Need Some Help On Picking a "Twin"

You advertise yourself as a pretty experienced pilot and I'll accept that,

Not really trying to advertise anything here. What I’m looking for is feedback from real pilots with “real light twin” experience, as was stated in my first post. At this level, I’m only interested in what “other people” think.


…but I think you overstate the apparent dangers of single engine flying.

For good reason.

First, as you know (because you read like an experienced pilot) not all “flying” can be (nor should be) lumped into the same category. Second, if you notice, I talk about flying “missions”, not merely flying. There is a mindset in the way I do things (most pilots bring some kind of "mindset") that goes back to my roots in my early training. That training included a matrix for risk management for every single mission flown, regardless of how easy the mission seemed on paper. That approach to flying, provides me with logical, physical and psychological protections.

Such a risk management matrix (what I call RM2) is on my computer and one of the things it calls for is a flight planning assessment of not only the legs of each mission, but the best possible “vehicle” (available to me) for the mission profile itself. Given the purpose behind these specific missions that I will be flying, a twin engine airframe typically comes up in my RM2 as the optimal vehicle of choice. Not that an SEL can't make the trip, but according to the way my RM2 is set-up, the twin is a better choice given the things I care about as PIC on these types of missions.

A quick study of risk management as it relates to statistical probability, will make it clear as to how and why any particular “value” (Light Twin) has a high instance of correlation given a specific target or goal for risk/reward ratios.

So, there is a method to my madness – though I have not gone into all the details on that level as doing so was not really germane to the topic, thus far. But, I do get your point about the viability of the SEL category.


…The PT6 is a very mature design and we routinely run ours out to about 7000 hours under an approved trend monitoring program…. That being said I wouldn't hesitate to look at a
Meridian, TBM, or PC-12…. However, if you have the money to burn I wouldn't hesitate on the SJ30 either. Or maybe a Phenom?


Just to clarify. The SJ30-2 is bought and paid for – I’m waiting for my training slot and delivery date – for very long range missions mostly related to business. The L-39ZO will be just for pure fun (airshows and jet aerobatics) with a very small number of business trip missions. The Light Twin is the item undecided at this time and would be used for mostly personal (family) missions and some business missions.

I had hoped to stay away from older airframes and buy a brand new light twin. My original target airframes were the Epic Elite twin jet and/or the Maverickjets Twin CruiserJET. However, getting both of those airframes certified and delivered on-time, seems to be an issue and I’d rather not deal with a company having initial “deliver issues” on a new certified airframe.

According to the way I look at “risk” in flying, buying anything “new” already places the purchase in a tenuous state. But, I’d be willing to do it if the manufacturer’s certification process was managed by a very competent and capable cert-team with precious few serious set-backs related to major systems and/or major sub-systems/components (every new aircraft concept/project has some minor problems and I understand that).

Major problems that come up during the mature stages of the certification process, typically speak to something being seriously wrong with the finite element design model of the concept itself. It is good when designers catch them, but it does not build confidence in someone like me who values safety born out of good risk management design. It is a personal thing, I know. But that’s the way I operate my flights and safety is the mentality I bring with me to planning and decision making.

As far as the Phenom is concerned, I do like it and it has enjoyed a very good certification team/process. However, the SJ outperforms the Phenom on so many levels, that making the decision to go SJ was a breeze when considering the Phenom. The cruise speed and incredible range of the SJ puts it into a class all by itself at that MTOW level. We will be able to fly missions from California to Honolulu in the SJ with a very comfortable arrival reserve. You simply cannot do that in the Phenom – or anything else in the same MTOW envelope.

You have to step up to executive jets that are twice the size, twice the weight and twice the price and even then it outperforms many of those! I’m not over-stating the matter when I say that the SJ30 is (for now) simply revolutionary when it comes to Light Jets. Go check out the specs. She gives you a cabin pressure of sea level up to FL410 – that’s simply unheard up for a jet in this class. And, it has been certified for operations at FL490 – which is mind blowing when you really stop to think about it for an airframe of this type. And, as if that was not enough, she will carry 723 gallons of fuel. All of this comes SPC and RVSM Certified, to boot.
 
Do you fly the L39 out of C83? I see a lot of older guys flying them out of there for pleasure trips on the week days.

