Most efficient piston twin.

[ppragman]

What do all you guys think. What's the most efficient piston twin for flights of less than 2hrs or so in duration? Just curious.

-pat

 

[darrenf]

What do all you guys think. What's the most efficient piston twin for flights of less than 2hrs or so in duration? Just curious.

-pat

By efficient, do you mean miles per gallon??

 

[ppragman]

By efficient, do you mean miles per gallon??

Lets go a bit farther, uhh, cost per mile. E.g. maintenance + fuel + insurance (e.g. does it have a bad reputation)

And lets say for trips under 300kts

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

Twin Comanche is pretty nice. The Baron is solid.

 

[darrenf]

Lets go a bit farther, uhh, cost per mile. E.g. maintenance + fuel + insurance (e.g. does it have a bad reputation)

And lets say for trips under 300kts

OK.

The Cri-Cri. Well under 300kts.

 

[ChristheCFII]

Well, I was thinking the DA-42 until you mentioned maitenence costs and reputation. We have six and can only keep one or two flying at any one time. Based purely on fuel, the Twinstar will beat any other twin. It cruises at 4.5 gal/hr per side.

 

[dl4292]

As far as affordable, efficient twins go the PA 30, Twin Comanche, is hard to beat.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Senecas ain't bad.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

As far as affordable, efficient twins go the PA 30, Twin Comanche, is hard to beat.

Especially for 300nm trips. 18-20gph ain't too shabby.

Any reason why you need a twin for such short flights? Something like a 210 maybe be better.

 

[milleR]

Most efficient as a personal aircraft or as a business aircraft?

 

[Stonefly]

What do all you guys think. What's the most efficient piston twin for flights of less than 2hrs or so in duration? Just curious.

-pat

It doesn't get anymore efficient then the Voyager:

Around the world without refueling...

 

[norcalpilot25]

Id say the Baron and Seneca with the Seneca coming in on top just because it has a lower fuel burn. The Baron is faster though. Both are cheaper to insure then a 300 or 400 series Cessna and the Navajo/Chieftain. The Baron 58 will do 190kts on 26gal/hr where as the Seneca I will do 170kts on 20gal/hr both can seat 6 and fly for 2hrs. If you want efficiency and dont need to fly higher then 10k don't get a turbo model, fuel flows go way up and maintenance is a hassle.

 

[norcalpilot25]

Ohh I almost forgot, how about the Cessna 337 Skymaster?

 

[WalterSobchak]

Twin Comanche hands down. Nothing can touch the burn for the speed.

16 gallons total burn/hr at 160-165 KTS.

 

[Michael95U]

Twin Comanche hands down. Nothing can touch the burn for the speed.

16 gallons total burn/hr at 160-165 KTS.

:yeahthat:

 

[norcalpilot25]

Just cross your fingers that one of those engines doesn't quit.

 

[t-cart]

:yeahthat:

:yeahthat:Another vote for the Twin Comanche. And if you want to factor in the purchase price, a Apache is hard to beat.

 

[SteveC]

Also Twin Comanche. I used to run ours at slightly reduced power and get 150+ knots, 15 GPH.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Insurance on a 310 really isn't that much.

 

[ctab5060X]

... a Apache is hard to beat.

What about the Aztec then?

Decent speed, decent fuel burn, and can carry a load quite well when compared to some others.

It is also not that bad when it comes to maintenance, although some parts are getting harder to find.