time and want to save gas you can run it LOP on like 22-24 gph and indicate 160-165 kts.

 

[Vik]

PA-30 = twin comache
PA-34 = Seneca
PA-44 = Seminole

I have flown the C-310, PA-30-200 (the Seneca 1, not sure that is the right model # though), the B55, and the B58. With most of my multi time in the 58 Baron. The 58 is easy to land and I am not familiar with the weight that you speak of. I would personally go for a Baron either a 55 or 58, they are both pretty good, compared to everything else that has been mentioned. I don't think insurance will be to big of a deal. I got insured on the 58 that I fly with only 50 hours multi and 5 in type and 850 total. My only requirement before taking pax was 5 hours with a flight instructor. The hull is insured for $310,000 with pretty standard liability limits (can't think of them right off hand) and the premium was $7994. PM if you want contact info on my insurance agent.

Performance for the 58 is as follows (IO-550 engines)

190 kts all day long at 24" and 2400 RPM burning about 30-32 gph at 6000 feet.

If you have time and want to save gas you can run it LOP on like 22-24 gph and indicate 160-165 kts.

 

[Vik]

The Twin Comanche is the sports car of light twins, thats for sure.

Its responsive like an aerobatics plane, fast, economical. Beats the Seminole and Seneca in the numbers game for sure.

I'll reply to your PM with more details when I get a few minutes to spare.

Whats your mission for the plane? time building? cross countries for pleasure and/or business?

I actually have about a couple hundred hrs in the Duchesses but it's too slow therefore the aze truck would also be out of the question. I currently have a Lance and Bonanza and also use the truck and sports car analogy. Like most GA guys fly 90% of the time by myself and mostly in Fla. I know some are saying why multi? Evolution.



V clean : great info on the A55 generators. These are tid bits from others experience that I luv learning here.



I talked to a mechanic a while back and I think he told me about some kind of weight in the B 58 which made landing a little trickier than the B 55. Anyone know about this?



The turbo Twin Comanche with tip tanks looks pretty attractive to me. Good performance and range and cost. Bad utility What are some other good and bads?

 

[BD King]

I vote for a JATO assisted Champion Lancer

 

[Vector4fun]

Get yourself into a thuroughbred like the Cessna 320 with the TSIO-470's...nothing like owning a twin that costs you 12,000 bucks a year in annuals and sports engines with no factory support.

Ask your plane mech if he/she ever heard of TSIO-470's?

Don't get caught with your pants down...go look up "aviaiton consumer" on google and buy their used aircraft reports for the aircraft you thinking about buying. You won't regret the 8 or 12 bucks you spend, believe me.

FN,

I saw this post today on the CPA web site, and remembered your "suggestion" of a C-320...


This morning I spoke by phone to a CPA member who purchased a Cessna 320 last year for about $70K. Five months ago, he put it in the shop for annual inspection. The flat rate was about $2,160 (relatively modest for an aircraft of this complexity).

After the inspection, the shop told the owner to expect the bill to be about $4,000. Subsequently, they found that both turbochargers needed to be overhauled and upped the estimate to $8,000. Over a period of a month, they repeatedly upped their estimate, first to $12,000 and ultimately to $18,000. According to the owner, $18,000 was the last estimate the shop gave him. He was obviously upset, but felt he had no choice but to authorize the shop to proceed with the work. (He didn't take my seminar!)

After five months, the shop informed him that the airplane was ready and approved for return to service, and presented the owner with an invoice for (are you sitting down?) $46,000! Predictably, the owner went ballistic. The shop magnanimously offered to reduce the amount to $40,000 but said that was their best and final offer.

The owner has hired a lawyer. The shop has the airplane locked up, and has filed for a mechanic's lien. Everyone is going to lose big-time on this one.

The owner sent me a copy of the $46,000 invoice, and kindly gave me permission to use it as an exhibit in my seminars. It was four single-speced typed pages in length. $21K in labor, $16K in parts, $2,160 for the flat-rate annual, and a few odds and ends.

Now I really hate to second-guess any shop without having heard their side of the story (and there are always two sides). But I must say that I found some of the items on the invoice breathtaking. One item is for 80.0 hours of labor ($4,800.00) for "fuel and turbo adjustments." Another one is 14.0 hours ($840.00) for "linkage adjustments." One of my personal favorites is a $1,016.49 charge for 327.90 gallons of fuel. (The airplane only holds 140 gallons with all tanks full. I guess 80 hours of fuel system and turbo adjustments must use a lot of gas.)

Now THAT'S what I called getting shafted ... or perhaps raped.

 

[Tinstaafl]

Why not an Aerostar? Faster for the same HP as the B58's/C310s but not quite the same load lifting ability. Fairly easy to handle **as long as you respect its peculiarities**. Not a short runway machine but that's not really limiting in the US.

If you want ~100kg (~220lb) extra useful load then some have wingtip extension mods that ups the MTOW to about 2600kg** at the cost of ~5 or 10 kts cruise. There are turbo & pressurised variants too.