We probably live very close to each other if you are seeing guys operating L-39's out of Byron. Byron is right in my back yard and that was one of the hanger-up locations that I originally considered. Hanger space around here that works for something that size can be a pain in the neck. We (family) plan to relocate in about a year, so my hanger options will increase when we move. You are probably seeing the Patriot Jet Team operate out of Byron as that is where they were based that last time I knew anything about them.

If you note my earlier comments in my first post, I'm on what I think will be a three (3) year project where I basically spend full-time getting up to speed on three different aircraft as I take delivery one at a time over that same time-frame. So, my L-39 is still undergoing restoration along with several performance modifications as well as avionics enhancements and a couple other special tweaks.

As an interesting side note: I also looked at the Alpha Jet and a couple of other jet warbirds, but in the end, the L-39 came out as being the best platform for the way I plan to use it. The Alpha Jet has superior performance over the L-39 and is a very nice jet to fly, however.

The Alpha Jets are available here in the U.S. out of the Washington State area, but my research told me that they are also maintenance intensive and the bird simply does not have the volume of technical support that the L-39 has enjoyed here in the U.S. Personally, I liked the Alpha Jet better because it is faster and more maneuverable (agile – a better jet aerobatic platform), but at the end of the day, I'd rather be flying than standing inside a maintenance hanger - "waiting to fly".

Right now, as far as jet warbirds are concerned, the late model L-39 is the best bang for buck in the U.S.

As a second side note: I've heard talk of a possible managed program on an SU-27 Flanker that could come available here at home (U.S.). The jury is still out on that one, but you can bet that I have my ear to the ground on any progress. The idea of being able to operate an SU-27 Flanker anywhere on planet earth is mouth watering to say the least. I know the source for importing the jet it is “the real deal”, but I just don’t know if that deal will ever come about given the technical issues involved (rebuild, restoration, training, maintenance, etc.). If the details can be mapped out in a way that makes good sense, I’d be very much interested in the managed project. We’ll see.

There was another Mig-29 Fulcrum project that I was in contact with someone about a few years ago, but that never got off the ground as they could not raise the capital to make it happen. But, I prefer the Flanker on just about every level over the Fulcrum anyway.
 
Gee! Ya, think? LOL - just kidding! :D

I consider this my first phase research/study/homework - there will be other phases down the road. Right now, this is what I have time for. When the time comes, I'll venture out to the flight line. But, you are certainly correct in your observations, IMO. Thanks.

Good to see your pos. attitude about it. I have seen a lot of people getting into wrong airplanes with wrong attitude. I am a CSIP and my last example is a guy who invested 600K on a SR22 that is collecting bird poop.

As far as AlphaJets , they are nice airplanes but you are limited in terms of support. I personaly know the owner of the company and he has done really well.. I am not aware about the part issues though..

Good luck on your research..
 
Just to clarify. The SJ30-2 is bought and paid for – I’m waiting for my training slot and delivery date – for very long range missions mostly related to business. The L-39ZO will be just for pure fun (airshows and jet aerobatics) with a very small number of business trip missions. The Light Twin is the item undecided at this time and would be used for mostly personal (family) missions and some business missions.

I don't mean to come off as an ass, but why do you need the light twin.

When did 2500nm become very long range?

Why not use the SJ30? One less plane means less cost for hangar space, MX, training, and the cost of buying the plane.

Why do you plan on using the L-39 for any business trips the fuel burn sucks and it has no range?
 
I know the source for importing the jet it is “the real deal”, but I just don’t know if that deal will ever come about given the technical issues involved (rebuild, restoration, training, maintenance, etc.).

Have you been talking to R.B.?
 
This post seems to have gotten away from the original baron vs. DA42, but I have some time in a baron so here are my $.02.

I flew a baron in the middle of the summer out of an airport in the southwest with an elevation of 5500 ft. It had plenty of power and good performance at high density altitudes. It can hold 10000 ft on a single engine in the summer, i don't know how many light twins can do that. It has plenty of room, so fitting golf clubs is not going to be an issue, and as long as you aren't putting in 4 people, bags and lots of fuel it will climb plenty fast. Its a comfortable airplane, the longest i flew in it was about 350 nm each way, 700nm total in a day. Its reliable, handles great and is a proven airframe. We had autopilot, deice boots, gps, and weather radar, the latter of which proved helpful a couple of times dodging storms.

