What Twin

[Steve]

Wow I passed one of them today with 1 engine. And its a 337, I would pass on that. I did find a Lancer forsale for about 40k

Where did you see the Lancer for sale? Im looking for one. Please PM me.

 

[Milkdud99]

Anyone who picks the Seminole gets kicked in the nuts.


I'd say the Twin Co is the best bang for the buck.

SEMINOLE!!

Lets start the Roshambo!

 

[BoilerUP]

How about the Turbo Aztec?

Unless you fly in the mountains, turbos are a waste of money. Plus its easy to toast an engine if you don't monitor or operate them correctly.

A Seneca I is good, with a Seneca II or III even better. You probably won't find a decent Seminole or Dutchess less than 100K that doesn't have 10,000 hours of training on it. A well-maintained Twin Comanche provides good performance with the economy of 160hp per side. If you can find a C/R for a good price, even better. Watch these, though, as recurring ADs can kill on mx costs.

You could always go buy an old Apache or one with the Gerinomo mod. Its a spud with wings and negligable SE performance, but cheap AND slow! But you're building time, right?

(come fly with me once you get one)

 

[FN FAL]

Unless you fly in the mountains, turbos are a waste of money. Plus its easy to toast an engine if you don't monitor or operate them correctly.

Why would turbo's be a waste of money? We flew many hundreds of hours past TBO on our turbocharged 300 series cessna. As far as toasting them? We had oil controlled waste gates; the only thing you had to watch for was on takeoff, because the oil had to be warm or you risked overboosting the engines on throttle up.

Any engine can be toasted by a pilot, if you can't operate an aircraft within the parameters of the operating manual, then you shouldn't be flying it.

Speaking of toasting engines, ask the skydivers at east troy MKE about the rookie pilot they hired to fly their twin otter who toasted both of the brand new PT-6's on it. He had a double flameout and toasted the engines while trying to get a re-light. I had previously offered to fly that plane for them at lunch one day, but I guess they had a better idea about how they wanted to waste their money operating a "turbo".

 

[BoilerUP]

Why would turbo's be a waste of money?

For what I *presumed* his original question to be (asking about twins for timebuilding), turbocharged engines would be a waste IMO. Down low they use much more fuel, and depending on the segments and altitudes flown, that can really be a killer.

Any engine can be toasted by a pilot, if you can't operate an aircraft within the parameters of the operating manual, then you shouldn't be flying it.

I certainly agree with you on this one!

Speaking of toasting engines, ask the skydivers at east troy MKE about the rookie pilot they hired to fly their twin otter who toasted both of the brand new PT-6's on it. He had a double flameout and toasted the engines while trying to get a re-light. I had previously offered to fly that plane for them at lunch one day, but I guess they had a better idea about how they wanted to waste their money operating a "turbo".

How do you manage to get a double flameout in a PT-6 equipped airplane? I don't know the twotter, but that sounds like a fuel issue to me. And if the rookie pilot was qualified and checked out to fly it, he should have known the proper procedures for flameout & restart. As you said, the responsibility for that rests on the PIC (and the people that authorized him to fly it).

I'm not saying that turbos are always a waste of money, but considering my relative inexperience, I've seen far too many pilots be caught up in the allure of operating turbocharged with the promise of increased speed without fully considering the mission of the airplane, their capabilities, or their typical flight profile. Operating out of sea level airports, when not flying long distances at altitude or near gross weight, in an aircraft with turbos sounds wasteful to me, if only from a fuel perspective.

 

[FN FAL]

I guess if you're going to use the plane to do flight instruction as a means of building time, turbochargers could add complexity and cost to the owner's bottom line.

When we bought our twin for the purpose of multi-time building, we were looking at flying Part 91 legs, not flight instruction. A seminole or apache wouldn't have done the trick for us.

 

[crash-proof]

Aha, finally I found the perfect twin for our twin-seeking friend...

tada!
http://www.stinsonflyer.com/prop/be50-02.jpg

http://www.howardaircraft.com/N15PH-leftprop.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/665430/L

I dream to own one of these... someday...someday.
What's the fuel rate? 25gal/hr per side? Perfect!

 

[Lead Sled]

Aha, finally I found the perfect twin for our twin-seeking friend...25gal/hr per side? Perfect!

Your mechanic will shed tears of joy for his sudden good fortune. Imagine his wife's thrill as he explains his new found job security and how they will now be able to afford that new car and new home, not to mention that their kids will now be able to attend the college of their choice.

'Sled

 

[BD King]

However, the Twin-bo is a great flying airplane, and strong as a bridge.

www.bdkingpress.com

 

[BD King]

As a side note, the original 50's had bench seating for three, both front and back. It had a throw-over yoke like the Bonanza. In other words, if there was a copilot, he (preferably a she) sat in the middle.

www.bdkingpress.com