Twin or Single

[EIR]

Gotcha. I had it in my head for some reason you were planning 100-150 hours per year.

I still say 310, but maybe a 55 Baron should be in the running.

Or ... E model Mooney? Wonderful plane for just the wife and a dog.

I've never flown a Mooney and to be honest, don't know if I'd fit in one.

I was actually wondering why the 310 was the choice of a twin. Hard to argue against a clean 55 baron with a descent panel. You could even take the third row out and save some money on insurance. The 310 carries more, but the Baron burns less fuel and goes the same speed, plus it'll probably be 15 years newer.

The baron burns less fuel? That's a new one for me. I have quite a bit of time in Barons and they all burned 24-26g/hr (520 engines). I suppose if you put Gamis and a good engine monitoring system you could run LOP and get it down to 22g/hr. I'm looking at the older 310s with the 470. I am aware some of the B55 have the 470, but for the most part owners have upgraded them.

I don't remember what the 310 was like but the Bonanza and Baron have probably the most comfortable sitting position of any airplane I've flown, it's like an easy chair

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Are you referring to the 36 / 58? if so, I'd agree with you. But those are the cream of the crop for Beech and you're lucky to get a "tired one" for under 100k.

 

[A1TAPE]

I was told a single your at the crash but it a twin it will take you to the scene of the crash.

 

[bucksmith]

I've never flown a Mooney and to be honest, don't know if I'd fit in one.


The baron burns less fuel? That's a new one for me. I have quite a bit of time in Barons and they all burned 24-26g/hr (520 engines). I suppose if you put Gamis and a good engine monitoring system you could run LOP and get it down to 22g/hr. I'm looking at the older 310s with the 470. I am aware some of the B55 have the 470, but for the most part owners have upgraded them.


Are you referring to the 36 / 58? if so, I'd agree with you. But those are the cream of the crop for Beech and you're lucky to get a "tired one" for under 100k.

I think it was a 55 B? (1979 ish) We'd get it pulled back to about 21 gallons an hour and be doing about 160, iirc.
The 310 I've flown the most seems to burn high 20's at best. Can't remember as I type this what model it is, I just help the guy out with his instrument flying in it. I actually don't know much about 310's, just staring at the fuel flow gage in amazement.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I was told a single your at the crash but it a twin it will take you to the scene of the crash.

Don’t listen to silly rules of thumb from Flying Magazine written by people who have fewer hours at 60 years old than an average 25 year old RJ FO has.

 

[milleR]

I was told a single your at the crash but it a twin it will take you to the scene of the crash.

That's only true for people who shouldn't be flying twins.

 

[adk]

Don’t listen to silly rules of thumb from Flying Magazine written by people who have fewer hours at 60 years old than an average 25 year old RJ FO has.

Not a question just for you per se, but has there ever been a study that looked at piston single vs. piston twin safety while limiting the sample group to only ATP holders?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Not a question just for you per se, but has there ever been a study that looked at piston single vs. piston twin safety while limiting the sample group to only ATP holders?

Not that I’ve ever seen. But I still wouldn’t consider that a very good representation. You’d be amazed how many ATPs are out there with relatively little multi time and training. The crazy people you come across in GA has amazed me since leaving the airline world and coming back to it. Some of the worst ideas ever imagined are spread around like wildfire. I had to stop reading the Mooney forum because it was just filled with the blind leading the blind to their inevitable deaths. There’s a reason that the MU-2 is now one of the safest airplanes around: an SFAR that makes airline style initial and recurrent training mandatory.

 

[learhawkerbe400]

Gotcha. I had it in my head for some reason you were planning 100-150 hours per year.

I still say 310, but maybe a 55 Baron should be in the running.

Or ... E model Mooney? Wonderful plane for just the wife and a dog.

I've never flown a Mooney and to be honest, don't know if I'd fit in one.

I was actually wondering why the 310 was the choice of a twin. Hard to argue against a clean 55 baron with a descent panel. You could even take the third row out and save some money on insurance. The 310 carries more, but the Baron burns less fuel and goes the same speed, plus it'll probably be 15 years newer.

The baron burns less fuel? That's a new one for me. I have quite a bit of time in Barons and they all burned 24-26g/hr (520 engines). I suppose if you put Gamis and a good engine monitoring system you could run LOP and get it down to 22g/hr. I'm looking at the older 310s with the 470. I am aware some of the B55 have the 470, but for the most part owners have upgraded them.

I don't remember what the 310 was like but the Bonanza and Baron have probably the most comfortable sitting position of any airplane I've flown, it's like an easy chair

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Are you referring to the 36 / 58? if so, I'd agree with you. But those are the cream of the crop for Beech and you're lucky to get a "tired one" for under 100k.

All of the A/B-55 barons have the 470 engines unless they have the Colemill conversion which put 550s on them.

The C/D/E barons have the long 58 nose with 520s on them.