As far as negatives, its been a long time since beechcraft has produced a pressurized baron. There was no oxygen in the baron i flew (or rather we just didn't fill the tanks) so we just kept it to 12,500 and under. It could certainly perform higher than that. Comparing the baron to a king air, the baron is slow, 200 kts and change is pretty much all you're gonna get, maybe a little faster at higher altitudes. Turbocharging it would definitely help.

It kinda sounds like you're leaning towards the king air, but for those 700nm, norcal to ASE segments, wouldn't you rather do it in the SJ30? A king air on a 200nm leg seems a little overkill. Either way, you have a dilemma i could only dream about, so to me you couldn't go wrong either way.
 
L39 - here is an airplane that may work well for you.

http://www.royalturbine.com

This is a company that rehabs Beech Duke's and puts PT6's on them as opposed to the old, geared piston engines. The performance should easily surpass the Aerostar (website claims 300kt cruise speeds). The Duke is pressurized, the turbines are reliable, and it is fast. On top of that - the Beech Duke was always a very sexy looking airplane - flawed, but sexy looking. The main knocks against the Duke were that they were maintenance hogs and they were runway hogs. This conversion and restoration seems to fix all that is wrong, and gives a plane that would compare favorably to lots of turbo-props. Keep in mind that much of this is opinion from me - rely on the other feedback from the more experienced posters - just thought I would bring this to your attention.
 
L-39 Driver,

First, very well thought out approach to all of this. I've enjoyed following the discussion.

If I can get to between FL250 and FL350, then I can get above “most” weather, though of course, not all. I can also get above most other light twin air-traffic as well which also means fewer en-route routing restrictions and/or amendments when IFR direct.

One other point to make sure you are considering: RVSM. The BE-200 I fly has a ceiling of 31K but we can't fly above FL280 since we are not RVSM compliant. I can't tell you the number of times I've been stuck in the weather at FL280 only to see breaks of blue sky taunting me from above. If we could only climb another 2000' we'd be out of it... Make sure you are looking at the avionics as well as the engines when you are considering the higher flight levels.

Here are two additional observations on the King Air:

1. I can't speak for the KA-90, but the 200's speed region is FL230-240. That's where we get the best TAS. (We have the PT6A-42 engines.) We often fly in the FL270-280 range for better fuel burn and will trade a little of that top speed to save gas. Our sister squadron flies in the speed range and foregos the fuel savings. Just two different approaches. The point is, higher isn't always better -- it all depends on how you define "better."

2. Our operating manual (NATOPS) dictates that we must deploy our ice vanes below +5 degrees C in visible moisture. The ice vanes rob ~15% of the available power and increase fuel flow by ~15%.
 
I just had a GREAT idea! L39 is in a forunate financial position compared to some of us. He has asked for help on a "twin" and the answers and debate have been good. Can one of the more JC saavy users create a poll? This poll would have certain airplanes discussed (Baron, DA-42, Aerostar, KA90, and my favorite - the Duke with turbines). The poll could be open for one week and at the end of the voting, L39 has to abide by the wishes of the group and purchase whichever plane wins. I think it would be a great extension of this thread.
 
2. Our operating manual (NATOPS) dictates that we must deploy our ice vanes below +5 degrees C in visible moisture. The ice vanes rob ~15% of the available power and increase fuel flow by ~15%.

I'm not sure what Ice Vanes are because I'm not up on King Airs. Are they like Inertial Separators?
 
I don't mean to come off as an ass, but why do you need the light twin.

The underlying premise was made in my first post. The opening post and the follow-up (clarification) to the opening post, goes into further detail.

When did 2500nm become very long range?

The SJ's max range (under specific conditions) is 2,500nm and it just happens to fit perfectly with "my" definition of "long range". For me, it is the mission that dictates the range definition. The range definition is therefore a function of the mission profile and is scalable as a result.

This is all predicated on my needs and requirements - so essentially, I'm making the rules about what is defined as short, medium and long range. If I were flying in the Air Force, they would define what "range" meant. If I were flying Part 121, then the Airline would make the definition that best fits their needs.

The California coast to Honolulu connection, is a mission profile that will be flown quite a bit, a an example of what I call "long range". California to New York, or Toronto, fits my long range definition as well. But, these are non-stop flights. The other types of missions will include more than one fuel stop along the way and be more than 5,000nm on the outbound leg.

Why not use the SJ30? One less plane means less cost for hangar space, MX, training, and the cost of buying the plane.

That's why I'm doing my homework and asking questions, instead of going out there and throwing money away. There is actual cost savings when flying those short to medium range missions (as defined in my first post and the follow-up clarification of the first post) in the right Light Twin. This is why the homework is so important. Otherwise, you are right - just take the jet.

Some of these short to medium range missions will not be time sensitive, so we can get there when we get there, so to speak. Since I love to fly and don't mind spending a lot of time in the air, a Light Twin gives us both (Wife) the time in the sky (where we both belong) and the mode of transportation that does not extend the travel time to ridiculous proportions. So, with the Light Twin, we will get the best of three (3) worlds: Time in the sky, making a short-medium range destination easier and better economy.

In stark contrast, the majority of the SJ business missions will be no-nonsense, get there now type of profiles regardless of the en-route weather (within a good go/no-go framework).

The SJ will run about $4,000 per 2,500nm leg at best cruise speed (447kts) in fuel (rough calculation) and take about 5+ hours at $1.60 per nm at cruise altitudes (discounting T/O and climb).

The "right Light Twin" will cost around $1,770 per 1250nm leg at best cruise speed (250-260 kts) in fuel (rough) and take about 4 to 5 hours (depending on cruise altitude) at $1.42 per nm at cruise altitudes (discounting T/O and climb).

So, with the SJ, I certainly spend more, but when time is critical, the weather below FL350 is a serious factor and the range is long (as defined by the mission requirements), then the SJ becomes an invaluable tool at just $0.18 more but at 1.75 times the speed.

Again, this is "mission based" flying - not "only" weekend hamburgers or airshows during the summer months.

Why do you plan on using the L-39 for any business trips the fuel burn sucks and it has no range?

Again, as outlined in the first post - those types of "business trips" will be typically associated with airshows, demos, film (hopefully), etc., where the aircraft used "on-site" (so-to-speak) will be the L-39. Those will be very short-range hops flown mostly in the California region. The L-39 is mostly for good ole fashion fun in the sun.

It was a tactical military training platform and never built for range. However, with the modifications that I'm doing to add two external fuel stores under each wing and conventional wingtips (better aerodynamics), I should see slight increases in climb/cruise speeds and max IFR range somewhere close to the 800 nm limit - with reduced throttle and the right altitude. So, in two fuel stops, that will easily get me to just about every venue I care about.

Should see about 310-320 kts at 130-140 gph between FL200 and FL250. So, when you add in the taxi, T/O and climb fuel burn, you really are not left with a "long-range" platform. Good for short range aerobatic missions - and that's how most people will use them. Using it on a short-range business trip when I'm in the mood and can fly solo.

Hope this helps.
 
This post seems to have gotten away from the original baron vs. DA42, but I have some time in a baron so here are my $.02.

I flew a baron in the middle of the summer out of an airport in the southwest with an elevation of 5500 ft. It had plenty of power and good performance at high density altitudes. It can hold 10000 ft on a single engine in the summer, i don't know how many light twins can do that. It has plenty of room, so fitting golf clubs is not going to be an issue, and as long as you aren't putting in 4 people, bags and lots of fuel it will climb plenty fast. Its a comfortable airplane, the longest i flew in it was about 350 nm each way, 700nm total in a day. Its reliable, handles great and is a proven airframe. We had autopilot, deice boots, gps, and weather radar, the latter of which proved helpful a couple of times dodging storms.

As far as negatives, its been a long time since beechcraft has produced a pressurized baron. There was no oxygen in the baron i flew (or rather we just didn't fill the tanks) so we just kept it to 12,500 and under. It could certainly perform higher than that. Comparing the baron to a king air, the baron is slow, 200 kts and change is pretty much all you're gonna get, maybe a little faster at higher altitudes. Turbocharging it would definitely help.

