I was thining about purchasing a multi-engine aircraft to use for flight training, time building, etc. I noticed that cessna skymasters are pretty reasonable. Could anyone provide some insight as to what ME's are cost effective(relatively speaking) as well as if a skymaster would be a good choice.. Thanks!
Buying A multiengine aircraft
- Thread starter Bluehen
- Start date
BuckTurgidson
New Member
Don't buy a 337. It is centerline thrust so that isn't very valuable multi engine time. And, it will be extremely difficult to sell, unless you want to will it to your children.
It is a buyer's market for twins. You can buy any twin that you want for well below wholesale cost. With fuel and insurance as high as they are right now, there aren't too many buyers for twins.
The only ones that seem to be moving are senecas, if you can find a well maintained one with high time engines you can fly it past TBO and then sell it with the knowledge that the buyer will need to put engines on it. Or, if you can afford it, you can hang overhauled engines on it and sell it with 0 since major overhaul and command a much higher price.
Owning and maintaining a twin is expensive. These things were all designed and built a long time ago. Stuff will break and need replacement regularly. I'm sure that Pilot 602 can attest to that.
Good Luck
It is a buyer's market for twins. You can buy any twin that you want for well below wholesale cost. With fuel and insurance as high as they are right now, there aren't too many buyers for twins.
The only ones that seem to be moving are senecas, if you can find a well maintained one with high time engines you can fly it past TBO and then sell it with the knowledge that the buyer will need to put engines on it. Or, if you can afford it, you can hang overhauled engines on it and sell it with 0 since major overhaul and command a much higher price.
Owning and maintaining a twin is expensive. These things were all designed and built a long time ago. Stuff will break and need replacement regularly. I'm sure that Pilot 602 can attest to that.
Good Luck
A300Capt
Freight Dawg
[ QUOTE ]
I was thining about purchasing a multi-engine aircraft to use for flight training, time building, etc. I noticed that cessna skymasters are pretty reasonable. Could anyone provide some insight as to what ME's are cost effective(relatively speaking) as well as if a skymaster would be a good choice.. Thanks!
[/ QUOTE ]
You'll be limited to "centerline" thrust only (annotated on your license)which is worthless if you're trying to count it toward a career in aviation.
If not, have at it! A skysmasher is a fun airplane. Careful with the rear engine as it runs very hot under even normal conditions and very rarely ever reaches TBO. The aircraft is also very loud inside due to engine placement.
I was thining about purchasing a multi-engine aircraft to use for flight training, time building, etc. I noticed that cessna skymasters are pretty reasonable. Could anyone provide some insight as to what ME's are cost effective(relatively speaking) as well as if a skymaster would be a good choice.. Thanks!
[/ QUOTE ]
You'll be limited to "centerline" thrust only (annotated on your license)which is worthless if you're trying to count it toward a career in aviation.
If not, have at it! A skysmasher is a fun airplane. Careful with the rear engine as it runs very hot under even normal conditions and very rarely ever reaches TBO. The aircraft is also very loud inside due to engine placement.
Minnesota_Flyer
New Member
I think I'm about in your same position. I've been thinking about buying a twin on the theory that I could get into a twin of my own for cheaper than I could rent. Unfortunately I've about reached the conclusion that it would cost more to buy (including hangar, maint., fuel, insurance, etc.) than it would cost me to rent (I can rent a Duchess at my current FBO for $145/wet). The insurance quotes I've received seem astronomical (i.e., $7-8,000/year), and, of course, fuel is a bear these days.
If you come up with different information, please share. I'd love to have my own, but it's not looking like the $$ really make sense for me.
MF
If you come up with different information, please share. I'd love to have my own, but it's not looking like the $$ really make sense for me.
MF
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
Stay away for the Skymaster. Everyone is correct. The time is pretty much useless. Plus the FAA has done away with the Center line thrust limitation on a license. You would have to use a real twin to get your ME rating.
I would recommend a C310R. I flew them in the freight environment and they were pretty reliable. The only things we had problems with were the alternators. On the R model they are mounted in air intake for the engine. The wiring is constantly getting eroded by debris. The repairs were just minor wiring issues on the exposed wires.
Fuel and insurance is probably going to kill you though. A twin is going to burn 2 - 3x the gas of good single.
Good Luck
I would recommend a C310R. I flew them in the freight environment and they were pretty reliable. The only things we had problems with were the alternators. On the R model they are mounted in air intake for the engine. The wiring is constantly getting eroded by debris. The repairs were just minor wiring issues on the exposed wires.
