entry level light twin

[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.