It kinda sounds like you're leaning towards the king air, but for those 700nm, norcal to ASE segments, wouldn't you rather do it in the SJ30? A king air on a 200nm leg seems a little overkill. Either way, you have a dilemma i could only dream about, so to me you couldn't go wrong either way.

Thanks for the input - that's what this post is all about!

The ASE trip was just an example (a real one) used to set the performance requirements that I would need, to help frame the discussion and lead to the correct Twin. ASE was also at the very extreme limits of what I defined as my "Medium Range" type mission based on where the aircraft would hanger-up. So, if the SJ were in for maint. and the flight needed to happen, I don't want my other option to be only NetJets or Flight Options. I'd like to be able to fly that mission myself. Thus, the Twin would have to bee comfortable making that kind of trip possible.

The original list of aircraft that I contemplated were the DA42 and the Baron. Both of them would do well (IMO) on the short-end of the Medium Range mission profile at low density altitudes and not much weather. However, I quickly realized that they would not work well on the long-end of the Medium Range mission profile extending out to 750 nm and high density altitudes.

So, with that in mind, the King Air 90x came into focus - thanks to help from people on this board as well as the Aerostar. I wanted to buy "new", but it does not look like that is going to happen at this level. With the ideas on the Aerostar and the 90, I have since expanded my search to include the Cessna 425 Conquest I. Yet, ANOTHER airframe that I complete forgot about for various reasons.

The Conquest I, seems to meet my requirements very well in many areas: speed, range, altitude capability, pressurization, maint., aircraft sizing, single-pilot and it can also be RVSM certified. Quite frankly - I like it after taking a harder look at it! Again, thanks to this site.

Most of the Conquest I's that I've seen thus far, have been kept in very good condition and the PT6A-112 is said to be "bullet proof", by some. The Aerostar seems to have undergone something of a checkered past and many non-OEM modifications to get it to "fly right", according to some. However, according to what I can read thus far, the Conquest I, seems to have been well built for its mission.

So, yes - this has expanded beyond the DA42 and the Baron - in fact, those two are no longer even in the running given the Conquest I and 90.

Both the 90 and the 425 use the same "baseline" turbine with the King Air having access to new variants (I think). The 425 is slightly smaller, which for me is good, because both already have plenty of cargo and pax room. Both seem very similar in performance, with the 90 having what appears to be more "speed mod" upgrade options depending on where you go for that kind of work.

What do you guys think about throwing the Cessna 425 Conquest I in the mix? How would you rate against the 90? Same, worse or better - given the way I intend to use it?
 
L39 - here is an airplane that may work well for you.

http://www.royalturbine.com

- just thought I would bring this to your attention.

LOL - :rawk: Thanks, WacoFan!

This is exactly what I had in mind. Small, powerful, fast, agile, useful and purpose built. I will definitely be calling this company on the phone - I did not check but I hope they are U.S. based.

Awesome link - very helpful and YES, I've always thought the Duke had sex-a-ppeal to spare! The overall geometry from nose to tail has always been a favorite with me, but the power has always been a problem with the NA powerplants. With the PT6, I'm sure she smokes nicely - :bandit:

Do you know anything about Duke handling characteristics, by any chance? Historical design issues?

Thanks again for the lead!

showpic.php


You've got to be kidding me - sweet/sexy/hot Twins - lol! Luv-it, thanks.
 
First, very well thought out approach to all of this. I've enjoyed following the discussion.

Thanks, for the help!

One other point to make sure you are considering: RVSM. The BE-200 I fly has a ceiling of 31K but we can't fly above FL280 since we are not RVSM compliant. I can't tell you the number of times I've been stuck in the weather at FL280 only to see breaks of blue sky taunting me from above. If we could only climb another 2000' we'd be out of it... Make sure you are looking at the avionics as well as the engines when you are considering the higher flight levels.

No doubt. That's why the other consideration for any Light Twin will be my ability to upgrade to full EFIS that is RVSM certified or at the very least is on its way. There is some good RVSM doable glass out there already, so I'll most likely conform to what's there - I'm sure that a good RVSM EFIS solution can be worked into my project Twin.