Fuel and insurance is probably going to kill you though. A twin is going to burn 2 - 3x the gas of good single.
Good Luck
I was part owner in a Twin Comanche for a few years. This one was in great shape before I bought in to it, and we maintained it very well. The Twin Comanche is one of the most economical twins to run, in my opinion. 155 to 165 knots on 15 to 17.5 GPH.
We figured total operating cost (including maintenance, fuel, hanger, insurance, engine and prop reserve, oil changes, and annual inspections) worked out to about $120.00 per hour (as of 2002). Fuel has gone up since then, though.
I was lucky enough to have bought into a solid, well maintained plane. If you buy one that needs "a little work", you can easily drop $20,000 or more before you know it. Even with no suprises and taking care of problems as they came along, it was not unusual to have annual inspections cost $5,000 or more.
My advice, if you decide to buy, is to make sure you put a bunch of money aside upfront for contingencies, and replenish that kitty every time you fly. Charge yourself an extra $30 an hour or more for the "suprise" fund because you will need it.
And remember that it's a buyer's market right now. Which is great if you're buying, but not nearly so great if you try to sell in a few years. Who knows when the market will turn around on twins, if ever.
What I've typically seen is that you are better off buying if you are going to keep the plane for four or five years or more. Typically you spend the first two years spending a ton of money fixing what the last owner deferred for two years. Then you'll have to run the thing for a few more years to get the *average* hourly cost back into a reasonable range.
We figured total operating cost (including maintenance, fuel, hanger, insurance, engine and prop reserve, oil changes, and annual inspections) worked out to about $120.00 per hour (as of 2002). Fuel has gone up since then, though.
I was lucky enough to have bought into a solid, well maintained plane. If you buy one that needs "a little work", you can easily drop $20,000 or more before you know it. Even with no suprises and taking care of problems as they came along, it was not unusual to have annual inspections cost $5,000 or more.
My advice, if you decide to buy, is to make sure you put a bunch of money aside upfront for contingencies, and replenish that kitty every time you fly. Charge yourself an extra $30 an hour or more for the "suprise" fund because you will need it.
And remember that it's a buyer's market right now. Which is great if you're buying, but not nearly so great if you try to sell in a few years. Who knows when the market will turn around on twins, if ever.
What I've typically seen is that you are better off buying if you are going to keep the plane for four or five years or more. Typically you spend the first two years spending a ton of money fixing what the last owner deferred for two years. Then you'll have to run the thing for a few more years to get the *average* hourly cost back into a reasonable range.
montanapilot
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
We figured total operating cost (including maintenance, fuel, hanger, insurance, engine and prop reserve, oil changes, and annual inspections) worked out to about $120.00 per hour (as of 2002). Fuel has gone up since then, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
there is an Apache out here at one of the local FBO's for only 125. At that price ownership doesnt look to appealing especially if you have a major OH to deal with.
We figured total operating cost (including maintenance, fuel, hanger, insurance, engine and prop reserve, oil changes, and annual inspections) worked out to about $120.00 per hour (as of 2002). Fuel has gone up since then, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
there is an Apache out here at one of the local FBO's for only 125. At that price ownership doesnt look to appealing especially if you have a major OH to deal with.
stuckingfk
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Stay away for the Skymaster. Everyone is correct. The time is pretty much useless. Plus the FAA has done away with the Center line thrust limitation on a license. You would have to use a real twin to get your ME rating.
I would recommend a C310R. I flew them in the freight environment and they were pretty reliable. The only things we had problems with were the alternators. On the R model they are mounted in air intake for the engine. The wiring is constantly getting eroded by debris. The repairs were just minor wiring issues on the exposed wires.
Fuel and insurance is probably going to kill you though. A twin is going to burn 2 - 3x the gas of good single.
Good Luck
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think the time would be useless. Multi Engine time is Multi Engine time. You'll have to get your initial rating in a seminole, duchess, etc, then you could start building time in the skymaster.
Honestly how often do you fly with one engine inop besides in training. So a skymaster hour is the same as a seminole hour in my opinion. But what do I know....just a low time CFI.
Stay away for the Skymaster. Everyone is correct. The time is pretty much useless. Plus the FAA has done away with the Center line thrust limitation on a license. You would have to use a real twin to get your ME rating.
I would recommend a C310R. I flew them in the freight environment and they were pretty reliable. The only things we had problems with were the alternators. On the R model they are mounted in air intake for the engine. The wiring is constantly getting eroded by debris. The repairs were just minor wiring issues on the exposed wires.