You can easily pull the 470s back to 20-22 gph and get in the mid-high 160s true. My dad has one and i always fly it ROP which is low-mid 180s true on around 25 gph.

You can get an a/b55 for under 100k but they’re normally pretty tired with a crappy autopilot/gps and at least one high time engine. A b55 with low/mid time engines, decent paint/interior, nice autopilot and gps is going to run at least 100k.

 

[learhawkerbe400]

Not a question just for you per se, but has there ever been a study that looked at piston single vs. piston twin safety while limiting the sample group to only ATP holders?

Not that I’ve ever seen. But I still wouldn’t consider that a very good representation. You’d be amazed how many ATPs are out there with relatively little multi time and training. The crazy people you come across in GA has amazed me since leaving the airline world and coming back to it. Some of the worst ideas ever imagined are spread around like wildfire. I had to stop reading the Mooney forum because it was just filled with the blind leading the blind to their inevitable deaths. There’s a reason that the MU-2 is now one of the safest airplanes around: an SFAR that makes airline style initial and recurrent training mandatory.

I hate people in general but i really hate rich owner pilots. They are (mostly) insane. I can’t read beechtalk anymore. They think they know everything and they can’t be convinced otherwise.

The GA accident rate is abysmal but after reading that forum for a while it can’t believe it isn’t any higher. The amount of mainstream bs and risk-taking is legit off the charts.

 

[Roger Roger]

Not that I’ve ever seen. But I still wouldn’t consider that a very good representation. You’d be amazed how many ATPs are out there with relatively little multi time and training. The crazy people you come across in GA has amazed me since leaving the airline world and coming back to it. Some of the worst ideas ever imagined are spread around like wildfire. I had to stop reading the Mooney forum because it was just filled with the blind leading the blind to their inevitable deaths. There’s a reason that the MU-2 is now one of the safest airplanes around: an SFAR that makes airline style initial and recurrent training mandatory.

I hate people in general but i really hate rich owner pilots. They are (mostly) insane. I can’t read beechtalk anymore. They think they know everything and they can’t be convinced otherwise.

The GA accident rate is abysmal but after reading that forum for a while it can’t believe it isn’t any higher. The amount of mainstream bs and risk-taking is legit off the charts.

If you don’t already assume this to be the case, they’re also about as full of BS on maintenance topics.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

If you don’t already assume this to be the case, they’re also about as full of BS on maintenance topics.

Yep. The Twin Cessna forum is 90% posts from pilots about maintenance that they aren’t trained to conduct.

 

[Roger Roger]

Yep. The Twin Cessna forum is 90% posts from pilots about maintenance that they aren’t trained to conduct.

I struggle with it a little as there are a lot of ignorant GA mechanics out there (and airline as well, but having highly standardized procedures and layers of supervision and double checks keeps them in their lane) who either don’t know or don’t know what they don’t know. And then I see some of the stuff coming from the pilot groups and hooboy.

 

[EIR]

All of the A/B-55 barons have the 470 engines unless they have the Colemill conversion which put 550s on them.

The C/D/E barons have the long 58 nose with 520s on them.

You can easily pull the 470s back to 20-22 gph and get in the mid-high 160s true. My dad has one and i always fly it ROP which is low-mid 180s true on around 25 gph.

You can get an a/b55 for under 100k but they’re normally pretty tired with a crappy autopilot/gps and at least one high time engine. A b55 with low/mid time engines, decent paint/interior, nice autopilot and gps is going to run at least 100k.

I flew C, D and 58 which all had the 520. I’m looking at a couple early model 310 with the 470. We’ll see what happens in the next couple months. What do your dad’s annuals run and how many hours a year does he fly (you can pm)?

 

[deadpixel]

What's your budget? I have a customer trying to move out of a Lancair 4P turbine if you're interested haha.

If you go twin you're going to need a lot of money in reserve as others have stated. I can get you DOCs for a 310 if you'd like for specific stage length. Have you looked into a 210 yet? Great airplane and useful load, and plenty of room/useful load to haul stuff. Buy an airplane to fit 80% of your mission is what I tell my customers. Otherwise you're paying for an aircraft that you don't really need.

 

[learhawkerbe400]

All of the A/B-55 barons have the 470 engines unless they have the Colemill conversion which put 550s on them.

The C/D/E barons have the long 58 nose with 520s on them.

You can easily pull the 470s back to 20-22 gph and get in the mid-high 160s true. My dad has one and i always fly it ROP which is low-mid 180s true on around 25 gph.

You can get an a/b55 for under 100k but they’re normally pretty tired with a crappy autopilot/gps and at least one high time engine. A b55 with low/mid time engines, decent paint/interior, nice autopilot and gps is going to run at least 100k.

I flew C, D and 58 which all had the 520. I’m looking at a couple early model 310 with the 470. We’ll see what happens in the next couple months. What do your dad’s annuals run and how many hours a year does he fly (you can pm)?

