Need Some Help On Picking a "Twin"

L-39 Driver

New Member
Hi all,

I need some experienced advice here. Over the next three (3) years (or so) I’ll be engaged in private aviation on a full-time basis getting up to speed on three (3) different aircraft: L-39ZO, SJ30-2 and some kind of “Light Twin”. The idea here will be to use the SJ30-2 for long-range missions at approximately 50% business and 50% personal allocation. The L-39 for pure personal fun about 75% and 25% business allocation (if that much). And, the Light Twin at about 35% business and 65% personal allocation.

The way my early numbers come out, the SJ30-2 will cover missions (% allocation) from about 750 nm up to intercontinental (maximum 3 fuel stops before destination), with the “Light Twin” working missions under 750 nm. The aircraft will be based in California, and many of the low-range missions will be within the western states. Therefore, I need a rock solid Twin.

Thus far, I have been taking inventory of the Beech Baron and the DA-42. I’m impressed with both, but for very different reasons. I like the DA-42’s composite structure, relative light Empty Weight, center mounted stick, full OEM-installed EFIS (G-1000) suite, relative range and overall ease of use. But, I don’t like the MTOW, overall cabin size, very weak power-plants, and overall speed performance (climb and cruise). Regarding the Baron, I like the proven history, relative empty weight, relative MTOW (as compared to the DA-42), overall cabin space, ease of use, awesome range and the ability to upgrade the avionics to full-EFIS standards. But, I don’t like the speed performance (climb and cruise) and the lack of FADEC.

What can you guys tell me about both of these aircraft, given the way I intend to used them (up to 750 nm on both business and personal) and would you feel confident in putting your family member(s) in each one of these aircraft? Both, the business and personal mission profiles could include 24 hour day trips, or extended trips of up to 2 weeks away from home base. Each will be in a hanger at base, but extended trips will most likely include tie-downs. I know nothing about either of these aircraft on any real experiential level – just what I’ve been able to read thus far. My next step will be doing some practical flights in both.

The King Air 90 seems to be on the outside edge of my discovery process as well. I just think it is too much aircraft for missions under 750 nm and not enough aircraft to replace the SJ30-2 choice. There just is not much out there that can rival the performance of the SJ30-2 in its class (if there is anything in the same class at all). So, if you see (I don’t) a King Air 90 being a good replacement for the Baron, then make that case as well. It will be a hard case to make as far as I can see, but right now, I’m open to hearing what any pilots with experience in these three aircraft (Baron, DA-42 or King Air 90) have to say.

Engine Modifications (viablility)?:

I'm wondering if either super-charging or turbo-charging the engines on the Baron is viable (has it been done yet)? Also, switching the engine control system to FADEC during such an upgrade would be ideal, as far as I can tell. Not sure, what engine upgrades would be viable with the DA-42's diesel power-plants, however. Any ideas on adding more power to both for better speed performance in the areas of climb and cruise? These are just two that come to my mind.

Thanks a bunch for the help!
 
Never flew the plastic one. But that intrigues me.

I do have a soft spot in my heart for any King Air. I would think if the operation could support the jet, it could support the 90? 750 miles is a hella long way to go in the plastic twin. Maybe a "well loved" 90 with decent engine times, and sell it for not much less when your done. (engine reserves). The baron is a nice solid choice. Just stick a 530 and MFD w/xm and your good to go.

Is it just yourself, or pax also?

Nice job. Where do I sign up?
 
I agree. 750 mile range is a big one in a 'light twin'. A good C-90 KA would be great and they are amazing airplanes.

...and yes, there are turbo-charged Barons out there.
 
The DA42 is Garbage

There I said it

Not a bad concept, but when you put an aircraft to market without thoroughly testing it you are bound to have problems.

List of Problems:

Eating 1.7 liter engines left and right, a guy I work with has had 3 engine failures in the Twin Star in about 300 hours in type. They are now saying that the 2.0 will fix all of those problems, but not sure who is picking up the bill, or if those problems will actually be fixed.