**Is it 2690kg (~5700lb) or or something? It was 5 or 6 years ago since I was last involved with them.

 

[FN FAL]

FN,

I saw this post today on the CPA web site, and remembered your "suggestion" of a C-320...


This morning I spoke by phone to a CPA member who purchased a Cessna 320 last year for about $70K. Five months ago, he put it in the shop for annual inspection. The flat rate was about $2,160 (relatively modest for an aircraft of this complexity).

After the inspection....

Hahaha...I started to have 320 Skyknight flash backs and I had to quickly reach around and feel if my wallet was still there! Nothing like a little Post Turbocharged Twin Cessna Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

 

[BD King]

I vote for a JATO assisted Champion Lancer

Like I said, I vote for the Lancer. I'm sorry for the bloke that bought the 320, but not that sorry. I turned down a corporate job Years ago flying from the States to St. Kitts because the airplane was a 320. No thank you.

 

[USMCmech]

Twin Beech 18 gets my vote.

Two round engines, a tailwheel, and deffinate "ramp appeal"!

You'll deffinatly be the only one in town.

I've seen several for sale in the 125k-200k.

Insurance, fuel, and maintence will eat you alive, though.

 

[fastandlow]

How could you get any cheaper - to operate and insure - than a twin Comanche?? Two -320's!! an AirCam!?
But I don't believe the mission has been defined. Building time? 2-3 people for regional travel? Professional (Dr, small business) transport??

One thing fairly certain on maintenance/annuals - turbocharged = more $$, injected is generally probably slightly more $$ than carbureted. Retract more than fixed (Partenavia P-68 is nice fixed gear light twin).

 

[FN FAL]

Actually, the wife managed to pull out the spec sheet from the FBO that brokered the 320, it sold in January of 2001...that magnificent bastard.

When I was a kid, I saw Kubric's "2001 a Space Odyssey" at the theaters. It was probably 1968...only four years after the 320 I was a partner on was made. Little was I to know, that 2001 was going to be a "Cash Odyssey" and that flights to the moon were not going to be every day travel...especially on PanAm!

 

[Vik]

True. The TwinCo is an amazing plane. You can get a good one for around $100k-$120k and spend another $100k like AOPA did making it "like new" and you've got a $1m plane for around $200k (consider a Seneca is almost a million after all is said and done).

dang it .. I wish I had $100k to blow making my Twinco like that AOPA plane.

How could you get any cheaper - to operate and insure - than a twin Comanche?? Two -320's!! an AirCam!?
But I don't believe the mission has been defined. Building time? 2-3 people for regional travel? Professional (Dr, small business) transport??

One thing fairly certain on maintenance/annuals - turbocharged = more $$, injected is generally probably slightly more $$ than carbureted. Retract more than fixed (Partenavia P-68 is nice fixed gear light twin).

 

[PropsForward]

One thing fairly certain on maintenance/annuals - turbocharged = more $$, injected is generally probably slightly more $$ than carbureted. Retract more than fixed (Partenavia P-68 is nice fixed gear light twin).

An interesting video of a Partenavia P68...

http://www.flightlevel350.com/picwindow.php?cat=19&pic=724

 

[FN FAL]

An interesting video of a Partenavia P68...

http://www.flightlevel350.com/picwindow.php?cat=19&pic=724

Wow...that was pretty chilling. Here is what the NTSB has on that one.

NTSB Identification: FTW83FA424 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 21677.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, September 11, 1983 in PLAINVIEW, TX
Aircraft: PARTENAVIA P68C, registration: N29561
Injuries: 1 Fatal.

THE PLT WAS EXECUTING A HIGH SPEED PASS OVER THE RWY AT ABOUT 250 FT AGL. THE PLT THEN BEGAN A RAPID PULL-UP & BOTH WINGS SEPARATED JUST OUTBOARD OF THE ENG NACELLES. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SEQUENCE FROM A VIDEOTAPE REVEALED THAT THE ACFT'S SPEED AT THE TIME OF THE WING SEPARATIONS WAS 220 KTS. VNE FOR THE ACFT IS 193 KTS. IT WAS CALCULATED THAT, AT 220 KTS & AN 8 DEG NOSE-UP PITCH, THE 'G' LOAD AT THE TIME OF THE WING SEPARATIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN 8.3 G'S.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

IN-FLIGHT PLANNING/DECISION..IMPROPER..PILOT IN COMMAND
OVERCONFIDENCE IN AIRCRAFT'S ABILITY..PILOT IN COMMAND
AIRSPEED..EXCEEDED..PILOT IN COMMAND
WING..OVERLOAD
DESIGN STRESS LIMITS OF AIRCRAFT..EXCEEDED..PILOT IN COMMAND





Contributing Factors

WING..FAILURE,TOTAL
WING..SEPARATION
Index for Sep1983 | Index of months

 

[BD King]

Wow...that was pretty chilling. Here is what the NTSB has on that one.

Like I said, a Champion Lancer, and why did you change your avitar, FN FAL? I prefered the reference to Mad Mike.