Fuel and insurance is probably going to kill you though. A twin is going to burn 2 - 3x the gas of good single.
Good Luck
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think the time would be useless. Multi Engine time is Multi Engine time. You'll have to get your initial rating in a seminole, duchess, etc, then you could start building time in the skymaster.
Honestly how often do you fly with one engine inop besides in training. So a skymaster hour is the same as a seminole hour in my opinion. But what do I know....just a low time CFI.
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So a skymaster hour is the same as a seminole hour in my opinion. But what do I know....just a low time CFI.
[/ QUOTE ]
Skymaster time is not the same as a conventional twin time when it comes to interviewing. Other than that, it's fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll have to agree with A300 Capt...Skymaster time probably won't fly in an airline interview...
[ QUOTE ]
So a skymaster hour is the same as a seminole hour in my opinion. But what do I know....just a low time CFI.
[/ QUOTE ]
Skymaster time is not the same as a conventional twin time when it comes to interviewing. Other than that, it's fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll have to agree with A300 Capt...Skymaster time probably won't fly in an airline interview...
stuckingfk
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So a skymaster hour is the same as a seminole hour in my opinion. But what do I know....just a low time CFI.
[/ QUOTE ]
Skymaster time is not the same as a conventional twin time when it comes to interviewing. Other than that, it's fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll have to agree with A300 Capt...Skymaster time probably won't fly in an airline interview...
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that is total crap, but I shouldn't argue, I have no skymaster time and I'm not an airline pilot.
But let me ask you this, if someone comes to an airline interview with 500 hours in the seminole and then another pilot comes in with 500 hours in the Adam 500, in my opinion the 2nd guy has had more experience dealing with a higher performance aircraft with an updated cockpit.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So a skymaster hour is the same as a seminole hour in my opinion. But what do I know....just a low time CFI.
[/ QUOTE ]
Skymaster time is not the same as a conventional twin time when it comes to interviewing. Other than that, it's fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll have to agree with A300 Capt...Skymaster time probably won't fly in an airline interview...
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that is total crap, but I shouldn't argue, I have no skymaster time and I'm not an airline pilot.
But let me ask you this, if someone comes to an airline interview with 500 hours in the seminole and then another pilot comes in with 500 hours in the Adam 500, in my opinion the 2nd guy has had more experience dealing with a higher performance aircraft with an updated cockpit.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But let me ask you this, if someone comes to an airline interview with 500 hours in the seminole and then another pilot comes in with 500 hours in the Adam 500, in my opinion the 2nd guy has had more experience dealing with a higher performance aircraft with an updated cockpit.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are 100% absolutley correct - the 2nd applicant has more experience with modern avionics and a higher performance aircraft. BUt that's not the point. The airplane is still centerline thrust and that's where the problem is. Flying a traditional twin is just simply different than a centerline thrust airplane. You use different control inputs on take off and landing, your actions are different in the climb, and most certainly in engine out situations. You lose an engine in a SkyMASTER and it becomes a SkyHAWK - big freakin' deal. You lose an engine in an underpowered Seminole when it's hot and you're heavy you're gonna' have your hands full. The airlines don't have time to (re)train you to fly conventional twins - the first time I lost an engine in Dash 8 training with a failed autofeather was a religious experience in and of itsself - I can't imagine having to sit there and think "hmmmm, it's been a while since I've had 2 on the wing - let's see - dead foot, dead engine - is that it??"
Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit but my point is this - it's not about higher cruise speed and it's not about modern avionics - it's about basic piloting skills that 500 hours in a Seminole will teach you and 500 hours in a Skymaster won't. Skills that you'll need in 5 years when you're in the left seat(or right) and that CF34-3B1 shuts down at V1.
Jason
PS - Don't even get me started on the fact that that companies are putting GPS, moving maps, and EFIS screens in primary trainers
Is anyone else concerned that we're slowly moving away from teaching people how to be PILOTS?? Geez - I never would have imagined that I would be 'old fashioned' at 28!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But let me ask you this, if someone comes to an airline interview with 500 hours in the seminole and then another pilot comes in with 500 hours in the Adam 500, in my opinion the 2nd guy has had more experience dealing with a higher performance aircraft with an updated cockpit.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are 100% absolutley correct - the 2nd applicant has more experience with modern avionics and a higher performance aircraft. BUt that's not the point. The airplane is still centerline thrust and that's where the problem is. Flying a traditional twin is just simply different than a centerline thrust airplane. You use different control inputs on take off and landing, your actions are different in the climb, and most certainly in engine out situations. You lose an engine in a SkyMASTER and it becomes a SkyHAWK - big freakin' deal. You lose an engine in an underpowered Seminole when it's hot and you're heavy you're gonna' have your hands full. The airlines don't have time to (re)train you to fly conventional twins - the first time I lost an engine in Dash 8 training with a failed autofeather was a religious experience in and of itsself - I can't imagine having to sit there and think "hmmmm, it's been a while since I've had 2 on the wing - let's see - dead foot, dead engine - is that it??"
Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit but my point is this - it's not about higher cruise speed and it's not about modern avionics - it's about basic piloting skills that 500 hours in a Seminole will teach you and 500 hours in a Skymaster won't. Skills that you'll need in 5 years when you're in the left seat(or right) and that CF34-3B1 shuts down at V1.
Jason
PS - Don't even get me started on the fact that that companies are putting GPS, moving maps, and EFIS screens in primary trainers
ananoman
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Flying a traditional twin is just simply different than a centerline thrust airplane. You use different control inputs on take off and landing, your actions are different in the climb, and most certainly in engine out situations.
[/ QUOTE ]
I will agree that the engine out situation is different in a conventional twin, but I don't think that they are any different than a centerline thrust airplane during normal operations. I guess if you have counter rotating props then you really don't need right rudder much, but not all twins have this. When everything works correctly, a twin is not much different than a high performance single.
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit but my point is this - it's not about higher cruise speed and it's not about modern avionics - it's about basic piloting skills that 500 hours in a Seminole will teach you and 500 hours in a Skymaster won't. Skills that you'll need in 5 years when you're in the left seat(or right) and that CF34-3B1 shuts down at V1.
[/ QUOTE ]
If the CF34 on your CRJ quits, it is not nearly the 'big deal' it would be in a conventional twin. You will have adequate performance or you will not be allowed to takeoff in the first place. It is also much easier to deal with an engine out in the jet. All you really have to do is fly straight out to 1500' and take your time dealing with the problem. I am not familiar with the CRJ/ERJ, but most jets have a 'rudder boost' system that makes them easy to control on one engine. No need to feather any propellers either.
Overall I would think that flying the Skymaster would be more like flying an RJ than a Seminole. The turboprops are another matter, but there are quite a few people who will never fly one as they will go straight to the jet.
The other problem that I see with this argument is that most people do not spend 500 hrs flying around on one engine. Other than training, most of the time in a twin is spent just flying around. So, as long as someone with alot of Skymaster hours has time in a conventional twin, they could easily be just as competent as someone with alot of 'conventional' time.
Flying a traditional twin is just simply different than a centerline thrust airplane. You use different control inputs on take off and landing, your actions are different in the climb, and most certainly in engine out situations.
[/ QUOTE ]
I will agree that the engine out situation is different in a conventional twin, but I don't think that they are any different than a centerline thrust airplane during normal operations. I guess if you have counter rotating props then you really don't need right rudder much, but not all twins have this. When everything works correctly, a twin is not much different than a high performance single.
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit but my point is this - it's not about higher cruise speed and it's not about modern avionics - it's about basic piloting skills that 500 hours in a Seminole will teach you and 500 hours in a Skymaster won't. Skills that you'll need in 5 years when you're in the left seat(or right) and that CF34-3B1 shuts down at V1.
[/ QUOTE ]
If the CF34 on your CRJ quits, it is not nearly the 'big deal' it would be in a conventional twin. You will have adequate performance or you will not be allowed to takeoff in the first place. It is also much easier to deal with an engine out in the jet. All you really have to do is fly straight out to 1500' and take your time dealing with the problem. I am not familiar with the CRJ/ERJ, but most jets have a 'rudder boost' system that makes them easy to control on one engine. No need to feather any propellers either.
Overall I would think that flying the Skymaster would be more like flying an RJ than a Seminole. The turboprops are another matter, but there are quite a few people who will never fly one as they will go straight to the jet.
The other problem that I see with this argument is that most people do not spend 500 hrs flying around on one engine. Other than training, most of the time in a twin is spent just flying around. So, as long as someone with alot of Skymaster hours has time in a conventional twin, they could easily be just as competent as someone with alot of 'conventional' time.
ananoman
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
I was thining about purchasing a multi-engine aircraft to use for flight training, time building, etc. I noticed that cessna skymasters are pretty reasonable. Could anyone provide some insight as to what ME's are cost effective(relatively speaking) as well as if a skymaster would be a good choice.. Thanks!