FADEC without a backup battery. Thats right, without electricity the engine dies. An AD has been issued on this (due to a crash in Germany).

Glue holding structural members together separating. I have pictures of this one.

Performance is pathetic. Don't plan on carrying full fuel and four passengers and get a decent speed. So what if you are burning 5 gallons an hour per side if it takes you twice as long to get there. You are constantly worried about going full power becase of the above mentioned engine problems.

Constantly in the shop. Just ask some owners how much that is costing. The mechanic joked that if he had 3 or 4 of them as regular customers he could retire. I don't think he was joking that much.

Cost: at roughly $700,000 delivered you can buy two other airplanes for the same price, or just buy one and not worry about burning more fuel because you can afford it.

Uncomfortable as Hell: For $700,000 you would at least expect a comfortable seat. I always bring a cushion otherwise my butt will be numb within about 30 minutes.


Your mileage may vary, but I personally would choose something else.
 
You are considering three different "classes" of light twins. Which you buy will depend more on what you have to haul. The DA-20 is good enough for 2 adults and bags, or 4 adults, but not both. The Barron will allow you to take 4 adults plus bags. The King Air will do more faster. Without knowing your expected payload, it's impossible to give you an opinion that will be (somewhat) helpful.
 
if I had to choose it would be the king air. The baron is a very nice aircraft but like everyone else is saying 500-750nm is a long time in most light twins. What is your price range for this aircraft? If your not looking at spending as much as a low time kingair I would suggest a 400 series cessna. Stay away from the ones with spar issues though.
 
I'd say a Twin Comanche but it looks like you want more modern. The Twinkie gets you about 165kts in cruise at 16GPH with a 1200NM range. The cabin is small and avionics are almost always from the 60's. The airframe is solid and there are Turbocharged versions and also ones with Tip Tanks for extended range. The useful load is sufficient for 4 normal sized people but access to the cabin and comfort is not great.

The Baron is a solid performer and there are plent on Turbo and also Pressurized Barons that might work for you. The cabins are large and easy to access. Same goes for the Seneca V as for cabin space however the useful load and range is not as good. King Air 90 and Cheyenne may also be something worth checking into.
 
I'll add another to the Diamonds are garbage.

There was a DA-40 in BHB that had its rudder FALL OFF. Yes, the rudder was no longer attached to the airplane. Luckily it was on the ground in a storm, but the storm was not that violent, and the diamond was the only damage at the airport.

The diamond, baron and king air are all in different classes of airplanes. You really need to decide what the mission of this twin will be. If its 750 miles, then the King Air is the only way to go. This is just too long in a piston twin.
 
If its 750 miles, then the King Air is the only way to go. This is just too long in a piston twin.

Oh, I don't know - that's a pretty standard night in my company, unless you're talking about doing it on one bag of gas with out a break.
 
Oh, I don't know - that's a pretty standard night in my company, unless you're talking about doing it on one bag of gas with out a break.
What kind of legs do you have:confused:. Are you talking about one leg or altogether? Altogether I do 900 a night, but breaks are inbetween.
 
What kind of legs do you have:confused:. Are you talking about one leg or altogether? Altogether I do 900 a night, but breaks are inbetween.

That's what I meant - 750 for an entire trip in a piston twin isn't bad, as long as you have breaks - at least for gas. No - I certainly don't have a 750 mile leg!
 
I agree the DA42 is an immature design. The first iteration is bound to have some problems... but I don't think the whole Diamond line is garbage. That's a pretty bold claim.
I have about 700 hours in Diamonds

That is not a Bold claim.

Overpriced, under performing, maintenance hogs.

When there is a problem with an airplane (which I have seen about a dozen "lemons" from diamond) the company refuses to admit it was a manufacturing issue. It took 5 months for Diamond to admit that the glue came undone on the Landing gear actuator on a 42. Tried to blame the pilot, blame side load landings, blame new tires that were not from the factory, blame global warming.

I would never buy one if it was my money.
 
Back
Top