entry level light twin

[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.