[/ QUOTE ]
Overall, there is no such thing as a 'cost effective' twin. If you want to fly for a reasonable price, get a single. Many places will hire with about 100 hrs of twin time and the cheapest way to get this is to rent. If you can find a way to split the time with someone else in your situation, you can cut this in half. You can also go to a place like Ari Ben or ATP for their time building programs.
Unless you have money to burn, I would advise buying a twin. There is a reason that they are often such a good buy relative to high performance singles. No one can afford to keep them. If you buy a twin to 'save money' you are one mechanical problem away from your worst nightmare. This does not mean that I would not like to own a twin, but I would have to be in a situation that I was going to keep the airplane for several years, fly it alot, and have enough money to maintain it properly. As others have said, you can easily drop $5k on an annual, and you will be suprised how much insurance will cost, especially when you are low time.
I was thining about purchasing a multi-engine aircraft to use for flight training, time building, etc. I noticed that cessna skymasters are pretty reasonable. Could anyone provide some insight as to what ME's are cost effective(relatively speaking) as well as if a skymaster would be a good choice.. Thanks!
[/ QUOTE ]
Overall, there is no such thing as a 'cost effective' twin. If you want to fly for a reasonable price, get a single. Many places will hire with about 100 hrs of twin time and the cheapest way to get this is to rent. If you can find a way to split the time with someone else in your situation, you can cut this in half. You can also go to a place like Ari Ben or ATP for their time building programs.
Unless you have money to burn, I would advise buying a twin. There is a reason that they are often such a good buy relative to high performance singles. No one can afford to keep them. If you buy a twin to 'save money' you are one mechanical problem away from your worst nightmare. This does not mean that I would not like to own a twin, but I would have to be in a situation that I was going to keep the airplane for several years, fly it alot, and have enough money to maintain it properly. As others have said, you can easily drop $5k on an annual, and you will be suprised how much insurance will cost, especially when you are low time.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Overall, there is no such thing as a 'cost effective' twin. If you want to fly for a reasonable price, get a single.
Unless you have money to burn, I would advise buying a twin. There is a reason that they are often such a good buy relative to high performance singles. No one can afford to keep them. If you buy a twin to 'save money' you are one mechanical problem away from your worst nightmare. This does not mean that I would not like to own a twin, but I would have to be in a situation that I was going to keep the airplane for several years, fly it alot, and have enough money to maintain it properly. As others have said, you can easily drop $5k on an annual, and you will be suprised how much insurance will cost, especially when you are low time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Genrally speaking a twin will burn 2X the gas, require 3X the maintence, cost 3-4X on insurance, and only be 5-10% faster than a comprable single. (example Bonanza vs Baron or Saratoga vs Seneca).
The low price on twins reflects this huge "cost to keep".
I personaly would stick with singles, unless I found a good project that I as an A&P could fix up myself and pay cash for. This would do my own maintence with parts at shop prices, also I would have no hull insurance.
One day I would like a twin, but economical and twin do not go together.
Overall, there is no such thing as a 'cost effective' twin. If you want to fly for a reasonable price, get a single.
Unless you have money to burn, I would advise buying a twin. There is a reason that they are often such a good buy relative to high performance singles. No one can afford to keep them. If you buy a twin to 'save money' you are one mechanical problem away from your worst nightmare. This does not mean that I would not like to own a twin, but I would have to be in a situation that I was going to keep the airplane for several years, fly it alot, and have enough money to maintain it properly. As others have said, you can easily drop $5k on an annual, and you will be suprised how much insurance will cost, especially when you are low time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Genrally speaking a twin will burn 2X the gas, require 3X the maintence, cost 3-4X on insurance, and only be 5-10% faster than a comprable single. (example Bonanza vs Baron or Saratoga vs Seneca).
The low price on twins reflects this huge "cost to keep".
I personaly would stick with singles, unless I found a good project that I as an A&P could fix up myself and pay cash for. This would do my own maintence with parts at shop prices, also I would have no hull insurance.
One day I would like a twin, but economical and twin do not go together.
Aviation consumer had an article on the Skymaster this month. The important points about the article were that this type is mx intensive, and as a result many owners may have deferred a lot of mx until a later date. So you, as a buyer may be buying the plane and a long list of deferred mx which you will have to address. This is one reason (along with others mentioned in other posts) why the type sells relatively cheaply. For a plane which has really been well taken care of, the price would be higher.
If you're going to go for it, spend the money on a really intensive pre-buy and spend the extra dollars for a really clean airplane.
If you're going to go for it, spend the money on a really intensive pre-buy and spend the extra dollars for a really clean airplane.