It maybe flies 75 hours a year. One of us hasto make an effort to go fly it every week or so or it will just sit.

The annuals are normally in the 4-5k range but last year he had to replace some ignition harnesses (or something along those lines) and it was close to 9k.

It very rarely has any mechanical issues so the annuals are most of the maintenance costs.

 

[EIR]

What's your budget? I have a customer trying to move out of a Lancair 4P turbine if you're interested haha.

If you go twin you're going to need a lot of money in reserve as others have stated. I can get you DOCs for a 310 if you'd like for specific stage length. Have you looked into a 210 yet? Great airplane and useful load, and plenty of room/useful load to haul stuff. Buy an airplane to fit 80% of your mission is what I tell my customers. Otherwise you're paying for an aircraft that you don't really need.

To be honest, I don't need an airplane, but I miss GA flying and the 6hr drive would be a 1hr flight back to MI. As much as I'd like to have a Lancair IV, they're about 300k out of my budget.

It maybe flies 75 hours a year. One of us hasto make an effort to go fly it every week or so or it will just sit.

The annuals are normally in the 4-5k range but last year he had to replace some ignition harnesses (or something along those lines) and it was close to 9k.

It very rarely has any mechanical issues so the annuals are most of the maintenance costs.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Richman]

I get a big chuckle out of these threads listening to people talk about aircraft ownership and wild speculation on par with POA or the AOPA forums...instead, of you know, listening to the people who actually own and operate these birds. With some exception, everything on this thread is painted with such a broad brush I could paint my house in one swipe.

I own a V35B with the 550 mod, tip tanks and the Tornado Alley turbo normalizing system. As a cross country machine, it has VERY few equals in that space. That said, I've been mulling over going to a B55 because I'd like radar and boots and honestly, I'd like two engines because I loosens up the risk management decision.

33s/35s/55s have the same cabin and the systems are virtually identical. Same goes for the 36s/58s.

A TN 550 equipped bird like mine runs about 17 GPH. A NA 520 equipped bird will be slightly less. A B55 with 470s will burn about 24 GPH. Operating expense on similarly maintained airframes is about 1.5x. Insurance for experienced pilots is quite moderate. Annuals on a Baron vs a Bonanza are about 1.5x.

I laugh about the discussion on parts. Parts are never an issue. I don't think I've talked to any owner who's had a hard time getting parts on any airframe unless it's something completely obscure like an AeroCommander Lark. Some rarer airframes might take more effort, like the Commander 112/114 series, but for garden variety birds like Twinkies, it's a non-issue. Owner produced parts ARE legal. You just have to follow the rules, like anything else.

Parts cost, on the other hand, CAN be an issue. Single engine Cessna retractables, are a pretty good example. Gear parts are spendy, but like anything else, when something gets too expensive, alternatives appear.

The absolute key to moderate costs is a good pre-purchase. If you get a basket case, yea, everything will break. If you get a well maintained bird that flies frequently, your costs will be relatively modest.

There are some screaming deals out there if you are ok with steam gauges. The non-professional set are absolutely obsessed with glass, so if you find an steam gauge bird with an otherwise decent WAAS GPS, you've got a market discount right there.

I don't see the same extremes on BT or TFA that some do. Most folks are careful, reg abiding citizens. You'll always have outliers (as any slice of aviation) but I spend a lot of time on BT and I just don't see the same things as some said above. Yes, Virginia, owner performed MX with A&P oversight IS legal.

If all you are doing is VFR burger runs/light IFR I wouldn't even bother with a Bonanza or Baron. Get yourself a nice 182 or Dakota. Useful loads are rarely an issue and resale on those are always good.

Turbines? You want to talk about mandatory inspections and parts prices that will put your lights out....If you have the capital reserves to "self-insure" on parts, that's fine, but for the single owner, it's not even close. An ACM that lunches itself will ruin your decade.

 

[z987k]

Not a question just for you per se, but has there ever been a study that looked at piston single vs. piston twin safety while limiting the sample group to only ATP holders?

I think it'd be more meaningful if it was limited to people with recent professional twin training. A lot ATPs that haven't flown a piston twin in a long time. I'd imagine they'd kill themselves in a OEI scenario. I wouldn't step foot in a piston twin without doing some sort of recurrent on one either.

I don't think the rating held matters near as much as recurrent training, which is why a lot of insurance companies either require it or give a significant discount for doing so. And I don't just mean some random BFR.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

I’ll give you that twins MAY (keyword may) be more dangerous for around 10 seconds right after takeoff, but for the other 99.99% of the flight I would much rather sit behind 2 engines. Especially piston ones.

Yeah, but those 10 seconds tend to be when a whole lot of accidents happen...

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Yeah, but those 10 seconds tend to be when a whole lot of accidents happen...

Engine failure in most twins is a non-issue I’d you’ve had even modest recent training. The problem is that nobody gets training in light twins. They get their multi addon and call it a day.