Here are two additional observations on the King Air:

1. I can't speak for the KA-90, but the 200's speed region is FL230-240. That's where we get the best TAS. (We have the PT6A-42 engines.) We often fly in the FL270-280 range for better fuel burn and will trade a little of that top speed to save gas. Our sister squadron flies in the speed range and foregos the fuel savings. Just two different approaches. The point is, higher isn't always better -- it all depends on how you define "better."

Well, typically (for me) it will depend on mission requirements. The flight physics won't ever change because that is designed into the airframe, of course.

That's why I like to set my expectations (what is "better") based upon the mission profile - what I need the aircraft to do to get me from point A to point B and back again in whatever timeframe and under whatever conditions currently in play.

What was an economical flight level yesterday, just might not work out on the next trip, depending on range, Wx and a host of other related and non-related flight planning inputs. So, I agree with you on the overall premise for turbine-props.

Turbines, however, are a whole other world given the range in which most modern fan jets were meant to cruise and the obvious differential between prop and jet engineering/physics. With jets, typically higher is better - but again, it does depend on mission -vs- aircraft design/capability.

Example: In the L-39, I'll be able to get the best combination of fuel burn and speed between FL200 and FL250, but that would be a total waste of good fuel if the "mission" is purely aerobatic given the waste implied in the climb segment of the mission - less time for fun.

On the other hand, those levels are optimal if my goal is to extend the range/duration and max out on speed at the same time. Still, if the mission is non-aerobatic and the mission's range factor is short enough, I can get the profile done in the mid to high teens, just as well but with a 20-25 gph higher rate. So, flight planning helps us all determine what "better" is all about, right!

It is nice to be able to make a personal choice sometimes, because there are those times when the mission, airframe and Wx leaves very few other options but to fly the numbers spot-on at an altitude that may not be optimal.

I love the strategic nature of the flight planning process and then watching that plan morph (you know what I mean) en-route and having to make the necessary adjustments to optimize things as best as possible. But, the truth is that if I've got important business on the other end of the flight, then I just want to get there as "direct" as I possibly can. That's when flying can become a pain in the neck! But, hey - we love those pains, right? :banghead:


2. Our operating manual (NATOPS) dictates that we must deploy our ice vanes below +5 degrees C in visible moisture. The ice vanes rob ~15% of the available power and increase fuel flow by ~15%.

No joke? Wow, that's highway robbery. Why do the deployment of the vanes, rob power?

I could see "some" fuel flow increase if the main problem is a reduction in aerodynamic efficiency simply through the higher demand being placed on the engine caused by higher drag ratios (assuming you still have some throttle remaining to advance) - but I don't get the loss of power factor? What's going on there?
 
I just had a GREAT idea! L39 is in a forunate financial position compared to some of us. He has asked for help on a "twin" and the answers and debate have been good. Can one of the more JC saavy users create a poll? This poll would have certain airplanes discussed (Baron, DA-42, Aerostar, KA90, and my favorite - the Duke with turbines). The poll could be open for one week and at the end of the voting, L39 has to abide by the wishes of the group and purchase whichever plane wins. I think it would be a great extension of this thread.

Well, if sex appeal has anything to do with it - I'll send a subliminal message now that I'D be Up on cloud nine, Kindly waiting for the dEcision on the poll. :D
 
I'm just a lil flight instructor with nowhere near the forward thinking you have, but I've always loved the Duke. Then I saw the ROYAL TURBINE DUKE!! Sickest(good) looking airplane I've ever seen!!!

Get the Duke, assuming she fits your mission profile.
 
No joke? Wow, that's highway robbery. Why do the deployment of the vanes, rob power?

I could see "some" fuel flow increase if the main problem is a reduction in aerodynamic efficiency simply through the higher demand being placed on the engine caused by higher drag ratios (assuming you still have some throttle remaining to advance) - but I don't get the loss of power factor? What's going on there?

I had a nice long answer to this typed up and then I loss my internet connection and poof it went. Ice vanes are used to keep contaminants (water, ice, dirt, and etc...)from getting into the compressor stages of the powerplant. Located just aft of the intake scoopes...when deployed a small door opens, which due to inertia, causes a small amount of air and contaminants to exit out the rear. Since some of the air that would normally go to the compressor exits with the contaminants, you'll lose maybe 100 psi torque. Not a lot in the grand scheme of things.
 
Back
Top