Most efficient piston twin.

[Boris Badenov]

Realistically, I'd plan 15-16gph in the normally aspirated 210 for short legs. Twin Commanche probably has 5-10 knots on it and burns maybe another 2-3 gallons (total). Very efficient machine. Of course, once it's full of fuel, the 210 beats it all to pieces in load-carrying, and I've heard they're almost as exciting as a 210 after an engine failure, but if you need that second engine, you can't beat a twin commanche for efficiency. Nice flying plane, too, although a little weird on landing (or maybe I just suck).

PS. This marks the first time that I've heard an Apache mentioned in the same paragraph as the word "efficiency"

 

[mtsu_av8er]

Realistically, I'd plan 15-16gph in the normally aspirated 210 for short legs.

What the heck do YOU know about 210s?

 

[t-cart]

Realistically, I'd plan 15-16gph in the normally aspirated 210 for short legs. Twin Commanche probably has 5-10 knots on it and burns maybe another 2-3 gallons (total). Very efficient machine. Of course, once it's full of fuel, the 210 beats it all to pieces in load-carrying, and I've heard they're almost as exciting as a 210 after an engine failure, but if you need that second engine, you can't beat a twin commanche for efficiency. Nice flying plane, too, although a little weird on landing (or maybe I just suck).

PS. This marks the first time that I've heard an Apache mentioned in the same paragraph as the word "efficiency"

It's all in how you look at things.

 

[sdfcvoh]

Regardless of efficiency, I'd rather have a twin that still flies when one engine goes nightee-night. I've always thought of a twin as one more piece of safety.... instead of "now I have two things that can go wrong!"

I vote Baron 55 or 58.

 

[jynxyjoe]

I'd love to say Baron but i think the reality is an Apache with any speed mod you can throw on. MX and burn is a joke on the apache, although if you need SE performance take the hit and grab up a 55.

 

[JDE]

Having flown both a 58 Baron and a Twin Comanche, I'd say go for the Twin Comanche as far as most efficient. However, I'd much rather fly a Baron - it's a pilots airplane. I can't quite recall the fuel flow on the Baron, but I'm sure it's a bit more than the PA30.

And don't worry Boris, I can't land the PA30 either (or the Seneca for that matter).

 

[mattp1803]

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

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

Exactly. I did all of my commercial/multi training in the Twin Comanche, that thing practically made gas while it was flying.

 

[Boris Badenov]

What the heck do YOU know about 210s?

Nothing. I am no longer man enough to wrestle that widowmaker around, even on a CAVU day. I, you see, have discovered the wonders of "autopilot", and with that gain I have lost my manhood.

PS. Hey. If you ever accidentally wake up in STL after another safe computer-driven autoland, give me a ring, you big faker!

 

[IPad (10)]

I'll vote for the Twin Comanche also. We have the Robertson stall kit and Ray Jay Turbos on ours. The stall kit makes landing it very easy and the Ray Jays give 170kt cruise at 7,000 feet of off 9gph per side.

Alex.

 

[JrsyGuy]

I flew a seneca I from ft lauderdale to los angelas and averaged 7gph per engine. it was at an economy power setting and i might have gotten only about 140 kts out of it though. It was a pretty solid airplane and the owner said maintenance on it was night and day better then his aztec.

 

[Lead Sled]

Regardless of efficiency, I'd rather have a twin that still flies when one engine goes nightee-night. I've always thought of a twin as one more piece of safety.... instead of "now I have two things that can go wrong!"

I vote Baron 55 or 58.

:yeahthat:

 

[ppragman]

I want to piss all of my money away on a 135, I'm thinking about starting one up in the next couple of years. I'm debating piston single, or twin.

 

[SteveC]

We have the Robertson stall kit and Ray Jay Turbos on ours.

I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be "STOL kit". Stands for Short Take Off and Landing.

 

[sdfcvoh]

I want to piss all of my money away on a 135, I'm thinking about starting one up in the next couple of years. I'm debating piston single, or twin.

....and I'm volunteering my services. (for pay, of course )

 

[ppragman]

....and I'm volunteering my services. (for pay, of course )

I'm serious, I wanna run one, I'll pm you when I finish writing my opspecs

 

[norcalpilot25]

If your carrying passengers I think a Comanche would scare them Go with a 58 Baron.

 

[Boris Badenov]

I'm serious, I wanna run one, I'll pm you when I finish writing my opspecs

I wonder whether the FAA will accept furtively-photocopied facsimilies of my current company's opspecs with the name of the company and aicraft registrations whited out? I'm full of good ideas.

 

[ppragman]

I wonder whether the FAA will accept furtively-photocopied facsimilies of my current company's opspecs with the name of the company and aicraft registrations whited out? I'm full of good ideas.

I'm almost certain they will, that's what my old boss did to get his opspecs squared away, he had kept the GOM/Opspecs from a job he had a couple of years before, and he blatantly ripped it off. In fact, in the original submission, he just had sticky notes over the old company's name.

 

[ppragman]

If your carrying passengers I think a Comanche would scare them Go with a 58 Baron.

Potentially, that's kind of why I was thinking Seneca, I like the 210 the best for efficiency, but I want overwater capability.

 

[mattp1803]

....and I'm volunteering my services. (for pay, of course )

:yeahthat: